Nope.. don't read minds but have studied human behavior for years.

As for bringing something to the discussion.. the world is not going to end ... now go live and stop fretting about the vengeance of an imaginary being and the twisted reading of some man's writings.


Wow I didn't even have to cut and pace what someone told me opinion was suppose to be. :lol:

 

That's hard to believe. :roll:

If you'll notice, the title of the thread even says "warning: Christian-based."

You're welcome to believe what you want, but to denegrate someone for believing differently, WITHOUT adding anything to the discussion in WHY said person should not believe the way they do, is childish at best.

These threads that Slim has going have remained quite civil, even with non-believers taking part at times. For his sake and those that have taken part in the debate, let's keep it that way. If you can't, then leave the post alone.

:roll:

 

Thank-you TF.


Now for Bunny
Bunny we have not been introduced-- I am Slimland, I have been on this site for about 3 years now--I guess you could say I am like the local pastor or teacher. The majority of my post and threads are in some kind of religious natur. Though I am against religion, I use the word because it best describ's with simplicity my subjects.
I do not mind unbelievers to post on this thread, as long as it is productive, and not demeaning like TF said.
and this is not the only subject that I or my friends discuss on this site, but on this thread Prophecy is the main topic.
We do have threads for debate, I am sorry but this is not one of them. But you are more than welcome to join in the discussion. Just be civil and don't put us down for what we believe. I wouldn't do that to you, so I ask the same respect.

thankyou
Slimland

 

Jesus said "He that believe's in me, even though he is dead. Yet shall he live"
The Lord said "They did not enter into My rest, Becuase of Unbeliefe"
Jeus said "The works of the Father, is to believe in the one He sent"
Paul tells us "By Grace we are saved, it is the gift of God"
the Father tells us "there sins and lawless acts I will remember no more"

Sin is Unbelief, and the product or fruit of it, is sins..The gosphel is simple and the simple confounds the wise. the churches make the gosphel hard to understand and try to mix it with the Mosaic Law written on stones.
Through Jesus Christ we are freed from that Law of Sin and Death. For we Die to the law, to live for God through Faith. ie belief.

It is simple and to the point. Now the only law we have is the law of love, for to love is the fulfillment of the law.

We have had many a discussion on this and some other subjects, but All comes down to this-- To believe or not.

Everything we do, pertaining to gift of the Spirit all in part. and it will stay that way untill He who is the whole comes.

I see the world through the news the things that have been, the things that are, and the things they press towards. It fits exactly in what the Bible says. How can one deny that?

Becuase:
The god of this world Lucifer, Satan--has darkend there heart. So they won't believe the Truth.. and when the time comes wich is comming soon. These people will probly still deny God, and His Son.. We have Prophecy given to us, that was written way back. We see it comming to past, in History, and in the present. The Testimony is undeniable for those who are not darkend.. and those that are, just don't want to believe..

I ask that those who are interested, take a look at what we have spoken on this site, I will put the links down.. Get out your bible, pray for decernment. Get the history books out. Read it for yourself's make your own decissions. DONT believe what I or anyone else say, see for yourselfs. We can lead you in the direction, but in the end, it is between you and God.
I have done my Job, all I can do is Teach now. So if anyone has any questions about our Lord, Prophecy, Scriptur, anything. I will be more than happy to try to answer them. and if I cant I have a few friends on here that probly can. Like Redeemed, Hobo, TwilightFlyer, Trukerswyfe, and Momme.. They all have shown me that each one has a diffent gift from God. They have been my Rock, when I was week in a area.

This thread is now a teaching thread on any subject of our Lord.

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...436&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...460&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...479&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...369&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...126&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...681&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...736&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...985&highlight=

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...254&highlight=



Slimland

 

Love for our spouse.

What kinda love? IMOP a forgiving Love, a Unconditional Love. A love that not only feels, but shows.. For ex: when one of you is acting like a butt, we are to love no matter.. I can be mad at my wife to the point of wanting to call it quits, but I don't becuase I know tomorrow is a diffrent day, and I forgive and love her..

I think there are certain things that can make someone unlovable on a earthly stand point.. Like maybe Adultry, that is hard to forget. But can be worked through.

To do something to say a child, that IMOP is unforgivable, Not for God, but for man. and even God said " anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better to have a millstone around the neck and droped in the water" {Paraphrased}







A friend loves at all times, If he is true!

Slimland

 

I am going to post a series of new articles like I usualy do. Just found them interesting, I think some of you will too.


U.S. military weighing if Russia in Cold War pose

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080212/...sia_coldwar_dc

Washington is trying to gauge whether Russia's recent bomber mission near a U.S. aircraft carrier indicated Moscow's return to a Cold War "mind-set" and is considering how the Pentagon should respond, a senior U.S. military officer said on Tuesday.

