Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Larrchild]

Well all the pre's suggested and also yours are all fine choices. So now, armed with the sharpened tools of your craft, it is now all up to you to be great. Godspeed.

[intervalkid]

Thank you!

[neve1073]

Intervalkid, face it: it may not have been a very divinely inspired idea on your part to post a question (about building a DAW project studio) on a forum run by someone who is reknowned for his dislike of digital recording, etc.

[intervalkid]

Never said it was   , I just was looking for advice on the pres.  I wish I could grab me a nice console and 16 track 2" 3M recorder (and a baddass room!     )!


I looked up the Colin Powell "Pottery Barn memo" and found nothing about Shi'ites, or uprising in particular. Just
"You're sure?" Mr. Powell is quoted as asking Mr. Bush in the Oval Office on Jan. 13, 2003, as the president told him he had made the decision to go forward. "You understand the consequences," he is said to have stated in a half-question. "You know you're going to be owning this place?" You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it."

and statements alluding to it in recent news such as

"Apparently not."

Donald Rumsfeld, with what sounds to me like a hint of resignation, says that "the time has come for ordinary Iraqis to realize that they — not the Americans — will ultimately decide who prevails in this conflict."

and

"In my discussions with them in recent weeks, several have brought up Colin Powell's absurd argument about the Pottery Barn rule: if you break it, you own it. Well, yes, we broke Iraq, but we don't own it.In my discussions with them in recent weeks, several have brought up Colin Powell's absurd argument about the Pottery Barn rule: if you break it, you own it. Well, yes, we broke Iraq, but we don't own it."

These apparently attribute recent occurences as a testament to the falsehood of his statement rather than a backing of it.

I have no opinion on his statement one way or the other.

Anyway, thanks for the positivity and consideration (rather than blatent ridicule) of my witness.

Peace

[Andy Peters]

intervalkid wrote on Sat, 28 October 2006 22:15

The Shi'its are having an uprising just as God told me they would 2 years ago (the week Sadaam was captured)  I posted it on the 10Wise/Myspace Blog entitled "Uprising +" wit another Prophecy He gave me.

G-d gave you a prophecy when Saddam was captured stating that basically Iraq would degenerate into sectarian civil war?

Funny: the experts who study and understand the Middle East (in other words, NOT the fucktards actually running the war) were saying that in 2002, before we invaded Iraq.  Did G-d appear before them and give them the same prophecy?

And even better: back in 1991, the decision to NOT march to Baghdad and topple Saddam was made because it was understood that it'd be the start of a long occupation, fraught with sectarian violence.  Did G-d appear before G. H. W. Bush and tell him what to do?

And how does this all square with Dubya saying that G-d tells him what to do?  Does G-d have two faces?

And this same G-d is telling the Shi'ites to kill the Sunnis, and the Sunnis to kill the Shi'ites, and both of them to kill the Kurds, and the Americans, and ...

The contradictions are innumerable.

Next thing, you'll tell me that G-d favored the Cardinals over the Tigers.  (Or my Mets.)

Quote:

So take your hypocritical accusational judgements and attitude and actually study the Bible for once in prayer and consistency forsaking man made dogma.

Funny, the bible was written by men.  Men with an agenda.  Hence, the Apocrypha and the various other books deleted from the canon.

Face it, in some hopefully not-to-distant future, humans will look at the stories of the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, Mohammed and Dubya in the same way we look at the stories of the ancient Roman and Greek and Incan and Mayan gods -- as myths.

After all, who could possibly believe that a G-d who allegedly loves all of his children equally could command them to fight each other to the death?

The contradictions abound.

-a

[wwittman]

apparently the contractions also abound.

what POSSIBLE reason is there, other than blind superstition, to type "g_d" instead of 'god?'

[intervalkid]

That is an excellent and hilarious point wwitman!  

