All of the world religions will come together to worship the antichrist. There will be a one world government, a one world economy and a one world religion. The antichrist will have the power to do signs and wonders, and all of the world will be deceived by them and follow him.

Revelation 13:8

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Meaning, if you have decided to reject Jesus before the tribulation, you will be convinced of the deception and by no means be saved. People who had not yet rejected the Lord will still have a chance to be saved. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will end up in hell.


>> ^luxury_pie:
So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?

This is a great thing and I support cleaning up your city absolutely. I disagree with simply "Lawless Brats" though. There's more to this story that as you mention, isn't being reported by the news.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The only outrage is Mexico didn't pay for this vermin's incarceration.
Plenty of ordinary Americans and not a few American police officers have been killed by illegal vermin who then fled back to the lawless craphole that is mexico.
Unfortunately only mexico understands mexico is at war with the U.S. Our near-worthless federal mafia is more worried about monitoring junk food and school bullying than the border.

The death penalty is punishment for a heinous crime.
You want to abolish the death penalty? Then support a federal gulag in Alaska.
I wouldn't have minded this vermin living out the remainder of his natural life in an icy wilderness, bare necessities, hard labor, no parole, unless new evidence freed him.


You do realize that Mexico is a lawless craphole largely because of America and NAFTA right? America even saw this lawlessness coming when it enacted NAFTA it militarized the border.

The only outrage is Mexico didn't pay for this vermin's incarceration.

Plenty of ordinary Americans and not a few American police officers have been killed by illegal vermin who then fled back to the lawless craphole that is mexico.

Unfortunately only mexico understands mexico is at war with the U.S. Our near-worthless federal mafia is more worried about monitoring junk food and school bullying than the border.


The death penalty is punishment for a heinous crime.

You want to abolish the death penalty? Then support a federal gulag in Alaska.

I wouldn't have minded this vermin living out the remainder of his natural life in an icy wilderness, bare necessities, hard labor, no parole, unless new evidence freed him.

I'm not accusing her of any crime. I am speculating. As are you.

Why does it bother you so much that I think there is a possibility she is racist? If she isn't, good for her. If she is, wow, look at that, that is some crazy shit.

Besides, she can be right about hating lawlessness and still be a crazy ass racist. These aren't mutually exclusive points of view.



>> ^chilaxe:

@bareboards2

"I'm just sick of the lawlessness," the 42-year-old Alvin woman said. "They knew their chances of getting caught were slim to none. Those kids would have gotten away with it, celebrated their theft and probably continue to do it." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7619201.html#ixzz1QV5iBQ
wJ

@bareboards2

"I'm just sick of the lawlessness," the 42-year-old Alvin woman said. "They knew their chances of getting caught were slim to none. Those kids would have gotten away with it, celebrated their theft and probably continue to do it." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7619201.html#ixzz1QV5iBQwJ

Complete misrepresentation and outright fabrication. You can't be a Christian and live like a heathen.

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

>> ^Fade:

Anarchy does not automatically imply lawlessness or chaos. In much the same way that being an atheist does not imply that you are immoral. >> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.



I think you meant to say Anarchy doesn't imply lawlessness, but your statement is correct as it is. Anarchy means there is no law, by definition. The moment you introduce a law like declaring murder illegal you have instituted a form of a state, and enforcement of said law is once again the act of a state. Any other use of the word Anarchy is a hijacking of it describe something that is NOT in fact Anarchy. Call it minimal government, call it some variation of Libertarianism, but Anarchy it is not.

Anarchy, from Websters:
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3
: anarchism

You'll note the only 'positive' definition for Anarchy presupposes that human beings will collectively get along and play nice with each other be default. If that were true we'd have a utopia with or without any form of government period.

Anarchy does not automatically imply lawlessness or chaos. In much the same way that being an atheist does not imply that you are immoral. >> ^bcglorf:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

You have a schitzophrenic faith, my friend. I would call you my brother but it doesn't appear that you know our Lord. It appears that in your picture you are ashamed of your Lord. So allow me to enlighten you for your edification:

The six day creation is literal, it is not allegory. You can tell this simply by the grammar and syntax used. The word for day used is "yom", which appears over 400 times in the bible and only ever refers to a day as a 24 hour period. You may recognize this from "Yom Kippur". Do jews celebrate the day of atonement for millions of years?

The literal account of the 6 day creation also is integral to the ten commandments. We have the Sabbath day as a day of rest because God rested on the 7th day. Do we rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? So already you've called God a liar, you've made the commandments to no effect, which undermines the messiah prophecies..and the entire thing is turned on its head.