But other senior U.S. defense and Navy officials stressed they did not see Russia's weekend bomber flights south of Japan as provocative.

Four U.S. fighter jets were scrambled on February 9 to escort Russian bombers that approached the USS Nimitz south of Japan. One Russian bomber flew over the deck of the aircraft carrier, escorted by a U.S. fighter jet.

Adm. Gary Roughead, U.S. chief of naval operations, downplayed the incident and said it reflected Russia's emerging naval power.

"I think what we are seeing is a Russian military or Russian navy that is emerging and, in the case of the navy, desiring to emerge as a global navy," Roughead told reporters at the Pentagon.

"I do not consider it to be provocative," he said of the bomber mission.

But on Capitol Hill, another top U.S. military officer -- Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright -- said the Pentagon was trying to assess the implications of Russia's actions.

"Now, what we're concerned about is what are the indications of this return to a Cold War mind-set, what are the implications of that activity and how do we best address that," said Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The incident happened in neutral international airspace, Cartwright said.

"We're just trying to go back and look at what message was intended by this overflight," he told a Senate panel.

At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said the Russian bomber flights were not seen as a threat.

"The Russians made a decision to resume some of their long-range aviation flights, involving some of their assets left over from the Cold War," he told reporters.

"I don't think we view it as a particular threat. It is something that we watch closely, and I'm sure folks over at the Pentagon watch it as well."

Any U.S. expressions of concern to Russia would probably be carried out through military channels, McCormack said.

TESTY RELATIONS

U.S.-Russian relations have become testy, with Washington concerned that Russian democracy is being eroded and Moscow complaining of U.S. interference.

A dispute over U.S. plans to place missile defense assets in former Soviet-allied territory has also raised tensions, and Russia is unhappy with continued U.S. support for expansion of the NATO military alliance.

Russian officials have said they will revive some of the military power and reach that was allowed to collapse with the Soviet Union.

Russia could train its nuclear missiles on Ukraine if the pro-Western state joins NATO, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Moscow on Tuesday.

Asked his reaction to Putin's statement, McCormack said: "There he goes again." McCormack offered no further comment, saying he had not seen Putin's remarks.

The Russian Air Force said the mission by four Tu-95 bombers was part of long-distance patrols in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans and the Black Sea that began last August.

A Russian news agency quoted Air Force spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky expressing surprise at "all the clamor this raised."

The last time a Russian bomber flew over a U.S. aircraft carrier was in July 2004, and Russian bombers have increased their flights near U.S. territory to demonstrate their long-range strike capability.

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who raised the issue during the Senate hearing, said the Russian maneuver "sounds pretty provocative to me." He said the Armed Services Committee, of which he is a member, would look into the issue.

 

Can the U.S. defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack?

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11567936/

China is preparing for an eventual cross-strait showdown with Taiwan and may be prepared to use tactics that could stop the United States from getting involved, according to an analysis of publicly available information on China's military by the RAND Corporation.

According RAND, China's defenses, the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), has identified the U.S. military's reliance on information systems as "a significant vulnerability that, if successfully exploited, could paralyze or degrade U.S. forces to such an extent that victory could be achieved" against Taiwan.

The writings RAND analyzed were not official war plans but the opinions, analysis, and recommendations of the Chinese military community.

The Chinese leadership believes that the key to victory over the U.S. is achieving tactical surprise, according to RAND.

The report quotes one Chinese military expert as saying that taking the U.S. by surprise would "cause confusion within and huge psychological pressure on the enemy and help [China] win relatively large victories at relatively small costs."

In such an attack, the Chinese would blockade critical sea lanes in the Taiwan region and strike American logistics facilities, command-and-control centers, ports, airfields, and aircraft carrier battle groups in the area.

China could also launch cyber-attacks against American computer networks, physically destroy orbiting spy satellites, and launch an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) strike to deaden U.S. electronics systems in the region.

Based on the U.S. experience in Somalia, the Chinese experts cited by RAND think the United States has "a limited capacity to withstand personnel casualties."

America's perspective

The U.S. military apparently is well aware and not surprised by the RAND findings. At the core of China's overall strategy, analysts say, rests the desire to maintain the continuous rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

"A deep-rooted fear of losing political power shapes the leadership's strategic outlook and drives many of its choices," the U.S. Defense Department reported to Congress in its 2007 assessment, "The Military Power of the People's Republic of China."

"The PLA is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration, high-intensity adversaries," the Defense report noted.

China's ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, however, and analysis of China's military acquisitions and strategic thinking suggests Beijing is preparing for the possibility of regional conflicts, according to the Defense Department.

"Current trends in China's military capabilities are a major factor in changing East Asian military balances, and could provide China with a force capable of prosecuting a range of military operations in Asia - well beyond Taiwan," the Defense report concluded.

