Young Followers of Christ? (page 7)

NewChapter

lol... there's that reading comprehension thing maybe?

LOL--maybe on your part, yes? She excused despicable behavior by proclaiming Lot's virgin daughters, skanks. LOL So silly.

NewChapter

LOL, Tec will defend any behavior on the part of certain people, yes? LOL

tec

No... she was making a point about critical thinking. And none of the other stuff that you guys are having a field day with ;)

Peace,

tammy

She was making many points, and none of them were critical thinking. I was encouraging critical thinking by suggesting that they take that story apart and think about what it really means. She said that Lot's daughters were skanks. LOL Gee, why would she say that? LOL Not as part of her point, no?

AGuest

Okay, I MUST respond to this:

I suggest you look up "Pax Romana" on wikipedia. It is not a great reference but it is free and easily available.

I suggest YOU look it up. Wait, here, let me help you:

"Judaea too was annexed as a province in 6 AD. After the death of King Herod in 4 BC, the kingdom was divided among his sons, but this proved an inadequate form of government to Rome. Replaced by a Praefect, direct Roman rule was anything but representative of the 'Pax Romana'. Throughout its early occupation, Jewish natives resisted fervently. Though during Augustus reign, this resistance was minimal, over the course of the next century Judaea was anything but peaceful. The religious emergence of the Christian cult would eventually shake the very fabric of the Roman social system, but helped create its own problems with the Jewish hierarchy early in Tiberius' reign. Later, massive revolts evolved into a major war under the Flavian emperors (Vespasian and Titus) before Judaea was finally pacified in the 60's AD. http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/pax-romana.php

How about this:

Pax Romana is Latin for 'Roman Peace'. From 27 BC to 180 AD, the Roman Empire enjoyed peace and prosperity, as well as good rulers, for the most part. Starting with reign of the first emperor, Augustus in 27 BC, the doors to the temple of Janus were closed for only the 3rd time in Rome's history. (The doors would only be closed in times of peace.) Starting in 96 AD, the Roman empire was ruled by the Five Good Emperors, who were chosen for talent rather than family connections. This ended when the last good Emperor Marcus Aurelius had his son Commodus succeed him. In truth, for most of Marcus Aurelius' reign he was involved in warfare on the frontiers of the Empire, so some would say the Pax Romana ended when war with Parthia broke out in 162 AD. The Pax Romana was not a constant time of peace, only that no major external wars existed. For instance all 3 Jewish revolts and the eventual diaspora of the Jews took place during the 'peace' of the Pax Romana. http://www.conservapedia.com/Pax_Romana

Now, I realize we're discussing the NEED for swords. I asserted that they were needed due to the presence of robbers and highwaymen. YOU asserted that no such thing because the Pax Romana policed the roads. Because you have let us know that you only accept validation of such things by tenured professors and such, I refer you to the following... and its bibliography:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/36.3WelchLegal-f353d200-ae1f-4c27-b145-01054e27daaa.pdf

Hopefully, Josephus will be "tenured" enough for you.

Shelby, you have to start learning some facts.

Oooh, in light of the whole sword discussion... you did NOT go there, girl. I mean, seriously... you did NOT go there. Wait, no, yeah... y'did. You shouldn't have and you're gonna regret that statement (like you did about the Jews not having/needing/knowing how to use swords) once YOU read up on things. Start with that BYU paper, girl. That one's REALLY enlightening.

Does everyone just want to keep writing these posts and contributing to these idiotic threads?

Ummmm... you seem to.

We, the members with sober sanity, who are deliberately provoked by Shelby,

Yeah, this: deliberately provoked by Shelby. I don't know WHAT kind of drugs you're on... but you might need to take a break. Because I didn't provoke a single soul. I posted a thread and YOU brought YOUR butt over here... and YOU posted a provocative comment. A couple/few actually. And now, because you can't hang... because you're NOT as smart as you think you are... you want to throw out a comment like that. Seriously?

should refuse to add fuel to the fire.

FINALLY. Some TRUTH! YOU came to MY thread. OPENED it. READ it. And COMMENTED. Yes, YOU are adding the fuel. YOU.

She is an attention whore.

Ooh, more insults. Do you really think putting the word "attention" before "whore" makes it less insulting? Do you REALLY believe that folks here don't KNOW you mean it to be insulting? Are you REALLY that dense... or drugged??

Cut off the attention and she might turn out to have rational thought someplace in her head.

Stay off my threads and you wouldn't know one way or the other.

She is either ill or just nasty.

Wait... did YOU just call ME ill? YOU??? Go back and read your first comment. And your second. And third... and then come back and tell us who's nasty.

What are we by adding to the situation. I believe we are better and should hold ourselves to higher standard.

YOU wouldn't know a higher standard if you could find it in a pill bottle. Wait, maybe that's the only way you COULD know it...

We could agree to not respond to her taunts (and there is no doubt that they are taunts.) by a certain date.

Heck, no need to "calendar" it. You truly just shove off right now. My feelings won't be hurt, not at all!

There is a gross entertainment value. Do we feel that we are superior by answering her drivel? I feel degraded.

And yet, here you are. Why are you blaming me for YOUR lack of self-control?

She will never change.

