Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:01 am to Don Johnson
He's a serial manipulator.
He's one of those fools who is so successful at deluding others because he himself, is deluded.
He believes his own shtick.
Psychologically, seems like it's probably self-defense to prevent him from having to really personally own up to just how screwed up of a person he is.
It is sad and pathetic, and until he realizes he's sad and pathetic – he'll always be a fool.
He's one of those fools who is so successful at deluding others because he himself, is deluded.
He believes his own shtick.
Psychologically, seems like it's probably self-defense to prevent him from having to really personally own up to just how screwed up of a person he is.
It is sad and pathetic, and until he realizes he's sad and pathetic – he'll always be a fool.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:26 am to BoarEd
quote:
The reason this was done was so the Catholic Church control people with the fear of a vengeful god. Which is ironic because as I pointed out above, actually makes them subject to God's vengeance themselves.
Perhaps you need to review your history and do a bit more research on the Bible. As shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament books have the same content today as they did at the time of Christ, and likely long before that, and clearly weren't edited to create control by the Catholic Church. Moreover, the New Testament texts were likewise not edited, (with a few exceptions and which do not relate to any major point of the text, such as a few extra verses at the end of Mark), and much of the text can be dated to at least the 60s AD. There is virtually no evidence the NT books we have today are not the same as were circulated in the 1st century. There is a widely accept myth that the books have beem altered from their original wording, but there is no signifant evidence that that is so. Indeed much, if not most, of the text of the New Testament can be reconstructed from the writings of the very early "church fathers," from before there was what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church.
As far as the vengeful God, you seem not the be aware of the emphasis in the NT that "God is love." And yes, while sin does provoke the wrath of God, because he is holy, nevertheless his love for us provides a way of forgiveness and salvation.
If you can offer any sources from persons with expertise in Biblical studies that support your claim of "careful editing," I'd be interested in seeing them.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 7:28 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:38 am to AshLSU
quote:
. I said that Satan bet that Job would not be loyal to god if god didn't bless him. God decided to put Job through torture just to prove a point to Satan. Seems like Satan came out the winner on that deal. Satan whole plan was to get god to do horrible shite to someone and it worked.
Ash, just admit you hate Jesus and God, are an atheist whose mission in life is to bash both and tell us we were once fish and became man. Just get it over with.
And your carbon dating keeps getting ripped apart with new science. Meanwhile, your Archaeologists keep uncovering finds that actually document biblical text.
We came from Monkeys lol, Why are Monkeys still monkeys and we are men? Did some monkeys not evolve because your space alliens decided so? I mean if evolution is right, how on earth did we jump so far and left some monkeys we came from behind? Wow, explain that shite.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 7:46 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:23 am to MullenBoys
quote:
Ash, just admit you hate Jesus and God, are an atheist whose mission in life is to bash both and tell us we were once fish and became man. Just get it over with. And your carbon dating keeps getting ripped apart with new science. Meanwhile, your Archaeologists keep uncovering finds that actually document biblical text. We came from Monkeys lol, Why are Monkeys still monkeys and we are men? Did some monkeys not evolve because your space alliens decided so? I mean if evolution is right, how on earth did we jump so far and left some monkeys we came from behind? Wow, explain that shite.
I'm agnostic. I actually have no feeling one way or the other about Jesus. It's an interesting fairytale I suppose. Has no real evidence to back any of it up.
Uh, carbon dating is not under question in the least and nothing has been discovered that lends credit to the Bible (yes, some incidents in the Bible did occur, but the same could be said of plenty of other books. That doesn't make any of them historically accurate.)
Obviously you have no clue how evolution works. Evolution DOES NOT SAY WE CAME FROM MONKEYS. It says we share a common ancestor. AN ANCESTOR THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.
Read up and study these things befor posting please. I don't have the time to explain these easy concepts to less intelligent people.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:32 am to MullenBoys
quote:
I don't and never will share my personal story but I know what happened to me can't be explained. I try to think rational about things but I realized I was trying to deny something that no one there could explain. I'm not saying you are a bad person, but I think the way you go out of your way to bash God , well, this is not the place.
If it's not the place to bash him (even though that's never been the point) then it's not the place to talk about him and praise him either.
I'm sure you have some "Jesus saved me" story. Most Christians do. The thing is, everyone goes through some tough times. I've had plenty of them in my life and I came out of them just fine. Every religion has people in it who have the same story you do who exclaim how their "god saved them". All of the religions can't be right.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:41 am to Don Johnson
Betting that the cult really misses him.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:58 am to PanhandleDawg
And now this thread has devolved into the fundies denying evolution.
