AUIdiotRACEMAKEW ORLDPEACE

United States

#604620 Nov 1, 2013
dandruff wrote:
<quoted text>
dandruff dry dirty flakes fall from you,like dirt from donkey tail wet and stinky of watery yellow cow manure
scratch your a...maybe you get some more to make dandruff donuts for your breakfast
Into you mouth , how taste dirty Christian? Are you sure tyou a pure christian, you sound dirty! you have sinned, now go read you bible!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#604621 Nov 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, leave him alone, lil.
He's prolly just havin a bad day.
We all do.
Extend him nothing but courteousness, friendship and love.
Watch what happens.
Awee I was just playin and messin with him. Did not mean nothing by it even added a lol so he know I was messin with him.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#604625 Nov 1, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
The Koori pronunciation is more like "gangurru". There are some amusing stories about how they got the name.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_kangaroos_g...
RR says they learned that word from the English.

LOL

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#604626 Nov 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Woah.
Lotta words me no know in that there rhyme.
Why not, according to you they are all English words.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#604627 Nov 1, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Down came a jumbuck to drink at the billabong
Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee
And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tuckerbag
You'll come a waltzing matilda with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CwvazMc5EfEXX
LOL!
I used ta sing that one as a kid.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#604628 Nov 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, leave him alone, lil.
He's prolly just havin a bad day.
We all do.
Extend him nothing but courteousness, friendship and love.
Watch what happens.
I would prefer you acting intelligent once.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#604629 Nov 1, 2013
Foržam še witodlice manega žohton žara žinga race geendebyrdan že on us gefyllede synt.
headlines

Marietta, GA

#604630 Nov 1, 2013
.

VATICAN -- ISRAEL debate TEMPLE MOUNT status

http://youtu.be/Qt9kEQB4ti8

.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604632 Nov 1, 2013
Shot in face, cop chased suspects 'because I am a mom'

"Video: Police officer Ann Carrizales was shot twice, including once in the face, during a routine traffic stop, but instead of backing down and allowing her fellow cops to chase down the suspects, she chased them in her squad car for 20 miles until they were caught. NBC’s Janet Shamlian reports."

http://www.today.com/news/shot-face-cop-chase...

Wow!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604633 Nov 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
True words, my friend.
It's like "The Internet says it's true so it MUST be true", says the skeptic.
It does seem like things get a lot of credit simply for appearing online.

Many things are nothing more than the opinion of a single author and the opinion is not even stated as fact

I would always encourage people to get as many perspectives as possible and never to completely dismiss someone simply for their position or credentials. Even if 95% of a theory is not grounded in proof, there may still be bits and pieces worth taking away from it. Or it may lead to a train of thought someone might not otherwise have considered. Like with people in general, there is normally always something that can be taken away from dialogue with them. But I absolutely agree that something simply being posted on the internet does not add credence to it. That can only come from merit

And also the subjectivity of the author needs to be considered as well if they are drawing conclusions or making presumptions

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604634 Nov 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful, Ben, you're outnumbered.
By chance (or maybe goddidit), RA has his backup buddies RR and Skom here at the same time.
??

Ben and I have always had a good relationship

Even the occasional bump in the road has never lasted long and has always ended in both sides making peace and generally owning up to anything we have done wrong.

I have seen you try to convince others on a regular basis not like like people that you don't like. But now out of the blue you decided to characterize mine and Ben's interaction as me being involved in ganging up?

Some things I just take with a grain of salt like you claiming you were "worried" about how some Christians may view Halloween or why you would feel it necessary to reply to HL that people don't deserve respect given to someone for being another human being dealing with their own trials and tribulations that go through emotional gauntlets just like anybody else

But I really don't understand why you always seem to be trying to cause conflict between others. Especially when there is none. Although there is normally a common explanation for people that do stuff like that. I would inquire to your reason if I thought there was any chance you would admit to the motivation. Although I can't think of any reason that would excuse it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604635 Nov 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are two of the sociopathic traits, you know.
You are violent (you have shown this repeatedly, with a club, and babies and a wife even).
And you started early.
It seems like everybody but you is trying to make a change for the better

You really are back on this again?

I knew when RR said he still respected you as being a decent person you would not respond, let along reciprocate in any way. But I did think there might have been the possibility that you would ease up on the venom a little bit

Guess not

It probably drove you nuts his dog died and you had to endure people showing kindness to him.

