Post by: K Frame on July 18, 2006, 09:22:41 AM
Post by: Winston Smith on July 18, 2006, 09:25:57 AM
Post by: AJ Dual on July 18, 2006, 09:27:53 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 18, 2006, 09:34:54 AM
Post by: Preacherman on July 18, 2006, 10:14:31 AM
Post by: charby on July 18, 2006, 10:14:51 AM
Well that is if they pull the Leviticus 18:22 reference against gays. Pretty funny how you can get them to shut up when it is written that it is okay men to sexual relation with women in addition to their wives.
-C
Post by: 280plus on July 18, 2006, 11:36:02 AM
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on July 18, 2006, 11:44:37 AM
Quote
Welcome to the Armed, Polite Society discussion forum. This venue is for the members of The High Road and other friendly people. The rules of conduct here are what you would expect in any civilized home: be civil to others, don't advocate commission of capital crimes and keep the language and the imagery tame. Otherwise, all topics are welcome.
- NF
Post by: K Frame on July 18, 2006, 01:12:42 PM
Well that is if they pull the Leviticus 18:22 reference against gays. Pretty funny how you can get them to shut up when it is written that it is okay men to sexual relation with women in addition to their wives."
Oh yeah, I'm just going to pop right in with that.
I just wanted them to shut the hell up!
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 18, 2006, 04:30:47 PM
Quote from: charby
Just make sure you let them know that Leviticus allows for males to have concubines. So does book of II Samuel, 1 Kings and Chronicles. -C
Interesting; can you provide more specific references? Isn't it a little silly to assume they're bible-thumpers?
Post by: Jamisjockey on July 18, 2006, 07:45:19 PM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Personally I thought those were the kind of discussions you DIDN'T have at the top of your lungs in the middle of the workplace!
I work with a nimrod that was going on and on about immigration....right in front of our Hispanic janitors....
Post by: Guest on July 19, 2006, 01:28:37 AM
Post by: El Tejon on July 19, 2006, 03:26:39 AM
Young man, move to Floriduh, I say, young man, skip on down and vote.
Post by: Stickjockey on July 19, 2006, 04:32:12 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
I just wanted them to shut the hell up!
Stand up, take a deep breath, and start belting out Ethel Merman tunes. :evil:
Post by: 280plus on July 19, 2006, 04:47:08 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 19, 2006, 05:04:41 AM
Years ago a friend of mine had a record of Ethel Merman doing show tunes...
Disco style.
He always put it on at the end of a party when he wanted stragglers to get the hell out.
Post by: charby on July 19, 2006, 05:20:29 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: charby
Just make sure you let them know that Leviticus allows for males to have concubines. So does book of II Samuel, 1 Kings and Chronicles. -C
Interesting; can you provide more specific references?Best example of its cool to have multiple wives and concubines is Exodus 21:10-11
Quote
Isn't it a little silly to assume they're bible-thumpers?
With all the people I deal with the ones that have issues with gays are the Bible thumpers and their Leviticus quoting. So I started to revisit the Old Testament to give counter arguement, I guess my education in a Catholic school wasn't totally wasted. Still my favorite comeback is, "When I was in six grade I asked my priest about the Book of Leviticus, he told me it was a boring old book about a nomadic tribe and I should just look at the entire Old Testament as a history book and live my life by the New Testament."
Okay church chat overwith, lets talk about guns and the best way to smoke a chicken.
-C
Post by: Jamisjockey on July 19, 2006, 07:55:56 AM
Quote from: Barbara
I don't get why that's a problem? If they're Americans they probably aren't crazy about people sneaking over here, either.
I work for the government. If its not pleasntries about the weather, its pretty much verboten in the workplace....and he was bordering on racist comments with the way he was stating his position....
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 19, 2006, 09:20:53 AM
Quote from: charby
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: charby
Just make sure you let them know that Leviticus allows for males to have concubines. So does book of II Samuel, 1 Kings and Chronicles. -C
Interesting; can you provide more specific references?Best example of its cool to have multiple wives and concubines is Exodus 21:10-11
Okay church chat overwith, lets talk about guns and the best way to smoke a chicken.
