Image 01


Nate Nygren
The Gift of God

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 11 comments

Pretty :-) I love the light effects!!

The text style doesn't seem to fit with the art, but I can't quite articulate why...maybe if it glowed like the "gift" it would match better. After all, the Son and the Word are one, right? :-)

For "whosoever" :-) Nice play on the text. - Jan 15 2004
god vs thedevil

Wallpaper Other by thejaunt 6 comments

I don't like the text.
The art is very neat. I'm not a Dualist myself, but the art portrays the concept in a great way.

Overall, well done. Where'd you get the clip of Carter the Magician? - Jan 15 2004
Formless and Void

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 3 comments

Hey Tim, great piece from you, thanks. I've been gone for a little bit, but I'm back now. Good to see you still here. - Jan 14 2004
Psalm 150:3

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 19 comments

What is it? I can't read notes :-) - Jan 06 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 28 comments

*I noticed that one and you are right I didn't comment on that one. I gave up commenting on those multiple posts since it is not effective.*

Hypocrite. You haven't. You're just selective, as are the others.

Tim, exactly my observation. If he gave up commenting on these multi-posts, then why did he bother commenting on yours? He IS selective and so it seems are the other 5 or 6 usual flamers (I haven't counted), which demonstrates the false nature of his statement, "There is no persecution as you seem to imply.

Now to Flanders:

Quite a lot of others have observed Tim's tendency to keep his wallpapers on the frontpage in the past and mentioned it so I don't know whether you can call those assumptions unfounded.

And I don't know that you can quanitfy those assumptions. Is it your position that Tim would not update his wallpapers if they were not bumped up to the front page again? If so, how do you quantify that? You have to admit that it's assumption on your part, and since you are negatively biased in your opinion of his character, what would you accept as evidence that this is not the case?

What hatred are you talking about? Once again I can only speak for myself and can tell you there is no hatred involved here.

Ahh, but there is. There is a hatred of Christianity, which is what Tim seems to stand for. This is only too well evidenced in your (and others) selective flames of him.

Then how do you explain so many people commenting on the wallpapers and his behaviour in the past months?

I just did above. was purely coincidental that you used an abreviation made up from three K's? You didn't mean to link to the "other" KKK?

I did indeed intend a correlation, just not a religious one. But I wasn't correlating every aspect of thier beliefs to yours... I was only refering to thier bigotted behavior and the similarity of yours to it. Not just yours, of course. Of course I brought it up first, but you got off track talking about thier Christain beliefs, which was not the subject of my correlation. That is why your comment wasn't an issue, and why I wasn't dodging it.

Whoops. The last time I looked the Catholic church was definately Christian. Or maybe that statue of Jesus Christ above the altar got there accidently?

No, it's just that you misunderstand what constitutes Biblical Christianity as opposed to apostate herecy. For Zark's sake, occultists cast spells by the power of the name of Jesus Christ (see writings by Eliphas Levi), but that doesn't make them Christians. Do you even know enough about the Bible to recognize the difference between Biblical and Gnostic theology? Roman Catholics get most of thier dogmatic traditions from Gnostic writings, and anathematize us who follow Sola Scriptura.

I noticed there are many different interpretations and different versions of the Bible. The KKK may choose a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean they aren't Christians.

Again, a misunderstanding on your part. They did not follow the the teachings of Christ nor believed the first book of Moses. Jesus himself said, if you don't believe what Moses said, how can you believe me...? The Aryan heritics of the KKK believed in naturalistic Darwinism instead of the Hebraic Creation account, and therefore killed what they believed to be "less evolved", cursed humans to help purify the races. This is not a Christain paradigm! And since this was the distiguishing charactarsitic of thier beliefs, they were not Christians. They may have claimed the name of Jesus, but as Jesus himself said, Not all that say to me 'Lord Lord' will enter into the Kindom. In fact, Jesus said that his response to them will be, "I never knew you."

