T1B

I totally support one's Constitutional Right to don ladiethings and prance about in a bachelor bathroom.

Government has no compelling reason to limit it.

wow. that was totally devastating. i'm sure you'll get racked by the bottom feeders fo sho.

Jsc wrote:pop's selective interpretation of the Bible

Since you've "studied the Bible," I'd like to see your commentary on Romans 1:18-32.



Romans 1:18-32
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



Your commentary?

How do you relate this content to the question of whether or not a Christian Church ought to be embracing homosexual "marriage?"

I won't speak for Jsc, but I don't think either of us has said that churches should be forced to accept anything other than their role in society. And that does NOT include setting laws & public policy. Yes the Establishment Clause was put in to protect churches, but also to prevent them from interfering with public policy (our Founding Fathers probably had strongly on their mind how nice it was to be ruled by the church under the limeys). So regardless of what the bible, koran, the Pali Canon, or Book of Flying Spaghetti Monster might have to say. those of us in the United States are not bound to them. Quote them all you want, it still doesn't provide legal justification for the establishment of any law.

And more directly to your question, so what? There's other parts of the bible that could be used to counter what you've posted. But a thumper taking a part of their book of tales out of context is nothing new...

You have repeatedly charged that I selectively interpret the Bible, and yet here I give you a passage to give commentary on and you dismiss it, making the claim that Jesus saying "Love your neighbor as yourself" trumps all.

Who is selectively interpreting the Bible?

I will be more than happy to give commentary on ANY passage from the Bible.


There are those within the Church who seek to welcome homosexual marriage in -- and they try to persuade the sheep that it matches up just fine with the Word of God.

Fools believe them.
Absolute fools.

And those doing the persuading are snakes of the highest order.


Go ahead and pimp homosexual marriage if you want to.
People can formulate "secular" reasons why they think it is appropriate.

But if you actually want to bring the Bible into it -- and say "Look here, even the Bible says homosexual marriage is good," any non-fool knows that you are completely full of shit.

Off the deep end.

Jsc wrote:But don't blame me for the conflict between your interpretation of Paul's words and the clear meaning of Jesus' words.

How do you think I have misinterpreted what it says in Romans 1:18-32?
I've asked you to give your own commentary -- and you refused.
You've effectively torn it out of your Bible.
It does not match your agenda.


Even though you now claim that Jesus' Words trump all, you have chosen to tear these Words of His out of your Bible...

Matthew 19:4
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?



Jesus said this...

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus said that if you don't believe Moses' Words you don't believe Jesus' Words.


Moses wrote this...

Genesis 2:23-24
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Tart is demonstrating the transitive property of Jesus.

Jsc wrote:Do you agree that Jesus had two Great Commandments that are above everything else?

No.

The greatest "commandment" for you is to believe and receive Jesus Christ as your savior.


The entire context of Jesus' Words are Matthew 22:34-46.

He was specifically asked by one of the Pharisees, "Which is the greatest commandment in... THE LAW?"

To that question, what is most important in THE LAW, Jesus gave His reply.

- Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
- Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Jesus said all of the law and prophets (all of the OT) hangs on these two commandments, which came directly out the the Books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.


We are no longer bound to keep the law.
At least I am not.

Are you?
I mean, you must be doing just dandy with your "luvin' of your neighbor" dealie -- but what about the 600+ other laws?
How are those working out for you?
Is a priest performing blood sacrifices for you on a regular basis, to atone for your sin?

Read the rest of the passage - v.41-46.
Jesus goes on to befuddle the Pharisees, who think they are the chosen ones of God, of the line of David.
He tells them that the Christ is a son of GOD, not the son of David.


The law (including loving your neighbor as yourself) is completely and eternally fulfilled in Jesus Christ -- and all who believe and receive Him stand forever sinless before God.
All who believe in Him ---> LIVE.

Just "lovin' your neighbor" won't do jack squat for you, my friend -- because the truth is, you are a filthy, lying piece of shit.


Believe and receive Him.

poptart wrote:Just "lovin' your neighbor" won't do jack squat for you, my friend -- because the truth is, you are a filthy, lying piece of shit.

I can certainly picture Jesus saying something like this.

Jsc wrote:How come He created other people who in all sincerity pray and study the Bible, yet come up with different conclusions than you?

You have not sincerely prayed -- or else you would have known the Christ and received Him.

Instead you reject Him, curse God, and mock His Word.

You're a fraud.

You pluck one verse out of the Bible, ignore context, and build an entire "Homosexual marriage is fine," doctrine around it, even though the Bible is FULL of scripture telling us the opposite about homosexual activity.