You want to know how Freeze got away with so much for so long? Look at this base. They're fricking retarded.
You want to know how Freeze got away with so much for so long? Look at this base. They're fricking retarded.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:06 am to tim85
quote:Couldn't have said it better.
He's a serial manipulator.
He's one of those fools who is so successful at deluding others because he himself, is deluded.
He believes his own shtick.
Psychologically, seems like it's probably self-defense to prevent him from having to really personally own up to just how screwed up of a person he is.
It is sad and pathetic, and until he realizes he's sad and pathetic – he'll always be a fool.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:07 am to ghost2most
quote:
And now this thread has devolved into the fundies denying evolution.
And they always come in with the same old "I didn't come from no damn monkey". As if that's even remotely what evolution says.
No, they just spout back whatever garbage their pulpit poopster has screamed at them on Sunday morning.
I'm not saying that all Christians are stupid or bad people or anything like that. I know many of them who are great people and highly intelligent. Most of the ones I know and hang around all believe in evolution. They just believe that evolution was the means in which he created us (no one can dispute that claim).
Even the Catholic Church has stated that evolution does not go against the Bible. I don't understand why so many fundamentalist have such a problem with it. I guess they feel it's some sort of slight towards them.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:09 am to ghost2most
Precisely
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:10 am to BoarEd
quote:
It's like people around here are absolutely clueless. About a lot of shite
Pretty sure this is tRant's motto.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:10 am to Don Johnson
quote:
“Oh, gosh, yeah,’’ Freeze said in a Gomer Pile voice.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:12 am to ghost2most
quote:
God's just testing him!
Well he IS being tested. Fate? GOD? Karma?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:15 am to matthew25
quote:
So you admit you are an athiest? I will pray for you.
No I'm not an atheist. I used to consider myself one when I was younger. I came to my senses.
But what is up with this post? Are you a bigot?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:24 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
If you can offer any sources from persons with expertise in Biblical studies that support your claim of "careful editing," I'd be interested in seeing them.
I could show you how the Bible is still being edited to this very day, but I am not really interested.
Not only is the Bible still being edited, but it is edited for freakin political reasons.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:25 am to BoarEd
quote:
I could show you how the Bible is still being edited to this very day, but I am not really interested.
Not only is the Bible still being edited, but it is edited for freakin political reasons.
How is the King James Bible, or heck, the NASB, being edited? Are they changing words in new printings?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:30 am to SSpaniel
Well, I was thinking of how the law in the book of Exodus was changed in like 1971 to reflect the changing view on abortion in America.
Give me a second and I'll dig it up.
ETA: Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
1977, not 1971.
Anyways, the revised version reads slightly different, but the difference is significant. Now if you read it the text has been changed to read instead of "have a miscarriage", it reads, "to give birth prematurely."
Anyways, this is the latest in a long series of edits to the book going back to Nicea.
Give me a second and I'll dig it up.
ETA: Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
1977, not 1971.
Anyways, the revised version reads slightly different, but the difference is significant. Now if you read it the text has been changed to read instead of "have a miscarriage", it reads, "to give birth prematurely."
Anyways, this is the latest in a long series of edits to the book going back to Nicea.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 9:36 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:33 am to BoarEd
quote:
Well, I was thinking of how the law in the book of Exodus was changed in like 1971 to reflect the changing view on abortion in America.
Give me a second and I'll dig it up.
Waiting on this one. I have a Puritan bible from the 1700s on my desk and a newer ESV bible ready to compare.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:44 am to BoarEd
That is about as bogus a reply as I have seen. There are multiple translations of the texts from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, but that is different from editing, actually changing the source texts. There is constant research into updating our knowledge regarding the ancient texts, and if that is editing, so be it, but you imply that there ar significant variations in the texts that are in used as the sources of modern translations, or that there ar significant variations in the translations, and that simply isn't so. Various translations do show slight differences in the translators' understanding of the text and show the challenge of translation generally, but your assertions are pretty far fetched. Some translations have, depending on the theological disposition of the translators, taken a bit of liberty from more literal translations, but there is little to no fundamental variation in the translations that would alter basic understandings of the meanings of the source texts, and especially as they effect doctrinal teachings of the church. I have looked at and used a variety of translations, including in some in French as well as English. There are no significant differences that would alter any teaching commonly accepted in Christian denominations. Even English translations of Old Testatment texts by Jewish translators show little significant difference from translations by Christian scholars.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News