Warbler

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.

But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.

So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.

If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.

 
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.

Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.

Not the point. Cite your own sources. The fact that this is an informal, non-scientific, non-academic setting is irrelevant to the importance of proving you’re not making things up in a persuasive argument.

I have nothing to prove. If you smell bullshit, do your own research.

Usually, When someone makes a claim, I see nothing wrong with someone else asking for evidence that the claim is true(unless we are talking about claiming something extremely obvious like 1 + 1 equaling 2). If you don’t wish to provide it, okay, but be surprised if people don’t accept your claim as the gospel truth. Just saying.

dahmage said:

And here we are again with the ‘Trump is just like everybody else’

Please don’t take my posts that way, because I don’t believe Trump is like everybody else. Not everybody else talks with pride about “grabbing women by the p____”.

Jay said:

The debate is whether Trump’s so-called “zero tolerance” policy is resulting in significantly more detentions/separations than previous administrations. Regardless of whether that’s true or not, kids in cages are nothing new and shouldn’t simply be laid at the feet of the current administration.

certainly photos of kids in cages taken in 2014 shouldn’t be laid at the feet of the current administration.

Jay said:

These policies were in effect under Obama’s administration when Clinton was SOS. The first picture of kids in cages shared on social media that got Democrats all fired up was from an article written in 2014, but it was implied by those passing it around that it was taken recently. In fact, many of them were taken back then. There was also a picture of a kid crying in a cage that turned out to be part of a recent protest.

It always annoys when people falsify info regarding evidence, thus trying to make the evidence say what it does not. Say what you want about Trump and his immigration policy, but don’t pass off a photo of kids and cages and falsely claim it is recent when it is not and don’t pass off a kid crying as part of a protest as one of the actual kids that was separated from his/her parents.

Funny how these things don’t seem to matter until the other side is in charge and they can be used as political fuel. Regardless of how you feel about our immigration laws and their application by the current administration, the intellectual dishonesty of the left is rampant.

I am forced to agree, the left has been dishonest in many cases(of course the right is far from innocent in that regard). I could be wrong, but I think what has developed is an idea that it is okay to bend the truth and lie and falsify stuff and make stuff up as long as it forwards the cause that “we know we are on the right side of”.

Both parties have passed the hot potato on this issue for decades and acting like Sessions is a monster because he’s applying the same rules as previous administrations is disingenuous.

perhaps. But am not expert on what the law current says in regards to handling those that cross the border illegally.

My guess is there will be some civilian deaths due to a drone strike at some point and we’ll be debating the morality of “Trump’s drone program”.

possible.

I want it to be clear that I am not saying any of this in order to defend Trump. I am saying it in order defend honesty, the truth, and facts.

Protestant Christianity, United Methodist, to be precise.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

The fact that the new testament in the specific catholic Bible is hilarious.

Huh? Perhaps you are leaving a word out or something?

Definitely. Don’t care enough to fix it though.

Well since you don’t care to fix it, I won’t be able to understand what you intended to say there.

They made their own new Bible and had the perfect opportunity to excuse their own policies and didn’t even take it.

Again, they didn’t make the Bible. Also I think they believe that their policies don’t violate the Bible.

Then they are wrong.

Feel free to discuss that will RicOlie_2.

dahmage said:

http://www.newsweek.com/philadelphia-mayor-trump-egomaniac-eagles-959311

Philly mayor has some words for Trump after the whole ‘you can’t come to the whitehouse anymore, superbowl champs’ fiasco.

Trump can go fuck himself.

Fox can also go fuck themselves for showing pics of some of the Eagles players kneeling in prayer and trying to pass it off as them knelling during the anthem.

Possessed said:

The fact that the new testament in the specific catholic Bible is hilarious.

Huh? Perhaps you are leaving a word out or something?

They made their own new Bible and had the perfect opportunity to excuse their own policies and didn’t even take it.

Again, they didn’t make the Bible. Also I think they believe that their policies don’t violate the Bible. You should ask RicOlie_2 for more specifics.

moviefreakedmind said:

If Catholicism didn’t recognize the New Testament books that contradict its practices then I wouldn’t hold it against it as much.

The New Testament in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles is the same.

Possessed said:

That may be true but it doesn’t make any sense. Why would a Christian religion care that much about more books of the old testament? That’s Judaism. Yes Christians look to the old testament for stories and morality (well some of it anyway… Some of the old testament is quite disgusting morally. Lots of rape and brutality.) but it’s specific teachings are not Christian.

Nonetheless it is part of the Christian Bible. Christ is Jewish, so were the original 12 disciples. The God in the Old Testament is the same one that is Christ’s father. Hence why the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible.

