Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Sin City SpectacularFollow

#27 Feb 13 2007 at 1:37 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
achileez wrote:
Meta,

Quote:
What shocks me are the Hannity conservatives...bashing all things not in their moral sphere of influence.


Hannity conservative? Anyone who has any respect for women and know that gambling is a sin should be disgusted with Vegas.

Varus


Sorry to burst your bubble again, but running a search of "gambling" in the Bible, returns not one refrence. Next you'll tell me I'm not a Christian. I assure you that I am. I'm not delusional, and I happily live in VA, which, last I checked, was on the east coast. Hell, I'm less than 20 minutes from the ocean, and that's in traffic.

As to being disgusted with Vegas...I don't like the way the women take themselves for granted, however, it is THEIR choice to do so. Should they want to be whores, I can pray for them, but not much else I can do.

As to the ripping the moral fabric comment...sheesh...stop listening to Hannity and Rush, and get your own opinion. Become a TRUE conservative, rather than a moron following the money. When you realize that those two are no better than the party they're whoring for, nor are they any better than the Air America crowd, you will discover that there is a whole lot of options out there for you.
#28 Feb 13 2007 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
but running a search of "gambling" in the Bible, returns not one refrence.


Is that like checking the index?

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#29 Feb 13 2007 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Naa, I've read it, and checked the refrence materials in the back of mine in the past as it relates to the very issues we're talking about. I also ran a seach on www.bible.com today, just to confirm what I had already looked for.
#30 Feb 13 2007 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
All I can find is refering to "sexual immorality", but I think that would have to be defined first, and then, who's definition do you use?
Look under sexual impurity as well. In the New Testament, you typically find them lumped together; immorality pertaining to sexual congress outside of marriage and impurity pertaining to "unnatural" acts.

Or so I remember it. Too lazy too look it up and about to head home early to beat the worst of the weather-related traffic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Feb 13 2007 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
achileez wrote:
Gitsy,

Quote:
Life is about living and I intend to have good memories to keep me warm at night when I'm 104 and can't make those type anymore.


I truly pity you if you think memories of gambling and prostitution is something you will cherish when you age.

Personally I don't intend on living that long. More than likely I'll wipe out on a wave way too big for me and be crushed on the reef in waimea.

Varus


meh, I don't like to gamble because I never win and paying for something I can get for free with a little effort and an emotional investment (don't get your panties in a twist, I know you have no idea what that is) is silly. You go on about that time you where body boarding on the kids beach and got pulled out by the big scary 'rip tide' though. It's amusing.
#32 Feb 13 2007 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Responding to Joph: Correct, and that still frees up sexual relations without marriage, as only extra marital affairs are mentioned.


I think that I did read somewhere that things used to be something like this: If a man takes a woman into his bed, she becomes his wife. Can someone confirm this as being either a cultural thing, or was it a regional thing?

Edited, Feb 13th 2007 4:53pm by Metastophicleas
#33REDACTED, Posted: Feb 13 2007 at 1:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Meta,
#34 Feb 13 2007 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
Responding to Joph: Correct, and that still frees up sexual relations without marriage, as only extra marital affairs are mentioned.
I'd still argue no. For instance, take II Timothy 5:2
Paul wrote:
Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
Somehow that doesn't mesh to me with banging them outside of marriage.
Quote:
I think that I did read somewhere that things used to be something like this: If a man takes a woman into his bed, she becomes his wife.
In The Gospel of John, Jesus meets with a Samaritian woman at a well and has a conversation with her...
John wrote:
He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
From the phrase "the man you now have is not your husband", I'd guess that merely sleeping with someone did not marry you. At least in the eyes of Jesus. I also detect a note of disapproval in what Jesus is saying but that may just be my bias Smiley: wink2
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Feb 13 2007 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
You know, I may just turn my filter back on so that I never have to read any of your drivel again.

I have enough faith in capitalism, that anything the moral populace is worried about will be delt with. Vegas is not the hot bed of immorality, Washington D.C. is. When you deal with that, and understand that you're now playing with the big boys, you're snide comments about where I live, mean nothing. You're perceived attack on me, looks like the same sort of attacks that the extremist left have been trying to do for years.

You talk of Rush being an idol of yours? I'm sorry, you said "hero". I was listening live when Rush admitted being the water boy for the Republican party. True conservatives they are. For the most part they are no different than the Democrats they attempt to deamonize. They are not intellectually honest, nor are they interested in the Constitution of the United States. As humans, I'm sure they're great people, I haven't met them, so I can't say either way, but they are not conservatives as they claim. These statements also fit for Rush and Hannity.

