Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler - Page 47

notofworks · #**461** 07-01-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

LOL - - so you copy and posted something that you didn't even read? Wow.

Oh, and no one is riled up either.

I think we're trying to have a serious grown-up conversation here.

That's what I was trying to do and he went 2-year-old on us. My PM to you would show that I wanted to take him seriously.

Standards · #**462** 07-01-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks

Very strange. I guess this is why a lot of people here think you are a joke.

I do say somethings to get people riled up. I enjoy it. However, I think if you were to meet me one on one, you would find me to be a pleasant and knowledgeable person.

notofworks · #**463** 07-01-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standards

Well, if it makes any difference, I actually do believe that women shouldn't wear pants. While I can defend what I believe, I don't have the time or the energy right now.

••Horsefeathers.

Maybe later.

••Double Horsefeathers.

I just googled it and thought it would be funny to post the article.

••Triple Horsefeathers with a side of hogwash.

Jeffrey, you're right about the alibi.

notofworks · #**464** 07-01-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standards

I was actually wondering how long it would take you guys to figure it out. If I really wanted to fool you into thinking that I am a Bible wizard, I would've come up with something better than Google. Please.

Now you're just being pathetic. I'm done. I really thought you could legitimately back up your content, but you're just another pile of hooey. Adios.

notofworks · #**465** 07-01-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

LOL you love that animation don't you!

YES I DO!!!!! And I hate "Shouting". I think that's why I like this go so much. I watch his feet and just die laughing.

notofworks · #**466** 07-01-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standards

I do say somethings to get people riled up. I enjoy it. However, I think if you were to meet me one on one, you would find me to be a pleasant and knowledgeable person.

There's not "riled up" going on. You posted something some read it, I scanned it, and you mock us for reading it. That's just stupid and doesn't belong here.

MissBrattified · #**467** 07-01-2010, 02:34 PM

Standards...as much as I would like to report NOW for calling you a pile of hooey

, I have to agree that you're sounding pretty ridiculous at this point.

You didn't post a link; you posted the body of text in your post, with the appearance that you were the author. So obviously people are going to read it, and respond as if you were the author!!!

Bottom line, if it's not your material, credit the source. Making fun of people for reading something you posted is just...weird.

rgcraig · #**468** 07-01-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Standards...as much as I would like to report NOW for calling you a pile of hooey

, I have to agree that you're sounding pretty ridiculous at this point.

You didn't post a link; you posted the body of text in your post, with the appearance that you were the author. So obviously people are going to read it, and respond as if you were the author!!!

Bottom line, if it's not your material, credit the source. Making fun of people for reading something you posted is just...weird.

I think he wasn't thinking it all out - he just hurriedly found something that was supporting his interpretation and then when asked to cite the link made it sound like he was just trying to be funny.

There's nothing funny or wrong with posting someone else's work - but, it does need to be cited.

*AQuietPlace* · #**469** 07-01-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standards

Look, I understand that we must study the Word. Duh...I get that. I just think we get in trouble when we take obvious passages, like 1 Cor. 11, and just because we don't like the message, we examine the context, history, Greek, exc. Studying is one thing, but just trying to disprove something just because you don't like it, is really something else.

In my opinion, the message is that women should wear a head-covering while praying or prophesying. Yet, in our culture we think that's a little odd, so we say "culture!!!!" when interpreting THAT part of the passage.

I think when you focus on 'uncut' that you're doing exactly what you've just accused others of doing. You don't like "headcovering" so you make the passage's main focus 'hair'. When it's not. It's headcovering (a cultural thing of that time) and submission.

rgcraig · #**470** 07-01-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

In my opinion, the message is that women should wear a head-covering while praying or prophesying. Yet, in our culture we think that's a little odd, so we say "culture!!!!" when interpreting THAT part of the passage.

I think when you focus on 'uncut' that you're doing exactly what you've just accused others of doing. You don't like "headcovering" so you make the passage's main focus 'hair'. When it's not. It's headcovering (a cultural thing of that time) and submission.

Stop it - you are making too much sense!