AlexCrowley

If the date thing is part of your research you may also want to consider the following calendars: Tibetan, Islam, ISO, Unix time, Hindi. There really is no reason why BC/AD is most popular other than there were a lot of christian countries at the time we standardized in the west. The chinese calendar is most popular and far older. So it's kinda tough to see what your point about using the christian calendar as proof of anything. On the subject of bibles. Can anyone suggest a more precise translation of the earliest source materials? I know that Genesis was recently reworked and proved to be interesting. I guess my thought is that God would be smart enough for his message to survive multiple copies and translations. IMHO he managed exactly that. Jesus message doesnt get much simpler, we just chose to complicated it and add a bunch of filler around it. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Some high school students are capable of critical, independent thought. Others are not. The same goes for advanced degree holders. Of course, but I should have been more clear: I feel that discussing a topic that requires a deep knowledge of - and deep understanding of - a scientific topic requires a solid background in said topic. Quoting Google is great, but without context to back it up it is still simply parroting someone elses thoughts and not being able to defend that position. I think that was my original point, my apologies for not making it clearer. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/ Links to KJV and Strongs concordance plus a bunch of other cool stuff. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I think for the most part that people dont' want intelligent debate. It's far easier to create a partisan issue and let people have knee jerk emotional reactions to an oversimplified statement. TV doesnt seem to enjoy being subtle. It's about getting eyeballs, having two guys scream at each other is better television than 4 guys sitting around a table talking endlessly. How can you know who the bad guy is if no one is shouting? Who's the good guy if a subject is complex enough that there are more than 2 valid points of view? How is it compelling TV for the channel surfer if it takes more than 10 seconds to summarize the debate, or boiled down into a pithy text crawl to be displayed under the current speaker? TV producers are gutless, it's audience fickle. PBS isnt so beholding to it's sponsors, and it enjoys its brand mystique of being for the educated middle-class, which is why you'll find better quality news programming on it. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

GM you're shifting your original statement here. It's ok to say 'ok, I was generalizing, but my point is blahblahblah'. Instead we're going down this rather silly road about what getting drunk off your ass is all about. Take a frat house full of college kids, add beer. Then we'll do a 'who's drunk survey' Hell, take my entire adolesence and we'll play the drunk survey and the answer is: EVERYONE (except the designated driver, the girl who's tired of getting hit on and the kid tripping on acid in the corner). I base this from 3 years working in a nightclub that drew 2000 kids every thursday for the 1UK beer. The original statement was nothing about 'having to get shitfaced' it was about getting shitfaced Yes binge drinking is an issue, but the same can be said of experimentation with drugs (illegal and legal), a lot do it, some become addicted and there are a few casualties. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Actually I'd love to read that! So, this book is using KJV as the primary source and refutes modern versions? How did your father, and now yourself, deal with words that are famously mistranslated? The most common I can think of would be the use of the word witch rather than poisoner "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Knowing that the compilers of the KJV used every available source, including other contemparary english translations, plus the earliest versions of the bible availabe in a somewhat hotchpotch manner (as admitted by the gentlemen involved in the task of translation), and I say the following with the greatest respect and no sarcasm, but you see the KJV of the bible as God's method of editing and revising his original? This is a sticky place to be simply because we're back into mental mapping and linguistics as a way to describe reality. For example, as I said previously, there are two main greek roots for the english translation of faith (the bible uses 7 different greek words for the english faith - check out Strongs Greek). While both greek words are similar, both have different meanings, but both translate to the english word Faith - yet different contexts, which are lost on paper and subtly alter the intent of the passage, in fact I have direct experience of a sermon using one of these passages and taking it slightly out of context. The sermon was fine, yet the message warped because of this error. A simple example would be when we see languages where certain phonics do not exist in another language., illustrated by Germans substituting V for W, or japanese L for R. As I've said, it puzzles me that there is a certain sect of christianity that needs the KJV to be the absolute word of God, the same way it puzzles me that some churches only consider The Bible to be the only christian holy scripture. But then I never can understand the 'God doesnt talk to people directly anymore' christians either (simply put, my personal philosophy is 'if your deity can't speak to you directly he's probably dead'). But I'm getting off topic. Again, I ask everything above in a sincere desire to share information and learn, as I do not consider myself an expert on scripture, not to be sarcastic or insult anyones beliefs. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Chuteless, I would very much like to hear about it. I studied to be a priest for 2 years, so feel I have a little understanding of the source material. I don't feel I have an axe to grind with any church or religion and the subject is still one that I have an interest in. I'd also be interested in your thoughts regarding the initial compilation of the Bible, your feelings on the timeline of its creation, the eventual inclusion of Acts and the somewhat controversial inclusion of Revelations some 200 years later. In addition, you've said you consider the KJV the absolute word of god (at least, you said that jokingly at first and then said you do believe that), given that going through Strongs resources it is apparent that the translations created some oversimplifications within the texts (usage of the word 'Faith' has always troubled me and actually led me to researching with Strongs). Also, the history of the KJV translation was a bit of a mish mash, and does include errors, non-believers had a hand in it's translation and disagreements were resolved by committee. Other than a 'the miracle of God', could you talk a little about how this fits in with your belief that the KJV is the definitive version? Thanks. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Um, no, your point was 'People don't drink to get shitfaced drunk unless they are already in the early stages of alcohol dependency.' which is obviously false. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