Anyway..I don't get the impression they comment because of Tim is Christian.

That is indeed the common thread that binds all of those you mentioned. How convenient for you to deny this. Sure, they may have come up with other reasons to veil thier distaste for Tim's beliefs behind, but they have all at one point or another expressed thier common distain for Christianity, and that is what keeps them coming back, selectively hunting down Tim's (and other's) wallpapers down and posting flames. Your very nick here demonstrates it. Try and deny it... - Jan 04 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

All this person asked was that no flames were posted on the sole basis that there is a biblical text in the image.

You've been told time and again that if you don't like the image, all you have to do is move on.

But your past and continual behavior is quantifiable as flames. There's plenty of evidence from your past posts, even by your own admition "some of my comments were a little more rude than necessary..."

I loathe biblical texts, thus I loathe this wallpaper. Does that count as 'flaming'?

Umm, loathing isn't flaming, no. But seeing as you consistantly post rude comments towards artist of Christain persuation...yeah, that's flaming!

Believe whatever you want, but I can't stand this 'If you don't agree with me, shut up!' sort of crap. If I got you wrong, I'm honestly sorry..

I guess you're sorry then since this obviously wasn't what was said. It was a simple request not to be flamed.

...but this kind of remark sounds to me like anyone who writes anything that opposes your beliefs is a flamer in your eyes.

Hmm, if they had any objections with substance to them, and posted them in a proper context, that really wouldn't fall in the definition of a flame...but this really doesn't apply to you, does it? (hmm, I seem to remember a laugh you had with yourself asking if God was a schizo recently)

We've seen the flames come before and this person just nicely asked not to be bullyed. Just can't help yourself can you? Too much entertainment for ya, isn't it? - Jan 04 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 28 comments

I'm not sure it is posse-like behaviour.There just quite a few people who seem to have a problem with Tim's wallpapers and behaviour and those people choose to respond on their own accord. That's not ganging-up is it?

Oh, of course not! *sarcasm* It's only that there a particular constistant group that almost always flames Tim and seem to ditto each other's posts all the time.

And if I remember correctly most of those people agreed that this wallpaper is an improvement on Tim's previous works and even complimented him on it. (I did anyway) If they were out to lynch Tim they wouldn't do that would they?

Well, congratulations... you're able to recongnize improvement. That doesn't cover the fact that a certain group of individuals USUALLY picks on every little thing he does. This lastest gripe about him double posting being the latest lynch. You're really not expecting to convince anyone you haven't been flaming Tim in groups, are you?? They'd only need to go through his past posts and see for themselves what's been going on. Again, you're not fooling anyone... - Jan 03 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 28 comments

Well..okay. I don't know about the others but I did comment on others who posted multiple versions of wallpapers seperately .

I don't see any comments in the aqua pengin post that's all over the front page right now. I don't remember who put you in charge of the multi-post police force, but you sure are inconsistant.

I think Tim gets a bit more flak on this issue because some get the impression that he just makes minor updates etc. to keep the wallpapers in the spotlight.

Ahh, so you do give Tim "more flak" flames and claim your behavior is based on unfounded assumtions. I think this high horse of the attention-seekers police force is a veil to hide your hatred behind. I think others can see it as well. This is evident from my comment above about your inconsistancy.

Is he seeking attention? I could possibly see this behavior in a teen boy, but not a man who's half a century old.

Tim emails me all the time with wallpapers for me to view, and actually restrains himself from posting as much as he could because he doesn't want to be percieved in the wrong light. Unlike you, he cares about keeping his behavior in check.

By the seem to be dodging the KKK being Chrisians issue.....

Well, aren't you the master of cheap debating tricks? But for the clarity of others who might read this (cuz you already know) I wasn't dodging your "issue" cuz it wasn't an issue. First of all it didn't have anything to do with my original post. I wasn't talking about the KKK you refered to. I was talking about the posse-like behavior here. Second, the KKK you refer to was about as christain as the roman catholic church. They held to an apostate Aryan theory which was anything but Biblical, so since your post mentioned thier religion, I ignored it as the obvious attempt to take the light off you that it was.