God said the Shi'ites would have an uprising.  Not that the Sunni's (who had been consistently rebelling) and Shi'ite government would have scurmishes.  Not that there would be sectarian violence. A full scale uprising.
Who predicted that the Shi'ites would take over a city?  Noone was saying anything about non-governmental Shi'ites doing anything against the US until they did.  That is, except God to me, and me to anybody I could tell (as far as I know, maybe He told others).  Just wait.  You'll see.  
I know it's God, there is no doubt about it.  

[George_]

now we found out, that you took too much LSD some years ago and the speed you take these days maybe isnt of the same quality as years before.

stop taking drugs mr

oh yeah, and you should buy 2 germaniums from fletcher (www.mercenary.com).

cheers kurt cocaine

[intervalkid]

Oh yeah and as far as the Bible is concerned you are misinformed about "men with an agenda".  It was translated by men with an agenda and dogma, sure.  The original authors of the Greek and Hebrew all, except for a few of the Old Testament, died in horrible and torturous ways for the Word that they preached and wrote, because they loved the Truth.  The original Hebrew text was copied with such exacting detail that the Jewish scribes are still renowned as having the strictest standards of all scripters.  The Hebrew was translated into Greek by these same scribes.  Note that, though the accuracy of the Jewish scribes copying is undisputed, they were also known for erroneous and self serving interpretations (much like many modern preachers). The original Greek documents still exist, it is called the Septuagent.  Also the New Testament was written in Greek and also still exists and have been dated (depending on the book) anywhere from 40 AD-80 AD.  The idea that Christ died on 1 AD was postulated by one of the popes and is not accurate.  It has been found to be more like 30 AD.   The original scriptures of the New Testament, as well as old have many other historical documents that validify their authenticity and timeline.  Such as Christ being crucified during the reign of Augustus, by Pontius Pilot. The books of the New Testament were all written by direct disciples of Christ or those who knew direct disciples intimately.  They are perhaps the most validated documents in history.  
Yet if someone wrote a book about Hitler or Ghandi now, through researching, not knowing the men or even being intimate with people who do, would you question its acurracy as critically as you do the Holy Bible?
The problem is mainly with preachers who have been taught authoritarianism which has stretched down from the siezure of the Church by Rome around 200 AD.  This authoritarianism leads to many false interpretations and contradictory dogma as well as absolutely anti-Biblical practices in many cases.
Even though the translations are somewhat flawed and slanted at times, if you get a Strong's Bible dictionary, you can clear up alot of the mess if you really get into the meat of it.  Even without a Strong's if you really think, compare and contrast scriptures and your own experiences with veracity, the apparent contradictions actually function as checks and balances leading to a deeper knowledge of the Truth.  The Bible doesn't spoon feed you like many philosophies or religions. It gives you guidelines and markers, examples and characters, personalities and relationships of vast differences, but with the same underlying message of Integrity, the Love of Truth, plain Reason, and Devotion to the Eternal and Loving God.
God wants you to think and to understand from the inside.  

The exclusion of alot of the apocrypha is warranted because they have little or no concurrent validation and contradict plain statements made in absolutely authentic scripture.
I'm sure the Vatican may have more scripture stored up that hasn't been released, but the Bible as is more than sufficient.  Of course it takes a little faith.
Have you even read it?  Don't let hypocrites dilineate your perception or opinion of things.  This leads to a missing out of those things most excellent.

[neve1073]

HOLY SH_T WHO CARES LAME

[Larrchild]

You don't care a damn thing about Pre_mps.

[JGreenslade]

Just so you know: I pray to Joe Pesci.

Joe can get things done...


Justin

[Fibes]

I prefer the Bible in its original language, not the King James version.

King James was a murderous vile man with a HUGE agenda, so, if that's what you are reading you are as wrong about "no agenda" as you are about Marklar.

[intervalkid]

Said the original language was best.  Said also translators had agendas, authors did not.  
I'm done.

[intervalkid]

Wait a minute.  Who is Marklar?