Comments
578,241 - 578,260 of 599,583 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604634
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604635
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604636
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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,"

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604637
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604638
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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?

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604640
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604641
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604644
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Who are the authors of the Bible?
When it comes to the 27 books of the New Testament, no one knows for sure, with 6 exceptions and one maybe.

There are 6 genuine texts from Paul, though they suffer from interpolations and concatenation. The rest of the texts attributed to him are 2nd century pseudographs. The gospels and Acts were written anonymously and later ascribed, surely falsely, to the authors who now are given credit for them.

The rest of the documents, save Revelation, are all probably pseudographs.

In Revelation, the author writes, "I, John,... was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."

If the author was pretending to be the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, Revelation is a pseudograph. If the author was named John and was not intending to portray himself as the apostle, then it was written by someone named John, a very common name at the time.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604645
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i can provide geneologies back to my first parent Adam...
Of course you can.

Just not real ones.

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604646
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

M*O*R*N*I*N*G

“I was gratified to be able to answer promptly,
and I did. I said I didn’t know.”

~ Mark Twain

Thought for the day

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604647
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Today's Prayer

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen.

Prime Time with God

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604648
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN
Approval to publish is not the same as endorsement
....
You are correct. What Brown wrote is contra the silliness of official doctrine. That is why Brown, a practicing Catholic all his life, was careful to avoid saying the dogma was wrong but simply urged the church to reconsider the silliness of its dogma.

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604649
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Encouraging Words....

Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings

Psalm 17:8

K-Love
truth

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604651
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Did man need to be first as virgin?

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604654
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Good Bye.....

Have a Great day!!

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604655
Nov 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>BenAdam means son of man, or son of Adam.

Adam is a name, dude.
Adam is the name of a race actually.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604656
Nov 2, 2013
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I would just ask that you keep two things in mind
1) The church doesn't have an official teaching on every verse
2) The church allows for the possibility of different interpretations depending on the subject
Think of how many verses are in the Bible. How many subjects. It would be almost an impossibility to have "official doctrine" on all of it. The church has major teachings as part of its doctrine. Much of the Bible it allows people to study and theorize and present different views so long as doing so doesn't cause harm
I wish I had thought of how to phrase this earlier. A correct statement might be that permission would not be given to anything that directly contradicts official church doctrine. However that does not mean anything given approval for publication is official church doctrine. It can simply be an area that there is an allowance for different ideas
Right and the evidences and opinions proffered by Brown are highly respected within theological circles - the world over - not just Catholicism.

I'm sure that's why when the Pope received the request, his spokesperson, Sandri, directed that it could be best answered by the Ecole Biblique. They then directed that could be best answered by Brown - and found within his writings that were in the library of the Ecole Biblique. They even contacted Brown who referred them back to the Ecole Biblique and he suggested the same writings.

The Ecole Biblique answered the request just as the Pope directed.

His work, used in this instance, bore the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. It was declared free of doctrinal or moral error. It was approved. It was authorized to be used as a source of instruction and knowledge within Catholicism. The fact that his work is housed at the Ecole means it has been approved to be used for instructional purposes.

The Ecole is in partnership with The Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, The Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, called the "Angelicum", Rome, The school is an institutional member of the Catholic Academy of France... Here's a list: http://www.ebaf.edu/...

Canon law:
Can. 827 §2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.

Theologians like Brown, who approach the history of your religion with legitimate scholarly approach, will only add legitimacy to the field and endeavor.

He follows(ed) the evidence where it leads.

Not where he wanted it to lead.
Skombolis wrote:
Sorry about the 'ego' comment. I got a little frustrated
Have a good one
I take no offense, and thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min curiouslu 730,803
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min Yehuda 117,880
What's the sluttiest thing you've ever did? 22 min Babyyyy 2
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 38 min Johnny 2,221
F 38 M 39 Ask us anything!! 38 min Commander Bunny 9
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr MUQ1 259,386
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 225,719
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 537,310
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 2 hr monu chauhan 104

Search the Top Stories Forum:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••