What is your meaning of life?

Michael Gaddass wants to keep up with you on Twitter

Moderator: zamros

User avatar
Commodore
fgsdfs
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:44 pm
Location: :noitacoL
Contact:

Post by Commodore »

wow, one post.
*POW* *CLANK* *PING*
Fungahhh
Resource id #38
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:35 am
Location: Wisconsin, Idaho
Contact:

Post by Fungahhh »

Moved to Philosophy and Ethics.
fungahhh
User avatar
Surlent
Oh man not him again
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:16 pm
Location: Western US

Post by Surlent »

The way I see it, by ourselves, life is utterly meaningless. I mean, if, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, macroevolution is true? Then we are just a worthless accident, and good and evil are utterly irrelevant.
Why not "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die?" Why not just give in and
let our lusts run rampant, and do whatever the hell we want? But...
What if they're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you've
never even dreamed of hoping for? What if there is a loving God who created you with a PURPOSE? A purpose of doing His will, guarding and
enjoying the earth, living His way, knowing true happiness, and, someday,
recieving eternal life, united with Him and with all belivers throughout
all eternity? Life then becomes meaningful, and we can abandon despair,
because Jesus died for you, and was resurrected, conquering the grave.
Because then we know why we were created, and we know the meaning
of life: to glorify God. I'm done ranting now, have a nice day.
User avatar
zamros
my power level is enormous
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:34 pm

Post by zamros »

Surlent wrote:The way I see it, by ourselves, life is utterly meaningless. I mean, if, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, macroevolution is true? Then we are just a worthless accident, and good and evil are utterly irrelevant.
Why not "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die?" Why not just give in and
let our lusts run rampant, and do whatever the hell we want? But...
What if they're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you've
never even dreamed of hoping for? What if there is a loving God who created you with a PURPOSE? A purpose of doing His will, guarding and
enjoying the earth, living His way, knowing true happiness, and, someday,
recieving eternal life, united with Him and with all belivers throughout
all eternity? Life then becomes meaningful, and we can abandon despair,
because Jesus died for you, and was resurrected, conquering the grave.
Because then we know why we were created, and we know the meaning
of life: to glorify God. I'm done ranting now, have a nice day.
homo
Fungahhh
Resource id #38
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:35 am
Location: Wisconsin, Idaho
Contact:

Post by Fungahhh »

Surlent wrote:The way I see it, by ourselves, life is utterly meaningless. I mean, if, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, macroevolution is true?
Show me this evidence.
fungahhh
User avatar
crank
rules.
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: DURURRHRR

Post by crank »

Fungahhh wrote:
Surlent wrote:The way I see it, by ourselves, life is utterly meaningless. I mean, if, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, macroevolution is true?
Show me this evidence.
monkeys still exist, retard.
^^ TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH ^^
Fungahhh
Resource id #38
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:35 am
Location: Wisconsin, Idaho
Contact:

Post by Fungahhh »

crank wrote:
Fungahhh wrote:
Surlent wrote:The way I see it, by ourselves, life is utterly meaningless. I mean, if, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, macroevolution is true?
Show me this evidence.
monkeys still exist, retard.
You're right. Fact is that no man has ever personally seen a monkey turn into man. Man has seen Jesus and they wrote about it man predicted the coming of Jesus and wrote about it. Man continues to find Jesus everyday. I've seen miracles from Jesus in my life. My wife's grandfather was diagnosed with cancer about 12 years ago, I was not with her then, he was given six months to live because the cancer was complete thoughout his body. He didn't take cemo. 12 years later he is still alive I have known him for 7 years and he doesn't have one trace of cancer in his body, a cancer doctors said couldn't be cured only lead to death. My dads best friend was nearly killed in a motorcyle accident about 4 years ago, he nearly lost his leg, he recovered to only have more complications a year later related to past things and the accident. He was hospitalized with liver failure, the doctors told him that he wouldn't make it throught the night, he said his good byes to his family and they left him alone. two people (he didn't know nor his family) that night well after visting hours walked into his room and laid hands on him and prayed for him. He was released from the hospital a few days later. Two years later he just a few days ago he recieved a liver transplant and is doing very good. These things can only happen from Someone and Something greater than we are.
fungahhh
User avatar
crank
rules.
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: DURURRHRR

Post by crank »

i mean look at the human eye and how complex it is
^^ TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH ^^
Fungahhh
Resource id #38
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:35 am
Location: Wisconsin, Idaho
Contact:

Post by Fungahhh »

crank wrote:i mean look at the human eye and how complex it is
As crank notes, the issue is not truly science vs. religion, but religion vs. religion. Evolution is not science, but belief. Science has markers which make it science. Such things as observation of events and repeatability come to mind. Evolution, despite the multitude of "pictures" has yet to come up with a single, universally accepted fossil! People want evolution to be true simply because it removes God from the equation. The obvious connection is that if there is a God in control, then there are no doubt some issues of life which we would rather be able to do without consequences which He disallows. The solution then is to deny the controlling legal authority.
The idea of God and evolution not being mutually exclusive requires not only denial of logic, but also a denial of Scripture. Of course, that opens up another can of worms among those who want to allow an evolutionary God (but not a Creator), while also not allowing the revelation of God's interacting in history. It comes down to saying, "I believe that He's there. You can't see Him. You can't directly see what He does. He never communicates (except outside the Bible, because we don't like some of its lessons, so it cannot be true!). We are not actually responsible to Him for anything. Even He's surprised that the eye works, along with countless other things." Oh, this track could wax on.
The point is that the eye is but one example of the failing of evolutionary theory, and by elimination supportive of creation. Run an analysis of the odds of any two part of the eye "evolving" as a working unit, and anyone can see that it couldn't work. But, to that add the layers of the eye and, as crank points out, the chemical interactions, and the only logical conclusion is creation. And that, politically incorrect as it may be, requires a Creator.
fungahhh
User avatar
zamros
my power level is enormous
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:34 pm

