(Part 2) Top products from r/insanepeoplefacebook

Jump to the top 20

We found 26 product mentions on r/insanepeoplefacebook. We ranked the 86 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/insanepeoplefacebook:

u/jk4life · 25 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

Eh. I’m sure this is pointless, but I did my undergrad in church history. The ‘overwhelming scholarship’ you reference just doesn’t exist. If anything, scholarship is overwhelming in the OTHER direction.

Just, take the canonization of the Bible for example. In THE MOST general of terms, a cannon was somewhat agreed upon about 250 years after the birth of Christ, and would go through a progressive series of additions, subtractions, and revisions until the 16th century!

One of the criteria for canonization was authorial integrity, that the book was written by who it claimed to be written by. What’s known as pseudepigraphy, or writing in another authors name pretending to be that person, was INCREDIBLY common in the ancient world. Modern scholars agree that Paul wrote 8 of the 13 books attributed to him. The other 5 are very questionable.

This is a good history of the subject: https://brill.com/view/title/13087

Bart D. Ehrman’s work is a good place to start reading, as far as general scholarly consensus is concerned: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings https://www.amazon.com/dp/019020382X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_pd5dBb4EWCZRH

Be warned: you WILL find a lot of blogs and word press websites that refute these texts and authors with a scholarly front. You will not find serious, peer reviewed refutations of these authors or ideas.

So that raises an interesting question, doesn’t it? Isn’t all scripture God breathed? Did God lie when he said Paul wrote the books he didn’t?

Also, yes, scholars very much agree that the Bible, as a whole and in parts, is a continuity NIGHTMARE.

u/Cuckalicious_Boogie · 1 pointr/insanepeoplefacebook

aside from sending me links for biased 'fact-checking' sites, id love to see logical evidence to support your illogical claim. You would also have to justify saying the DNC that voted to NOT condemn the KKK at 1924s convention(missed by 1 vote with 1000+ ballots, sad) is somehow the RNC now? Im sure you could look back through articles of incorporation to make the link. Or not. Because your just passing along talking points with no basis out of laziness.

>Passions crested when some delegates proposed that the platform include the words, “We pledge the Democratic Party to oppose any effort on the part of the Ku Klux Klan or any organization to interfere with the religious liberty or political freedom of any citizen, or to limit the civic rights of any citizen or body of citizens because of religion, birthplace or racial origin.” The proceedings of the convention, which ran to 1,315 pages, report: “Resounding cheers, applause, rising demonstrations, delegates standing on chairs waving hats, the chairman vainly rapping his gavel for order; disorder in the galleries; cries of ‘Get out,’ ‘Say it again.’”
>
>Senator Oscar Underwood of Alabama, who supported the anti-Klan plank, was denounced by the Klan as “‘the Jew, jug and Jesuit candidate’ — the ‘jug’ reference meant to disparage Underwood’s opposition to Prohibition,” Terry Golway wrote in “Machine Made: Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics.”
>
>The fight went on for hours, and ultimately, the Klan and its allies prevailed in the platform fight as a resolution to condemn them by name lost by less than one vote — 543 and three-twentieths votes to 542 and seven-twentieths votes. (Some delegates could cast fractional votes.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/nyregion/gop-path-recalls-democrats-convention-disaster-in-1924.html

u/bloodraven42 · 13 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

You think if they had such a strong opinion on it, they'd have noticed by now that generally the first countries to ditch the gold standard were also the same countries to recover from the Great Depression first, given fiat currency isn't nearly as susceptible to currency shocks, being able to recover its value far better than the gold standard.

But I guess it'd be too much to ask them to read Bernanke.

u/veggiezombie1 · 1 pointr/insanepeoplefacebook

Well, vaccines have technically been around for a few hundred years at least to my knowledge. The first successful smallpox vaccination, for example, was developed by Edward Jenner in 1796. And there was a sort of DIY inoculation method developed hundreds of years earlier in China that had an incredibly low mortality rate.

This Wikipedia page has a lot more information, but if you're really interested in learning more about smallpox, you've got to read Pox Americana by Elizabeth A. Fenn.

u/TheFullMertz · 2 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

The series was called "The Value of..." and the Pasteur-specific story was The Value of Believing in Yourself.

u/scubachris · 5 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

In Search of Respect is a good way to understand how this happens. An anthropologist goes to East Harlem to study crack dealers in the 90's.

u/Theeeantifeminist · 1 pointr/insanepeoplefacebook

While not being Satan, he was arguably and pretty objectively, the worst President in history. It's a long read but it's very very well sourced and nearly impossible to try and rebut.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0692310916/

u/BrokeTheInterweb · 5 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

One that stands out in my memory is a book called One Boy's Struggle. It really put things into perspective, and also taught me a lot of coping mechanisms his brain had no choice but to create as a child.

u/Celtic_Queen · 1 pointr/insanepeoplefacebook

There's another book based on the same premise called Fatherland

u/streetbum · 25 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

https://www.amazon.com/Area-51-Uncensored-Americas-Military/dp/0316202304

Read that sometime. The paperclip scientists did some fucked up human experimentation for our government after they came here. Wasn't all good.

EDIT: apparently she has a book on paperclip too. Didn't know. Probably goes over a lot of the same stuff but in more detail.

u/yakri · 1 pointr/insanepeoplefacebook

The lady talks about this book, which is pseudo scientific bullshit and tbh I think in a fair world the author would face charges for criminal negligence or something similar for trying to advise people to do this shit.

So it's safe to say that whatever she's blasting up there probably shouldn't be entering your body in any direction.

u/9291 · 6 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

I said "main reason". The hard evidence was how the western christian world suddenly did a flip flop on communism after WWII.

Official wikipedia sources don't even touch on the subject, because I think that English-speaking sources are biased (as is everything WWII-related).

https://www.amazon.com/Vatican-Communism-During-World-War/dp/0898705495

u/Carpicon · 14 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

There is an essay by James M McPherson’s This Mighty Scourge that explorers the absolute propaganda machine that started right after the war and continues to this day that shaped the South’s views on the war.

It’s a fascinating read.

u/Fruitstripe68 · 2 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

I hate these type of posts. Don't they remind you of "The Monster at the End of the Book" where they keep warning not to read it and go through all these insecurities about why you shouldn't read the book because you don't want to get to the end? √https://www.amazon.com/Monster-End-This-Book/dp/0307010856