But for the record, you and the rest of the Kde Klux Klan seem to be just as bigotted as the former KKK because you'd like nother better than to see Tim's membership here "hung" so that you don't have to deal with his likes anymore, and all because you don't like the way his skins look. (get the pun?)

If you're motives for giving him "more flak" weren't so transparent, it might pass off as boyish bullying, but even then it would still be bad form. - Jan 03 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 28 comments

It was your posse-like behavior that I was making the KKK reference from, but you know that... - Jan 03 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 28 comments

Yeah, nice way to dodge the real substance of my post :) - Jan 03 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 28 comments

You guys are truely the low of the low. Many times I've seen people post wallpapers of the same content with minor color changes or size changes and you all have ignored those muli-posts. Not that there's anything wrong with what Tim has done, I mean, different size wallpapers SHOULD be posted seperately if they're to be categorized properly...that's just the way this site is setup.

But, no...the posse only comes around when TimBrown's in town. A good ol' boys fashon flame lynching. Ya'll should be called the KKK...KDE Klux Klan.

The silence on your part when others muli-post goes to demonstrate the lack of substance your complaints really have.

Talk about wasted space on this site. - Jan 03 2004
Old Gold Wallpaper

Wallpaper Other by sbrown1038 7 comments

I really like the textures! I would love to learn how you did this. - Dec 31 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

When I say personality, I'm refering to the quality of being a unique person.

Now while technically schizophrenia is defined as "any of a group of psychotic disorders characterized by progressive deterioration of the personality, withdrawal from reality, hallucinations, delusions, social apathy, emotional instability, etc," I knew what you were refering too. It is commonly called Multiple Personality Disorder, not schizophrenia.

MPD is defined as "The existence of two or more distinct personalities, each of which is dominant at a given time. The dominant personality determines the individual's behavior. Each personality has a consistent pattern of perceiving the environment and self."

Now since MPD is a mental disorder, in which only one personality at a time is manifest and dominant, and is typicly conflicting with the other personalities, this is obviously not applicaple to the definition of the Triune God.

The doctrine of Trinity posits that all three persons are co-equal, co-existent, and in agreement. All three are aware of each other. All three are manifest at the same time. All three are equal in dominance.

Now my point before was that people with MPD have 2 or more mental personalities. That is to say, the personalities exhibited are attributable to a mental disorder which is internal. This is not the same as three actuall personalities which are not strictly internal, but are outwardly manifest in thier unique persons.

Therefore, you either did not understand the definition of the Trinity as offered, or were attempting demeaning humor (with lack of any connection to the context of my definition) which, in the context of religious discussion is commonly called bigotry.

In that case, your behavior is uncalled for. So I hope that this was just a misunderstanding on your part.

Cheers! - Dec 31 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

Is it seriously your position that one being sharing 3 actuall personalities is the SAME as a being sharing 3 mental personalities? - Dec 30 2003
Creation of Tux

Wallpaper Other by MagiNathan 4 comments

Thank you Very much! I appreciate my art being appreciated :-) - Dec 30 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

Actually, this is a very common misconception that Christians believe that the Son is the Father, or that the Father is the Spirit, etc.

The Scriptural presentation is that there are three seperate persons, with distinct personalities, that share one being.

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Hopefully this clears up your confusion.
- Dec 30 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

Tim, great improvement!! Finally some decent feedback too :-) Let's see some more like this. (or better)

One thing I find interesting, and not to start a fight in light of this positive feedback, but they can accept a short text like this but not quote from a rocket scientist? :-) Just thought that was interesting... - Dec 29 2003

Wallpaper Other by MagiNathan 7 comments

Not really sure what you meant about the billions of years and God's spirit, but a textless images was posted as requested anyway :-) Enjoy. - Dec 27 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 51 comments

You are referring to Epicurius' Dillemma

I was refering to a Biblical doctrine.