"If we were to park an aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Straits, that would be (interpreted as) an overt act of aggression against them," said a senior Air Force official, who spoke to Cybercast News Service on condition of anonymity. "I think that the greatest fear is that something happens in cyberspace that pushes this into a Hot War."

The unnamed American official predicted that the Chinese might eventually "hit" an economic pillar of American society, prompting a military backlash from the U.S.

Others are less fatalistic but still intent on warning Americans about the nature of the threat China poses for the United States.

John J. Tkacik, senior research fellow in Asian studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that he is not convinced China wants to do anything to provoke the U.S. into "an all-out rearmament campaign to deal with China."

"Their strategy is to influence U.S. public and congressional opinion to calculate that defending Taiwan would be too costly," Tkacik told Cybercast News Service, "and induce the U.S. to pressure Taiwan into capitulating to China without a fight, in much the same way that Britain and France pressured Austria and then Czechoslovakia in 1938 to give in to Germany without a fight."

China, he noted, will likely increase its pressure on Taiwan in direct proportion to the expansion of its military power, but Beijing seems to have learned the lesson of Germany, Japan and now Iraq, "not to push the pressure beyond what its military forces can support."

Moreover, China claims territory all around its periphery - exerting severe pressure on Japan to give up the Senkaku Islands, and on Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines to give up their claims to islands in the South China Sea. It also seeks part of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradeshis.

Tkacik strongly doubts that simply turning Taiwan over to China to avoid hostilities is likely to pacify the Asian tiger.

"Appeasement after threats to war only increases the likelihood that (China) will continue its threats to war as an instrument of diplomacy," he said.

Americans, he concluded, need to be warned of the threat that China poses.

"Unfortunately, China is acting like an enemy already, yet American policymakers refuse to tell the American people this," Tkacik added.

 

Russia may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins Nato

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

Russia has said it may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins Nato and accepts the deployment of the US missile defence shield.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made the comments in Moscow alongside Ukraine's President, Viktor Yushchenko.

Mr Putin has condemned US plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in its missile defence shield.

The leaders had been meeting in urgent talks over a gas dispute and announced a deal to avoid disrupting supplies.

'Frightening'

Speaking at a news conference at the Kremlin on Tuesday, Mr Putin said he had advised Ukraine not to join Nato, but admitted he would be unable to interfere in any such move.

"Restrictions on sovereignty... have already had certain consequences, such as the stationing of bases or a positioning area for missile defence in Eastern Europe, which we believe is aimed at neutralising our nuclear missile potential," he said.

"Russia therefore faces a need to take retaliatory action."

The US wants the shield to destroy incoming ballistic missiles potentially coming from North Korea and Iran.

Current plans would see some interceptor missiles based in Poland and an associated radar built in the Czech Republic.

"It is frightening not only to say but even to think that Russia, in response to the emergence of such positioning areas on Ukrainian territory, which cannot be ruled out in theory, will target its offensive missile systems at Ukraine," he said.

"Can you imagine that for a second? That is what we are concerned about."

President Yushchenko said he realised a number of "sensitive issues" would emerge from Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, but that he hoped they could be dealt with through dialogue, openness and trust.

"One must realise that everything Ukraine is doing in this area is certainly not aimed against any third country, especially Russia," he added.

In a televised speech to the Russian State Council last week, Mr Putin had warned that a "new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world".

He said other countries were spending far more than Russia on new weapons, but that his country would respond to the challenges of an arms race by developing hi-tech weaponry.

Nato invitation

On the gas dispute, Ukraine agreed to start repaying $1.5bn (£770m) owed to the Russian gas company, Gazprom, from Thursday. In return, Russia is reported to have agreed to freeze the price of gas exports to Ukraine at last year's level.

The dispute had raised concerns in European countries, which experienced disruption to their gas supplies as the result of a similar dispute two years ago.

Separately on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Mr Putin had accepted an invitation to attend the forthcoming Nato summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, in April.

Mr Putin will no longer be Russian president in April. Elections for his successor will be held next month.

"This yet again testifies to the fact that Russia is open to dialogue on any issues," Mr Lavrov told reporters while attending the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

At the conference, Russia and China proposed a new treaty to ban the use of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites or other craft.

 

Human ID Chips Get Under My Skin

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...dex_technology

While it's easy to reject the notion of placing little ID chips inside humans as an ominous Orwellian invasion of individual rights, I suspect it's inevitable that in my lifetime we will all have some kind of computerized implants. My problem is not with the technology, known as chipping, or with the companies that sell it. My concern stems from my lack of trust in institutions and lack of belief that the technology will be forever restricted to beneficial, socially acceptable uses.