You ARE a Pharisee.

Like all of us, you have no goodness and your "I love my neighbor as myself" conclusion is puffed up self-righteousness.

It is filthy rags.

Perhaps if she had grown up in the United States, she would have been a Christian, but she grew up in Egypt and became a Muslim.

Is God not the Master?

Does He not only control life, but the habitations of people?

I think He does - and God's Word confirms that.


Genesis 3:1 (the serpent speaking)
Yea, hath God said...?


Did God really say?

yeah, pretty much

Jsc810 wrote: So in other words, yes we will have same sex marriage available in all 50 states soon.

Not in your life time, not if you live until 2112 and they play Rush at your funeral.

KC Scott wrote:JSC may be a lot of things, but I'm pretty sure he was never a ruler of ancient Egypt

You got your Ph's confused there, Scott.

poptart wrote: You have not sincerely prayed -- or else you would have known the Christ and received Him.

Instead you reject Him, curse God, and mock His Word.

You're a fraud.

You ARE a Pharisee.

It is filthy rags.

Did God really say?

of course "god" didn't say anything....the bible is a book that was cobbled together on the basis of 2,000 year old desert scribblings, modified hundreds (if not thousands) of times and voted on (see Council of Nicea)......it was cobbled together by some bronze age mythologists in an attempt to explain the world.....but let's assume it was indeed the word of god....

are you forgetting the passage Matthew 7:1-3, because it seems to me that you've been nothing but judgmental though out this thread......not only that, but you've taken it upon yourself to interpret the "words" of your god and mete out edicts based on your beliefs.....again, most unchristian of you.....

Felix, with which the five quotes of mine that you posted did I supposedly JUDGE Jsc?


1) He has indeed rejected Christ, cursed God, and mocked the Bible.

2) He is a fraud. He claims to "love the neighbor as himself," and yet go back and read the vitriol and name-calling he directed at ME, because I do not agree with HIM. Is the Christian who believes the Bible not his neighbor? Saying he is a fraud is merely stating a fact.

3) He is a Pharisee. Clearly. It takes no leap of judgment to make that call. He wants to display his own righteousness -- "I follow the greatest commandment, to love neighbors as myself," even though he ignores the FIRST commandment Jesus gave in the Scripture he cited, which is to love God with all your heart. He mocks God, openly.

4) His deed are filthy rags, obviously. Have you looked at Isaiah 64:6. Give it a peek. That goes for ALL OF US.

5) Did God really say... How did I supposedly judge him there?



Did you ever read Acts chapter 7?

Stephen, knowing he was about to be stoned, ripped the PISS out of the vipers who crucified the Lord with probably THE greatest rant in the entire Bible.
Then, when it's nearly over, in v.55 & 56, we see that Jesus is looking down at the scene, STANDING on the right hand of God.
In Scripture, it's always sitting on the right hand of God the Father.

Stephen got a sanding friggin' ovation from Jesus Christ for ripping the snakes.

Read the rant.



If you want to know about real judgment and condemnation...

John 3:17-18
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Shouldn't this entire thread be shifted over to theology, as it has veered just a bit off topic?



My

9 pages now...All you shit slinging monkeys every time popaload drops some gas on the fire you all respond in mass. Faggotry...yeah...

Along with what Jsc said, there's always the concept of "separate but equal." I question whether such a union would be equal in every way unless the civil recognition of marriage was dissolved for hetero couples. If thumpers want to ban gays from being married in churches - fine. But there's no legal justification for having two sets of standards for civil unions. Couples should either married (regardless of genders) or in civil unions (regardless of genders). To have otherwise would be to reverse Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Jsc810 wrote:Our Constitution has been living since it was written. With every decision it grows.

This is why people like you should be stood against a wall and shot. No smack. No outrageous statement for shock effect. People who believe this should simply be killed without remorse and without prejudice. Putting a bullet in your head would be nothing more than taking out garbage.

The Constitution was never intended to "grow" by judicial fiat. It was intended to grow by the clearly delineated amendment procedure.

what mv said, racketh.

mvscal wrote: This is why people like you should be stood against a wall and shot.

Rope is recyclable.

Think of our children's future...

88 wrote:He said they had stiff necks and uncircumcised hearts and ears. That is some serious smack.

Well, it's not exactly Terrence in Sierra Madre, but if you know about the Old Testament, it's EPIC stuff.


- they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth -


Easily one of my favorite chapters in the Bible.

I don't have time to address your complete post before work, 88. But I will second the film recommendation. And it's based an actual event in WWII.