And again, you knew of all these things a year ago and it was a non-issue as you guys had plenty of exchanges afterwards, with some ranging anywhere from civil to friendly.

If Ians and I can not only put our differences behind us but more forward in peace, why is it so hard for you even when the other person has made repeated overtures to at least get your interactions back to civil?

You seem to have a lot of hatred built up in you. Or maybe you are just someone who only enjoys Topix when it is nasty and all this peace is boring you?

I am trying to stay away from anything that is going to be negative. But sometimes even when that is the goal, there are situations that practically demand at least inquiring as to why someone is doing what they are doing. This is one of those times.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604636 Nov 1, 2013
Bible True Jehovah Laws wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't have to send long not clear explanation,enough is only to passages 2 Tim 3;16.2Peter 1;20,and Jeremiah 36;1-4.....
original writings from Gods Spirit using Baruch to PROPHET JEREMIAH WAS BURNT UP BY KING JE HO IAK IM
jER 36; 29-32,THEY GET FOR THIS ACT HORIBLE PUNISHMENT FROM ,AND WERE WRITTEN SAME WORDS SECONS TIME(COPIES)VERSE 32
so?you didn't explain her properly or like Child of God chosen by Gods Grace
instead pleasing people,try to please only God and His Word written to the mankind
I am not exactly sure what you are getting at Shrink

I had made a post saying the simply because a critic of the Bible has posted something online, it seems like many other critics accept it without much question. But in contrast, I find many to be much more critical and less likely to accept anything at face value if it is written by one of the authors of the Bible

In response to that River Tam asked me who the authors of the Bible were

The question was most likely IMO to make the point that the authors of the Bible deserve to be held to a higher standard because we can't even say for certain who wrote some of the books. So I made the point that even without knowing some of the authors, the main focus when looking at the books in the Bible should be on what they say and whether that information harmonizes and seems credible and not so much on who actually wrote it.

As for how I responded to that question,I am quite comfortable that I did so in accordance with the message of the Bible

Colossians 4:5-6
"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone,"

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#604637 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems like everybody but you is trying to make a change for the better
You really are back on this again?
I knew when RR said he still respected you as being a decent person you would not respond, let along reciprocate in any way. But I did think there might have been the possibility that you would ease up on the venom a little bit
Guess not
It probably drove you nuts his dog died and you had to endure people showing kindness to him.
And again, you knew of all these things a year ago and it was a non-issue as you guys had plenty of exchanges afterwards, with some ranging anywhere from civil to friendly.
If Ians and I can not only put our differences behind us but more forward in peace, why is it so hard for you even when the other person has made repeated overtures to at least get your interactions back to civil?
You seem to have a lot of hatred built up in you. Or maybe you are just someone who only enjoys Topix when it is nasty and all this peace is boring you?
I am trying to stay away from anything that is going to be negative. But sometimes even when that is the goal, there are situations that practically demand at least inquiring as to why someone is doing what they are doing. This is one of those times.
RR sets himself up to be the whipping boy, he also seems to enjoy defending that position. So you see , they get what they want from it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#604638 Nov 1, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
are you mad at me? there's a spiritual war going on between 2 opposing kingdoms, hon, and it's not personally against you, it's over you and for you:)
Mad at you? LOL

Tell me, do you make little gun noises when you fight your pretend war? Do you wear a Ghillie suit?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#604639 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Some authorship is universally accepted. Some books the exact author is theorized as it can't be confirmed.
Not universally accepted. It's not accepted by me. It could have been written by anybody at any time. It could have been written as a comedy and misinterpreted. Nobody knows.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Some authorship is universally accepted. Some books the exact author is theorized as it can't be confirmed.
What is important is not so much what author write it but rather that the information within has been approved as authentic
Approved by whom?
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether those outside the faith believe it is accurate is up to them.
Even those inside the faith don't believe that everything written in the Bible is accurate. You're inside the faith. Do you think everything written in the Bible is accurate?
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>My question goes to why theories, presumptions, opinions, and even guesses by critics of the Bible don't seem to be held to the same scrutiny for a standard of proof.
Nothing in the Bible has been proven with the exception of some local landmarks, cities and certain people of the time it was supposedly written. If the Bible was put forth as fiction or fable it would have very few critics. It's not though, is it? It's peddled as fact.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
In my experience on Topix, so long as someone finds a website containing a critic's opinion it seems to just be accepted by other critics no questions asked. Heck, Wikipedia could practically be called the Critic's Bible when it comes to going by the information found on its site.
In my experience on Topix, so long as a shepherd boy throws a rock in a cave and finds some ancient writings it seems to be accepted as Holy Scripture no question answered.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604640 Nov 1, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Not universally accepted. It's not accepted by me. It could have been written by anybody at any time. It could have been written as a comedy and misinterpreted. Nobody knows.
I am not talking about context here. I am saying with some books, it is pretty much universally accepted among scholars who wrote it. With others, the authorship isn't as certain
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Approved by whom?
The first Bible was commissioned by Constantine and reviewed by the counsel of Nicaea. However they could not agree as to what books should be included. Not too long after though, Constantine directed Eusebius to creat ethe first official Bible. He included 18 nooks including the Hebrew Bible, making up the Old and New Testaments. This Bible was lost over time though

