United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: the worst flood in recorded history
Source:
ABC News
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 28, 2017
Author: Barry Midyet
Post Date: 2017-08-28 00:31:07 by interpreter
Keywords: None
Views: 20911
Comments: 128
The news today is that the worst flood in recorded history is occurring right now, and right here (in my neck of the woods, the Houston/ Galveston area). Moreover, as with all of the other major events of the last 25 years, I predicted it. (See my book, The Revelation: A Historicist View and turn to the section on the seven last plagues, Plague# 4). I very plainly said that hurricanes and major weather events including floods would wax much worse in 2017. Katrina was just a dress rehearsal, folks. But Thank God I was fully prepared because like I advised everyone on earth to do, I am completely stocked up on distilled water and can goods, and mosquito spray, and (provided the police give me my gun back) on bullets also. And with all this water to breed in, I'm pretty sure the Aedes from Hades will be here next. And I am making that prediction once again, right here, right now. So get ready folks for much worse before the 7 last plagues are mitigated.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-27) not displayed.
.
.
.
#28. To: nolu chan (#23)
(Edited)
I do have to say that you do your homework/research before you post. But I still will have to dispute one of your points, and I suspect it is because you live in New York City or somewhere and I live right here in the epicenter of this event. And I heard on the TV a few minutes ago that it is the 3rd 1000-year storm in 3 years. Think about that for a minute. Storms that used to occur once every thousand years are now occurring at least once a year (as I predicted in my book). Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, your timetable is not quite correct. The tropical wave once called Harvey strayed down to Texas and began to regroup and strenghthen a bit during the eclipse, and within a day or so began to be mentioned for the first time ever on the local weather stations. And within a day or two it became a a full-fledged tropical storm, and then within a day or so it became full-fledged hurricane, and the next day it became a category 4 hurricane. It all happened pretty quick and surprised a lot of people, and I myself was very fortunate to be able to buy some gasoline for my car before all the gas stations ran out of gas, and then after a hell of a lot of rain that night (at least 14 to 15 inches in every city in the area) everything was closed the next day and everything is still closed. It all happened very quickly. And about 15 to 20 thousand people in low-lying areas have been rescued so far, often from their roofs, and total rainfall from the storm is expected to be 50 inches before its over, causing another 15 to 20 thousand to seek to be rescued. But only about half of the 911 callers are able to get through, and many many people have drowned. So there you have it, straight from the epicenter of the latest plague that God/ Mother Nature has sent upon the Earth. And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse. Everyone used to know that, but today that rather obvious fact (if there ever was one) is very often poo-pooed for some reason. Barry Midyet
You are an ignorant asshole.
I have not called New York home for more than 50 years. I do not live any where near it. I live much closer to you. Yeah, not to mention how may times the press has declared the Crime of the Century, the Trial of the Century, the Fight of the Century, and so on and so forth. When is the last time anyone saw a news story about the fourth, fifth, or sixth biggest storm of the century? I assuredly did not go by memory. As I posted previously at #19, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey That description conforms to the NOAA/NHC weather notices, of which I quoted one in its entirely and linked to nine more, indicating the storm status of the alerts, and the dates. It became a tropical storm on 17 August. It fell below a tropical storm on 19 August. It became a tropical storm again on August 24. It became a Hurricane on 25 August. It is a matter of record. It was lower than a tropical storm from 19 Aug to 24 Aug. The eclipse was on 21 Aug. The storm started to regain strength on the 23 Aug and resumed tropical storm status the next day. Later that day, it became a hurricane for the first time. For precise times, see the official times cited below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey Early on August 20, the NHC began monitoring the remnants of Harvey for redevelopment. Although the effects of strong upper-level winds and dry air were expected to limit development in the near-term, conditions were expected to become more conducive to tropical storm and hurricane conditions when the disturbance entered the northwestern Caribbean Sea, and especially in the Bay of Campeche. Despite an increase in convective organization, the disturbance still lacked a well-defined center as it approached the Yucatán Peninsula. While traversing inland, satellite images and surface observations indicated that the circulation became better defined. A reconnaissance aircraft investigating the remnants of Harvey around 15:00 UTC on August 23 indicated that it once again acquired a well-defined center, and the NHC upgraded it to a tropical depression accordingly. The system began to slowly consolidate amid an increasingly favorable environment, attaining tropical storm intensity by 06:00 UTC on August 24. Later that morning, Harvey began to undergo rapid intensification as an eye developed and its central pressure quickly fell. By 17:00 UTC, the storm was upgraded to the third hurricane of the season. Slight entrainment of dry air slowed the intensification process, however, by the next day, Harvey was able to quickly strengthen into a major hurricane by 19:00 UTC. Further deepening occurred as the storm approached the coast of Texas, with Harvey becoming a Category 4 hurricane at 23:00 UTC, based on reconnaissance aircraft data. Around 03:00 UTC on August 26, the hurricane made landfall at peak intensity at Rockport with winds of 130 mph (215 km/h) and an atmospheric pressure of 938 mbar (27.7 inHg). Those times are UTC. Texas is on CDT and is UTC -5. Well, this event did not occur during an eclipse. It was not even of tropical storm strength from two (2) days before the eclipse, to three (3) days after the eclipse. I'm older than you and have lived through no earth shattering events or plagues during any eclipse, but I do recall Carol and Edna. In 1954, the East Coast was especially naughty and Hurricane Carol (1-minute sustained wind, 115 mph) formed on August 25th and dissipated on September 1st. Then Hurricane Edna (1-minute sustained wind, 125 mph) formed on September 2nd and dissipated on September 15th. Carol caused 72 fatalities. Edna directly caused 20 fatalities, and 9 indirect.
