100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If this does not scare you nothing will | |
|---|---|
|
|
 YR you're more like    bite me hoochie winner  beats being the runner up  making ya the hoochie weiner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YR you're more like bite me hoochie winner beats being the runner up making ya the hoochie weiner I'm a wanna be hoochie...thank you very much..you are my hero now stop getting me in trouble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry.. if you don't like people practicing christianity, move to saudi or France.. they're perfectly happy to restrict your freedom of religion there.. Just responding to above quote - what makes this a solution??? When all else fails, tell them to leave. I could careless whether a person wants to pray to God, Allah, or the Jolly Green Giant? I'm not telling her to leave.. just pointing out the alternatives and the places that enact the kinds of policies that achieve what ends she seeks here. Geez read much into that tiny word, FROM? I have no problem with what someone believes, how they practice those beliefs in the privacy of their own homes or churches or private schools. Frankly I am too old to give a crap about changing anything. I won't be the one that has to deal with religion expanding it's influence in government or in public places. But I will make remarks any time fundamentalists try to step over the line into my life. It's not a tiny word at all.. else you wouldn't have capitalized it. you know exactly the implication made by and the distinction between freedom of and freedom from. In some islamic countries, they have freedom from christianity being practiced in their presence. The price? authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism what you seek? That's what it means to tell people that they only have their religious freedoms within the confines of the walls of their own homes.. I am absolutely clear about one thing and that is that you have no clue who I am or what I think. You take any mention of anything against religion personally and way too far in my case. I do not see authoritarian anything. I simply do not want the religious right controlling my life in any way at all. OK let's expand that, you can pray where ever you like as long as it does not infringe on me. But not in private schools. I don't care if you say merry Christmas either, in fact I still say it now and then, habit... MY concern is too much influence in government which would then dictate how I live. That's all. But if you prefer to make it a bigger deal than that be my guest. Oh and I am perfectly happy where I am thank you. Yes I have an attitude when it comes to religion and what it has done over time to divide people. I do not have a problem with whatever anyone chooses to believe as long as keep it to themselves for the most part when it comes to government. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Fri 10/09/09 03:00 PM
|
|
But not in private schools. ?????? why not? private schools are just that: private. they can make up any rules they like. If you don't like the way they run their school, don't send your kid there, whether it's about prayer or what they serve in the cafeteria. if you don't like it, don't send your money and your kid there. it's really that simple. no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok - so let's analyze this. Below is information directly from the website and my comments (of course) C o m e ooonn have some fun - cos that's all this is worth, a little fun.
Possible Approaches Here are possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation: •identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes * identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as "gambling", and identify where they should be used •identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation •identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as "word" in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as "truth" An existing translation might license its version for improvement by the above approaches, much as several modern translations today are built on prior translations. Alternatively, a more ambitious approach would be to start anew from the best available ancient transcripts. In stage one, the translation could focus on word improvement and thereby be described as a "conservative word-for-word" translation. If greater freedom in interpretation is then desired, then a "conservative thought-for-thought" version could be generated as a second stage. Building on the King James Version In the United States and much of the world, the immensely popular and respected King James Version (KJV) is freely available and in the public domain. It could be used as the baseline for developing a conservative translation without requiring a license or any fees. Where the KJV is known to be deficient due to discovery of more authentic sources, exceptions can be made that use either more modern public domain translations as a baseline, or by using the original Greek or Hebrew. There are 66 books in the KJV, comprised of 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses, and 788,280 words.