search results matching tag: 1885
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
- 1
Videos (6) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (3) | Comments (13) |
- 1
Videos (6) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (3) | Comments (13) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election
No they didn't. Almost everything you have said here is wrong. For instance, the earliest version of the New Testament that could be considered "canonized" consisted of ten of pauls epistles and a version of the gospel of Luke. It was only around 200 AD that the 27 books of the NT were decided to be the likely candidates for being wholly inspired works, which became agreed upon by the whole church by the middle of the 3rd century. There were 3 other books which were included in 397 as reading material, but they were not thought to be inspired. The catholic church included 11 more books in the 1500s, but no one else considered them inspired, including the jewish people who wrote them. They were finally taken out of bibles around the end of the 1800s, as you said.
These uninspired works were known as the apocrypha, and none of them ever belonged there in the first place. The fact is, the bible today matches what the early church had decided upon as inspired as early as 200 AD. Which brings us to the mormons, who claim that they have a special revelation from Jesus Christ, that He came and visted America and the indians, etc. The problem is, not excepting that there is no evidence for the claims it makes, or any precedent or prophecy that predicts it, that the claims of the book of mormon fundementally alters the truth of the gospels. It preaches a much different Jesus, as does Islam. Paul said this:
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Both the mormons and the muslims received their revelations from angels. Scripture also says this:
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Scripture rejects it, and that is why they are considered a cult and not Christian.
>> ^joedirt:
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website.
from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it. You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT. So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.
Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country though religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should eb a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website. from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it!! You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.
Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country thought religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should be a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
The point is that, contrary to what the video suggests, the word Christian comes from the 1st century, and has historically been the word followers of Jesus Christ use to refer to themselves. A christian is simply someone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior:
christian - Χριστιανός (Christianós)
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
The Jews rejected Jesus because they were looking for a war Messiah who would install them as rulers of the world. Jesus came as the suffering Messiah who would die for the sins of the world as predicted in Isaiah:
53:4-6
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
As noted in the OT, the jews were constantly under punishment because they ignored the direct commands of God, and constantly persecuted and murdered the prophets God sent to them. In this case, it was no different.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
Show me what you're referring to, specifically.
>> ^joedirt:
You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?
1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election
You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?
1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)
They were just as often called Nazarenes.
Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.
Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
Alan Turing - My Favourite Scientist
Touched.. by tragedy?
What, a fucking, understatement. Given a choice between imprisonment or hormonal treatment? As if they can.. cure the gay away. Touched by tragedy doesn't even begin to describe the kind of stupidity exhibited in this case, by society, no less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Conviction_for_indecency
Today is "Back to the Future" (Cinema Talk Post)
They were pretty consistent with how they jumped through time in the films. The jumps were from 1985 to 1955 to 1985 to 2015 to 1985 to 1955 to 1885 and finally back to 1985. There was nary a trip to 2010. Don't be so gullible.
NV Woman Sentenced to Life for Asking Minor for Sex
You know why the lawyer is crying; because the judge doesn't give a shit. The whole tone of that court is bullshit.
Now I'm going to use ad homimen against the quoted person below. Do you dislike the constitution; your comment would seem to put you in that category. This case is clear cut, the Judicial Branch in Nevada does not have the power to call that law what it is; bullshit. The balance of powers is not working, and it is clear in the judge’s tone of voice; "I wash my hands of this."
Read the 8th amendment.
Somehow I get the feeling that you would think the ultimatum imposed on Alan Turing was correct and immaculately moral. Read the following excerpt from Wikipedia. Turing’s ultimatum was chemical castration or imprisonment. Bear it in mind that this is the same era where Oppenheimer was persecuted for, what some would say, the same carelessness as Turing.
Your way of thinking is outdated, outmaneuvered and better suited for the middle ages; also misogyny doesn't suit you.
>> ^fjules:
She got sentenced for life because she refused to have her name on the sex offenders list. Basically, it's her own fault.
"wtf with the crying lawyer?"
Good reason why women can't be lawyers.
gorillaman (Member Profile)
Yeah, the 'personhood' model and the cognitive machine model are each useful levels of detail for the same thing... the best one to use probably depends on what your application is.
I don't blame people, though, for holding views that I think have big costs for society... I think we're all in the same trap of limited human intelligence - them more so than us - and people will change their minds in the end.
