SoyBooru
not realistic they would had a mask with a ":3" on it to cover xer face
@LETS_BEHEAD_OURSELVE: yeah its to cover xheir man jaw
@LETS_BEHEAD_OURSELVE: yeah its to cover xheir man jaw
Someone's gonna get beet!
Cum Jar Material
@Chud: olgol log in
@Chud: kiss yourself. Behead yourself. Roundhouse kick yourself into the concrete. Slam dunk yourself into the trashcan. Crucify yourself. Defecate in your food. Launch yourself into the sun. Stir fry yourself in a wok. Toss yourself into an active volcano. Urinate into your gas tank. Judo throw yourself into a wood chipper. Twist your head off. Report yourself to the IRS. Karate chop yourself in half. Curb stomp yourself. Trap yourself in quicksand. Crush yourself in the trash compactor. Liquefy yourself in a vat of acid. Eat yourself. Dissect yourself. Exterminate yourself in the gas chamber. Stomp your skull with steel toed boots. Cremate yourself in the oven. Lobotomize yourself. Mandatory abortions for yourself. Grind yourself in the garbage disposal. Drown yourself in fried chicken grease. Vaporize yourself with a ray gun. Kick yourself down the stairs. Feed yourself to alligators. Slice yourself with a katana.
@XC: we transheart alex dashin
Disgusting
showing 10 of 12 comments
have you made your contribution to brimstone winter yet rot
unfunny videos for ugly people
tonyplays
funny videos for beautiful people
showing 10 of 11 comments
we all do this
Just like muh shonenslop
Only the amerimutts appearance is accurate in this image
two gemmy beasts fighting
showing 10 of 432 comments
@korg:
Let's define corruption first. The corruption of a text means the alteration of its original form in terms of meaning, not form. Because languages obviously evolve, words disappear and others are added, so I am not taking into account changes to the Bible in terms of form, as that would be dishonest and foolish because the Arabic language has also changed over the last 1,400 years. And yes, this also applies to Homer, Aristotle, Josephus, etc. When it comes to their writings, we literally talk about corruption, interpolation, and reconstruction, historians all agree on this. But all these major figures of ancient literature do not claim to be transmitting a text from God to humanity.
Plurality and transparency are findings of modern research, not ancient guarantees. The existence of several traditions proves that there was no single controlled text, as is the case with the Quran, for example. There are also forms that have disappeared, such as the proto-LXX texts in Hebrew and the pre-Samaritan forms. The survival of certain variants does not mean that the Bible has been preserved in its entirety.
This is completely false historically. There is evidence of doctrinally motivated changes, such as Luke 22:43-44, John 1:18 variants, and Comma Johanneum. In the book A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, he clearly discusses the theological motivations behind certain variants. The changes were not innocent.
Here's the link if you wanna read it: https://www.obinfonet.ro/docs/exeg/exegrex/text-ntcomm.pdf
You are still diverting the subject from textual authenticity to doctrine survival. Isaiah contains variants that affect the interpretation of the text, this is undeniable and theologians all agree on this. We are not talking about a change in form but in substance. The fact that greedy people and Christians later embraced and harmonized it doesn't change the fact that it has been corrupted.
I don't disagree with you that most variants are minor, but some are not (entire endings, omissions, interpolations). Metzger's testimony about doctrine is theological, not textual. In the book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edition) by Metzger and Ehrman, they talk about deliberate corruption of the texts.
Here's the link if you wanna read it: https://confessionalbibliology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/TheTextOfNewTestament4thEdit.pdf
Yeah obviously, scholars do. But the corrections were made centuries later, after the additions had already been widely circulated as Scripture. Mark 16 and John 7 were read, preached, and canonized before being questioned. Late corruption of certain elements doesn't mean that there is no corruption.
My argument is not 'there are variations, therefore it is irrecoverable'
My argument is: The text was modified > then reconstructed > therefore it is not perfectly preserved.Recoverability doesn't negate alteration.
>What is corruption?