[6] The project could begin with translation of the New Testament, which is only 27 books, 260 chapters, 7,957 verses, and less than 200,000 words. Retranslation at rate of 20 verses a day would complete the entire New Testament in about a year. With 5 good retranslators, that would be an average of only 4 verses a day per translator. At a faster rate of 20 verses per day by 5 good translators, the entire New Testament could be retranslated in less than 3 months. Ok so let’s see – obviously they are not concerned about ACCURATELY translating the most ancient scriptures (utilizing the most highly educated minds) with great attention paid to cutting edge historical, linquistic, and social knowledge. BUT, they are concerned that their version can be completely OWNED and licensed by “??? The owners of Wikiopecia?) or whatever they choose to license it under. MMM – sounds more like a capitalist venture to me. First Example - Liberal Falsehood The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7] Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible. Ok- so “if thine eye offends thee, cut it out”. So just start chopping out all he parts of the Bible that make it a contradictory book. How to know which passage is the LITERAL and correct translation of whatever scripture it was derived from is not a question they will ask, but simply (does this fit with a consistent representation of the 10 Commandments as we would interpret them?conservatively, of course) OY VEY! The 21st century New Counsel of Trent (NCT) has convened. Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait. The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible. So about this quote.. “master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” Obviously it is TOO liberal an idea to consider that perhaps Jesus was using a form of social psychology – appealing to the ‘better’ nature of a person by recognizing the value of a person. Certainly being a “resourceful” person is a virtue and often times people do wrong because they feel undervalued or unappreciated. Perhaps “The Master” (Jesus) forgot to explain this to whoever was going to pass on the story, of course a there may have been a lack of time to explain social psychology. So we can't fault Jesus, can we? At any rate – it might be wise to simply rearrange the story to make more sense - I mean why should anyone have to waste time pondering the philosophical questions that biblical parables might raise. But wait – is not the purpose of a parable similar to a song – finding the greatest appreciation through thoughtful and personal interpretation? Perhaps those on the NCT don’t want biblical constituents to think at all! Third Example - Socialism Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians. For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times. Oh of course, it’s not about what original scripture actually says at all, but rather what it is supposed to say. It is merely corrections of errors that … wait a minute who made these errors, they should be looked up, and excommunicated and sent directly to hell – forget the last judgement – those people messed with the Bible—everyone knows you can’t do that!! Of course it’s proper to make changes to repair damage that has been done as long you are not updating a currently licensed version – keeping them for future comparison may be necessary if the “Final Judgment” requires some justification of your corrective measures.!!! About that justification: As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines: 1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias 2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity We all understand the importance of promoting the full domination of masculinity within scripture. This is a concept that permeated throughout Judeo-Christian history. God is masculine, Jesus was masculine, Adam was first..ect..therefore masculine takes precedent in the primal order of things and Men must be reinstated to their previously held seat of power over all the Earth (under Adam, Jesus, and God-of course). Men rule best when women and children are under them. OK – maybe God and Jesus would have a short pow-wow over that and concede this point. NEXT 3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3] You know—if God and Jesus approve the Wikipedia dictionary for this use, I’m going to bring suit against all my professors for disallowing the use of Wiki as a reference source. 4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". This one is good – a built in excuse for never having to memorize any biblical text because you may be called a “LIBERAL” if you are not using the currently updated CONSERVATIVE biblical translation. OOOO – I can see dollar signs (Purchase the new ipod autoupdate version of the Conservapedia. Always have the most current “powerful conservative” terms as you argue scripture with your liberal atheist and agnostic friends? Fellows? Volunteers? Ummm well whoever you would argue with. Never be accused of being a liberal again…Conservapedia, purchase it NOW. 5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census Yes by all means do not mince words when it comes to addictions – for goodness sakes who decided to have wine at communion – what were they thinking? (oops that was Jesus’ fault wasn’t it? I think they should leave this one alone. 7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning Now this one is quite confusing because in reality all the ideology which free market is built upon is from the enlightenment movement and those who forwarded these notions as well as the notions of liberty and constitutional monarchies were called liberals. Oh well – when you own Wiki, I guess you can make history say whatever you want it to - so in the future, I may be wrong (according to Wiki) I’m leaving 6, and 8 thru 10 to your own imagination – I’ve had enough fun. Now I have to find some “credible” sources for my homework answers. 6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. 8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story 9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels 10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." Who knows maybe Conserapedia will become a sort of "solution" through in the "solvents" (all biblical versions) and watch them all disolve. poof! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok - so let's analyze this. Below is information directly from the website and my comments (of course) C o m e ooonn have some fun - cos that's all this is worth, a little fun.................... Interesting isn't it?  Just makes me crazy, it's getting harder and harder to keep up with the loons.
|
|
|
|
|