Chipping involves implanting a transponder chip below the skin for identification purposes. VeriChip (CHIP), the one company that has gained FDA clearance to perform this procedure, has emerged as the process's leading advocate. The implant procedure itself is simple and mostly painless, accomplished in a doctor's office in a matter of seconds.

Generally speaking, the only data stored on the chip is a 16-digit ID number that cross-references to a record in VeriChip's database. Nevertheless the chip raises a number of troubling concerns:

Health. Before diving into privacy and security concerns, it is worth noting recent reports indicate implanted chips may have caused tumors in small lab animals, and therefore may be equally dangerous for humans. I am not qualified to express an opinion on the subject other than to note the FDA has approved the device as safe. Evidence to the contrary will probably take years to accumulate, and at that point, a debate would be useless to those already afflicted.

Privacy. Advocates of chipping often downplay privacy and security worries by stressing the chips merely contain a number rather than any actual personal information. However, that may be dangerous enough. A centralized numeric database storing information on a significant number of Americans begins to look a lot like a national ID card. But unlike an ID card safely stowed in a wallet, the numbers on these chips can potentially be read wirelessly by someone standing near you with an inexpensive handheld reader. Legislative attempts to establish a national ID, such as the REAL ID Act, have proven to be highly controversial. It would be a shame to have human chipping effectively short-circuit that debate and create a de facto national identification system.

Hacking and Misuse. I trust VeriChip, I guess. At least I have no reason not to trust them. But what about someone hacking into their databases? (Please don't tell me their security is absolutely foolproof—thanks to all the credit-card system breaches, we all know better.) All it would take is a careless employee to accidentally expose everyone's numbers to an ill-intentioned hacker. Since you can't reprogram chips already implanted, would we all need to have them physically swapped out whenever VeriChip's database was compromised? I also suspect it wouldn't be too hard to execute "man-in-the-middle" attacks that snag an individual's chip number for malicious use.

Consent. The leading candidates proposed for the initial rounds of chipping are people who are either unwilling or unable to give informed consent. While there have been a few actual instances of mandatory chipping—the Attorney General of Mexico forced his staff to get implants to gain access to a sensitive document room—most uses remain theoretical. For example, VeriChip has advocated chipping Alzheimer's patients as a way to help families find those sufferers who get lost.

Scott Silverman, VeriChip's chairman, has proposed mandatory chipping of guest workers and immigrants. A hospital in Ontario plans to implant the chips in babies, and the U.S. Army is mulling a requirement for enlisted personnel. The elderly, immigrants, babies, low-ranking soldiers…these are not exactly the most powerful segments of U.S. society.

Compare this to new technologies such as laser eye surgery and non-invasive heart procedures, where the wealthy and powerful typically benefit well before the lower rungs of the social ladder. I am inherently distrustful of technologies that start deployment at the bottom of the power pyramid.

Unintended Consequences. Once implanted, these chips, and the associated network of chip readers deployed to work with them, will be around for a long time. Let's give VeriChip, participating hospitals, and government agencies the benefit of the doubt about being ethical and well-intentioned organizations. But who knows which agencies might be given access to the database down the road as part of new policy initiatives. Congressmen are notorious for passing legislation requiring the government to exploit existing databases for new endeavors, such as targeting deadbeat dads or delinquent student loan holders through the IRS tax refund system.

I can think of countless initiatives that could be launched to make use of a sufficiently large group of chipped people: a universal college student ID system; chip readers in cars that would block drivers with unpaid parking tickets from using their vehicles; tracking people with a history of emotional disturbances; court-ordered chipping tied to domestic restraining orders; government monitoring of people found to have a high-risk profile through computer profiling; outfitting firearms with a radio-frequency identification (RFID) reader and requiring gun owners to be chipped to fire their weapon (like existing thumbprint locks).

Once a sufficient number of humans have had chips implanted, for whatever the reason, all bets on containing the technology are off. A responsible debate on human chipping would consider the extreme scenario—widespread mandatory implants—and not just focus on the initial "socially acceptable" proposals that target specific populations such as Alzheimer's patients, children, or convicts on work release programs.

Reduced Expectations. Although there is no guarantee of privacy written explicitly into the Constitution, a century of court rulings has carved out some tenuous protections for Americans, most of which are based on the concept of "expectation of privacy." A widely deployed system of human ID chips might very well erode that expectation, weakening everyone's shield against privacy intrusions.

As citizens, we need legal safeguards ensuring that any use of this technology adheres to publicly acceptable guidelines. At a minimum, any chipping must be truly voluntary rather than mandatory. But I am afraid this will be almost impossible to ensure without legislation such as that enacted by Wisconsin last year, barring all mandatory human chipping.

Any potential privacy-busting technology such as this one must be introduced with substantive protections that far exceed ambiguous corporate pledges that boil down to "Trust me." With all due respect, I'm afraid that I don't.

 

What is your thoughts?

:idea: