|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 236
200+ posts
|
200+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 236 |
Quote:
Kristogar Velo said:
Somebody should tell Mad Hatter he doesn't even need a valid e-mail address to post at this place. As probably anyone who's posted with many alt IDs could tell you, just register the name, put down any e-mail address you feel like, and log in. You don't even need to read the confirmation e-mail.
Wait, he's been reading this thread. So I guess I'm letting him know...
You cant blame him for being unable to register,I'm sure he's still a little crazy from his breakdown after Athanon was destroyed on his watch. He's a cutter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
thats french for ass clown!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
|
|
Hip To Be Square 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47,810 Likes: 2 |
Maybe he can only get here from a link!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
youd think with the strict literacy clause he'd be able to figure how to register 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 236
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 236 |
Pale Contributor Member # 19 posted February 28, 2004 01:51 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.robkamphausen.com/ It's highly populated with fucktards, though. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Someplace really fuckin' LOOOOOOOONELY | IP: Logged Y'know whats sad? These guys still cant escape the message board trap,even with thier fabulous lives working at video stores they still cant handle human contact. I guess they have nothing else to do when they're not losing thier wives,girlfriends or attempting suicide. And in response to "Pale", At least the fucktards arent afraid to let them into thier message board,you fucking pussies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
...the really sad part is theyre still hurting from the last time they had to deal with us, you guys really need to begin the healing process......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,377
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,377 |
Quote:
Rob Kamphausen said:
what is the legal reasoning why gay people can not be married in the US?
Because George Bush said so! Dammit Robbie! Watch the news once in a while! Bush is denying you your right to marry Nowhereman! I know that ticks you off to no end! Storm the White House! Vote Democratic! Do whatever it takes until you get the man you love Robbie!
-----once over and twice twisted---------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Geez, you know, where to begin? As I open this response post, there have been 41 posts since I was here yesterday ( 41 !!!! ). And there will probably be 5 or 6 more before I finish my response and post.
Quote:
Danny said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter to a friend.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he passionately argued for.
But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear. And the desire that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
Says who? The millions of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc in your country? Or you?
The founding fathers who drafted the Declaration and Constitution, Danny.
As is abundantly clear in their personal writings, some of which I posted above, if you'd bothered to simply read it.
But I'm sure you'd rather just ignore the facts and call me an "ignorant fuckwad" or whatever else you said on the GRASSY KNOLL boards.
Never let such a piddly thing as the facts get in the way of your half-baked liberal views.
Quote:
Danny said:
The following is being posted on behalf of a friend of mine named Mike who doesn't have a working ID at this particular message board...
Quote:
(uncredited and posted in an immature and cowardly way, but thanks to Britneyspearsatemyshorts, we all know now who it was posted by) Mad Hatter:
I've been reading this monster of a thread for quite a while now. I have to admit, it's quite fascinating. Some strong arguments have been put forth here. I do have a few opinions of my own.
A few dates for you.
5-23-02
12-29-03
1-02-04
1-05-04
1-11-04
1-13-04
1-14-04
1-17-04
1-21-04
1-24-04
These, for the record, are the dates in which Dave The Wonder Boy posted on threads in the Women forum of this board. The majority of these threads contained pornographic pictures which Dave admits to approving of.
1-09-04
1-10-04
1-11-04
1-13-04
1-15-04
1-16-04
1-18-04
1-21-04
1-23-04
These are the dates in which Dave The Wonder Boy posted pornographic images of his own, some of which clearly came from sites which require an expensive monthly fee. Some of the images also seem to have come from a spam e-mail recieved by Dave, which he looked into further just out of "curiousity".
Now, I'm no Christian. Never have been. Unless I'm too much mistaken, though, both the manufacture and enjoyment of pornography is considered a sin by Christians. This is merely a theory based on personal experience, but it's rare to find a man who has memberships to at least two Internet porn sites who doesn't masturbate to the images found there. One must also realize that masturbation is also a sin in the eyes of Christians.
Now, Dave, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you here, but one must guess that, based on the evidence, you spend a hell of a lot of time surfing the Net for porn. Some of the days you spent posting porn on this board were even Sundays, Dave. I may need correction on that point, actually. Do Christians consider Sunday to be the Sabbath, or is that just a Catholic thing?
Mind you, I'm not one to judge. If you want to spend your free time sinning, Dave, then more power to you. Still, the frequency with which you seem to enjoy your porn indicates that this is a serious problem. One that a good Christian might even seek redemption and forgiveness for. Have you spoken about this to your pastor yet? Or, in lieu of that, prayed to God for guidance on this matter? If these questions are too personal, Dave, do let me know.
Still, I would have to guess that you have not, considering how recent some of those dates are. One could theorize that you don't really see this as a sin, or perhaps as a smaller sin not really worthy of God's wrath. Certainly not as bad as, for example, homosexuality. One might start to think that you, like so many other Christians, only pay lip service to your "faith". For example, you wallow in the filth of pornography, because you personally enjoy it. Yet, you are willing to deny homosexuals the rights due to all tax-paying Americans simply because it would infringe upon your rights to pursue your faith. Rather convenient, isn't it?
For the record, what is your personal belief on pornography, Dave? Will you be standing up to be counted amongst those who wish to see it outlawed? Surely you will, as it goes so blatantly against the Christian values that you clutch so fervently to your bosom.
It's odd to me, I admit. You are more than willing to class homosexuals as lower-class citizens because of your religious beliefs, yet you spend a great deal of time sinning, and spreading that sin to your fellow perverts here. Do you know what they say about a man who has strong feelings against homosexuality, and spends a great deal of his time proclaiming loudly about his attraction to the opposite sex? Like you, Dave, I am no psychiatrist. Perhaps we can all come to our own conclusions here.
I'm just curious, Dave. Feel free to ignore my questions if you like. Looking at the evidence, though, one might start to think that your opposition to gay marriage has to do with some deep personal bias, and that you're using the Bible to excuse this resentment. I know that a good porn-loving Christian like you would never do such a thing, though.
Again, I never had any encounter that I'm aware of prior to this with this Mad Hatter person who's deposited himself up my rectal cavity like a proctologist's rubber glove, and I'd be even more blind-sided if Britney hadn't posted a link to all this pretentiousness.
Following Britney's link led me to this:
( from the GRASSY KNOLL message boards... )
( "Bullshit", appropriately, is the name of the topic section where these two topics are posted. )
Bullshit: Cocks and The People Who Fear Them..."
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001764&p=
"Bullshit: Daniel..."
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001768
Given that Mad Hatter has already heavily edited his opening post to the "Daniel..." topic, to attempt to wipe out the inconsistencies and weaseliness that others here have pointed out in the 41 posts (so far) that have beeen made since I was here last (many thanks, Britney, Pariah, Kristogar Velo, DrZSmith, and Franta ).
Mad Hatter's appeal to Danny to post his own weaseliness has been omitted through self-editing of his opening post to the "Daniel..." topic for some unknown reason, over on the GRASSY KNOLL boards.
But the weaseliness is already known here to all of us.
And his formerly absolute statements have been lightened to "appears to be", "apparently", and "often", and other less committed qualifiers for his accusations, in the "Daniel..." topic.
( A topic which, again, would be hidden from my knowledge, if not for Britney's posting a link, which neither of these two cowards had the courage to post here. )
Mad Hatter's comments are yet another example of liberals who can't argue the issue, who instead attack the messenger, to attempt to harass and humiliate them into silence under a flood of false allegations.
A tactic used frequently in this topic by Jim Jackson, Dave, Whomod, Matter Eater Man and others of the gay/liberal persuasion. You guys constantly resort to dismissive labels and smear tactics, rather than discussing on the merits of the issue.
One liberal schmuck has told me to: "Go for the ball, not the man."
Even as he constantly goes for the man (me), and not the ball.
And somehow, in his relentless wrongheaded posturing pretentiousness, never sees the hypocrisy of what he's doing.
Play on, Maestro !
So once again, I'm hit with 500 words of false accusation, put on the defensive for no reason, and will probably be committed to 10,000 words of explanation to clarify what the truth is.
And in your infinite oh-so-superior liberal wisdom, you'll still continue with your insults and false characterizations, no matter how thoroughly I answer and disprove what you've alleged.
Some very rich ironies here.
1) That you try to tell me that I'm a bad Christian, without even being a Christian yourself, while in fact having a contempt for Cristianity, and by all appearances, not having the slightest CLUE what Bible verses I'm allegedly violating.
Oh, Kettle, thou art black.
2) The thesis of what I've argued, since page 2 of this topic is "Marriage" has been an institution for 6000-plus years. Gays can have Civil Union (a marriage equivalent) and have the same rights as married heterosexuals under the law in our democracy.
But they should not attempt to change the definition of marriage, which would violate the clear Biblical views of Judaism and Christianity, and freedom to practice those religions in their Bible-based fundamentalist form.
And would violate similar institutions in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.
And would also force acceptance of gays onto agnostics and atheists --who don't buy into any fundamentalist religion, but also still don't believe in "gay marriage".
That is what I've been saying since page 2, with crystal clarity. And any gay/liberal/secularist reading this topic who doesn't get my point by now, clearly doesn't want to get my point. The point has been made a hundred different ways.
I could be a Hindu or a secular humanist just arguing the Christian point of view here, and still be making this point, based on what gay marriage entails, and what Bible scripture clearly says about homosexuality(although obviously I am a Christian).
But my argument is valid regardless: "gay marriage" is **not** a concept that's compatible with the Bible, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.
I'm not condemning homosexuals as evil. I'm merely pointing out the Bible's stance on the issue (virtually all the verses have been posted here). Pointing out that homosexuality is incompatible with the Judao/Christian concept of marriage, and that of all the world's major religions.
I make it clear that both extramarital hetero-sex and homosexuality are both forms of adultery. I've been equal in my comments throughout, I have not singled out gays, while not similarly defining the Biblical stance on heterosexual adultery, in some partisan double-standard. As you allege falsely.
3) It's a misrepresentation to say I'm attempting to, or even advocating an attempt to, "discriminate" against gays or deny them rights.
I've said consistently since page 2 of this topic that I don't oppose gay civil union, which would give gays full rights within a secular framework, without re-writing Judaism and Christianity, and the Bible they are based on.
Civil union would not render public discussion of the Bible verses condemning homosexuality a "hate crime", and thus warp the ability to teach the moral standard the Bible clearly teaches.
Legalizing "gay marriage" would.
And similarly, would make a hate-crime of similar verses and beliefs from the books of faith for other religions.
Or again, would similarly suppress the rights of atheists and agnostics who while not religious, still don't believe in gay marriage, and don't want it legally imposed on them.
4) Neither pornography or masturbation are specifically addressed in the Bible. ( Nor are television, movies, the internet, air travel, antibiotics, guns, atomic weapons, recorded music, music videos, abortion, birth control, or a million other issues, that could all be argued to be protective, enlightening and beneficial to mankind, or decadent, unnatural and destructive.)
And there is VERY diverse opinion on these issues among the Christian community.
Whereas the Bible is extremely specific about the severity of adultery and homosexual behavior.
Your interpretation is your own interpretation, and NOT from the Bible.
The Matthew verse: "he who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart", does not clearly draw the line between desire and adultery. To look at a woman in a dress or a bikini and think she's attractive, is much different than planning to have sex with her, and conspiring a plan to do so.
A frequently voiced analysis of that verse is that only when that desire becomes a plan to seduce her, does it become a sin. (The interpretation footnoted in my NIV study Bible, and other Bible references I've read.)
One Christian book on sexuality I read called masturbation "God's greatest gift", a way to satisfy desire without committing adultery.
But again, the Bible does not clearly say masturbation or pornography are a sin. These are interpretations, and interpretations vary.
By your standard, I can't watch rated R movies, watch TV sitcoms, or look at a pretty girl at a shopping mall or the beach, because any of those things could incite desire.
But your clear lack of knowledge of Biblical scripture, and stated contempt for Christian beliefs, and frequent blasphemous remarks in your posts (yes, I looked at your recent posts at GRASSY KNOLL. After all, you apparently looked at all 869 of my posts here, and I felt obligated to at least look at the most recent 50 of yours, to see who this person was who had to use Danny to attack me, and couldn't even post the links to the GRASSY KNOLL topics, where this pompous liberal exercise in condescension of conservative/Christian views originated. And where since yesterday you've spinelessly edited Danny out of your initial post to the "Daniel..." topic, to hide how you pressed another --Danny-- to do your character assassination for you ).
More directly, what you allege specifically against me:
5) You count my posts to the WOMEN forum, and automatically assume that because I posted there, that all my posts are approval of, viewing of, and endorsement of, pornography.
The title of the section is WOMEN, not PORNOGRAPHY.
WOMEN covers a much wider scope. Even when nude or semi-nude pictures are posted.
Despite your distortion, many of my posts are an appreciation and reverence for women, discussion of their beauty and what I as a man personally find attractive in women in ALL aspects:
physically, in personality, and emotionally, relationship issues, advice to a guy who was having a rough time being in love with a girl who had no regard for him, and my own similar experience with a former love of my own.
I discuss one woman so beautiful, I said that if she was alive in Roman times, there'd be marble statues of her all over Europe now.
On one where someone posted Playboy photos of twins, I said "I've got a hankerin' for some double mint gum".
A terrible thing, that.
I mostly just express absolute awe for women, and their feminine, flirtatious ways, and express enthusiasm for the mystery that is woman.
Which, I think, is vastly different than "Man, I'd like to nail her !'
But whatever, think what you want.
All the images I posted are from free sites that were solicited by e-mail to me. As I said in at least two of the topics I posted to. ( Again, thanks Pariah. You saw it, so obviously some people out there can read and understand. )
I've mostly been pretty selective about what I post. Mostly pin-up girls like you'd see on a magazine cover.
Or at most, like a Playboy centerfold, nothing too explicit. The greek statue lady was the most explicit, and I thought she was so beautiful, I didn't want to omit any photos, regardless of how revealing they were.
There was one "porn" post of mine from May of 2002 that you listed, that I didn't even recall.
I thought I posted to the WOMEN section for the first time in December 2003.
So I checked it out:
Quote:
Re: vote for rob's hot girl, week of 5-20-02 topic:
#41653 - Thu May 23 2002 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
Laura Dern!
Oh yeah !
Laura Dern is a major hottie, who somehow gets overlooked.
Despite her being in Jurassic Park, Rambling Rose, Wild At Heart, Blue Velvet, October Sky, Citizen Ruth, and a number of other great lesser-known movies.
It seems to be by her own design that she hasn't become a major star.
Pretty incriminating stuff. Clear evidence of my masturbatory tendencies, my obsession and long hours looking at porn. My clear rejection of all Christian principles and scripture. Terrible, terrible stuff !
I once looked at about 100 of my own previous posts, and that took me several hours. So I guess I really should be flattered that you felt such a need to review my posts (consuming days? weeks ?), and retentively tabulate statistics of them. Even though you did it for the petty reason of lame-ly trying to "gotcha !" me.
But flattering as that is, I find your condescension baseless and pompous, and I feel that you are the intolerant one, who has such a burning need to stereotype myself and other Christians and conservatives, so you can rationalize the oh-so-allegedly-intellectual-superiority of your liberal embracement of homosexuality and gay marriage.
Never questioning your own lack of respect for Christianity, and your intolerance of Christian views, and outright urination on Christian beliefs.
I might be more inclined to join you on your boards, if I had a similar tendency to use the word "fuck" five times per sentence.
Oh yes, so morally and intellectually superior.
Quote:
Mad Hatter (again, channeled in a cowardly way through Danny):
Now, Dave, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you here...
Ohhhh nooooo, of course not ! Gee, where would I get an idea like that?
Clearly, you don't want real answers, you just want to call me names and stick it to me for not being an oh-so-enlightened superior liberal like yourself.
And clearly, you don't even have enough spine to discuss your real intentions.
Whatever.
Your intent is clear enough.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
....of course i can see them still being a little sore about a certain group of non existent people shutting down their last board  .....
Pig Iron should be happy, he's finally got some real friends now!
And that's terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
An example of Mad Hatter's pretentious, intolerant, blasphemy-filled urination on the Judao-Christian position (in its full indignant glory, preserved here in case he chooses to soften the evidence in a cowardly fashion later, as he's already done on the Daniel... topic).
The opening post of
Bullshit: Cocks and The People Who Fear Them..."