So why would they modify their Bible for it? Isn’t what’s already in the old testament out of the box without getting dlcs for it?

dlcs?

Anyway, they didn’t “modify” their Bible for it. There were two versions of the Old Testament, the one in Greek with the extra books and the one in Hebrew without the extra books. The Catholic church chose the version with the extra books and the Protestant Church chose the one without the extra books and put the extra books in their own section call “The Apocrypha books”, which is usually no longer printed in Protestant Bibles.

chyron8472 said:

One might as well complain that the real John Adams didn’t actually have a telepathic connection to his wife as portrayed in the film/play 1776…

True, Adams didn’t telepathically connect to his wife, but the close relationship shown between them is accurate and the conversations in those scenes is said to be based on letters they sent each during the time period.

or complain that the actual Declaration of Independence shouldn’t be depicted as physically signed, pen to paper, by all the delegates on July 4th, since the reality is that it actually wasn’t.

True, I think Adams complained about a painting done years later depicting all the delegates together signing the Declaration.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.

Possessed said:

Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.

You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.

Of course that’s not the official reason the catholic Bible was made. Are you suggesting the scriptures that warn against celibacy and strictly forbid calling a man heavenly father and warn against restricting diet for certain times didn’t count or what?

No, Not what I was saying.

There’s also the matter of the Bible quite clearly saying each individual congregation should be it’s own governing body and not answer to another higher church or church figure other than God himself. That had to go, amirite?

That is not what I was talking about either.

(And yes, I am.

Yes you are what?

Catholics don’t read the Bible very much for the most part in my experience. Once upon a time they were actually discouraged from reading it. I wonder why…)

It may be true that many Catholics don’t read the Bible very much for the most part and once upon a time they were actually discouraged from reading(and also discouraged from translating into their native languages, it was thought it the Bible should only be in Latin)

No, what I was talking about was how it came to be that there are books found in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Protestant Bible. I do not believe that a bunch of Catholics got together and said “lets us make a bunch of fake Bible books and add them to our Bible so that the Bible will more closely fit how the Catholic Church currently is”

I am not an expert, but if I am not mistaken it essentially has to do with there being manuscripts of the Old Testament(Jewish Bible) in the original Hebrew and manuscripts of the Old Testament(Jewish Bible) translated into Greek. It is believed that there was an ancient translation of the Old testament(Jewish Bible) made, it is referred to as the Septuagint. The extra books are found in the Septuagint, but not in the manuscripts that are in the original Hebrew. That Catholic Bible uses the Septuagint as its basis and the Protestant Bible uses the manuscripts in the original Hebrew.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.

Possessed said:

Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.

You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.

He’s right, though. Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, and Mormonism are essentially three different religions. Honestly, Islam has more in common with biblical Christianity than Mormonism does. They’re three very different ideologies.

There are differences between the three, but there is much in common. But that is not what I was talking about.

I could make a huge list of all the biblical verses and things that the Catholic church violates, but since no one will be interested by that I won’t waste my time.

You and Ricolie_2 and go back and forth if you wish on how much that Catholic does or not does not violate verses in the Bible. I wasn’t talking about that either.

And what history of Catholicism are you so familiar with that makes you more of an authority than he is?

I am not an expert by any means on the history of Catholicism.

What was talking about was how it came to be that there were books in the Catholic version of the Bible that are not in the Protestant version of the Bible. I am pretty those extra books didn’t get added in for the sole purpose of making the Bible fit more with the way the Catholic Church is today or the way it was at the time the Catholic Bible was made the official Bible of the Catholic Church.

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Religion/id/13159/page/115#1217827

From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.

Possessed said:

Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.

You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.

May I suggest that this discussion be taken to a more appropriate thread? (and yes, I know I am responsible for starting in this thread. Sorry)

I didn’t say I was surprised.

It makes me sad that the two of you feel this way.

moviefreakedmind said:

I was hoping it’d be a 0-0 tie where both teams lost.