Diego in Seattle wrote:I don't have time to address your complete post before work, 88.

We'll all wait patiently until you find the time.

I don't always see eye to eye with 88, but he often makes very compelling arguements. Respect.

Taking this back to the field for a second, Michael Sam was most impressive at the podium in Indy. Wen he actually did anything athletic, he was not so good. Third to last in the bench, same 40 time as a 300+ lb Princeton lineman, stiff and bumbling on the drills. All in all a very poor performance.


I am sure if his draft stock falls many will overlook this on field performance and put the blame elsewhere.

Jsc wrote:Finally, I will note that much of the current problem of same sex marriage could have been avoided by a gay man. The King James Bible is the most widely used version of the Bible. King James was gay. He simply could have directed his council to correct the translation errors in the Bible regarding gays, or something like that.

You have lost your mind, dude.

Why is it that all the fucking lawyers on here have to write a fucking story every time they try to make a point ??

Can you not just hit the salient points without quoting your law scripture ?

Jsc810 wrote:





Finally, I will note that much of the current problem of same sex marriage could have been avoided by a gay man. The King James Bible is the most widely used version of the Bible. King James was gay. He simply could have directed his council to correct the translation errors in the Bible regarding gays, or something like that.

Now how the fuck do you know he was gay ??

If you do not believe the King James Bible, and call it fairy tales, then you rely on some random " King James is gay" blast to support your position ??

Go ahead and drop a black cock reference or two in there as support also.

Derron wrote:Why is it that all the fucking lawyers on here have to write a fucking story every time they try to make a point ??

Can you not just hit the salient points without quoting your law scripture ?

Just open the "GIF of the day" thread. There's plenty of pretty pictures for you to look at, you fucking chucklehead.

According to most historical accounts, King James was in fact, the gay.

For whatever the hell that's worth.



Carry on.

Derron wrote:Why is it that all the fucking lawyers on here have to write a fucking story every time they try to make a point ??

Can you not just hit the salient points without quoting your law scripture ?

Brevity is not in their DNA. They bill by the hour.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Derron wrote:Why is it that all the fucking lawyers on here have to write a fucking story every time they try to make a point ??

Can you not just hit the salient points without quoting your law scripture ?

Just open the "GIF of the day" thread. There's plenty of pretty pictures for you to look at, you fucking chucklehead.

Did you read every bit of lawyer speak that the barristers wrote ??

Derron wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Derron wrote:Why is it that all the fucking lawyers on here have to write a fucking story every time they try to make a point ??

Can you not just hit the salient points without quoting your law scripture ?

Just open the "GIF of the day" thread. There's plenty of pretty pictures for you to look at, you fucking chucklehead.

Did you read every bit of lawyer speak that the barristers wrote ??

Yes. In case you hadn't noticed, I complimented 88 on his take. It doesn't really take all that long for those of us who are literate.

poptart wrote:Felix, with which the five quotes of mine that you posted did I supposedly JUDGE Jsc?


1) He has indeed rejected Christ, cursed God, and mocked the Bible.

1

2) He is a fraud.

2

3) He is a Pharisee.

3

4) His deed are filthy rags, obviously.

4

Did you ever read Acts chapter 7?

yeah......

Jay wrote:According to most historical accounts, King James was in fact, the gay.

For whatever the hell that's worth.

Almost nothing.



This take is perhaps the most preposterous thing I've ever read on this board...

Finally, I will note that much of the current problem of same sex marriage could have been avoided by a gay man. The King James Bible is the most widely used version of the Bible. King James was gay. He simply could have directed his council to correct the translation errors in the Bible regarding gays, or something like that.

- Jsc




There are many multiple thousands of Bible manuscripts which all say the same things (save spelling, sentence structure, or grammar differences).
They all contain THE SAME content on almost EVERYTHING in the OT and NT, respectively -- and of course on the things which are said about homosexuality.

King James was able to just make all these manuscripts disappear somehow??

*poof*
They're all gone!!

Nobody could look at the King James Bible he produced and say, "Umm, boss. WTF is this?? The manuscripts ALL say something different than what you've produced here."

Jay in Phoenix wrote:According to most historical accounts, King James was in fact, the gay.

Uh...no. There are no such facts. Any historian declaring that James was in fact a bugger is either an idiot or pimping an agenda. Contemporaneous rumor is not a fact. It's difficult enough to separate fact from rumor in our own times and virtually impossible to do so 400 years later. It's fairly common trap for mediocre historians. If there was actual contemporary evidence that James chugged cock, it is highly unlikely that his reign would have survived given the political volatility of his era. At best, he would have been forced to abdicate in disgrace.