Well, with you I am giving up (for now) because as usual you have done much much research and I have done none, but that is simply because I do not have any time to do any research on anything because I am in the middle of the biggest storm in recorded history. All I can do is go by memory and by my eyes and ears and what I am seeing and hearing even as I type this. 9 trillion gallons of water have been dumped on Southeast Texas, and Rescuers have now rescued over 3000 people from the floodwaters and that figure is expected to double before its over. And it is very evident that it all started with an eclipse, and any knowledgable student of history can tell you that most all earthshaking events were fulfilled during, or started during an eclipse. Do you want me to list them for you? If that is what you want, I can do that. And as for 1000-year floods, a few years ago, it was a 500-year flood occurring every year. Now it is a 1000-year floods occurring every year. For God's sake, how much worse do things have to get before you become a believer and realize that God is unhappy with the US, and is punishing us just as He did with the Israelites?? We must repent and rejoin the Paris agreement for starters. Then we must repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that let Muslims in. Then we must overturn the Same Sex Marriage decision and the Roe vs Wade decision for two other starters. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief.
Everything is bigger in Texas. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/441964/The-biggest-storm-in-history-batters-the-Philippines A MONSTER 235mph “super typhoon” confirmed as the biggest storm in history was last night feared to have claimed thousands of lives. By Nathan Rao Typhoon Haiyan ripped into the Philippines, forcing millions to flee their homes in terror. The storm’s astonishing power unleashed giant 45ft waves, flooding coastal areas including tourist destinations with 16in of lashing rain. [snip] Can't touch those monster storms in the Pacific. I don't know why your memory is all you can go on, when my post that you are responding to linked and quoted the official weather center data. Harvey failed to be a Tropical Storm from two days before the eclipse to three days after the eclipse. That may be inconvenient for the eclipse caused it theory, but that is the breaks of Naval air. It is not obvious at all that earthshaking events almost always occur during an eclipse. You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm. Weather happens. God does not cause storms, or touchdowns, or make footballs carom off goalposts to punish naughty kickers. Nor does He deflate Tom Brady's balls. And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement. I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s). Well, heck, I uploaded to Scribd and their computer flagged it for a copyright violation. It's a Federal law, and a dumb computer program. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf 79 Stat. 911, H.R. 2580, P.L. 89-236 (3 Oct 1965). Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments. I would be for overturning (not reversing) Obergefell and Roe. Those were issues best left to the States and of questionable Federal jurisdiction. However, it should be noted that this would result in States making up their own mind, and many had permitted abortion and gay marriage. Texas would be free to do its thing, and California could do its thing. Advocating Federal jurisdiction is advocating for Federal government authority to decide the issue for all. Look where that got us. Oh noes, not this plague thing again. Why would an all-loving god punish all for the whimsical acts of the nine? The good of the many outweighs the whimsy of the few.
