U.N. Wants to Spread Its Tentacles to Churches

[billiefan2000]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/161446.shtml

[Yahweh]

I'm sure plenty of other people have complained about this already, but would you please put more information than a link. Try pulling out the most key and important quotes from the article and including them in your post. Or you can write a response to the article. Anything. Please. We crave more content.

[billiefan2000]

Bush, a practicing Christian with a keen sense of the power of religion, expressed deep interest and asked his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to study the matter.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
Bush, a practicing Christian with a keen sense of the power of religion, expressed deep interest and asked his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to study the matter.

Clever thing to do. Asking Condoleezza, I mean. This is always a clever thing to do for George W. Bush.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/161446.shtml
Do all articles published on Scaifemax have those irritating flash "click me" boxes runing down both sides of the page?

[Michael Redman]

You know, the world certainly would be a better place if the UN could do something to discourage or generally harm churches. The less religion, the better, if you ask me.

[Max560]

UN---Tentacles

Cthulhu---tentacles....

what does it all mean Billiefan?

[evildave]

Yeah, there you go. Love that church sovereignty so much you don't want representation in the U.N.?

Good thinking.

While you're cherishing your church's right not to be represented in any way internationally, key social and religious issues will be raised legitimately by the religious bodies that do show up. You just know there will be Catholic (and probably other flavors of Christian), Islamic (flavors of that, too), Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist representation (all with their own flavors), among others.

Of course, naturally some of your fringe "beam me up" Christians who represent too small a piece of the pie will probably not get much representation. In such a forum, I wonder how many fun flavors of Christian will be allowed in before the fire marshall shows up and bars the doors.

Naturally, though many fruity flavors of Christianity will be 'under-represented', they can probably take comfort that most of the UFO cultists will be frozen out with them.

Even more naturally, some of the fringe people are consoling themselves by proclaiming "I don't want ANYTHING to do with the UN!", choosing to believe they don't want to participate, rather than confront the reality that they couldn't get the UN to return their phone call if they offered cash for a seat.

[Dancing David]

Maybe the UN could ferry it,s members on the black helicopters.

So what the problem, that the UN would listen to religion or ignore it.

[Ladewig]

Perhaps the link isn't working properly; it jumped me to an article about the church spreading its tentacles into the U.N.

I see evildave's point of view more than yours, billiefan2000. Why is getting your opinion heard through a formal channel a bad thing?

[billiefan2000]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You know, the world certainly would be a better place if the UN could do something to discourage or generally harm churches. The less religion, the better, if you ask me.


Why?

Cause Atheists and Satanists hate JESUS CHRIST and what he did,or is it bitterness towards Christians.


By the way Michael Redman:

Would you support Persecution of Christians in the USA or UK or Canada?

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't hate Jesus Christ! Never met that fellow.

So you're proven wrong Billiefan2000

[billiefan2000]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
I don't hate Jesus Christ! Never met that fellow.

So you're proven wrong Billiefan2000

Youre statement proves Atheists are wrong then,cause by saying you dont hate Jesus Christ is proof he did at one time live on Earth and therefore since a Atheist believes Jesus Christ did exist that means he or she isnt a Atheist.

[roger]

billiefan,

I don't hate santa claus or the easter bunny.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by billiefan2000


Youre statement proves Atheists are wrong then,cause by saying you dont hate Jesus Christ is proof he did at one time live on Earth and therefore since a Atheist believes Jesus Christ did exist that means he or she isnt a Atheist.

You lost me there. Completely.

[arcticpenguin]

I do not hate invisible pink unicorns.

QED.

[Gregor]

I don't hate Jeshua ben Pantera (BillieFan, at least get his name correct).

He was the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls that Paul borrowed, dropped the Pantera, and made into a deity.

[Martin]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
Youre statement proves Atheists are wrong then,cause by saying you dont hate Jesus Christ is proof he did at one time live on Earth and therefore since a Atheist believes Jesus Christ did exist that means he or she isnt a Atheist. How long have you been coming here? A year? And in all that time, you still haven't managed to figure out what atheism is.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Max560
UN---Tentacles

Cthulhu---tentacles....

what does it all mean Billiefan?