-C
Post by: charby on July 19, 2006, 09:55:52 AM
Quote
But if you want to discount the OT, you'd still have the New Testament passages that condemn homosexuality and barely tolerate polygamy or slavery.
True very true, I was trying to make a point that folks pull support for their feelings from ancient text but pick and choose what they want to use. Never is a exact right answer with religion, I see the error of my ways, now I am off to say my 12 Hail Marys.
If you're bored read this.. I found it last night
http://www.voxdeserto.com/2005/07/living-by-leviticus.html
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 19, 2006, 10:22:19 AM
It's really cute when people pretend that the Bible only condemns homosexuality in one verse or only in the Old Testament. When they seem to think that all conservative Christians or fundamentalists want to legislate against every sin listed in the Bible, (or even that we must in order to be consistent) that's just annoying. When they comment on the Bible without paying any attention to the millienia of scholarship that has come before them, it's downright sad.
Changed my mind, went back and scrolled to the bottom of the article Charby linked to. I found this bit of remarkable ignorance.
Quote
Except for Paul's remark that it is better to marry than to burn, there are no principles concerning marriage in the New Testament and Jesus did not speak on the matter
Way, way, way off. This tells us all we need to know of the author's credibility on this or any subject.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on July 19, 2006, 11:25:05 AM
Just a quick question:
Why are you attacking Charby for his personal opinion?
The mark of a rigid closed-minded a$$ is usually taking things and trying to turn them into a tit-for-tat debate.
While I'd rather err on the side of caution, reason and prudence, life becomes a unique shade of gray when you are thusly bound.
Ring the bells that still can ring,
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
There is a great, peaceful, sanity once you succomb to madness.
Fig
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 19, 2006, 12:30:22 PM
Arguments about personal opinion are a mainstay of a board such as this one. Charby chose to use this thread as a platform from which to attack religious people like me, and to twist the words of the scriptures which I hold sacred. And that without provocation; he was the one to bring religion into the discussion. While he is free to interpret the Bible any way he wishes or to ignore it altogether, I feel a duty to explain where he has misunderstood Christianity, and to defend my religious beliefs against what I regard as an attack, just as anyone else would defend their political point of view on this board.
Was I too hard on him?
Keep in mind my last two posts were directed at an article that Charby linked to, not at Charby himself.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on July 19, 2006, 12:39:47 PM
Sorry. I just hate it when things get heated up between my friends, and was afraid this was deteriorating fast.
Thanks for taking the High Road with me. My sanity's not what it once was. I stuck my nose in where it didn't belong.
I'll go back to my corner to drool and sing Kum Ba Yah.
Post by: charby on July 19, 2006, 01:03:09 PM
I wasn't attacking anyone's religion, just speaking my opinion on how I felt and what I observed. Observed as many people who don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle are quick to pull information from the Old Testament on their disagreement.
I'm done before this turns into who's interpretation is better than whoms.
-C
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 19, 2006, 01:53:01 PM
Is this anything like discussing illegal immigration within earshot of the afore-mentioned Hispanic janitors? That is, dogging Bible-thumpers in the presence of a Bible-thumper?
No hard feelings here.
Post by: Mannlicher on July 19, 2006, 05:45:07 PM
Post by: charby on July 19, 2006, 07:08:42 PM
Quote from: fistful
Charby, I also become annoyed when people of my persuasion use the Bible as a basis to support their point of view, when they're talking to people who may not care what the Bible says. I'm equally annoyed when people assume that the Bible is the only reason to oppose homosexuality, or that every heterosexist (people like me) must be religious. Different people have different reasons.