As a newbie, and a sicko, I think there's a place for the game. As a pro-wrestler with a moderate amount of history I'll also mention that people at rasslin schools have a similar version of the game, except in rasslin you tend to hurt others more often than yourself (which is why we encourage those sorts of people to learn high flying flips and somersaults ) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

From the "God is dead(Rant): "What I truly cannot fathom is that both believer and non-believer seem to insist in the integrity of the Bible. For the xtians it must be ABSOLUTELY FACTUALLY TRUE. For the non-believers any contradiction, regardless of triviality, makes the entire book null and void. Given the history of the KJV transaltion, the political history of the religion, the way the current selection of biblical books were chosen, I do not believe that a work that size is going to remain internally consistent at all times, but neither do I believe that it needs to be so. The catholic church knows that there is more to the Christian canon than the small fraction available within the Bible itself. Like most religions and cults - the Bible is the book for the uneducated and the neophyte, gaining wisdom within the discipline and attaining higher rank gets access to more of that religions mysteries. I really believe this is where the protestants got screwed out of a lot of knowledge and understanding, by rejecting catholicism they rejected a very large part of available christian wisdom and placed far too much emphasis on a book that is really just a primer and introduction to a much greater mystery. (disclaimer: I am not a christian) BTW the apologists 'answers to contradictions in the bible' are bogus, and I would be more than happy to debate each point when I have the time. As I said, I dont feel apologies are necessary anymore than I believe in a need for a 'perfect' bible. Start with Strong's Greek and Strongs Hebrew bible dictionaries and move forward:) In addition: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html is a great article I've cited previously. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I think it's not broad enough in scope. Ideas and the need to be correct, and an incomprehension that others are capable of equally valid thought are the cause of all our problems. SC is a perfect example of a human's need to have their opinion be correct. Now grow them into giant robots and give them cool weapons and you could have a decent anime. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Maybe you forgot being a teenager, but I certainly wasnt doing it for the taste back then It might surprise you to know that most teens weren't drinking to get shitfced drunk. So whats your point? Only that people do drink to get drunk, especially teens. This is born out by binge drinking statistics in both the US and UK, where alcohol is prohibited until you reach 21 or 18 respectively. European countries that do not have a similar age restriction have a exponentially reduced occurence of teen alcohol binging. So my point was refuting your statement about alcohol dependency by using a small subset of the population. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/purgatory.htm I thought this was pretty interesting. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). People with a real understanding of the field can argue intelligently and use knowledge rather than facts learnt by rote - personally I find that sort of conversation more interesting. Most of the discussions in SC tend towards philosophical debates, I dont feel that this one is and, personally, that means it has a different requirement with regards to information. No matter how much people will want to make it about ideology its about hard data. Yes, there are some people on both sides in this thread that obviously have a solid understanding, but they are in a minority. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Maybe you forgot being a teenager, but I certainly wasnt doing it for the taste back then TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Im sorry, this heroin is making me wicked paranoid ;)[/reply Sorry typo. This heron is making me wicked paranoid, he keeps looking at me and never blinks. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Im sorry, this heroin is making me wicked paranoid ;) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I didnt think I was taking it seriously. I forget that unless I go: people think I'm being serious. And yeah, i'll pay attention when the PhDs are on the thread because evolutionary theory and creationism are best discussed by people who have a background in it, as evidenced by the amount of disinformation already in the thread. But now I'm heading into a serious conversation again, which I've successfully avoided all day. I'll be posting my seminar on swooping if anyone needs me. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

What scares me is that as a low number jumper my attempts at authoratatively talking about skydiving would be met with scepticism, if not outright ridicule. Yet Im going to listen to people with college level biology try to defend creationism and evolutionary theory? I recall the Kuro5hin article dealing rationally with both sides of the argument from people who have a solid background in the subject. The ability to Google does not make one an expert in a subject. The article cited in favor of ID is one that can be found as the primary defence of ID across the internet, it has also been thoroughly debunked across the web. I'll be giving sitfly classes under 'Safety and Training' if anyone wants me. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Oh no it isnt. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Ohhhh that's ok then. Sorry, nothing more to see here. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Using logic I learned on SC I feel the need to argue this point. What are you talking about? I exist in the air but notice when it's windy!!! TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

The ability to google something doesn't mean it's real. I can google werewolves, jackalopes, and how to put the foil on my head so the space rays don't read my brain. Huh, if you really used Google you'd know that there are vendors who can build a spaceray blocking helmet for you for as little as $129.99. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Yeah no shit. Maybe someone could explain why a Jewish conspiracy poster gets banned yet the Islamic conspiracy posters are acceptable? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I think that's a built in human drive to be correct and to own stuff. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.