Cthulhu is taking over????? Hey, Cthulhu bring fun back into Evil!!

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by billiefan2000


Youre statement proves Atheists are wrong then,cause by saying you dont hate Jesus Christ is proof he did at one time live on Earth and therefore since a Atheist believes Jesus Christ did exist that means he or she isnt a Atheist.

Actually one claiming that Jesus may have lived does not indicate one believes that that person was of supernatural origins or a god.

Oh, and generalizations are not a good thing.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I do not hate invisible pink unicorns.

QED.

I do. Splitters!!!

Um, wait, that would be the IPU....um....

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
U.N. Wants to Spread Its Tentacles to Churches
Good thing we have seperation of church and state here in the US, eh?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
By the way Michael Redman:

Would you support Persecution of Christians in the USA or UK or Canada? Why stop there?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
I don't hate Jesus Christ! Never met that fellow.

Youre statement proves Atheists are wrong then,cause by saying you dont hate Jesus Christ is proof he did at one time live on Earth and therefore since a Atheist believes Jesus Christ did exist that means he or she isnt a Atheist.
:roll:

I never met Santa Claus, but since I've said that I've never met him, I must believe he exists to not meet him! :roll:

Billie, your logic, as usual is quite extrodinary. You're right up there with JK who believes that because we use the Christian calendar, we all worship Christ. Of course, he also believes that humans are decendents of people from Mars and that stars create gravity...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by billiefan2000
Youre statement proves Atheists are wrong then,cause by saying you dont hate Jesus Christ is proof he did at one time live on Earth and therefore since a Atheist believes Jesus Christ did exist that means he or she isnt a Atheist.

As I stated earlier, you must be quite young, judging by your strange logic.

First, I don't believe Jesus ever existed. There is no proof that he did and his story is too much like older pagan stories. I don't hate someone who never existed. (I don't hate anyone anyway, but that's beyond the point)

Second, even if he did exist - he would have been a wise sage and certainly NOT god! I don't hate him because he was planted INTO a mystery religion tale of a dying god-man. It wasn't his fault....if he existed.

[Martin]

Originally posted by triadboy
As I stated earlier, you must be quite young, judging by your strange logicHow long have you been coming here? You still haven't figured out that strange logic is pandemic?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Martinm
How long have you been coming here? You still haven't figured out that strange logic is pandemic?

I agree there is a lot of strange logic out there, but Billiefans logic is especially goofy and amazingly ignorant.

[Martin]

Originally posted by triadboy
I agree there is a lot of strange logic out there, but Billiefans logic is especially goofy and amazingly ignorant. Well, yes, but I wouldn't bet on him growing out of it. And I've encountered logic just as bad and worse over all age ranges.

[billiefan2000]

Originally posted by triadboy


As I stated earlier, you must be quite young, judging by your strange logic.

First, I don't believe Jesus ever existed. There is no proof that he did and his story is too much like older pagan stories. I don't hate someone who never existed. (I don't hate anyone anyway, but that's beyond the point)

Second, even if he did exist - he would have been a wise sage and certainly NOT god! I don't hate him because he was planted INTO a mystery religion tale of a dying god-man. It wasn't his fault....if he existed.



You ever read the book by Josh McDowell called "Evidence" for Jesus

or checked out:

http://www.messianic-jew.com/

or:

heard of SIMON GREENLEAF?

Simon Greenleaf (born 1783 and died in 1853)

was one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.

But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.



In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin. "There is no other entrance," says Lord Bacon, "to the kingdom of man, which is founded in the sciences, than to the kingdom of heaven, into which no one can enter but in the character of a little child." The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject--a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed.

In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer."



also:

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion!

He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.


In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."


(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!

What changed his mind?

What evidence did Dr. Greenleaf encounter that so drastically turned him around?

What facts did he discover that he could not rationally ignore?