But, this is besides the point, as I said God "defines" good and evil(Isaiah 45:7). I did not present God as making a decision.

"Good" is inherent in God's nature

Depends, does your perception of good define God, or does He define it?

You are a five point Calvinist, who believes that the whole world is damned except for a few whom God has arbitrarily selected. So much for the omnibenevolent God.

I believe the Biblical doctrines of man and Grace...these are not defined by Calvin. As CH Spurgeon said, "They call it “Calvinism”, and put it aside among the old exploded tenets which this enlightened age knows nothing of. What right they have to ascribe to the Genevan reformer a doctrine as old as the hills I do not know. But our Lord Jesus never hesitated to fling that truth into the face of His enemies. He told them, “Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Here he tells them plainly that they could not come unto Him unless the Father gave them the grace to come. This humbling doctrine they could not receive, and so they went aside." [CHS, Sermons, 28, 111-2]

Omnibenevolent God? Where do you find that in the Bible?

Peace. - Nov 25 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 51 comments

Can't login using my normal account right now, but this post was so appaulingly full of...well, I had to create a new account to reply.

Of course he can not cite any historical references, nor can anyone else who believes as he does.

Talk about a lack of sources, your post shows a curious lack of them as well. How annoyingly hypocritical :-) Nor can anyone else, eh? I'm about to prove you wrong.

Yet, the facts of history, as dug up in the archeological record, prove that not only was Belshazzar never a king, but his father was named Nabonidos, not Nebuchadnezzar. But if you press people like this for facts, you will not EVER actually be given any facts

Fact 1: You are behind the recent archeological data.

There is fairly conclusive evidence that Belshazzar was elevated to secondary kingship during the time of Uzziah in the kingdom of Judah--a common practice in ancient times in order to secure a peaceful succession. Recent archaeological discoveries indicate that Belshazzar was in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire while his father Nabodinus maintained his headquarters at Teman in North Arabia. Among the discoveries at the site of Ur is an inscription of Nabunaid containing a prayer for Nabunaid himself followed by a second prayer for his firstborn son, Bel-shar-usur, such prayers being customarily offered only for the reigning monarch. Still other cuneiform documents attest that Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen at the temples in Sippar as 'an offering of the king.'
Source: Archer [Arch.SOT, 391-2]

Ask them how they can follow a God, who claims to be just and moral, after he tells the Hebrews:

Ok, the slavery issue? Are you kidding me? We've just fallen back hundreds of years in apologetics... Need I say that these laws were unprecedented in the ancient world? It is not so easy to throw a blanket view of perception and apply it to historical cultures. Not that you'll read it...but here's a source that will shed some insight.

if Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of 2, in order to kill Jesus, why is there NO RECORD OF IT ANYWHERE in the historical record? Don't you think if all male children under age 2 were slaughtered in ANY nation, people would record such a tragedy?

Ooh Puleeez! Tell me, o' repeater of skeptic bull, what was the population of Bethlehem at that time? Huh? Dunno? Thought so. Realisticly, the total amount of boys 2 and under in that tiny city would've been, what...10-30? I mean, let's be realistic here :-) As J.P. Holding says, "Jospehus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod."

ask them why the nativity scene is painted in 4 scenes, in the temple of Luxor

Sheesh this the best you can do? Cite your sources for one. For two, you're just plain wrong.

"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it (hence the many tombs of Osiris tht exist in Egypt). The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osisis after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child. Osiris became king of the netherworld, and Horus proceeded to fight with Seth..." -Frazer [Fraz.AAO, 8]

I know of no carving you mention. And the scholars on Egyptian mythology have Horus being born in a swamp! In fact, the only reference I can find of the carving you mention is in Acharya's Christ Conspiracy [114-116]; a point she was pressed on at her website and was never able to substantiate.

Christians giving answers? Wow, what a concept! Get used to it :-)
- Nov 25 2003