Also, the libertarian in me says that society's lack of intelligence only has a cost on us if we let it (to some degree). Turing, for example, as much as I personally admire him for his genius, chose to take certain risks, and he lost the bet.
IMHO, it's reasonable to say a rationalist in his position wouldn't have been so careless with sexuality. I think we're often more empowered and capable of proactive behavior than we think we are, and viewing ourselves as victims is generally not necessary.
In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
You're better informed on the technology so I'm not going to argue your projections, but I wouldn't and haven't bet on them. It's funny, a basic assumption I've made in directing my life is that with a good diet and exercise, risk management and so on I'd make it to around 100, half that if I want to enjoy myself. If I thought I had a good chance (>50%) of surviving to the next millennium, say, that would drastically change almost every dimension of my life. So to that extent I sympathise with your attitude.
I disagree that calling a human a person is less valid than your input-output cognitive machine, which I absolutely accept to be an accurate description, itself no less valid than as a bundle of quarks and electrons, acting on even more fundamental mechanisms. One emerges from the next emerges from the next. Possessing a de facto consciousness I'm not too concerned with whether or why it really exists; illusory or real one seems to function as well as the other. So it's on that principle I interact with what I blindly assume are other similar minds.
In reply to this comment by chilaxe
Phelps Westboro Cult turns against Mexicans
*sigh* You'd think the lower and middle-class WASP's would have changed by now. (And I am one; a WASP, not a racist, mind you)
Hmm, let's see...
1830-1850: Huge immigration of Western Europe to the US. Irish, Italian, etc. #1 complaints? Lack of assimilation to the "American ideal" and: http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs
1885-1895: Another huge immigration...this time Eastern Europe. Poles, Jews, Eastern Bloc countries. #1 complaints? Lack of assimilation to the "American ideal" and: http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs
Since 1900, immigration from every country in the world, more from Asia and Latin America now. And guess what? We still have the "American" ideal and we still have jobs. Unemployment is about the same rate and so is crime. Nothings changed.
Oh, except we now have cool shows like South Park... http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs
Christian Fundamentalist Pop: "God Hates Fags"
Their website is full of half truths. But nothing annoyed me more then this bullshit...:
"Suffering is one very long moment. We cannot divide it by seasons. We can only record its moods, and chronicle their return. With us time itself does not progress. It revolves. It seems to circle round one centre of pain."
--Oscar Wilde (reformed homosexual)"
Oscar Wilde was never a reformed homosexual.
He himself reffered to his sexuality as Socratic. Wilde and some within his upper-class social group also began to speak about homosexual law reform, and their commitment to "The Cause" was formalised by the founding of a highly secretive organisation called the Order of Chaeronea, of which Wilde was a member.
Wilde was arrested on April 6, 1895 at the Cadogan Hotel, London, and charged with "committing acts of gross indecency with other male persons" under Section 11 of the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Despite pleas by friends to flee the country, Wilde chose to stay and martyr himself for his cause.
Prison was unkind to Wilde's health and after he was released on May 19, 1897 he spent his last three years penniless, in self-imposed exile from society and artistic circles. He went under the assumed name of Sebastian Melmoth, after the famously "penetrated" Saint Sebastian, and has since become a gay icon.
Nevertheless, Wilde lost no time in returning to his previous pleasures. According to Douglas, Ross "dragged [him] back to homosexual practices" during the summer of 1897, which they spent together in Berneval. After his release, he also wrote the famous poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol. Wilde spent his last years in the Hôtel d'Alsace, now known as L'Hôtel, in Paris, where he was notorious and uninhibited about enjoying the pleasures he had been denied in England. Again according to Douglas, "he was hand in glove with all the little boys on the Boulevard. He never attempted to conceal it." In a letter to Ross, Wilde laments, "Today I bade good-bye, with tears and one kiss, to the beautiful Greek boy. . . he is the nicest boy you ever introduced to me." Just a month before his death he is quoted as saying, "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or other of us has got to go."
Doesn't the Bible say "Thou Shalt Not LIE"? God hates liars too...
expensive ipod domino run
dupe: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=1885 found by searching for ipod
iPodinos
Dupe, http://videosift.com/story.php?id=1885 - Coincidentally we named it the same way, only I opted for an e as in Ipodinoes
Tekserve Ad with over $60,000 in iPods
Dupe, http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=1885