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001764&p=
Quote:
Mad Hatter
Contributor
Member # 4
posted February 16, 2004 12:21 PM
I've heard rumors that one of those "election" things is forthcoming. Seems like we just had one, but I guess we're due again. One can tell when election time is coming up by the amount of time and energy spent on ignoring the daily issues that face us all in favor of demanding to know the truth about forty year-old military records.
There's a certain logic to this, I suppose. If you want to prove that the current president is a horrifying liar, you'd have to go back that far. Years may pass before we can conclusively prove that his entire administration is cemented in bullshit. I mean, the odds are against it, but we could conceivably find a cluster of nuclear weapons buried in the Iraqi sand tomorrow.
One of the issues currently being thrown around actually does affect people in their daily lives. The gays want to marry. Each other. People who share similar genitalia want to legally be man and husband, or woman and wife. As we all know, allowing this will anger fictional old men who live in the sky, and the chances are good that said old men will choose to end the universe with a snap of their fingers to punish us for daring to not care about what pokes whose colon and why. In defense of all those who have expressed a preference for an intact universe, American politicians have taken their stand against gay marriage.
The reasons for this are many and varied. Upon first glance. Upon looking deeper, one finds that there is no legal basis for such a decision, and that it is mostly a method of imposing religious "morals" upon the rest of us, and is basically a thin covering for severe homophobia. Still, let's be sporting and treat each of these arguments for a whole universe to the coverage that they deserve.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate. Gays can't do that, so fuck you.
I must have missed that day in Bible study. I was under the impression that God preferred us not to procreate unless we had done the marriage thing first. Which is fair, as I'm pretty sure that he had even forbidden practice procreating without the marriage having been performed first. I don't recall Adam and Eve (along with Dick Clark, Earth's first inhabitants) having had the benefit of clergy, but I suppose it was understood what with them being the only two people around. This, of course, makes the life of all religious people easier. If you're a Godly fellow who finds himself alone in a room with a lady, immediately lock the door and demand that she fuck you. It's God's law.
Should this be true, then we've been fucking this marriage thing up all along. A ton of heterosexual people cannot procreate. Some crazy bastards even choose not to. Personally, I swore it in front of a thousand people in a ritual blood oath, but that was more of a general consensus than a following of God's law. Logically, we should be denying marriage rights to all those who either cannot or will not pollute the earth with their seed. I'd like to see us get started on that.
Letting the fags marry will make my straight dysfunctional marriage meaningless, so fuck you.
Man, you religious people are strict. I can distinctly remembering you churchies vociferously lobbying against divorce laws and Who Wants To Marry A Millionare. I remember the public pain and misery you people aired to the world upon learning that 70% of all marriages end in divorce, which can be obtained in some states of the Union in under an hour and for thirty bucks and a drink token. I remember the public denouncing of all those who have contributed to the 85% of all marriages that suffer from some sort of adultery. Oh, I know your pain well.
Upon reflection, I don't remember that at all. In fact, I can't recall any of these facts being decried with the passion that gay marriage has been. One might even think that you people are using this as a flimsy excuse to prevent the legal acceptance of shit that your uptight Bible Belt ass ain't comfortable with. A braver man than I might call this theory of yours complete bullshit. A smarter man than I might point out that only two people in the world can render a marriage void and meaningless. An angrier man than I might call you all a bunch of hypocritical, bigoted cunts without the intelligece present in most forms of simple bacteria.
We haven't allowed gays to marry in the past. It's tradition, and you don't screw with tradition, so fuck you.
How very true. Of course, in the past, we didn't let anyone of a differing race marry. Some races couldn't even marry people of their own mochalicious skin tone. We changed that, eventually. In fact, the definition of marriage has consistently changed over the years, depending upon how far we've chosen to remove our head from our rectum. If there's any valid tradition here, it's the one that states that we must all stay in a state of violent ignorance until the people we're trampling on make a huge enough fuss.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and that forbids gay marriage, so fuck you.
Not exactly, no. We have a lot of laws, and some of them are consistent with the Judeo-Christian principles bearing the greatest reek of common sense. Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shalt not spread peanut butter onto thine vagina for the purposes of soliciting oral sex from thine housepet, and so on. We took more than a few of our clues from the Bible, yes, but this does not mean that we run the country based strictly upon God's law. There are all manner of people living in the States, and not all of them are the same. There isn't a gay person alive who's trying to tell you that all churches should be forced, by law, to marry every fag that steps up to the altar. See, they know that this would be wrong. They're not actually trying to force their beliefs on you. What they're saying is that the government, the legal body that we elect to run the country for us poorly, has no right to decide that any one group of citizens isn't worthy of the rights that all tax-paying Americans enjoy. Those poor queer bastards are all caught up in that "all men are created equal, no matter how much they love the cock" thing.
No one's forcing a lifestyle on you. And if they are, they're not forcing anything on you that isn't being done on a daily basis by the thousands of non-Christian Americans who get married every damn day. I know what you religious people are saying. "All gays are against the law of God, and I cannot be touched by their gayness without condemning myself to hell". I also know what you're thinking. "Gay people make me uncomfortable, and I'm going to fight it by using the time-honored tradition of using the Bible to justify my hatred of those different from I".
Great. Best of luck with that. Now let me set this straight for you. America is supposed to stand for something. Equality under the law, freedom of thought and belief for everyone, and poor-quality electronics. No matter how fucking holy your reasoning may be, it's pretty damn un-American to tell a group of people that they are second-class citizens, and that although we expect them to contribute to American society in all the ways that we do, we won't be allowing them to share the same privileges. That is, in technical terminology, fucked and wrong. Your life will not change one bit if gays get to marry. Worried that your Christian-owned business will have to provide benefits for gay spouses? Suck it up, Flanders. That's America. I personally have had to deal with all manner of people who offend me with their very presence. I've found that the same rules which allow them to offend me give me the option of offending them right back. The price of freedom is high, my friends. In order to ensure that people tolerate your bigoted backwards ass, people are going to expect you to do the same to them. If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you start looking up the rent costs in Vatican City.
Worried that the acceptance of homosexuality will lead to the downfall of American society? Fucking hell, people, it was falling down long before this issue came up, and there are a million reasons why that don't involve dick in any way. If it makes you feel any better, the Roman Empire was full of gay hijinks, and lasted five fucking centuries. On a more ironic note, Christianity and politicians did far more to end the empire than the fags did. Heed and take note.
The bottom line is, the gays have it right. They're asking for nothing special. Just simple equality. Your asinine beliefs are forcing people to bypass the law and marry them anyway (look up any news article about what's currently going on in San Francisco. This is either insane bravery or pure political toadying. I haven't decided yet). If God is so against this, then he can send another one of those cleansing floods down here. I'll be happy to volunteer my services as one of the straight people who stay on the Ark to make sure the species survives. When all is said and done, there is no legal reason for this. The very ideals that America was founded upon forbid this. You people have no reason to be against gay marriage save for the religious. It won't affect your taxes. It won't endanger your soul, and it won't send America spiralling down the crapper any faster than it already is. Fact of the matter is, you people do more damage to the mighty US of A than a million married fags could ever do. So fuck you.
Fondling the cock of justice without a license,
The Mad Hatter
Before you bemoan the intolerance of Christians and conservatives, you might try exerting a bit yourself.
I respect that you have a different view than those of us on the other side of the issue. Your hyperbole, condescension, and utter contempt for beliefs you don't share, and absolute refusal to see the argument that civil union offers the same freedoms without stomping on another man's religion, makes me a lot more hostile to your comments than I would otherwise be.
Freedom of speech, yes. But try not to slander and urinate on what you choose not to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
...i really get a kick out of how they make inflamatory remarks and edit them out later, they built there little insulated "community" and forgot other people could read it
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
4) Neither pornography or masturbation are specifically addressed in the Bible. ( Nor are television, movies, the internet, air travel, antibiotics, guns, atomic weapons, recorded music, music videos, abortion, birth control, or a million other issues, that could all be argued to be protective, enlightening and beneficial to mankind, or decadent, unnatural and destructive.)
And there is VERY diverse opinion on these issues among the Christian community.
Whereas the Bible is extremely specific about the severity of adultery and homosexual behavior.
Your interpretation is your own interpretation, and NOT from the Bible.
The Matthew verse "he who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart", does not clearly draw the line between desire and adultery. To look at a woman in a dress or a bikini and think she's attractive, is much different than planning to have sex with her, and conspiring a plan to do so.
One analysis of that verse is that only when that desire becomes a plan to seduce her, does it become a sin.
One Christian book on sexuality I read called masturbation "God's greatest gift", a way to satisfy desire without committing adultery.
But again, the Bible does not clearly say masturbation or pornography are a sin. These are interpretations, and interpretations vary.
By your standard, I can't watch rated R movies, watch TV sitcoms, or look at a pretty girl at a shopping mall or the beach, because any of those things could incite desire.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
Well not that I care what you or anybody does for sexual pleasure (as long as it's not harming anyone) but the Bible does make it clear that lust is a sin. To masterbate you must lust (sin). So for people that take the stance that everything in the Bible is 100% true & overlook the obvious because it would mean they would have to control their sexual impulses is hypocrasy.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
...well that was relatively easy, i just read the daniel thread on bedpan and they already admitted defeat.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
It probably gets easier for them every time.
And that's terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
...well when you not used to venturing outside the circle jerk it can get pretty scary.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
IMDb Celebrity News Rosie O'Donnell Weds Lesbian Partner Rosie O'Donnell married her lesbian lover Kelli Carpenter yesterday in San Francisco - following President George W. Bush's vow to outlaw gay weddings. The American funnywoman was horrified when she discovered the Republican leader planned to file a lawsuit to stop the city's practice of gay marriage and immediately flew there to exchange vows with Carpenter. But the happy couple do not intend to follow the traditional practice of taking a honeymoon - instead they flew straight back to their native New York to attend a parent's day. Rosie says, "We really did, we got married. Some people asked us where we will be going on our honeymoon. With four kids under the age of eight, there will be no honeymoon." Earlier Rosie had hit out at President Bush fuming, "I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president. I am stunned and I'm horrified."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,377
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,377 |
Was she ever really funny?
now known as rex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
So despite that they say one thing it really means something else? Where is God more lenient? In Leviticus he's very strict on sperm usage & in some fairly strange ways (by todays standards at least) but I don't see him being more lenient.
Dude, there was no masturbation involved. There was no waste of seed. These were examples of thought and lustful longing. It's the physical violations that matter most. Leviticus went over physical abominations.
I pointed out Leviticus because that was the one place God speaks about sex that I remembered off hand. Are there passages in the Bible that indicate something else concerning masterbation? Internet search brings up stuff like this...
http://www.biblechristians.org/answers.cfm?ID=105
Browse All Questions
Is it a sin to masturbate?
Yes. Masturbation is a sin even if you are not thinking “sexual thoughts” while doing it.
Genesis 38:8-10 records the incident where God slew Onan for purposely spilling his seed, ie. Masturbation. (You will notice that it had nothing to do about whether he was thinking sexual thoughts.)
