A Patriot Secret Service Guy Speech
-
Do you have ANY contribution of merit to make on the SUBJECT of the THREAD ?
Ever ????
-
Cal, do you believe everything in the Bible actually happened?
If the answer is yes I don't think we really need to take anything Cal says seriously...
Though, its not like anyone is now haha
Cal, do you believe everything in the Bible actually happened?
If the answer is yes I don't think we really need to take anything Cal says seriously...
Though, its not like anyone is now haha
Why is this important? Because he corrected an inaccurate take on the story of David & Goliath by using THE ONLY source on the subject?
Regardless of if the David and Goliath story is true, Cysko the Sage can't even accurately recount the events.
Edit: I've found the explanation. Wikipedia calls David "the champion of Israel" (which he was AFTER he became king - and well after the context and events of the D&G story).
So yeah... Wikipedia, folks.
-
Its important in the sense it gauges how seriously you should take someone's opinion, IMO
-
Its important in the sense it gauges how seriously you should take someone's opinion, IMO
Its important in the sense it gauges how seriously you should take someone's opinion, IMO
Yet you favor one who incorrectly* uses Wikipedia as a source, vs another poster who uses the Bible?
Care to have a guess at where Wiki & the Bible rank of the hierarchy of credible sources?
Are you aware of where this will get you in your graduate studies (or even undergraduate)?
*Skimmed the first 2 sentences instead of at least reading the entire article.
-
Its important in the sense it gauges how seriously you should take someone's opinion, IMO
Yet you favor one who incorrectly* uses Wikipedia as a source, vs another poster who uses the Bible?
Care to have a guess at where Wiki & the Bible rank of the hierarchy of credible sources?
Are you aware of where this will get you in your graduate studies (or even undergraduate)?
*Skimmed the first 2 sentences instead of at least reading the entire article.
Yet you favor one who incorrectly* uses Wikipedia as a source, vs another poster who uses the Bible?
Care to have a guess at where Wiki & the Bible rank of the hierarchy of credible sources?
Are you aware of where this will get you in your graduate studies (or even undergraduate)?
*Skimmed the first 2 sentences instead of at least reading the entire article.
Yeah I'm not worried about my graduate or undergraduate studies...
I also don't believe I took a side
I'd also use Wikipedia as a source over the Bible... unless I am referencing something that was said in the Bible.
A wikipedia article and the bible have probably both been edited the same amount of times lol
-
Yet you favor one who incorrectly* uses Wikipedia as a source, vs another poster who uses the Bible?
Care to have a guess at where Wiki & the Bible rank of the hierarchy of credible sources?
Are you aware of where this will get you in your graduate studies (or even undergraduate)?
*Skimmed the first 2 sentences instead of at least reading the entire article.
Yeah I'm not worried about my graduate or undergraduate studies...
I also don't believe I took a side
I'd also use Wikipedia as a source over the Bible... unless I am referencing something that was said in the Bible.
A wikipedia article and the bible have probably both been edited the same amount of times lol
. unless I am referencing something that was said in the Bible.
Yea That was the point I was making.
A wikipedia article and the bible have probably both been edited the same amount of times lol
This is likely.
-
OK cool then.
Everything is settled.
Good day sir
-
Cal, do you believe everything in the Bible actually happened?
If the answer is yes I don't think we really need to take anything Cal says seriously...
Though, its not like anyone is now haha
Why is this important? Because he corrected an inaccurate take on the story of David & Goliath by using THE ONLY source on the subject?
Regardless of if the David and Goliath story is true, Cysko the Sage can't even accurately recount the events.
Edit: I've found the explanation. Wikipedia calls David "the champion of Israel" (which he was AFTER he became king - and well after the context and events of the D&G story).
So yeah... Wikipedia, folks.
Why is this important? Because he corrected an inaccurate take on the story of David & Goliath by using THE ONLY source on the subject?
Regardless of if the David and Goliath story is true, Cysko the Sage can't even accurately recount the events.
Edit: I've found the explanation. Wikipedia calls David "the champion of Israel" (which he was AFTER he became king - and well after the context and events of the D&G story).
So yeah... Wikipedia, folks.
For what its worth I used only my memory of the recounting of events nobody can prove actually took place.
-
The Philistines were ready to go to war vs the Israelites. You see, Cysko Nabisco, the Israelites were trying to avoid
battle with them - and Goliath tried to goad them into a one on one battle to decide the outcome of the battle between their respective
peoples. But Saul was afraid, and none of the Israelites wanted battle, and wanted no part of facing Goliath either.
But obviously, the Philistines were going to battle them regardless, and in all arrogance, Goliath was mocking them by
daring them to put up one volunteer to face him to decide the winner of the inevitable battle.
So, David accepted the challenge, and defended his people from certain devastation.
That is self-defense of the Israelites people. He protected them from losing the war.
Goliath and the Philistines were clearly the aggressors - the challenge came from them.
And, David not only saved his people, his brothers, but saved himself.
Yep. You libs resort to quibbling over the definition of what "is" is to save face, when nothin else works.
Try genuinely addressing the content next time.
The Philistines were ready to go to war vs the Israelites. You see, Cysko Nabisco, the Israelites were trying to avoid
battle with them - and Goliath tried to goad them into a one on one battle to decide the outcome of the battle between their respective
peoples. But Saul was afraid, and none of the Israelites wanted battle, and wanted no part of facing Goliath either.
But obviously, the Philistines were going to battle them regardless, and in all arrogance, Goliath was mocking them by
daring them to put up one volunteer to face him to decide the winner of the inevitable battle.
So, David accepted the challenge, and defended his people from certain devastation.
That is self-defense of the Israelites people. He protected them from losing the war.
Goliath and the Philistines were clearly the aggressors - the challenge came from them.
And, David not only saved his people, his brothers, but saved himself.
Yep. You libs resort to quibbling over the definition of what "is" is to save face, when nothin else works.
Try genuinely addressing the content next time.
Once again...no actual self defense there. Accepting a challenge isn't the same...come on now...really, its ridiculous.
-
No, he accepted the challenge in lieu of he and his people being destroyed by the larger army.
That is survival. David accepted the challenge to save his people, and himself from the
all out battle that was going to take place.
That is self defense. Survival. You're being like heckbunker now - quibbling over the definition of words to suit your claim.
-
No, he accepted the challenge in lieu of he and his people being destroyed by the larger army.
That is survival. David accepted the challenge to save his people, and himself from the
all out battle that was going to take place.
That is self defense. Survival. You're being like heckbunker now - quibbling over the definition of words to suit your claim.
No, he accepted the challenge in lieu of he and his people being destroyed by the larger army.
That is survival. David accepted the challenge to save his people, and himself from the
all out battle that was going to take place.
That is self defense. Survival. You're being like heckbunker now - quibbling over the definition of words to suit your claim.
Perhaps you're right about that. I like a good arguement but arguing definitions isn't fitting into my time budget.
-
Meanwhile, in Colorado.....
they are going after the common shotguns used all over the country.
Of course they are.
The vague term "assault weapon" is just a cover for ALL guns.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could-be-banned-under-proposed-bill/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login