Is this anything like discussing illegal immigration within earshot of the afore-mentioned Hispanic janitors? That is, dogging Bible-thumpers in the presence of a Bible-thumper? No hard feelings here.
not a problem.... so what is the best handgun to carry while smoking a chicken?Is this anything like discussing illegal immigration within earshot of the afore-mentioned Hispanic janitors? That is, dogging Bible-thumpers in the presence of a Bible-thumper?
No hard feelings here.-C
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 19, 2006, 08:08:48 PM
Quote
I just wanted them to shut the hell up!
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=91FB0479&nclm=iPodshuffle
Post by: crt360 on July 19, 2006, 08:51:20 PM
Quote from: charby
so what is the best handgun to carry while smoking a chicken?
-C
Depends on what you mean by "smoking a chicken".-C
If it involves wrapping a large zig-zag around said chicken, I'd recommend staying away from the firearms.
If you mean blasting one at long range and you just need backup, I'd say .44 mag at the least. If you miss, they might charge, and it could get ugly.
If you're just making a dead one tasty, anything in polished chrome or stainless with mother-of-pearl should work nicely. It should be carried in your funkiest holster - contrasting stitching, embossed topless female shapes, fringe, snakeskin, fur, rhinestones - everybody has one of these . . . don't they?
Post by: Strings on July 19, 2006, 08:56:00 PM
But that type is FUN to play with!
Was helping out at a game shop (mostly RPGs), and this guy walks in wearing a Packer jogging suit. He looks around a bit, then the conversation goes like this:
Joggin Suit: "Why do you have all this Satanic stuff here?"
Hunter Rose: "Ummm... what Satanic stuff?"
JS: "All this D&D stuff"
HR: "Ummm.... how's it Satanic?"
JS: "Because there's demons in it!"
HR: "Uhhh... the demons are there to get beat up on. What's Satanic about beating up on demons?"
JS: "Well... it isn't Biblical! That makes it Satanic!"
HR: "Dude... football isn't in the Bible, either..."
He left rather quickly...
I really don't mind folks having something personally against something based on the teachings of their faith: that's their choice. However, when folks want to base legislation on the teachings of their faith, I feel that's violating the rights of anyone of differing teachings (I'm talking about things like legislation of morality here, not prohibitions against murder)...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 20, 2006, 03:37:36 AM
Yeah, any group will have its misconceptions about what the other side is up to. Having played a few rounds of D & D, I'm not falling for that particular one.
Post by: charby on July 20, 2006, 05:33:16 AM
Quote from: crt360
If you're just making a dead one tasty, anything in polished chrome or stainless with mother-of-pearl should work nicely. It should be carried in your funkiest holster - contrasting stitching, embossed topless female shapes, fringe, snakeskin, fur, rhinestones - everybody has one of these . . . don't they?
I so need that BBQ gun you just described, hell it would just blind the neighbors who seem to show up about 30 minutes after I put the birds on.-C
Post by: 280plus on July 20, 2006, 11:07:21 AM
J/K
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 20, 2006, 02:11:05 PM
Post by: 280plus on July 20, 2006, 02:46:22 PM
Post by: Strings on July 20, 2006, 05:36:46 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 20, 2006, 05:55:43 PM
Post by: Strings on July 20, 2006, 07:40:55 PM
Remember: religion (of ANY variety) is one of the easiest things to prevert to your own ends. Christianity, paganism, Islam... you name the faith, there's been somebody to pervert it to their own ends. Which isn't really an endictment against religion, so much as a demonstartion of how sick some people are...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 20, 2006, 07:56:59 PM
I don't know about that oft-heard wisdom that religion is "one of the easiest things to prevert to your own ends." I think it's a matter of what people value, and religion is not that high on the priority scale for Western Man these days. Seems to me, you're just as likely to sway people with patriotism, but the baser insticts have a lot more sway. Madison Avenue doesn't use either of those more noble urges to sell toothpaste or automobiles; they use the desire for status, for wealth, for sex and so on.
Probably, if they didn't "let" her speak to that guy, it was motivated out of a concern for her own welfare, not that that makes it OK to control someone.