Highly unlikely, yes. But I have no need. I certainly would never change for YOU, for any of you usual suspects. I mean... seriously? Do you SERIOUSLY think you mean anything to me such that I would change for YOU? You might need a new 'script, girl, because you are TRULY hallucinating.

Yes, there is the argument that newcomers will read her threads and believe her thoughts and attitude are the apostate answer.

Band, compared to how long I've been here... YOU and several of the other ususal suspects ARE newcomers. And guess what? YOU read my threads. Every ONE of you. What in the WORLD makes you think, you who are oh so intelligent... that if YOU read them... others WON'T... DON'T? Do you NOT see the absolutely ridiculousness and MADNESS of what you folks THINK? You are afraid others might/read my posts - YOU read them! How can you try and control what others read... when you can't even control what YOU read??

I don't think she posts for her admirers, her possee. She can not live without our contempt and the games we play with her.

Well, you're right... you're wrong... and you're right: You are rightin that I don't post for my "admirers." I have no admirers; I do have people... MANY people... who genuinely love me, though, and I them. I can see where that might stick in your craw. You are also right in that I don't post for my posse - because I don't HAVE a posse. You are wrong that I can't live without your contempt - I absolutely can and wish you would keep it to yourself... because it's quite ugly... and makes YOU "look" ugly. And not very bright. You are also right... in that you folks have contempt for me. I have said that before and I am OVERJOYED that one of you had the cahones... the HONESTY... to finally admit that. As well as that you all play games.

And that's the difference between me and "you" - I DON'T have contempt for you, I have pity... GREAT pity... and I don't play games with you. I am probably as "real" as most of you have... and ever will... come across in your sad, tiny, unhappy LITTLE (very) lives.

Pls consider withdrawing your support.

Hey, I have a GREAT idea: YOU should show them the way. Lead them, girl. Please. I mean, I know you're itching for some followers. This is the PERFECT opportunity! Go on... start a "Please don't post on AGuest's threads... indeed, don't even open them... or respond to her posts... ever" movement! You will have my TOTAL support! Indeed, I'll join first, just so you can say you have a member. Do it! Take the lead!

I will strive to start threads about rational things. My passions are many.

By all means, please do! But please don't take it personally when I don't comment on them, K? I mean, it isn't that I don't like you or anything. Well... okay, since I must tell the truth... not that I don't like you... a lot.

These discussions are garbage, IMO.

Yet, here you are... big and bold as...

I deserve better.

Apparently, you don't think so. Actually, I think this is the best you can get.

This forum deserves better.

I don't think that's your decision, actually. I mean, it can be your opinion... but you're only one voice here, girl. And not even a very loud or influential one.

Please... start your "Leave AGuest and Her Threads/Posts Alone" Movement. I'm begging you. I dare you.

A slave of Christ,

SA

AGuest

If you could stop, then you wouldn't keep writing about how you should all stop. Again, and again, and again.

Okaaaaay??? I mean, I almost spewed my Crystal Light all over my keyboard, dear tec (peace to you, luv!), the truth in that statement was SO... sublime.

Peace... and more of such wisdom, girl! 'Cause lawd KNOWS there's some mighty intelligent folk up in here who don't see to be very intelligent. Give 'em little of yours, please? Thanks, much!

A slave of Christ,

SA

tec

You were both encouraging critical thinking. You were both encouraging others to go and investigate for themselves. She even said there was no conflict in what you were each doing and suggesting... in applying critical thinking to investigate and search for the truth of a matter, yourself. The only difference is many (including you) don't think that SHE is encouraging such, and perhaps you have not done so as well as you think that you have.

Peace,

tammy

NewChapter

LOL. Lot is no better than other men. No, he wasn't. He was waaayyyyy worse than most men, but righteous in his god's eyes! Even after he offered his virgin daughters to the crowd. Why, he was still righteous after he impregnated his skanky daughters, because their sons were offered a land inheritence. All his wife did was look over her shoulder. Such a wonderful god. How wonderful it is to see people defending these things. Makes me scared to sleeep at night. LOL

AGuest

Do you suppose that Noah and the chosen few could hear the babies screaming in terror useless cries for help?

No, for several reasons (again, peace to you, dear NC!): they were inside the Ark when the heavy rain came; there were many animals on the ark... and animals can be noisy; it was pretty heavy rain at some point and rain can drown out sound; and... well, it wasn't fire.

Do you suppose they could see as newborns were ripped from mother's arms in waves of water?

Nope. Doors where closed.

Do you think they would have said, "How merciful! What a loving god!"

I think Noah said that for many... many... many... years prior to. And people responded with "Screw [your] God!" So...

I think that after years and years of beseeching, begging, crying, and praying... dear Noah was all cried out over these people by the time the water started rising...

I'm sure you would,

You would be wrong: I would have made my peace with by the time the door was shut.

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA

Band on the Run

Did she justify pedophelia b/c the daughters were skanks. Based on what?

It is a criminal act in most countries. Rape. Rape of children. The agreed rape of children. Lot would be every bit as guilty as the perps.

It just gets lower and lower.

I truly believe we are saying things just to be outrageous. No one could actually feel that way -- not a woman.

Perhaps a gang member imprisoned with other rapists could find it acceptable.

Young Followers of Christ?

Share this