"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also." (Genesis 38:8-10)
Some theologians try to explain away this passage by saying that it was not Onan's act of purposely spilling his semen that angered God, but rather that it was Onan’s refusal to raise up children for his brother (the levirate marriage law) which offended God to the point that He punished Onan with death. However, though in Judah's day it was the custom of those people to give the widow in marriage to one of the brothers of the deceased husband, God had not yet instituted the levirate marriage law. God does not institute that law until Deut 25:5ff. And even if that law were to be applied in Onan's case, the punishment for refusing to carry out that law was only the removal of the man’s sandal and then spitting in his face--not death (see Deut 25:9). So why did God punish Onan with death? The only other thing Onan did was to purposely spill his seed (waste it). That is the answer. The reason why God punishes Onan with death is because he purposely spilled and wasted his seed in an act that is meant to be open to the possibility of God creating new life through that act.
In addition, masturbating usually, if not always, involves at least imagining sexual encounters with other persons in order to achieve orgasm. This sounds an awful lot like lusting to me. And lusting after imaginary women (or men as the case may be) while masturbating is still lusting - which our Lord condemned. (Mt. 5:28).
MEM, I don't see anything that changes the situation any. I went over the seriousness of wasting seed over the less significant sin of lustful thoughts. I concur that having thoughts about sex is a type of masturbation, but it's still not wasting sperm. It says that it CAN lead to ejaculate loss, but in this case, there was/is none. And really, I've never gotten myself off on thought alone.
Last edited by Pariah; 2004-03-01 5:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
See where your wrong in the homosexual/fetish comparison it doesn't take into account love. You and others that do this never get past the sexual act. Being in a 14 plus year monogomous relationship, I can tell you it's not lust but love that has kept the boyfriend & I together. Any straight or gay couple thats been together for any length of time will tell you that. You say "We know" but actually I don't think you do. Now I could have made different choices ranging between celibacy & promiscuity but no matter what, my attraction for the same sex would still be there.
Hey, I never said love couldn't exist there. Love can be extraordinarily deep in any direction you point at. But love is symbolized in many other ways than sex (this goes under straight relationships as well). Sexual pleasure (even tainted pleasure) doesn't have to be the only way to get a point across that you love someone. That was the excuse that the people of NAMBLA and (their female counterpart) Butterfly Kisses used. Just because you see it as A way to love someone, doesn't mean it should be seen as an applicable way.
Example (note: I've already gone over the dangers of homosexual sex and the fetish qualities it hones): What if someone wanted to establish that they loved someone with an equally dangerous method by killing themself--What's worse is if they would get a sort of sexual gratification out of the act. 
Anyway, my point is that you can't use that type of justification here. Principle would call for us to allow any type of form of symbolism of love between two people or.......Things (in a noticeably OR subtlely dangerous fashion). Remember that you can't use statistics and majority to help your case either. The whole point of homosexuality is that there is a true individual love, and therefore, it is indeed justified. Meaning, that if (as I exemplified before) someone wanted to kill themselves to say they love someone, it would also be LAWFULLY justified to allow people to do that shite.
Last edited by Pariah; 2004-03-01 5:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
4) Neither pornography or masturbation are specifically addressed in the Bible. ( Nor are television, movies, the internet, air travel, antibiotics, guns, atomic weapons, recorded music, music videos, abortion, birth control, or a million other issues, that could all be argued to be protective, enlightening and beneficial to mankind, or decadent, unnatural and destructive.)
And there is VERY diverse opinion on these issues among the Christian community.
Whereas the Bible is extremely specific about the severity of adultery and homosexual behavior.
Your interpretation is your own interpretation, and NOT from the Bible.
The Matthew verse "he who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart", does not clearly draw the line between desire and adultery. To look at a woman in a dress or a bikini and think she's attractive, is much different than planning to have sex with her, and conspiring a plan to do so.
One analysis of that verse is that only when that desire becomes a plan to seduce her, does it become a sin.
One Christian book on sexuality I read called masturbation "God's greatest gift", a way to satisfy desire without committing adultery.
But again, the Bible does not clearly say masturbation or pornography are a sin. These are interpretations, and interpretations vary.
By your standard, I can't watch rated R movies, watch TV sitcoms, or look at a pretty girl at a shopping mall or the beach, because any of those things could incite desire.
Well not that I care what you or anybody does for sexual pleasure (as long as it's not harming anyone) but the Bible does make it clear that lust is a sin. To masterbate you must lust (sin). So for people that take the stance that everything in the Bible is 100% true & overlook the obvious because it would mean they would have to control their sexual impulses is hypocrasy.
I might actually take your accusations
of "hypocrisy" seriously, if I thought you had a clue
what you were talking about, and had some actual
familiarity with the Bible and what it says.
I mean geez, first off, you can't even correctly SPELL the word
hypocrisy.
And I'd wager you know even less about the Bible.
I just explained, partly in the section you quoted from me
above (that you clearly didn't thoroughly read), that the
Bible doesn't have any specific discussion of
masturbation. So again, there is no contradiction in what
I've said.
And that's irrelevant anyway, because masturbation and porn
has nothing to do with what I posted.
You assume just because I post to the WOMEN section,
that everything I posted there is porn, or approval of
porn.
As I said, the title is the WOMEN section, not the PORN
section.
It is assumed that just because I posted a few pictures, or
simply commented on a few pictures, that this is some
grand endorsement of all porn.
Like I said, the pictures I posted and commented on are
pretty mild. They're just pin-up girls, almost none of
them exceeding what you'd see at the beach. And I don't
think any of them rise to the level of stroke fodder.
I can honestly say I've never masturbated to internet
porn. I'm still the master of my domain. 