OK, I will try to answer all your nitpicking. The storm in the Phillipines was also a 1000-year storm. "You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm." No, it is not an irrational claim, and it is pretty much all reputable scientists who are saying that and I am just quoting them. And I'm pretty sure they are not irrational, and I don't understand why you or any rational person would say that. What they mean is, storms that used to occur once in a thousand years are now occurring every year. Sounds rational to me. "Weather happens. God does not cause storms," That is not true and is just as irrational as your previous statement. But perhaps I should rephrase it for you and then you will understand where I am coming from. Mother Nature causes storms, and mother nature and God are pretty much one and the same. "And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement." Most irrational statement yet. What do you think is causing these 1000-year storms to come every year nowadays? At least 95% of it is man-made pollution, as almost all reputable scientists say, and about 5% of the cause is God's fury (I say). "I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s)." The most offending provision is the entire thing and the entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad. Until 1965, only Judeo-Chritians were allowed into our nation (officially, but a few non-Christians/Muslims snuck in undetected, beginning with the African slaves some of which were Muslims). And that is how our founders, who wrote the original immigration laws, intended it to be forever. Then LBJ came along, along with his followers/partners in crime in Congress and changed everything. Now we let in Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, anyone who wants to come. Since that year (1965), our nation has steadily gone down-hill. First, we took prayer out of schools (because they might offend the newcomers) and our schools went to hell. Then crime started increasing (a natural result of Godless schools). Now let's fast forward a bit to today. We are being attacked almost daily (on our own soil) by Muslims and other non-believers, but Muslims mainly and we definitely need to ban them. But we cant (according to the stupid alt- left judge in San Francisco). The only leg the alt-left judges are standing on (legally) is the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 which says we have to let Muslims in. So we must immediately repeal it if our nation is to survive. And I mean no offense to peaceful Buddhists like you who don't go around killing everybody, and when we get around to creating new immigration laws, I suppose we could make an exception for you guys. More later..
I live in SE Houston near Nasa. At 1900 on Saturday I put out a redneck rain gauge in my back yard. I was full Sunday morning at 0400. I emptied it. I has filled up 2 more times since.
I have come to the conclusion that God does not get angry. At all. Not even close. When someone becomes very angry, say a co-worker, fried or family member, the common Christian response is something like "We need to pray for Joe. He's having a very bad day". The reason for that kind of response is that we intuitively recognize that such a state of anger is a sign of distress, insecurity and ultimately, weakness. And clearly, the reason people get angry is because things happen to them that are out of their control which they once erroneously considered within their control. And that most certainly is a weakness. So, if God gets angry at man, it could only be because God is insecure and weak, possessing a false sense of control over man, which quite naturally contradicts all the positive attributes ascribed to him of being infinitely wise, loving, and perhaps most intriguing of all (depending on ones faith, perhaps) completely knowledgeable of all each of us will ever do. Please explain how God could or would become angry at us with anything we could possibly do when he knows in advance all that we will do, and why we will do those things? No, God does not get angry and to suggest so is to suggest he is weak. The reason Christianity and many other major faiths portray God as subject to anger is simply because of the practice of something called "personification". That is when one attributes certain human qualities upon another thing. People get angry so people decided that God must get angry too. It's also a very convenient way for historic religious leaders and kings to control the masses, as few things can be more influential on behavior than convincing a people that an all powerful deity is going to eradicate them for all eternity to a place of eternal torment. If they don't behave. No, God does not get angry. That's simply not possible, as the qualities of complete wisdom, love, patience and knowledge all prevent that. Of course this contradicts the standard Judeo-Christian thinking, but it's one point where Judeo-Christian thinking is wrong. Christianity is a good faith overall in terms of the morality it teaches, and people do well to subscribe to it. But on some doctrinal points such as the belief that God gets angry or has ever gotten angry, it is in error. Calamity and tragedy do serve a very pragmatic purpose and are generally beneficial for us in spiritual terms. Unfortunately, most people cannot fathom how that could be, so in the natural human search for satisfying answers, "God must be angry with us" is a common erroneous explanation that humans have historically settled upon. I am completely satisfied that God has no care one way or the other what laws a country decrees. Each of us are on this earth for the purpose of spiritual growth, and whatever circumstances or hardships we endure, even tragic ones, aid us in that growth. It's as simple as that. Obviously you won't agree with this. Indeed, it's readily apparent that people have an enormous ability to believe what we wish to believe, up to and including the point of inventing myriads of explanations for why things are the way they are, and subscribing to them with utmost fervor. That certainly explains why there are such enormous differences between the major faiths. (But then again, perhaps I've simply invented that explanation to satisfy my own need for understanding). The trick is to always be open minded about things, which is no small undertaking. And that's what I strive to do.