Let's define corruption first. The corruption of a text means the alteration of its original form in terms of meaning, not form. Because languages obviously evolve, words disappear and others are added, so I am not taking into account changes to the Bible in terms of form, as that would be dishonest and foolish because the Arabic language has also changed over the last 1,400 years. And yes, this also applies to Homer, Aristotle, Josephus, etc. When it comes to their writings, we literally talk about corruption, interpolation, and reconstruction, historians all agree on this. But all these major figures of ancient literature do not claim to be transmitting a text from God to humanity.
>Dead Sea Scrolls and 'transparent transmission'
Plurality and transparency are findings of modern research, not ancient guarantees. The existence of several traditions proves that there was no single controlled text, as is the case with the Quran, for example. There are also forms that have disappeared, such as the proto-LXX texts in Hebrew and the pre-Samaritan forms. The survival of certain variants does not mean that the Bible has been preserved in its entirety.
>There is no theological tampering
This is completely false historically. There is evidence of doctrinally motivated changes, such as Luke 22:43-44, John 1:18 variants, and Comma Johanneum. In the book A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, he clearly discusses the theological motivations behind certain variants. The changes were not innocent.
Here's the link if you wanna read it: https://www.obinfonet.ro/docs/exeg/exegrex/text-ntcomm.pdf
>Isaiah variants and doctrine
You are still diverting the subject from textual authenticity to doctrine survival. Isaiah contains variants that affect the interpretation of the text, this is undeniable and theologians all agree on this. We are not talking about a change in form but in substance. The fact that greedy people and Christians later embraced and harmonized it doesn't change the fact that it has been corrupted.
>Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Metzger
I don't disagree with you that most variants are minor, but some are not (entire endings, omissions, interpolations). Metzger's testimony about doctrine is theological, not textual. In the book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edition) by Metzger and Ehrman, they talk about deliberate corruption of the texts.
Here's the link if you wanna read it: https://confessionalbibliology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/TheTextOfNewTestament4thEdit.pdf
>A corrupted text does not self-correct
Yeah obviously, scholars do. But the corrections were made centuries later, after the additions had already been widely circulated as Scripture. Mark 16 and John 7 were read, preached, and canonized before being questioned. Late corruption of certain elements doesn't mean that there is no corruption.
>Logical misrepresentation
My argument is not 'there are variations, therefore it is irrecoverable'
My argument is: The text was modified > then reconstructed > therefore it is not perfectly preserved.Recoverability doesn't negate alteration.
@korg:
The Quran is perfectly preserved, and I am not speaking from a Muslim perspective, but academics all agree that it has been preserved like no other book. The only changes you can find in the ancient manuscripts are purely textual (spelling, grammar, oral recitation style), NOT A SINGLE doctrine has been altered. The Quran was compiled by Caliph Uthman into a single book with the direct permission of the Prophet's companions, who analyzed everything before giving their approval. The verses missing from the Quran are extremely minor, and they were not added because they were abrogated and were not required in the final text. The Prophet's companions are like the apostles of Jesus, so they were in the best position to know what to put in the Quran. Here are all the manuscripts that prove that today's Quran is the same as it was 1,400 years ago:
- Sana'a Manuscripts (Yemen)
- Topkapi Manuscript (Istanbul, Turkey)
- Samarkand Manuscript (Tashkent)
- Birmingham Qur'an Manuscript (UK)
All these early manuscripts of the Quran prove that it has been remarkably preserved, with only changes in form caused by the evolution of the Arabic language, but without any loss of substance or doctrinal change.
Btw the hadiths have nothing to do with the Quran, they are just prophetic traditions and not the words of God like the Quran. They are only there to guide Muslims in their way of life by following the actions of the Prophet, but these hadiths are not sacred, whereas the Quran is. The divergence between Sunferretnd Shias stems mainly from these prophetic traditions, because the two movements are in complete agreement on the perfection of the Quran.
How is it possible to name something that has been lost? It is technically impossible unless I was with Jesus and saw the loss with my own eyes. Textual criticism doesn't require proving lost doctrine, it establishes whether the transmitted text matches the earliest form or not. A text can be corrupted even if theology survives reconstruction, and it applies to all ancient literature btw.
