| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2005 06:43:45 PM · #1101 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Nice little ditty. Funny how you guys cry about discimination but yet you feel it is ok to discriminate against people who do not agree with you. Whatever you say it is a double standard. LOL funny how that all works out. |
Who am I discriminating against? Just joking a bit after a heavy day!
Lighten up!
P
We're not making fun of people we defend! If you mean gays you probably don't know many. Most of the ones I know quip a lot better jokes about their sex lives than those!
Again, Lighten up!
P
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 06:44:14 PM · #1102 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by jsas:
But yet you make fun of the very people you soo called defend LO(freakin)L! |
Try laughing WITH them? I think the people who can laugh at themselves are some of the strongest people around. |
Iam laughing just thought it was ironic. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 06:46:20 PM · #1103 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by jsas:
Nice little ditty. Funny how you guys cry about discimination but yet you feel it is ok to discriminate against people who do not agree with you. Whatever you say it is a double standard. LOL funny how that all works out. |
Who am I discriminating against? Just joking a bit after a heavy day!
Lighten up!
P
We're not making fun of people we defend! If you mean gays you probably don't know many. Most of the ones I know quip a lot better jokes about their sex lives than those!
Again, Lighten up!
P |
LOL sounds funny to justify the means. I am lightened up just messin with ya. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 06:54:38 PM · #1104 |
If the issue was about making fun of homosexuals, this thread would have been over long ago. One of my favorite things about the homosexuals that I have known, is that they seem to have wonderful senses of humor (genetic?). Some of the funniest jokes I've ever heard were told to me by homosexuals, about homosexuals. They understand that being offended is a choice, and choose not to give their power to people who hate them just because of who they love. Likewise, feel free to make fun of me...all of my friends do. If I respect you, I'll laugh...if I don't respect you, I'll ignore it.
The issue is about the unfairness of one group of people mandating the actions of another group because they don't fit into the first group's ideaology.
OK, I see you've lightened up. Welcome back.
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 18:58:38. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 06:58:59 PM · #1105 |
| Yes, I know that, Come on! people don't get your tighty whities in a twist. Its not like you are defending the homeless or anything. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:02:05 PM · #1106 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Yes, I know that, Come on! people don't get your tighty whities in a twist. Its not like you are defending the homeless or anything. |
That's a whole different thread! :P And I don't wear tight whities either
 |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:03:25 PM · #1107 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Yes, I know that, Come on! people don't get your tighty whities in a twist. Its not like you are defending the homeless or anything. |
Why, is there an amendment to ban the homeless from getting married?
wink, wink. J/K |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:05:53 PM · #1108 |
| OK so when will this thread end anyway? We need a light hearted one for more laughs. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:08:17 PM · #1109 |
Originally posted by jsas:
But yet you make fun of the very people you soo called defend LO(freakin)L! |
i never said that you shouldn't be able to make fun of homosexuals. i never even really tried to defend them/us.
i DID say that no matter what you think about them, you should go live your life and let them live theirs.
yeah, i've made fun of my people a lot here. i consider it a birthright to mock people mercilessly. not just homos: ANYONE! it just so happens that i have a lotta gay material. :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:14:54 PM · #1110 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by jsas:
But yet you make fun of the very people you soo called defend LO(freakin)L! |
i never said that you shouldn't be able to make fun of homosexuals. i never even really tried to defend them/us.
i DID say that no matter what you think about them, you should go live your life and let them live theirs.
yeah, i've made fun of my people a lot here. i consider it a birthright to mock people mercilessly. not just homos: ANYONE! it just so happens that i have a lotta gay material. :) |
I know muckpond. I breathe in, I breathe out, I make fun of my people too. Redneck hillbilly's and this is for you. GET R DUN! or should it be GET HM DUN! |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:28:35 PM · #1111 |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:29:10 PM · #1112 |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:49:32 PM · #1113 |
| Thanks for the bump LOL too funny! |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 08:47:56 PM · #1114 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Funny how you guys cry about discimination but yet you feel it is ok to discriminate against people who do not agree with you. Whatever you say it is a double standard. |
Discussion is not discrimmination. We're not proposing legislation that bans you from using the word "truth" because it corrupts our idea of what truth is.
Originally posted by ScottK:
The site claims: "Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination." Yet, the actual scripture later on the page is: "...they shall be an abomination unto you", or, as the NIV puts it: "...you are to detest".
God likes shrimp just fine. He just doesn't think they're good for his people. |
Your interpretation doesn't hold water. If He wanted us to hate these things for our own protection, He could just make them taste bad. RE: Bear's note- anyone hoping to convince people that a new religion is to be believed must take into account common knowledge. If eating clams could kill you, then the bible's authors can't very well claim they're good for you, can they?
Therein lies a dilemma for the bible and other ancient texts. The author(s) are limited by what is known in their times. They can't just trot out a new text explaining that the earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun because they didn't know that (although a creator certainly would), Little wonder that texts from multiple cultures would refer to a large flood in the past: if 200 years from now everybody knew there had been a big Tsunami in Indonesia, then I'd have to include that in any new "history" (and a little sensationalism won't hurt sales). You'll find references to most significant animals of the area (lions, wolves, camels...), but good luck finding a reference to moose, kangaroos, tapir or penguins. Even ancient people must have found fossils of strange beasts that weren't around anymore, but nobody had seen one alive to know what it really was, so the authors must include generalized accounts of giants, leviathans and dragons and explain their disappearance. The GOAL would have been to explain everything known as believably as possible, leaving some wiggle room for interpretation to prevent anything from being disproven. When exploration reveals details of the previously unknown, though, it frequently conflicts with the stories of the bible.