I hear you bro. I live just a few miles down the road from you (in League City) and I dont have a rain guage at the moment, but wish I did. So 3 full rain guages, that would be about 15 to 18 inches? Santa Fe has been the hardest hit and I have a daughter living there (along with my son-n-law and two grand daughters, and they keep moving to higher ground but the flood, continuously getting higher, keeps finding them and there is now no place in Santa Fe that is safe. Me and my other daughter are planning on rescuing them today, somehow, some way. My other son-n-law has a big truck, and I have a boat, so I am praying that with God's help we can pull it off.
That is among of the stupidest remarks I have heard on this crazy site. Yes, God is love, but His love is a very tough love. For every verse that talks about God's love there are 2 to 3 times as many that talk about God's wrath and the need to fear God. I know because I counted them. You cannot pick just 2 or 3 verses out of the Bible and build your entire theology around them. You have to read the entire Bible bro.
Good luck
don'T forgeT a shoTgun the obomba looTers will geT you love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
As for the rest of your post, I am glad that we fully agree on some things, i.e, the need to overturn Obergefell and Roe. As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts. As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. He is like that sometimes if He gets mad enough, and we must constantly fear Him else we too will feel His wrath.
But of course. It contradicts everything you have come to believe is true, so to you, it is stupid. Actually I already have. A couple times. But I am now convinced that the bible is simply a product of man, albeit a highly refined and artistic one, and does include some good things, particularly the new testament. And yes, it is revered by many as a holy book. But is it, in fact, the infallible and literal "Word of God"? No, it isn't. And I cite my reasoning on my prior post as one type of proof. Contrary to what the bible claims, God cannot and does not get angry.
LOL. The police at the present time have confiscated my gun (because I quite often actually use it instead of just carrying it), and at the present time I have to rely on God and the police to protect me from harm. But if I ever get enough money to hire a lawyer, I will probably try to get my Smith and Wesson back at some point. Nowadays, more than ever, all Christians need to carry a gun because there's a lot of Muslims and hoodlems/looters around.
No. Just as with anger, God is most certainly far, far above and beyond hating anything, and he does not hate for the same reasons he does not get angry. Only weak people fall so short as to hate others, and God is not weak.
You are insane. About two-thirds of the Bible is about God's wrath. And if you don't believe the Bible, as you have already said, naturally you are going to believe in some crazy things, like God does not get angry. You are not getting that crazy idea from the Bible, that is for sure.
Don't drink it! Distilled water is lacking in ALL minerals and nutrients to sustain life. Spring water, etc. is what you want. Use the distilled water to top off batteries, and in your humidor. It is just the opposite. We are to be like God and not be passive, but strong. Yes, we are supposed to love our personal enemies, but we are supposed to (i.e., commanded) to kill the enemies of Jesus and/or God. (See Luke 19:27) And Jesus commands us, if we do not have a gun, to sell the shirt off our back if need be and buy one. (Actually Jesus said sword but a gun is the modern equivalent)
We are to be strong in all ways. But sometimes, being strong means being passive. Stated more accurately, the bible claims Jesus said this in one particular situation, which Jesus may or may not have actually said, and for whatever it would be worth if he did, whether at the time or to us today. But given that, even though some people claim to be enemies of God as they perceive him, God himself, due to his innate qualities, surely could not possibly have any enemies at all. Your perception of God is not unlike a Muslim's perception of Allah. That is, a god who is so weak as to order the death of mere people who, in reality, could not pose any possible threat to him in any way whatsoever. So no, God does not command us to kill anyone. To suggest otherwise is to underestimate God.
Thank you for that reminder of the need to maintain our Purity Of Essence.