Most of the time I just delete this stuff when it's e-
mailed to me, and for a change of pace, I'd seen a lot of
similar stuff in the WOMEN section, and what the heck, I
posted a few pictures.
I posted there regularly for a few weeks, and then got
bored and drifted elsewhere. Like I told Amy off the
boards, you can only say "Woo !" and "This girl is SO
hot !!" so many times.
In the WOMEN section, there are discussions of
relationships, actors and actresses, dating, what men and
women find attractive in the opposite sex, and other
aspects of women.
But mostly discussion of attractive movie and TV stars,
swimsuit models, and other high-profile women, including
the occasional porn star. But that's not all the
WOMEN section is.
It's a lighter, more humor-laden topic section, and was a
welcome break for me from the recently smothering
seriousness and knock-down drag-outs in the DEEP THOUGHTS
section.
The WOMEN forum is not exactly the forum where you make
political posturing on the right or wrongness of
masturbation, porn, and so forth. Pretentious schmucks who
take themselves way too seriously (not naming names )
probably wouldn't enjoy it much over there.
And truth told, I was getting a little bored with it as
well, like I said. because it's more just pictures, and I
began to crave more discussion again.
I posted there regularly for about two or three weeks, did
my best to contribute what I could, and then moved on. I
went there and posted again for the first time in over a
month a few days ago, when someone e-mailed me privately
and asked me to contribute to one of his topics.
On the issue of porn and masturbation, like I said, there
is no specific Biblical stance on it, so I don't have any
real objection to either. My stance may change on that, if
a Christian well versed in the Bible can convince me
otherwise.
I know there's porn addiction out there, but just like
drinking too much wine or eating too many twinkies on a
regular basis, anything abused to an extreme can be bad.
Basically, if porn takes a form that is depraved or
degrading to men and women, I object to it (bondage and
discipline, urination videos, violent porn, etc.)
Or if it becomes an obsessive addiction.
And sex between couples in porn is obviously fornication,
and porn actors and actresses are exchanging money for sex,
which is prostitution, which the Bible obviously condemns.
But centerfolds in magazines like Playboy and Penthouse,
I don't see as wrong (although I'm thinking of 80's-and-
prior Penthouse, I haven't looked through it in a number of
years, and it may be a lot more explicit now than I remember).
Or even female masturbation in pictures or video, which
still doesn't cross the fornication/prostitution line.
Since nude or semi-nude women posing is just images and not
sex or prostitution, and someone can feel desire but
cannot actually pursue the woman in the images, I don't
see that as leading to sin.
Arguably, if a guy looks at porn and loses mastery of his
domain, that satisfies his desire and lessens his
inclination to premarital/extramarital sex.
And stepping away from singles, among married couples, one
partner often desires sex more than the other, and
masturbation is a way to let the one with the stronger
libido get it out of their system. Which could ease
tension that would otherwise exist in the marriage.
And other examples, but you get the point.
So since there's no specific verse dealing with it, I'm
still on the fence regarding how I feel about porn, despite
the arguments of many in the Christian community.
Maybe sometime I'll talk to someone familiar with scripture
who will convince me that pin-up girls are wrong too, but
until then I remain ambivalent to some degree on the
issues of porn and masturbation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
See where your wrong in the homosexual/fetish comparison it doesn't take into account love. You and others that do this never get past the sexual act. Being in a 14 plus year monogomous relationship, I can tell you it's not lust but love that has kept the boyfriend & I together. Any straight or gay couple thats been together for any length of time will tell you that. You say "We know" but actually I don't think you do. Now I could have made different choices ranging between celibacy & promiscuity but no matter what, my attraction for the same sex would still be there.
Hey, I never said love couldn't exist there. Love can be extraordinarily deep in any direction you point at. But love is symbolized in many other ways than sex (this goes under straight relationships as well). Sexual pleasure (even tainted pleasure) doesn't have to be the only way to get a point across that you love someone. That was the excuse that the people of NAMBLA and (their female counterpart) Butterfly Kisses used. Just because you see it as A way to love someone, doesn't mean it should be seen as an applicable way.
Example (note: I've already gone over the dangers of homosexual sex and the fetish qualities it hones): What if someone wanted to establish that they loved someone with an equally dangerous method by killing themself--What's worse is if they would get a sort of sexual gratification out of the act.
Anyway, my point is that you can't use that type of justification here. Principle would call for us to allow any type of form of symbolism of love between two people or.......Things (in a noticeably OR subtlely dangerous fashion). Remember that you can't use statistics and majority to help your case either. The whole point of homosexuality is that there is a true individual love, and therefore, it is indeed justified. Meaning, that if (as I exemplified before) someone wanted to kill themselves to say they love someone, it would also be LAWFULLY justified to allow people to do that shite.
Actually love does set Homosexual & Heterosexual apart from those other things. A fetishes for example, is lust. The object doesn't love you back. Pedophiles are in lust with a child. If they truly loved the child they wouldn't take advantage or harm them. Furthermore the pedophile is interested in the youthful state the child's body & mind are in. Once that is gone the pedophile moves on to another object of desire.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
4) Neither pornography or masturbation are specifically addressed in the Bible. ( Nor are television, movies, the Internet, air travel, antibiotics, guns, atomic weapons, recorded music, music videos, abortion, birth control, or a million other issues, that could all be argued to be protective, enlightening and beneficial to mankind, or decadent, unnatural and destructive.)
And there is VERY diverse opinion on these issues among the Christian community.
Whereas the Bible is extremely specific about the severity of adultery and homosexual behavior.
Your interpretation is your own interpretation, and NOT from the Bible.