>Comparisons to Islam
The Quran is perfectly preserved, and I am not speaking from a Muslim perspective, but academics all agree that it has been preserved like no other book. The only changes you can find in the ancient manuscripts are purely textual (spelling, grammar, oral recitation style), NOT A SINGLE doctrine has been altered. The Quran was compiled by Caliph Uthman into a single book with the direct permission of the Prophet's companions, who analyzed everything before giving their approval. The verses missing from the Quran are extremely minor, and they were not added because they were abrogated and were not required in the final text. The Prophet's companions are like the apostles of Jesus, so they were in the best position to know what to put in the Quran. Here are all the manuscripts that prove that today's Quran is the same as it was 1,400 years ago:
- Sana'a Manuscripts (Yemen)
- Topkapi Manuscript (Istanbul, Turkey)
- Samarkand Manuscript (Tashkent)
- Birmingham Qur'an Manuscript (UK)
All these early manuscripts of the Quran prove that it has been remarkably preserved, with only changes in form caused by the evolution of the Arabic language, but without any loss of substance or doctrinal change.
Btw the hadiths have nothing to do with the Quran, they are just prophetic traditions and not the words of God like the Quran. They are only there to guide Muslims in their way of life by following the actions of the Prophet, but these hadiths are not sacred, whereas the Quran is. The divergence between Sunferretnd Shias stems mainly from these prophetic traditions, because the two movements are in complete agreement on the perfection of the Quran.
>Name one lost belief
How is it possible to name something that has been lost? It is technically impossible unless I was with Jesus and saw the loss with my own eyes. Textual criticism doesn't require proving lost doctrine, it establishes whether the transmitted text matches the earliest form or not. A text can be corrupted even if theology survives reconstruction, and it applies to all ancient literature btw.
@Morostein: @Morostein: 1. Definition of corruption
You redefine corruption as any alteration from the earliest form, even if the original meaning is fully recoverable. By your own admission this applies to all ancient literature, including Homer, Aristotle, and Josephus. That definition makes corruption universal and therefore historically meaningless. Historians do not work with "perfect preservation" but with recoverability, and by that standard the Bible succeeds.
2. Dead Sea Scrolls and control
Multiple textual traditions do not imply loss of the original message. They allow us to identify, compare, and reconstruct earlier forms. The disappearance of some forms does not equal corruption of meaning, only normal transmission. Centralized control, like the Uthmanic standardization, proves authority, not superior preservation.
3. Alleged theological tampering
Yes, some variants were doctrinally motivated, and scholars openly identify them. That is precisely the point. They are detectable, isolated, and corrected. None resulted in a lost or altered core Christian belief. Removing Luke 22, John 1 variants, or the Comma Johanneum does not change Christology or doctrine.
4. Isaiah and substance
Isaiah has interpretive variants, not competing messages. No messianic theme, monotheism, covenant concept, or historical claim is lost or reversed. Later acceptance did not create the text, it recognized its stability. Interpretive range is not corruption of substance.
5. Manuscripts and reconstruction
That scholars reconstruct texts does not prove corruption of meaning. It proves transparency. Mark 16 and John 7 were questioned precisely because earlier evidence survived. A text whose variants can be mapped and corrected has not lost its message.
6. Quran comparison
There is no academic consensus that the Quran is perfectly preserved. Uthmanic compilation involved eliminating competing codices, which prevents textual comparison. The manuscripts cited reflect an already standardized text and cannot demonstrate earlier uniformity. The Sana'a palimpsest itself shows non identical readings.
7. Hadith and meaning
Separating Quran from hadith is theological, not historical. The Quran's reading, interpretation, and application depend on oral tradition, which explains divergent readings and legal schools despite a shared consonantal text.
8. Lost belief question
If no lost belief can be identified, then corruption of meaning has not been demonstrated. An unfalsifiable claim is not a historical conclusion. Recoverability does not negate alteration, but it does negate loss of message. By historical standards, the Bible's message remains intact.
Sidenote:
Metzger's use of terms like "corruption" refers to identifiable scribal alteration in the technical sense of textual criticism, not to the loss or distortion of Christianity's core message, which he explicitly affirms remains recoverable.
You redefine corruption as any alteration from the earliest form, even if the original meaning is fully recoverable. By your own admission this applies to all ancient literature, including Homer, Aristotle, and Josephus. That definition makes corruption universal and therefore historically meaningless. Historians do not work with "perfect preservation" but with recoverability, and by that standard the Bible succeeds.