That is impossible in the Super Bowl. They play until there is a winner.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1007459803407568898

Now that is a ring 😃

Warbler said:

• Egbert   829 - 839
• AEthelwulf   839 - 858
• AEthelbald   January 13, 858 - December 20, 860
• AEthelberht   860 - 865
• AEthelred   865 - 871
• Alfred The Great   April 23, 871 - October 26, 899
• Edward the Elder   October 26, 899 - July 17, 924
• AElfweard Of Wessex   (perhaps)July 17, 924 - August 2, 924
• AEthelstan   924 - October 27, 939
• Edmund I   October 27, 939 - May 26, 946
• Eadred   May 26, 946 - November 23, 955
• Eadwig   November 23, 955 - October 1, 959
• Edgar The Peaceful   October 1, 959 - July 8, 975
• Edward The Martyr   July 8, 975 - March 18, 978
• AEthelred The Unready   March 18, 978 - 1013
• Sweyn Forkbeard   1013 - 1014
• AEthelred The Unready  1014 - April 23, 1016
• Edmund Ironside(Edmund II)   April 23, 1016 - November 30, 1016
• Cnut The Great   1016 - 1035
• Harold Harefoot   November 12, 1035 - March 17, 1040
• Harthacnut   March 17, 1040 - June 8, 1042
• Edward The Confessor   June 8, 1042 - January 5, 1066
• Harold Godwinson   January 5, 1066 - October 14, 1066
• Edgar The AEtheling(Edgar II)   October 15, 1066 - December 10, 1066
• William The Conqueror   December 25, 1066 - September 9, 1087
• William II  September 9, 1087 - August 2, 1100
• Henry I   August 2, 1100 - December 1, 1135
• Stephen   December 22, 1135 - April 1141
• Matilda   April 7, 1141 - November 1, 1141
• Stephen   November 1141 - October 25, 1154
• Henry II   October 25, 1154 - July 6, 1189
• Richard I   July 6, 1189 - April 6, 1199
• John   April 6, 1199 - October 19, 1216
• Henry III   October 19, 1216 - November 16, 1272
• Edward I   November 16, 1272 - July 7, 1307
• Edward II   July 7, 1307 - January 25, 1327
• Edward III   February 1, 1327 - June 21, 1377
• Richard II   June 21, 1377 - September 30, 1399
• Henry IV   September 30, 1399 - March 20, 1413
• Henry V   March 21, 1413 - August 31, 1422
• Henry VI   August 31, 1422 - March 4, 1461
• Edward IV   March 4, 1461 - October 3, 1470
• Henry VI   October 30, 1470 - April 11, 1471
• Edward IV   April 11, 1471 - April 9, 1483
• Edward V   April 9, 1483 - June 26, 1483
• Richard III   June 26, 1483 - August 22, 1485
• Henry VII   August 22 1485 - April 21, 1509
• Henry VIII   April 21, 1509 - January 28, 1547
• Edward VI   January 28, 1547 - July 6, 1553
• Lady Jane Grey   July 10, 1553 - July 19, 1553
• Mary I   July 19, 1553 - November 17, 1558
• Elizabeth I   November 17, 1558 - March 24, 1603
• James I   March 24, 1603 - March 27, 1625
• Charles I   March 27, 1625 - January 30, 1649
• English Council Of State   February 14, 1649 - April 30, 1653
• Oliver Cromwell(Lord Protector)   December 25, 1653 - September 3, 1658
• Richard Cromwell   September 3, 1658 - May 25, 1659
• English Council Of State   May 25, 1659 - May 28, 1660
• Charles II   May 29, 1660 - February 6, 1685
• James II   February 6, 1685 - December 11, 1688
• William III and Mary II   February 13 1689 - December 28, 1694
• William III   December 28, 1694 - March 8, 1702
• Anne   March 8,  1702 - August 1, 1714
• George I   August 1, 1714 - June 11, 1727(os) June 22, 1727(ns) (switched to new style dates)
• George II   June 22, 1727 - October 25, 1760
• George III   October 25, 1760 - January 29, 1820
• George IV   January 29, 1820 - June 26, 1830
• William IV   June 26, 1830 - June 20, 1837
• Victoria   June 20, 1837 - January 22, 1901
• Edward VII   January 22, 1901 - May 6, 1910
• George V   May 6, 1910 - January 20, 1936
• Edward VIII   January 20, 1936 - December 11, 1936
• George VI   December 11, 1936 - February 6, 1952
• Elizabeth II   February 6, 1952 - present
• Prince Charles
• Prince William
• Prince George
• ? . . .

TV’s Frink said:

You are completely wrong.

Alright then. I made a mistake. Sorry. I will say no more about it.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Okay, I’ve decided to return and see how things go.

HI RicOlie_2!

btw, did you see moviefreakedmind’s new avatar? What do you think of it?

Hi!

I saw his avatar, but wasn’t really sure what it was till now. Actually, I’m still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be depicting.

It is a pic of Sinead O Connor when she tore apart the pic of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Possessed said:

Two posts in and you’re already complaining about frink, a joke he made months ago no less. I knew something was missing about this place!

I would have complained much sooner about that post of his if I hadn’t decided to leave for awhile. Nonetheless, I felt it needed to be addressed.