The first 3 Bibles translated to English were:

1) Great Bible commissioned by King Henry the 8th
2) Bishop's Bible
3) Bible commissioned by King James

47 scholars that were part of the Church of England took part in this process. The NT was translated from Greek and the OT was translated from Hebrew. And the Apocrypha was translated from Greek and Latin. It eventually took the place of the Latin Vulgate and became the widely accepted version

There were earlier scrolls and manuscripts. Many of which were banned

But essentially it was a long collaboration over time by church scholars
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Even those inside the faith don't believe that everything written in the Bible is accurate. You're inside the faith. Do you think everything written in the Bible is accurate?
Yes.

I have spent many years studying the Bible. And while certainly not a scholar, I have found the Bible to be harmonized. Given the 30,000 plus verses and the long periods of time; in which the books were written, translated, and included, it is remarkably consistent. Although I also believe the Bible is parabolic, symbolic, literal, and metaphoric. It has to be taken in proper context and be looked at in conjunction with other verses to fully understand the meaning. There are of course going to be some things considering the number of verses that no individual will have every answer to. But I am satisfied that the books included are the books that should be in there
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the Bible has been proven with the exception of some local landmarks, cities and certain people of the time it was supposedly written. If the Bible was put forth as fiction or fable it would have very few critics. It's not though, is it? It's peddled as fact.
No it is presented as belief based on faith. Although there is obviously some historical facts that are confirmed even bu outside historians. Some of which were outspoken critics of the faith yet still wrote about the same recorded events. But my point was if someone needs the Bible to be proved to them before they can accept anything in it, then they should use that same standard of proof when using the works of critics and not take opinions as facts.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
In my experience on Topix, so long as a shepherd boy throws a rock in a cave and finds some ancient writings it seems to be accepted as Holy Scripture no question answered.
Can you give any actual example that would fit this analogy?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604641 Nov 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> RR sets himself up to be the whipping boy, he also seems to enjoy defending that position. So you see , they get what they want from it.
Someone said they bet he got beat up a lot in grade-school

RR responded it was the other way around

Not sure how that is asking to be called a child abuser and wife beater or asking to be a whipping boy

Yes I have seen him at times play along with the accusations. Might as well at this point. It seems to only aggravate those looking to fight and takes some of the power away from the insults

I also have seen him ignore nasty posts

I have seen him respond much nicer than he was spoken to

I have seen him try to appeal to people's better natures to disengage from some of the more vile stuff

I have seen him say complimentary things about even those that attack him

And i have seen him make overtures towards peace

Since none of those things have even slowed down a couple of people, one to be certain, I have a hard time finding fault with him sometimes playing into it for fun. Why not? Certainly nothing is going to stop it anyway. And it would seem nothing makes someone angrier than not getting under the person's skin they are trying their best to attack

While everybody loses their patience at some point, I have seen RR a vast majority of the time talk to people in ways much more civil then they talk to him

I don't think anybody on here is or should be considered someone else's "whipping boy". I have seen people continue after someone even after trying to go after them, their job, and their family in real life. Perhaps some people need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves what their goal is for coming to Topix.