2. Dead Sea Scrolls and control
Multiple textual traditions do not imply loss of the original message. They allow us to identify, compare, and reconstruct earlier forms. The disappearance of some forms does not equal corruption of meaning, only normal transmission. Centralized control, like the Uthmanic standardization, proves authority, not superior preservation.
3. Alleged theological tampering
Yes, some variants were doctrinally motivated, and scholars openly identify them. That is precisely the point. They are detectable, isolated, and corrected. None resulted in a lost or altered core Christian belief. Removing Luke 22, John 1 variants, or the Comma Johanneum does not change Christology or doctrine.
4. Isaiah and substance
Isaiah has interpretive variants, not competing messages. No messianic theme, monotheism, covenant concept, or historical claim is lost or reversed. Later acceptance did not create the text, it recognized its stability. Interpretive range is not corruption of substance.
5. Manuscripts and reconstruction
That scholars reconstruct texts does not prove corruption of meaning. It proves transparency. Mark 16 and John 7 were questioned precisely because earlier evidence survived. A text whose variants can be mapped and corrected has not lost its message.
6. Quran comparison
There is no academic consensus that the Quran is perfectly preserved. Uthmanic compilation involved eliminating competing codices, which prevents textual comparison. The manuscripts cited reflect an already standardized text and cannot demonstrate earlier uniformity. The Sana'a palimpsest itself shows non identical readings.
7. Hadith and meaning
Separating Quran from hadith is theological, not historical. The Quran's reading, interpretation, and application depend on oral tradition, which explains divergent readings and legal schools despite a shared consonantal text.
8. Lost belief question
If no lost belief can be identified, then corruption of meaning has not been demonstrated. An unfalsifiable claim is not a historical conclusion. Recoverability does not negate alteration, but it does negate loss of message. By historical standards, the Bible's message remains intact.
Sidenote:
Metzger's use of terms like "corruption" refers to identifiable scribal alteration in the technical sense of textual criticism, not to the loss or distortion of Christianity's core message, which he explicitly affirms remains recoverable.
Come back, we miss you
@Peruvian_Chud: morenstein left?
@God: I haven't seen him active for a week, at least not around here
@Peruvian_Chud: ah
is the autistic hyperfixation over this homosexual media genuine? or is it some nulee nameflamboyant personry raisin?
@Chud: Yes, we genuinely enjoy FPE, Joel is a boring person.
gem
^2 mega BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPs^
@Circus_2:
KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ AND KEEP RAGING ON ME! YOU LOSE ALL DEBATES! ISLAM WON, REPLY IF YOU AGREE!
I SHALL CLEANSE YOU OF YOUR WARRIOR-Z DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: https://blog.soyjak.st/threads/wzds-warrior-z-derangement-syndrome.16415/
@Chud
even the sharty isnt an exception to tismugly persons invading everything good
even the sharty isnt an exception to tismugly persons invading everything good
showing 10 of 26 comments
I think a very cool person made this video
talking too fast but ruby otherwise
talking too fast but ruby otherwise
@Chud: i think a very cool person made this comment
@AutonomousRepublicOfGem can someone post a transcript so i dont have to listen to this hecking incomprehensible bri ish autistic effeminate voice for 8 minutes and can just read the whole thing in 1
maya married jimbo?
@womanburner: its on archiveofourown if i remember correctly
showing 10 of 28 comments
thugerald
{thumb]51675[\thub[
DO THE GEM SHAKER
I masturbated to this
@JohnFootball: @Chud: @JohnFootball: @Chud: @Chud: @Chud: @Chud: @Carlito: @Chud: all owned by zoomerGODS
built for my tiny olgol pecker i nutted in my panties looking at this
Me when I post frogs on the log
Let the jannies save the P' first, it's just a ((((joke))) there's no problem with the sharty becoming peddophile.com stop being so diddyphobic you stupid goy i mean chud it's perfectly normal to be bombarded with P' when you enter the bald man glasses website, didn't you want (((freedom))) ?
@Chud2 its 'P you special not P'
chordcord woke up
Might as well just do a full barre chord as well
@MenstrualCykill: I'm just playing b7 like unbothered
@beefsoup: I mostly do power chords
showing 10 of 23 comments