Since you're also so worried about my language skills, I assure you that I have no difficulty speaking the proper Queen's English, though typing it is off, as I'm quite sure Nobby will tell you (just can't be bothered to put the extra "u"s in there). Since you seem to think that Virgina Beach is a hotbed of ghetto activity, I invite you to come visit, and partake in our amazing beachfront, and enjoy some dolphin watching, or feel free to take in the history, considering we have Ft. Monroe, and Ft. Wool, both forts that stood watch during the Civil War, then there is the historic lighthouse at Ft. Story. If war isn't your thing, please feel free to walk the paths of First Landing State Park, or you can check out the Virginia Aquarium, Air and Space Museum, Living Museum, Nauticus, and various memorials strewn about the Hampton Roads area. There is more culture and history here than you're likely to find in most of the rest of the country,and many places combined. I haven't even mentioned anthing north of Hampton yet either, should I continue with Williamsburg, Yorktown, Jamestown, the opera houses, art museums, or any other areas within an hour drive that would make any other states "history" look mundane?

Next time you'd like to belittle an area, at least make sure that you know what the **** you're talking about.
#36 Feb 13 2007 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Joph, you cannot take the verse you're refrencing without adding the prefacing verse (too many people attempt to bend the Word to their own wills and wants this way already, and I don't think this was your intent, in fact I'm quite certain, based on what I've seen you type in the past):

Quote:
1 Timothy 5:1 Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.


That comma changes things from the intent that you show to give it a whole new meaning. This is also refered to as "Advice About Widows, Elders and Slaves". This is more to deal with how to treat them, treat them as you'd treat your own family, not treat all women as though they are your sister statement. This also follows with "The Golden Rule" line of teachings, which is "Do unto others, as you'd have them do unto you". When viewed in this light, it continues the teachings that have been laid down for centuries before.

The second phrase is believed to be living directly with one of whom you're not married, and though Jesus does seem displeased, it is my opinion (along with many others) that his displeasue stems from the fact that she has had multiple husbands vs. living with an man unwed. Also, depending on the translation, this woman is refered to be a *****, because she is not sent into town to speak to the women (and for the various husbands), but to speak to the men, for the women would have no interest in speaking to her. You could almost assume from this depiction that it refers to pre-marital relations, however, I have studied it in detail, and checked various texts on it, and I conclude that it speaks on the sanctitiy of marriage. Marriage is a gift from God (for those of us that believe), and is not to be thrown away so lightly, as it seems to have been done in this case. Once wed, men are to remain faithful to their wives until thier wives proven to be unfaithful to their husbands. This doesn't refer only to sexual affairs, but breaking of their vows as a whole or any part of. The same is true in the reverse.
#37 Feb 13 2007 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Not to be anti-christian, because I'm not, I think the religion has many good qualities, but it's sad when something as basic as whether or not it's wrong to do something as simple as have sex requires disection and discussion. If the guy that defines your beliefs never gave a sweeping statement on a subject maybe he didn't have an opinion concerning the subject he was willing to share. And if he wasn't willing to share maybe it's a bit wrong to try to put words in his mouth?

Edit: Then again, you guys aren't supposed to kill and that gets justified for all sorts of retarded reasons, so who the fUck know?



Edited, Feb 13th 2007 6:52pm by GitSlayer
#38 Feb 13 2007 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
That comma changes things from the intent that you show to give it a whole new meaning. This is also refered to as "Advice About Widows, Elders and Slaves".
The "Advice about..." is just a heading added by the editors. It is not part of the scripture. And it certainly does not mean that everything in Chapter 5 deals exclusively with elders, widows and/or slaves. I disagree with you but I can't imagine much of anything less entertaining tonight than a debate over comma placement in a translation of an ancient Greek text.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Feb 13 2007 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
I agree with you 100%, however, because things have been translated differently due to dialects, you end up with multiple beliefs based on what translation that you're reading.

That's why I make the attempt to understand what was said exactly, and what that means. Things are a little different when you're reading Hebrew than they are when you're reading modern English.
#40 Feb 13 2007 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
***
1,437 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Something with boobs and dancing girls.


Amen!
#41 Feb 13 2007 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Metastophicleas wrote:
That comma changes things from the intent that you show to give it a whole new meaning. This is also refered to as "Advice About Widows, Elders and Slaves".
The "Advice about..." is just a heading added by the editors. It is not part of the scripture. And it certainly does not mean that everything in Chapter 5 deals exclusively with elders, widows and/or slaves. I disagree with you but I can't imagine much of anything less entertaining tonight than a debate over comma placement in a translation of an ancient Greek text.


Greek is a facinating language, where in most cases that I've seen, what is said or written means exactly what is put down or said. That comma is there for a reason, and denotes that it is a continuation.

Anyway, though, back on topic. That's a nice avitard.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 257 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (257)