Post by zamros »

Fungahhh wrote:
crank wrote:i mean look at the human eye and how complex it is
As crank notes, the issue is not truly science vs. religion, but religion vs. religion. Evolution is not science, but belief. Science has markers which make it science. Such things as observation of events and repeatability come to mind. Evolution, despite the multitude of "pictures" has yet to come up with a single, universally accepted fossil! People want evolution to be true simply because it removes God from the equation. The obvious connection is that if there is a God in control, then there are no doubt some issues of life which we would rather be able to do without consequences which He disallows. The solution then is to deny the controlling legal authority.
The idea of God and evolution not being mutually exclusive requires not only denial of logic, but also a denial of Scripture. Of course, that opens up another can of worms among those who want to allow an evolutionary God (but not a Creator), while also not allowing the revelation of God's interacting in history. It comes down to saying, "I believe that He's there. You can't see Him. You can't directly see what He does. He never communicates (except outside the Bible, because we don't like some of its lessons, so it cannot be true!). We are not actually responsible to Him for anything. Even He's surprised that the eye works, along with countless other things." Oh, this track could wax on.
The point is that the eye is but one example of the failing of evolutionary theory, and by elimination supportive of creation. Run an analysis of the odds of any two part of the eye "evolving" as a working unit, and anyone can see that it couldn't work. But, to that add the layers of the eye and, as crank points out, the chemical interactions, and the only logical conclusion is creation. And that, politically incorrect as it may be, requires a Creator.
homo
User avatar
Zenith Nadir
this is my hammer
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:40 am
Location: between the black and white spiders

Post by Zenith Nadir »

obviously, the meaning of life is to call jazzy and fungahhh homosexuals.
he looked upon the world and saw it was still depraved :fvkk:

Overall: Rotton egg for breakfast
Fungahhh
Resource id #38
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:35 am
Location: Wisconsin, Idaho
Contact:

Post by Fungahhh »

Zenith Nadir wrote:obviously, the meaning of life is to call jazzy and fungahhh homosexuals.
The homosexual agenda not only includes Same Sex Marriage but they have successfully pushed forward their lifestyles to the public over the television sets conditioning the public to accept their perversion and depravity. TV shows like “Will and Grace”, “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”, “The L Word”, “Queer Folks”, MTV Videos, and even cartoons such as “The Simpsons”, and “Southpark” portray Christians who take a stand against homosexuality as evil, hateful, and wacky, while portraying the homosexual lifestyle as normal. As if there wasn’t enough shows on TV promoting homosexuality, MTV is preparing to launch a “24-Hour All-Gay All Day Channel” which will include programming geared at teaching kids that it is cool to be a homosexual and perfectly normal. They will even include a homosexual dating game. Now I am going to have to be a little crude here, but parents need to know about this so they can keep their kids from watching these shows. As if Jerry Springer wasn’t enough, with promoting homosexuality in just about every show whipping the audience into a frenzy as they scream and yell, “We Love Lesbians” while girls get naked and lick all over each other right in front of a nationwide live audience! Springer features homosexual sodomites that kiss and fondle each other while the audience cheers them on. Parents, Jerry Springer is shown in many states around 3-4pm in the afternoon, so you should know that might be what your kids are watching when they get home from school. Now they will have the 24-Hour All Gay All Day Channel to look at also! Your kids also are subjected to singers who promote the homosexual lifestyle such as open lesbian singers Tatu, Melissa Etheridge, and K.D. Lang, along with open bisexual Satan worshipper Marilyn Manson who encourages homosexuality among children.

Once upon a time in America, we used to have a thing called morality and laws that protected the children and the average family. One could be arrested for indecent exposure in America, but now it is not uncommon to drive down the streets of LA or New York City and see some homosexual doing ungodly things to his buddy right there on the corner. The police turn a blind eye to this and I am sure in places like California some cops would gladly join in disgusting episodes of sodomy.
fungahhh
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.

Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?

Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.

Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults - especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.

In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
User avatar
Stak
Watching you post
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:38 am

Post by Stak »

Boners as far as the eye can see
Fungahhh
Resource id #38
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:35 am
Location: Wisconsin, Idaho
Contact:

Post by Fungahhh »

Stak wrote:Boners as far as the eye can see
Giving the dog a boner
BY SASHA

I was appalled to read last week's column in which you respond to a request for advice from a writer who desires to have sex with a dog ("Liking it ruff," June 30). Rather than explaining to the writer, and to readers in general, that the practice of having sex with animals is tantamount to rape, you instead provide helpful advice to readers on how to better prepare themselves for this unlawful act. You even admit to being "disconcertingly" aroused by images of bestiality, as if to make the practice acceptable.

Bestiality is illegal, and at the very least you mention this (albeit in parentheses, as a mere sidebar). You state, however, that you can understand the desire to have sex with animals, summing it up as the desire for "a partner who can't say no."

Rather than accepting this fact -- that animals cannot issue consent -- as a reason for desiring them, you should have more responsibly acknowledged that this lack of consent is precisely why it is illegal to have sex with an animal!

The candour with which you answered this question disturbs me. Would you provide similar support and assistance to other similar crimes? What if a writer had fantasies of fucking a comatose woman? Would you find a support network geared towards such fantasies, all the while understanding the desire to have "a partner who can't say no"? What about pedophiles? Animals are not sex toys. They are living, breathing creatures -- creatures with no ability to consent to sexual intercourse, just as a comatose individual, a severely mentally retarded person or a child has no ability to consent to sex!
fungahhh
Locked