" I know the answer." So you don't really know? Okay... "I would love to be your judge." Matthew 7:2-5 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
maybe because no one knows what jesus might have said if anything. nothing he might have said was written down in his generation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiUCN_e2dgY&feature=channel_page Bible scholar Bart Ehrman on his book "Misquoting Jesus". Cynthia talks with author Bart Ehrman about his latest book, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," an exploration of how scribes changed the bible.
Christians think they know what Jesus said. So why do they ignore what they believe he said? When you were a Christian, did you do what Jesus said, and if not, why not?
There is real life, then there are the ET message boards, then there are the convicts and blithering idiots who confuse the two...
Come to think of it, I was wrong about what I said earlier. Since I'm forced to conclude that you kind of <i>enjoy</i> being the ET town leper, it follows that you actually <i>get off</i> on taking abuse from random people on the internet... which means that you're doing unto others as you wish done to yourself after all.
Load of crap. From Wikipedia ... "... The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of differences are due to the mistakes of scribes;[8] these have little or no effect on the meaning of the passages or core tenets of Christian dogma. Ehrman argues however that some changes could not have been mistakes, but were purposeful alterations by early church writers to support their interpretation of Christianity. Two key examples illustrate the critical nature of the variations. Two of the most striking additions occur in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, and in 1 John. Ehrman points out that the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts,[8] an omission which is noted in the New International Version (a translation used by many Evangelicals),[9] and argues that these verses were added on to the original text many years later.[8] In the King James Version of the First Epistle of John there is a passage often taken as an explicit reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. Ehrman points out that this section does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 9th century.[8]" Ok, so 12 verses of Mark and a passage in 1 Jn. A really lame attempt at changing the Bible. The NT is the most accurate Greek text in existence, by virtue of the sheer number of manuscripts extant. This doesn't address the accuracy of the quotes, since they were written down some time after the events (about 30 years or more). I read once about the earliest (earliest being how long after the events or author does the manuscript occur) classic Greek text vs the earliest Greek NT manuscript. I think the earliest classic Greek manuscript occurred about 300 years after authorship (Illiad ?). The earliest NT manuscript about 30 years after the events. The very fact of some differences in the versions attests to their veracity, just as the testimony of different eye witnesses don't normally agree on all points. Texts that agree on all points would allude to a conspiracy. Texts that differ in some (or even many) aspects would allude to eye witness accounts (i.e so and so remembers such and such, etc ...)
Abuse? Golly gee willikers, do people actually need to run away from ET town for a few weeks and concoct some fantasy story just to cope with the digital ideas on a computer monitor, i.e. opinions of strangers on a message board? There is real life, then there are the ET message boards, then there are the convicts and blithering idiots who confuse the two... "Forced to conclude"... now there is some powerlessness for ya..."Forced to conclude"...LOL!!! I bet that was some horrific struggle you waged against a superior force which rendered you so powerless as to be forced to conclude...Too funny... Anyway, probably not sufficient powerlessness to willingly enter into a 12 step recovery program for junkies...but perhaps it is a start of something bigger... As far as your active imaginary world being used for coping with opinions of strangers, well, the idea of "ET town"...now there goes that imagination again on another bender...classic. Below is a certain someone leaving the "ET town" to find refuge from the opinions of strangers on a message board for a few weeks to try to salvage some busted self esteem after the "ET town" voted by a majority percentage in a poll that indeed, "RM is full of shit. Another useles (sic) junkie trying to justify his habit." Let's see, who was right about that one? The fella who said he had found a bupish cure, or those who said the fella was just a junkie...I guess this post answers that question: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...0&highlight=rearden metal junkie&pagenumber=1 Now if the "ET town" polls had any value beyond representing "ET town" opinion what would that mean? Nothing at all of course, unless they were true, you know...the kind of truth that a person has to run and hide from for weeks...until they come up with some lie to tell themselves and others to make the bupe boo easier to deny inside...or perhaps the time away was going back to the smack...who knows? <img src=http://dailybiz.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/the-scream.jpg> http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...87&highlight=rearden+metal+junkie#post1543287