Dinosaurs were wiped out LONG before there were people (otherwise we'd find evidence of both in the same layers of rock), but the bible says there were giants until AFTER the flood. Believers explain away "prehistoric'" cavemen as people who had to start over with nothing after the flood, but if that were true there would be evidence (however battered) of civilizations with advanced shipbuilding technology predating stone tools. 2000 years ago people believed that the sun and stars revolved around the earth (it was the obvious conclusion: I'm standing still on a mountain, and everything above me is moving, so we get a very earth-centric text). Copernicus and Galileo threw a real monkey wrench into that one. Slavery was already a widely accepted practice, so the bible has to say it's OK, etc., etc., etc. It amazes me that otherwise-educated people in this century can view the bible as literal fact.
Now, please understand that I have NO problem co-existing with those who would accept the bible as a factual account, or that aliens draw pictures in corn fields or that the tooth fairy has a fondness for used bicuspids. Go right ahead and disagree with me all you want... knock yourselves out. Just don't use those beliefs as grounds to limit MY life.
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 21:51:40. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:14:42 PM · #1115 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Go right ahead and disagree with me all you want... knock yourselves out. Just don't use those beliefs as grounds to limit MY life. |
And you will agree to not support candidates/legislation that limits my life/rights as well?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:22:04 PM · #1116 |
| We the people for the people is a distant dream anymore if you are a lobbyist you have a voice from both sides of the fence. Plain and simple otherwise we chirp like sparrows and you know what sparrows are? All mouth and a--holes. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:48:42 PM · #1117 |
Originally posted by Flash:
And you will agree to not support candidates/legislation that limits my life/rights as well? |
No problem. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:53:35 PM · #1118 |
Man, as tempted as I am to add my two cents, I think I'll just go home and weep for our collective future instead.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:56:29 PM · #1119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
And you will agree to not support candidates/legislation that limits my life/rights as well? |
No problem. |
We have an agreement here marked on the 17th of November,2005 sir scalvert agrees to not do something to sir Flash, who in return will not do something to scalvert. Heree heree session closed! |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:02:40 PM · #1120 |
| Nah, I just said I wouldn't support legislation that restricts his rights. I'm still gonna replace his deodorant with cream cheese. ;-P |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:40:50 PM · #1121 |
| I just came across this post, read several pages and simply sit here shaking my head. I was in a relationship with a woman for 19 years - longer than many heterosexual marriages. We harmed nobody, lived quiet lives in a small NY town, held white collar professional jobs, yet were unable to be recognized as a couple. Honestly, it never truly bothered us one way or another. We knew in our hearts what we meant to one another. To me, that's more important than all this debate over legality, rights, etc....just my two cents worth. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 09:07:29 AM · #1122 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Nah, I just said I wouldn't support legislation that restricts his rights. I'm still gonna replace his deodorant with cream cheese. ;-P |
;-]
|
|
|
|
11/18/2005 11:09:30 AM · #1123 |
I thought that I'd share a few things that were exclaimed in the Bible long before they were "discovered".
1) Psalms 8:8 ( circa 1000 B.C. ) in which the Bible speaks of "all that swim the paths of the sea".
Although surface currents may have been known at the time, underwater currents were not. And underwater currents do not follow only the directions of the prevailing winds. It wasn't until the mid 1800's A.D. that Matthew Maury, who was driven to find these "paths of the sea", began the process of determining what these "paths" were - resulting in the charting of sub-surface ocean currents, including a number of deep ocean currents.
2) Job 28:25 ( between 1500 and 1000 B.C. ) in which the Bible speaks of the "weight for the wind".
The "fact" that air has weight was unknown until "discovered" by Evagelista Torricelli in 1640 A.D.
3) Isaiah 40:22 ( circa 800 B.C. ) in which the Bible refers to God as "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".
The notion of a "round" earth was not generally accepted until the first century A.D. Though Aristotle provided evidence to support a "round earth" around 300 B.C., that was still 5 centuries after Isaiah described it as being round. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 11:28:32 AM · #1124 |
1) A. "Paths" could simply mean channels, not currents and B. Anybody who's experienced undertow knows there are underwater currents that don't follow the wind
2) You can feel the pressure of the air against your skin when the wind blows. Duh.
3) The notion of a round earth was well known to the Greeks (they observed it's shadow during lunar eclipses). So yeah, circular was known, but it was thought to be flat.
The bible was written AFTER Aristotle, not before. In fact, all the stories you refer to supposedly happened hundreds of years before the bible was even written, so these things were already known to the authors. How is that proof of prior discovery? Hey, HERE'S a fun bit of prior knowledge- Leviticus 13-14 claims that the cure for houses and clothes with leprosy (hello?) involves incantations and the blood of a bird. Modern medicine apparently hasn't caught up with THAT discovery yet. ;-)
Besides, you've pretty much invalidated your claims with your own words:
Originally posted by RonB:
What Bible are you quoting? The King James Version lists Isaiah 18:6 as this... |
If your contention is that the bible is completely accurate and without error, that the stories of the Old Testament were passed down faithfully for generations, that the monks and clerics were so meticulous in their translations and transcriptions of the New Testament through 1500+ years that the contents are beyond question, then what difference would it make WHICH bible you were reading from? They would all be equally infallible direct copies. If the King James version (first published in 1611) is the "correct" version to quote from, then what was the accurate version that preceded it? The mere fact that there ARE versions demonstrates that there were significant changes and discrepancies through time.
Message edited by author 2005-11-18 12:39:01. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 12:27:54 PM · #1125 |
My goodness. This thread is a REAL picker-upper. :) It's only 10:26am here, and after having read this thread, I need a drink! I need a drink!
You're all welcome to come. Oh wait! The bar may just be too gay for ya. Hee hee. :) Never mind. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 03:20:25 PM EDT.