Use the distilled water to top off batteries, and in your humidor. Your post is so very very ironic, but also very very timely. The Bible says whoever drinks spring water or any kind of fresh water in the last days (meaning right about now) will become sickened from it and many people will die from it (last plague # 3). That means the only safe water to drink is distilled water, as I advise everyone on earth to do in my "2017 in Bible Prophecy" (found on the last page of my book, now out, called "The Revelation: A Historicist View." You may want to read it unless you want to be one of the many many people who die in 2017. And many many people in my neck of the woods have died from the worst storm/ flood in recorded history, just as I predicted in my book (part of last plague # 4). And the Gulf of Mexico even as this is being written is being struck by the biggest fish kill / dead zone in history (at least in the history of the Gulf of Mexico) which is last plague #2. Everything I predicted is coming to pass, and most of it is taking place right here, right now even as this is being written. The worst thing about is, I too might die right here right now (that is, by tomorrow) because, after several days of this, and being very close to running out of distilled water, I went to the only store that is open to buy some more distilled water, but the store was out of it, so against my better judgement I actually bought some Ozarka spring water (which I advised everyone on Earth not to do). But at the same time I also bought some beer so tonight I'm drinking beer. Tomorrow, or whenever I run out of beer I am going to be forced to drink some potentially very deadly spring water which I have already predicted will kill someone in 2017. Right now I am praying it is not me, but even if it is, and I fulfill my own prophecy, it is perfectly OK because I am ready to meet my maker whenever that time comes. Stay tuned right here. If I make a post tomorrow it means I'm alive. If I don't it means I'm dead. But I am leaving it all in God's hands, and I am not worried about it in the least.
Yes indeed, what Jesus commanded His followers to do is very much like what Mohammed (who is Satan personified) told his followers to do. The Good News is, the main difference is, we will win the final battle between the good guys (us) and the bad guys (the followers of Mohammed) that is even now being fought (called Ar Mageddon, which began on 9/11 exactly as prophesied). Then Satan wont be heard from again for a thousand years.
Only if you're talking to a Muslim. I am telling you the Gospel truth, straight from the Bible, and you cannot deny that. I can give you the chapter and verse for every thing I say.
No, that's not how things work. You envision battles and wars in the human context and project that into a perceived spiritual context. But things actually work far, far better than that. God is not so petty as to want to wage a war against his kids over silly religious ideology. You underestimate God enormously.
You are dead wrong and spouting off the devil's nonsense. Read the Bible.
Invocation of the sky fairy does not provide evidence that storms are plagues sent by an angry, hateful sky fairy. Assuredly, it does not move the time that a storm became a hurricane three days back in time to have it occur during an eclipse. Or perhaps God is just slowing down and His hurricane, therefore, arrived three days after the eclipse. Perhaps it was just celestial clerical error.
No, it is not an irrational claim, and it is pretty much all reputable scientists who are saying that and I am just quoting them. No, you have not cited or quoted anyone, much less reputable scientists. This is rather like your appear to the authority of all the history books. You have yet to name a single applicable history book, even with all of them claimed to be applicable. In like manner, you have not actually named a single reputable scientist, while appealing to the authority of all of them. That is not true and is just as irrational as your previous statement. But perhaps I should rephrase it for you and then you will understand where I am coming from. Mother Nature causes storms, and mother nature and God are pretty much one and the same. Mother Nature is not a sky wizard. People do not talk to the ceiling in an effort to commune with Mother Nature. Mother Nature is nature personified, sort of like Smokey the Bear. Most irrational statement yet. What do you think is causing these 1000-year storms to come every year nowadays? At least 95% of it is man-made pollution, as almost all reputable scientists say, and about 5% of the cause is God's fury (I say). You really have to stick that appeal to anonymous authority in Algore's Lockbox. There, fixed it. The most offending provision is the entire thing and the entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad. Until 1965, only Judeo-Chritians were allowed into our nation (officially, but a few non-Christians/Muslims snuck in undetected, beginning with the African slaves some of which were Muslims). And that is how our founders, who wrote the original immigration laws, intended it to be forever. Then LBJ came along, along with his followers/partners in crime in Congress and changed everything. Now we let in Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, anyone who wants to come. Since that year (1965), our nation has steadily gone down-hill. First, we took prayer out of schools (because they might offend the newcomers) and our schools went to hell. Then crime started increasing (a natural result of Godless schools). My appeal of the Scribd computer program report of copyright violation was upheld and I can provide the complete text of the 1965 Act, Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad." I am hardly a peaceful Buddhist. I am retired military. Honest to Buddha is a time-honored military expression. As faith is the strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, appeal to one's personal belief absent proof is an appeal to authority not based on proof.
Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? Murder is a man-made legal construct. If something is legal, it is not murder. Any act that does not meet the legal definition of murder, is not murder. If Roe were overturned, states such as California could, and likely would, have lawful abortion on demand. Your God may be a hateful, wrathful, avenging God. You are free to believe whatever you want. Resort to your invisible friend when your attempt at rational/factual argument fails is not persuasive.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3&version=KJV 2 Peter 3King James Version (KJV) 3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I think we have to take heart from the fact that God has said he will not destroy the Earth again by water, this is just a small indication of what a few days of rain is like, remember also he sends rain upon the just and the unjust
Another Jewish fable?