Maybe you should read on and ask yourself how if Jesus didnt exist,and wasnt the SON OF GOD and did come back to life after 3 days,then how did Greenleaf looking at the Evidence from a Atheistic and Secular Perspective come to realize that JESUS is the Messiah.


Also,Zola Levitt ane many other Messianic Jews sought ought to disprove Jesus Christ was the Messiah and their evidence and research led them to one conclusion:


JESUS CHRIST IS THE MESSIAH and the SON OF GOD!

[Upchurch]

Still here, billie? Thought you'd be raptured by now. Wonder what must be wrong...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by billiefan2000




You ever read the book by Josh McDowell called "Evidence" for Jesus

or checked out:

http://www.messianic-jew.com/

or:

heard of SIMON GREENLEAF?

Simon Greenleaf (born 1783 and died in 1853)

was one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.

But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.


.............

Also,Zola Levitt ane many other Messianic Jews sought ought to disprove Jesus Christ was the Messiah and their evidence and research led them to one conclusion:


JESUS CHRIST IS THE MESSIAH and the SON OF GOD!

As an atheist I have found that sometimes a theist comes up with such a powerful argument that it makes me really re-think my whole position and really makes me ponder some hard questions. Sadly you are not that theist nor is your argument that argument.

Your whole argument boils down to "if Simon Greenleaf and a bunch of Messianic Jewish scholars believe it, it must be true. Sorry to say, that isn't so, other people, equally as smart ahve looked at the same bible and come to the opposite conclusion (which doesn't mean anything either). The Jewish Messianic Scholars evidence is particualry suspect since it begs the question by assuming that there is such a thing as a Messiah in the first place.

Further you have subtly moved off of your ORIGINAL argument, which is that if someone says that they don't hate God, then they must believe in him. Questions getting so hard to answer that you feel the need to change the subject, hmmmmm?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by billiefan2000

He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.

But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.


If he really did think that the witnesses were reliable, then he may want to look into thier credibility. There are a lot of conflicts in the story of Jesus's resurection.

See: http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html

As the saying goes, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

[triadboy]

Billiefan - Please examine the above link that Segnosour provided. This is by Dan Barker - a man of God who (gasp) became an atheist. I believe there is a cash award if you can complete his challenge.

I have heard of Greenleaf - though I doubt he can be called the greatest legal mind if he was so "eat up" with the Lord. Belief in invisible people tends to bias ones legal observations - I would think.

Zola makes a nice living believing in Jebus, doesn't he?

[Martin]

Well, well. 10:09 PM, Billiefan brings up Simon Greenleaf. 10:29 PM, Billiefan asks for comments regarding Simon Greenleaf on the Rapture Ready message board. Calling in support so soon, Billiefan? :rolleyes:

[Max560]

Greenleaf-Schmeenleaf.

The Rev. H.P. Lovecraft has shared with the world the knowledge of Cthulhu. Of course, due to political reasons, he couldn't just present the facts as is.

I think it was clever how he shared the Supreme Truth with humanity by disguising it as "fiction".

In any case Billiefan, Cthulhu will devour you.

[Drifterman]

Originally posted by Max560

In any case Billiefan, Cthulhu will devour you.

One would think Billiefan's brain has been devoured already, by the "arguments" he uses.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge23.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge23.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge23.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge23.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge23.gif

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
I have heard of Greenleaf - though I doubt he can be called the greatest legal mind if he was so "eat up" with the Lord. Belief in invisible people tends to bias ones legal observations - I would think.
I'd be mildly interested in seeing Greenleaf's argument. He has a reputation as one of the foremost experts on common-law evidentiary standards in American history, and Greenleaf on Evidence is justifiably famous (at least within my profession). I was not aware of his forays into religious apologetics.

Belief in God has nothing to do with legal acuity (it would be hard to account for giants like Blackstone or Thomas More otherwise); but it does raise the spectre of bias for Greenleaf's study of the Gospels. Here, Greenleaf seems to have played both advocate and judge in the same affair, which for good reason never happens in a real legal setting. Still, it's hard to say without reading the original.