It is one thing for things to get nasty between people. That simply happens. It is quite another for people to seemingly come here only because they enjoy being nasty and enjoy the negativity. So much so that they openly admit to trying to sabotage two other people making peace and trying to talk other people into not liking other posters. If someone is that desperate for negativity that they have to try to create it or talk others into it instead of at least limiting themselves to their situations, that is problematic IMO and also rather revealing.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#604642 Nov 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about context here. I am saying with some books, it is pretty much universally accepted among scholars who wrote it. With others, the authorship isn't as certain
It's a guess. Whether it's a scholarly guess or not is unimportant.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
The first Bible was commissioned by Constantine and reviewed by the counsel of Nicaea. However they could not agree as to what books should be included. Not too long after though, Constantine directed Eusebius to creat ethe first official Bible. He included 18 nooks including the Hebrew Bible, making up the Old and New Testaments. This Bible was lost over time though
The first 3 Bibles translated to English were:
1) Great Bible commissioned by King Henry the 8th
2) Bishop's Bible
3) Bible commissioned by King James
47 scholars that were part of the Church of England took part in this process. The NT was translated from Greek and the OT was translated from Hebrew. And the Apocrypha was translated from Greek and Latin. It eventually took the place of the Latin Vulgate and became the widely accepted version
There were earlier scrolls and manuscripts. Many of which were banned
But essentially it was a long collaboration over time by church scholars
Understood. I may be young but I'm not an idiot, Skom. You understand how the Church of England came to be, right? You know the history of Henry VIII, right?

The Bible is, to put it mildly, a convoluted fuckinmess. You find it in its present state because of political, marital and probably incestuous reasons. Do you trust these church scholars?
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
I have spent many years studying the Bible. And while certainly not a scholar, I have found the Bible to be harmonized. Given the 30,000 plus verses and the long periods of time; in which the books were written, translated, and included, it is remarkably consistent.
Of course it's consistent. There were many scholars and scribes, most likely under penalty of death, to make it that way.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I also believe the Bible is parabolic, symbolic, literal, and metaphoric. It has to be taken in proper context and be looked at in conjunction with other verses to fully understand the meaning.
The meaning is purely subjective. Hence faith.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
There are of course going to be some things considering the number of verses that no individual will have every answer to. But I am satisfied that the books included are the books that should be in there
Why are you satisfied? Is it because the Church of England's scholars said so? Is it because the Roman Catholic Church's scholars said so? What about the Church of Scotland? Is the Queen the dominant force in the church or is it the Pope? Do you think that the books that were excluded were just crap? Do you fear being a heretic?
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is presented as belief based on faith.
It is now. It used to be presented as believe it or die a very painful death. Secularism in the west has put an end to that. Not so much in the mideast.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Although there is obviously some historical facts that are confirmed even bu outside historians. Some of which were outspoken critics of the faith yet still wrote about the same recorded events. But my point was if someone needs the Bible to be proved to them before they can accept anything in it, then they should use that same standard of proof when using the works of critics and not take opinions as facts.
Again, if the Bible were presented as anything other than fact it would only have literary critics.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you give any actual example that would fit this analogy?
I was, of course, speaking of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I was going to write more but I'm out of characters.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#604643 Nov 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Some authorship is universally accepted. Some books the exact author is theorized as it can't be confirmed.
What is important is not so much what author write it but rather that the information within has been approved as authentic
Whether those outside the faith believe it is accurate is up to them. My question goes to why theories, presumptions, opinions, and even guesses by critics of the Bible don't seem to be held to the same scrutiny for a standard of proof.
In my experience on Topix, so long as someone finds a website containing a critic's opinion it seems to just be accepted by other critics no questions asked. Heck, Wikipedia could practically be called the Critic's Bible when it comes to going by the information found on its site.
This is merely what you want to believe.

Do folks post here based on info garnered from hack website rather than info pulled from quality sources published by respected scholars and edited by careful publishers?

Yes.

In fact, I recall you quoting Raymond Brown out of context from a website but not having read Brown's scholarly article from whence the quote came -- an article in which Brown, in fact, distanced himself from such comments with respect to Morton Smith.

And I recall Imhotep plagiarizing crap from Yahoo! Answers and a similar site because he wanted to believe Christianity was a ripoff of Mithraism and then engaging in childish name calling when confronted with real scholarship on the subject from Beck, Cumont, and Ulansey.

But quality scholars do not rely on such nonsense.

Apologists do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
This ~ or ~ That? (game) (Dec '12) 3 min andet1987 1,796
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min nanoanomaly 828,190
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 5 min Seriously__ 3,331
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min hojo 583,961
Sharing my wife's nude pics to be exposed (May '14) 17 min we would love 2 c... 61
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 34 min WasteWater 98,969
Aztec Group Inc Florida Tokyo Japan Hong Kong R... 47 min frankgory 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Jac 442,808
More from around the web