"No, you have not cited or quoted anyone, much less reputable scientists. This is rather like your appear to the authority of all the history books. You have yet to name a single applicable history book, even with all of them claimed to be applicable. In like manner, you have not actually named a single reputable scientist, while appealing to the authority of all of them." For God's sake, all you have to do is watch ABC News, or CBS or NBC or any other reputable news source, or just Google it. I am not going to do it for you because I don't have the time to be constantly humoring you. BTW, it is no longer being called a 1000-year storm on some stations. It is now sometimes being called a 1500 to 2000 year storm because it is still going and is now plaguing Lousianna as well. And after that it is predicted to hit Mississippi as it goes on down the coast. And the main reason I have not quoted any history textbooks that say what I said about the second coming of Jesus in 312AD is because none of them, not one, is currently in print because all school districts/ colleges in the US have replaced them with revisionist history. If you want to read one you are probably going to have to go to a used book store that specializes in very old textbooks. And I can assure you that none of them are on the internet, so that's not going to help you. That means you are going to have to do some serious digging/legwork on your own because I certainly dont have the time to do it for you. (But if you would for once be patient, I might do it for you after the big storm passes). "Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad." Well, I could but sorry I am not going to. That's for two very big reasons. First of all, all bills/laws passed by Congress are many many pages long and full of legalize that I or no one on earth except lawyers can possibly understand. Secondly, lest you forget, I am in the middle of the worst hurricane/ flood in recorded history and I am fighting for my life, and the life/ well being of my loved ones. So no, I am not about to humor you this time except to say, you read it, and you tell me what it says, and in plain English please and no legalize, and then I will consider responding on this issue. "I am hardly a peaceful Buddhist. I am retired military. Honest to Buddha is a time-honored military expression." I am also retired military and I have never ever heard that phrase before. But I do apologize if I falsely accused you of being a Buddhist. Sorry. "As faith is the strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, appeal to one's personal belief absent proof is an appeal to authority not based on proof." Everything I say is based entirely on historical and scientific facts and not on any faith or myths because I don't have faith that there is a God, I know there is a God based entirely on historical and scientific facts. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, I cut it out of the Bible (literally and you should see my Bible if you don't believe me). But the vast majority of the Bible I have found to be 100% true.
He didn't destroy the earth with the Flood. After all, it is still here and perking along nicely. It does seem that He's planning to do us all by destroying the earth with fire someday though. Like burning up in fire is so much nicer than a simple flood.
Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. The other alternative is simply to get rid of Planned Parenthood and all the alt-left judges and problem solved. (But to prevent any alt-left judges from ever ruling that way again, the wording of the verdict probably should reworded or amended or something, but I am in no way a legal expert so I have no idea how it should be accomplished. And the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently).
It is not that we should be looking for the signs of these troubles ahead but that we should be paying attention to them. Acknowledge them as signs from God and that Yehusha returns to fulfill that mission from His own Father which most of us have turned our backs on.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+12%3A4&version=KJV
[nolu chan #58] Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? [interpreter #65] Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. Actually, it says no such thing about partial-birth or third trimester abortions. Partial-birth abortion is illegal, your interpretation of Roe, based on alt-left sources and Planned Parenthood interpretation notwithstanding. What Roe actually says is, "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, it it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe abortion excep[t where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." One does not need to overturn Roe v. Wade to make partial-birth abortion a crime. It is already criminalized by Federal statute of 5 November 2003. What Federal law actually says is, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." - - - - - - - - - - S.3 — 108th Congress (2003-2004) Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and it became Public Law 108-105. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As it appears codified at 18 United States Code, § 1531 http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-74/sec.-1531/ 18 U.S.C. 1531 18 U.S.C. § 1531 (2015) §1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited (a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment. (b) As used in this section— (1) the term "partial-birth abortion" means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion— (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and (2) the term "physician" means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. (2) Such relief shall include— (A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and (B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion. (d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. (2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place. (e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section. (Added Pub. L. 108–105, §3(a), Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1206.) REFERENCES IN TEXT The enactment, referred to in subsec. (a), probably means the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 108–105, which enacted this section and was approved Nov. 5, 2003. SHORT TITLE Pub. L. 108–105, §1, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note under this section] may be cited as the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'." FINDINGS Pub. L. 108–105, §2, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "The Congress finds and declares the following: "(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion—an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant—is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. "(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. "(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined 'that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an 'undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the 'health' of the mother. "(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures. "(5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care. "(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not 'clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous 'when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this standard, 'if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently'. Id. at 574. "(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge—the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures. "(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the 'clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings—findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference—and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence. "(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 U.S.C. 10303(e)]. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in 'gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that '[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations * * *. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.'. Id. at 653. "(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress' factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the 'bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c) [now 52 U.S.C. 10304], stating that 'congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 472 F. Supp. 221 (D.D.C. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980). "(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 [Pub. L. 102–385, see Tables for classification]. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be 'seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, 'Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to "amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data" bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here', 512 U.S. at 665–66. Although the Court recognized that 'the deference afforded to legislative findings does "not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law," ' its 'obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'. Id. at 666. "(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 'must-carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's 'sole obligation is "to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence." ' 520 U.S. at 195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that '[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution "is far better equipped than the judiciary to 'amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon" legislative questions,' id. at 195, and added that it 'owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.'. Id. at 196. "(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a 'health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned. "(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that: "(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, 'there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death. "(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. "(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is 'not an accepted medical practice', that it has 'never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that 'the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that 'there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is 'ethically wrong,' and 'is never the only appropriate procedure'. "(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman. "(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman. "(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy. "(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life. "(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child 'in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a 'person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a 'person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child. "(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are 'ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the ' "partial birth" gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'. "(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children—obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child—and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child. "(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child. "(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure. "(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain. "(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to prohibit this inhumane procedure. "(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned."
Comments (69 - 128) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#29. To: interpreter (#28)
And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse.
#30. To: interpreter (#28)
I do have to say that you do your homework/research before you post. But I still will have to dispute one of your points, and I suspect it is because you live in New York City or somewhere and I live right here in the epicenter of this event.
I heard on the TV a few minutes ago that it is the 3rd 1000-year storm in 3 years. Think about that for a minute. Storms that used to occur once every thousand years are now occurring at least once a year (as I predicted in my book).
Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, your timetable is not quite correct.
The tropical wave once called Harvey strayed down to Texas and began to regroup and strenghthen a bit during the eclipse, and within a day or so began to mentioned for the first time ever on the local weather stations.
The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17. The storm crossed through the Windward Islands on the following day, passing just south of Barbados and later near Saint Vincent. Upon entering the Caribbean Sea, Harvey began to weaken due to moderate wind shear and degenerated into a tropical wave north of Colombia early on August 19. The remnants were monitored for regeneration as it continued west-northwestward across the Caribbean and the Yucatán Peninsula, before redeveloping over the Bay of Campeche on August 23. Harvey then began to rapidly intensify on August 24, regaining tropical storm status and becoming a hurricane later that day. While the storm moved generally northwestwards, Harvey's intensification phase stalled slightly overnight from August 24–25, however Harvey soon resumed strengthening and became a category 4 hurricane late on August 25. Hours later, Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas, at peak intensity.
And within a day or two it became a a full-fledged tropical storm, and then within a day or so it became full-fledged huricane, and the next day it became a catagory 4 hurricane.
It all happened pretty quick and surprised a lot of people, and I myself was very fortunate to be able to buy some gasoline for my car before all the gas stations ran out of gas, and then after a hell of a lot of rain that night (at least 14 to 15 inches in every city in the area) everything was closed the next day and everything is still closed. It all happened very quickly.
Harvey was downgraded to a tropical depression at 21:00 UTC on August 19; six hours later, based on continued data from a reconnaissance aircraft, it was declared an open tropical wave.
So there you have it, straight from the epicenter of the latest plague that God/ Mother Nature has sent upon the Earth. And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse.
#31. To: nolu chan (#30)
#32. To: interpreter (#31)
Well, with you I am giving up (for now) because as usual you have done much much research and I have done none, but that is simply because I do not have any time to do any research on anything because I am in the middle of the biggest storm in recorded history.
The biggest storm in history batters the Philippines
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sat, Nov 9, 2013 All I can do is go by memory and by my eyes and ears and what I am seeing and hearing even as I type this.