We have confirmation from Jesus Christ Himself, that the account is literal. He refers to a literal creation, adam as the first man, the flood and many other OT accounts as fact. You reject that and you reject the testimony of our Lord. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation then you should throw your bible in the garbage because that is what the theory of evolution has filled your head with.

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant. You've had to twist your mind into a pretzal to believe what you do. You've fallen into apostacy because of your lack of faith. Evolution is a stumbling block for you, and will remain so until you trust in the Word of God. Here's my Word for you:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."






>> ^burdturgler:
It's only writing God out of your picture, not mine. The bible is a lot of things, but one thing it was not meant to be was a scientific accounting of anything. I am still perfectly able to love and worship God and yet still understand and accept evolution, so .. you're wrong.
I made my post under the assumption that you were capable of rational thought, but you've proven that that's not the case. I never said anything happened without God, I said understanding what DID happen gives me greater appreciation for God.
Well .. that's two posts now, see you in 2013.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

What they were supposed to do, is try to get the man out of the house through some non-violent means.

So the fact that the man had an enormous assault rifle and was pointing it at the cops as they came in the door means nothing?
All I'm saying is that I don't think the cops who actually pulled the trigger are at fault here. Should they have even been there in the first place? Probably not. But that's not their call. Someone should be held accountable for this, but it's not those cops.


Sure they are. Why did they lie and say he fired at them first? Why did they seal the search warrant after the case starting getting publicity? Why were they ignorant to the fact of who lived at the house? Why wasn't Guerena's name on the search warrant if he was a suspect of criminal activity? Why is paramilitary police busting down his door and 4 or 5 others that day for marijuana? (Forget the fact they found NOTHING) Why did they have the urgency to bust down his door but then the "SWAT" team decides to clear the house with some sort of robot? Why did they deny paramedics access to Guerena for over an hour? Why did they change their story multiple times and now claim he was a suspect for home invasions?

You seem to be giving the cops a pass and blaming their superiors. I guess we should've applied that to those Third Reich officers that were only following orders too. The cops took an oath to uphold the constitution, so any abridgement of the 4th amendment rests squarely on their shoulders. And any law enforcement agency that makes excuses for it or tries to hide the truth about it is utterly corrupt. Honest and moral people are not going to carry out the orders of tyrants. If the people in charge are violating The Law, then the subordinates by default are going to be lawless thugs "just following orders".

The SWAT team had a ballistic shield, busted the door, and stood on the outside shooting in. Guerena may have a had a gun pointed at them but he never fired and still had the safety on. The SWAT team never clearly identified who they were, and just starting shooting. Even if this wasn't Guerena and it was a drug smuggler with a house full of drugs and money, what the SWAT team did is straight up murder and disregard for human rights.

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

Btw, I don't delve into apologetics. Not knowing anything about apologetics, I can see why you've made this mistake. This is entirely from my own understanding.

I fail to see what "big gov/small gov" arguments have to do with this video. This has more to do with the business in Wisconsin then political parties or philosophies.

We've come to this point: the corporate state has taken off the kid gloves and now engages in flagrant abuse of all it controls. Whether it's an attempt to ban collective bargaining rights of workers, or accosting those who protest, the adversaries of common freedom no longer give quarter to their opposition. Criminality and lawlessness is their way and they have built for us a culture of corruption.

If anyone still pairs 12 trillion in corporate welfare against the "bucket brigade" called "Main St." and doesn't see class warfare, I don't know what else to say. Post more videos? I'm sorry I don't have time to say more but I've got to get back to filing my taxes :-/

@GeeSussFreeK, @Psychologic, this experiment was tried. It was called "the United States" until about 1932.

Basically the answer was that voluntary donation for humanitarian purposes, and ecological purposes wasn't zero, but it was trivial compared to the money that goes towards those causes now, and the increased funding and universalized benefits made massive improvements in human welfare.

This is kinda the problem I have with even moderately libertarian arguments. The US wasn't a pure libertarian ideal at any point, but a lot of the big changes libertarians want were in place (no Social Security, Medicare, public schools, income tax, Federal reserve, labor laws, food safety laws, environmental laws, etc.) in the US for a long time, and the result wasn't pretty, even if you overlook stuff like slavery. Hell, you even had an extended period of lawlessness in the West, where "police brutality" was never an issue -- just holdups, kidnapping, rape, murder, etc. Lynchings in the public square were what made for justice back in those times.

Instead of giving rise to a perfect libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist/whateverist society that had no need of government, it gave rise to the country that we live in now.

*Lawless asswipes think they are special.