The facts are that he was married and his wife became pregnant 12 times. That would seem to be a bit above and beyond the call of royal duty for a 'mo.

mvscal wrote:Uh...no. There are no such facts. Any historian declaring that James was in fact a bugger is either an idiot or pimping an agenda. Contemporaneous rumor is not a fact. It's difficult enough to separate fact from rumor in our own times and virtually impossible to do so 400 years later. It's fairly common trap for mediocre historians. If there was actual contemporary evidence that James chugged cock, it is highly unlikely that his reign would have survived given the political volatility of his era. At best, he would have been forced to abdicate in disgrace.

The facts are that he was married and his wife became pregnant 12 times. That would seem to be a bit above and beyond the call of royal duty for a 'mo.

Look mvscal, I'm not the one stating this as fact, just passing along readily available information. The fact is that he was indeed married, and his was impregnated. That, however is not proof of him not being bi-sexual, or full on drag queen. There are plenty of married men with families who diddle dudes on the side. I could care less whether King James was or was not tripping the light fabulous, but there is more out there than just rumor or innuendo that indicate the guy liked guys. And in the end, so to speak, what does it matter?

While there remains no physical proof, such as a letter from James, or a diary, and it is true he was smeared by rivals and contemporaries, he had at least three intimate relationships with men that seemed to be deeper than "just friends". They were, Esme Stuart, Robert Carr, and George Villiers.

Here are a few reference sources where these stories came from:

Bergeron, David M. King James & Letters of Homoerotic Desire.

Bingham, Carolyn. The Making of a King: The Early Years of James VI and I.

Harris, William. An Historical & Critical Account of the Life and Writings of James the First.

McElwee, WIlliam. The Wisest Fool in Christendom: The Reign of James I and VI.

Norton, Richtor. "Queen James and His Courtiers", The Great Queens of History, updated 8 January 200.

Stevenson, Joseph. The Correspondence of Robert Bowes, ed.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:It's time to face facts, tiny. Not only do you need to stand on a phone book to suck a dick, you are also a complete idiot as evidenced by the fact that you seem to believe that you have gleaned some meaningful information from a google search of largest employers.

...you would realize that the bottom ten employers is not the place to look for meaningful info on your shit economy.

Yes, dumbfuck...finance. TD Ameritrade, Berkshire Hathaway, Mutual of Omaha and First National of Nebraska (the largest private bank in the country) etc. The FIRE sector accounts for 9% of the employment in Omaha. It was also one of a small handful of cities in the country to experience a net increase in jobs during this ongoing economic depression.

You washed out of military, california AND texass and now you have to go home to fucking Nebraska to die. Fuck off you stupid fucking racist pig.

The "bottom ten" employers are thousands of thriving small businesses, dumbfuck.

Report: Texas, Nebraska recognized for business expansion

“With all due respect, Texas is crushing it,” says Texas Gov.Rick Perry.

When it comes to attracting new business projects to the state, that’s true, according to a survey conducted by the real estate magazine Site Selection.

For the second year in a row, the Lone Star State’s governor won the magazine’s Governor’s Cup for luring more commercial projects than any other.Other states with the most total commercial projects in 2013 were Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

But the ranking changes when you look at the largest number of projects per capita. Using this methodology, Nebraska came in first, followed by Ohio, Louisiana, Kentucky and Kansas. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman was honored with a co-equal Governor’s Cup for leading the country in corporate expansion activity per capita. He credited much of his state’s success to its business-friendly environment.

“We are a right-to-work state with a strong work ethic among our employees,” Heineman told Site Selection. “We are a low energy cost state, and we have a reasonable regulatory climate, which is very critical. We have very good public and private education systems, a low cost of living and an outstanding quality of life. All of those come into play when people are looking at your business climate.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/repor ... z2uxOdGpBO

Idiot.

By definition the bottom ten businesses are not thousands of businesses you vapid racist fuck.

"Quality of life" I laughed. Then I went to the beach and then I hiked a mountain and then I ate a strawberry and fucked a hot chick.
How's Omaha asshat?

Moving Sale wrote:By definition the bottom ten businesses are not thousands of businesses you vapid racist fuck.

"Quality of life" I laughed. Then I went to the beach and then I hiked a mountain and then I ate a strawberry and fucked a hot chick.
How's Omaha asshat?

Sorry, "hot chicks" DON'T have dicks, asshat. How is it living in GAY SLO?