And it is very evident that it all started with an eclipse, and any knowledgable student of history can tell you that most all earthshaking events were fulfilled during, or started during an eclipse. Do you want me to list them for you? If that is what you want, I can do that.
And as for 1000-year floods, a few years ago, it was a 500-year flood occurring every year. Now it is a 1000-year floods occurring every year. For God's sake, how much worse do things have to get before you become a believer and realize that God is unhappy with the US, and is punishing us just as He did with the Israelites?? We must repent and rejoin the Paris agreement for starters.
Then we must repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that let Muslims in. Then we must overturn the Same Sex Marriage decision and the Roe vs Wade decision for two other starters. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief.
Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief.
#33. To: nolu chan (#32)
Oh noes, not this plague thing again. Why would an all-loving god punish all for the whimsical acts of the nine? The good of the many outweighs the whimsy of the few.
#34. To: nolu chan (#32)
#35. To: interpreter (#0)
#36. To: interpreter (#34)
The most offending provision is the entire thing and the entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad.
#37. To: XDMAR (#35)
I live in SE Houston near Nasa. At 1900 on Saturday I put out a redneck rain gauge in my back yard. I was full Sunday morning at 0400. I emptied it. I has filled up 2 more times since.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)
#39. To: interpreter (#37)
#40. To: interpreter (#37)
I have a boat
boris
#41. To: nolu chan (#32)
(Edited)
#42. To: interpreter (#38)
That is among of the stupidest remarks I have heard on this crazy site.
You have to read the entire Bible bro.
#43. To: BorisY (#40)
#44. To: interpreter (#41)
God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. He is like that sometimes if He gets mad enough, and we must constantly fear Him else we too will feel His wrath.
#45. To: Pinguinite (#42)
#46. To: interpreter (#0)
I am completely stocked up on distilled water
#47. To: Pinguinite (#44)
#48. To: interpreter (#47)
It is just the opposite. We are to be like God and not be passive, but strong.
Yes, we are supposed to love our personal enemies, but we are supposed to (i.e., commanded) to kill the enemies of Jesus and/or God. (See Luke 19:27) And Jesus commands us, if we do not have a gun, to sell the shirt off our back if need be and buy one. (Actually Jesus said sword but a gun is the modern equivalent)
#49. To: hondo68 (#46)
Don't drink it! Distilled water is lacking in ALL minerals and nutrients to sustain life. Spring water, etc. is what you want.
#50. To: hondo68 (#46)
(Edited)
Don't drink it! Distilled water is lacking in ALL minerals and nutrients to sustain life. Spring water, etc. is what you want.
#51. To: Pinguinite (#48)
(Edited)
#52. To: interpreter (#51)
(Edited)
Then Satan won't be heard from again for a thousand years.
I get the impression I'm hearing from him now.
#53. To: rlk (#52)
(Edited)
#54. To: interpreter (#51)
#55. To: Pinguinite (#54)
#56. To: goldilucky (#33)
Oh noes, not this plague thing again. Why would an all-loving god punish all for the whimsical acts of the nine? The good of the many outweighs the whimsy of the few.
#57. To: interpreter (#34)
"You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm."
"Weather happens. God does not cause storms,"
"And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement."
At least 95% of it is man-made pollution, as almost all
reputable government sponsored scientists say "I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s)."
And I mean no offense to peaceful Buddhists like you who don't go around killing everybody, and when we get around to creating new immigration laws, I suppose we could make an exception for you guys.
#58. To: interpreter (#41)
As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb.
That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts.
As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few.
#59. To: nolu chan (#56)
#60. To: goldilucky (#59)
(Edited)
#61. To: paraclete (#60)
#62. To: goldilucky (#59)
#63. To: nolu chan (#57)
#64. To: paraclete (#60)
I think we have to take heart from the fact that God has said he will not destroy the Earth again by water,
#65. To: nolu chan (#58)
(Edited)
#66. To: paraclete (#60)
#67. To: paraclete (#60)
#68. To: interpreter (#65)
[interpreter #41] As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
Sponsor: Sen. Santorum, Rick [R-PA] (Introduced 02/14/2003)
Cosponsors: (45) Committee Reports: H. Rept. 108-288 (Conference Report)
Latest Action: 11/05/2003
Became Public Law No: 108-105. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions) 2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 74 - Partial-Birth Abortions (Sections 1531 - 1531)
Sec. 1531 - Partial-birth abortions prohibited
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]