The Matthew verse "he who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart", does not clearly draw the line between desire and adultery. To look at a woman in a dress or a bikini and think she's attractive, is much different from planning to have sex with her, and conspiring a plan to do so.
One analysis of that verse is that only when that desire becomes a plan to seduce her, does it become a sin.
One Christian book on sexuality I read called masturbation "God's greatest gift", a way to satisfy desire without committing adultery.
But again, the Bible does not clearly say masturbation or pornography are a sin. These are interpretations, and interpretations vary.
By your standard, I can't watch rated R movies, watch TV sitcoms, or look at a pretty girl at a shopping mall or the beach, because any of those things could incite desire.
Well, not that I care what you or anybody does for sexual pleasure (as long as it's not harming anyone) but the Bible does make it clear that lust is a sin. To masturbate you must lust (sin). So for people that take the stance that everything in the Bible is 100% true & overlook the obvious because it would mean they would have to control their sexual impulses is hypocrisy
I might actually take your accusations
of "hypocrisy" seriously, if I thought you had a clue
what you were talking about, and had some actual
familiarity with the Bible and what it says.
I mean geez, first off, you can't even correctly SPELL the word
hypocrisy.
And I'd wager you know even less about the Bible.
Well, I did misspell a word, it was something typed quickly & I didn't give it a second look. I guess I'm a bit more forgiving on spelling then you. Actually what I posted wasn't very complex. Quite simple Masturbation=Lust=Sin. You can go ahead & ask somebody knowledgeable at your church but I don't think your going to get a different answer.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I just explained, partly in the section you quoted from me
above (that you clearly didn't thoroughly read), that the
Bible doesn't have any specific discussion of
masturbation. So again, there is no contradiction in what
I've said.
I think you used a Bible quote to dismiss somebody's argument, about Jesus saying he couldn't write every sin down for the world isn't large enough to contain the many books it would take. The Bible may not specifically address masturbation but it quite clearly covers lust. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible endorsing the practice.
Up until very recently the Christian religion certainly had the interpretation that masturbation was wrong. It was even called self abuse.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I can honestly say I've never masturbated to Internet
porn. I'm still the master of my domain.
This sounds like Clinton speak. Just to be clear, your saying you don't masturbate at all? The master of your domain comment implies you have never masturbated. If that is true then your certainly no hypocrite and I'm in awe of your extraordinary will power.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Most of the time I just delete this stuff when it's e-
mailed to me, and for a change of pace, I'd seen a lot of
similar stuff in the WOMEN section, and what the heck, I
posted a few pictures.
I posted there regularly for a few weeks, and then got
bored and drifted elsewhere. Like I told Amy off the
boards, you can only say "Woo !" and "This girl is SO
hot !!" so many times.
In the WOMEN section, there are discussions of
relationships, actors and actresses, dating, what men and
women find attractive in the opposite sex, and other
aspects of women.
But mostly discussion of attractive movie and TV stars,
swimsuit models, and other high-profile women, including
the occasional porn star. But that's not all the
WOMEN section is.
It's a lighter, more humor-laden topic section, and was a
welcome break for me from the recently smothering
seriousness and knock-down drag-outs in the DEEP THOUGHTS
section.
The WOMEN forum is not exactly the forum where you make
political posturing on the right or wrongness of
masturbation, porn, and so forth. Pretentious schmucks who
take themselves way too seriously (not naming names )
probably wouldn't enjoy it much over there.
Well, to be fair, since I'm gay the women forum really isn't a place that holds my interest. Actually agree with you & share pretty much the same sentiment about pretentious schmucks who take themselves way to seriously 
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I know there's porn addiction out there, but just like
drinking too much wine or eating too many twinkies on a
regular basis, anything abused to an extreme can be bad.
Basically, if porn takes a form that is depraved or
degrading to men and women, I object to it (bondage and
discipline, urination videos, violent porn, etc.)
Or if it becomes an obsessive addiction.
And sex between couples in porn is obviously fornication,
and porn actors and actresses are exchanging money for sex,
which is prostitution, which the Bible obviously condemns.
But centerfolds in magazines like Playboy and Penthouse,
I don't see as wrong (although I'm thinking of 80's-and-
prior Penthouse, I haven't looked through it in a number of
years, and it may be a lot more explicit now than I remember).
Or even female masturbation in pictures or video, which
still doesn't cross the fornication/prostitution line.
Since nude or semi-nude women posing is just images and not
sex or prostitution, and someone can feel desire but
cannot actually pursue the woman in the images, I don't
see that as leading to sin.
Arguably, if a guy looks at porn and loses mastery of his
domain, that satisfies his desire and lessens his
inclination to premarital/extramarital sex.
And stepping away from singles, among married couples, one
partner often desires sex more than the other, and
masturbation is a way to let the one with the stronger
libido get it out of their system. Which could ease
tension that would otherwise exist in the marriage.
And other examples, but you get the point.
So since there's no specific verse dealing with it, I'm
still on the fence regarding how I feel about porn, despite
the arguments of many in the Christian community.
Maybe sometime I'll talk to someone familiar with scripture
who will convince me that pin-up girls are wrong too, but
until then I remain ambivalent to some degree on the
issues of porn and masturbation.
What you say is essentially the bright side of masturbation. The single guy masturbating is essentially lusting/sinning to avoid a bigger sin. He can't control his sex urges.
The married couple situation, the person blowing off steam would have to be careful not to "do" to much or fantasies about somebody else. With an aging relationship masturbation could easily become the problem.
Since you don't or never have masturbated I doubt you have to worry about pin up girls. At that point I would certainly just take your word that it's just an admiration of their beauty. Again I was just making the simple observation that you can't masturbate without lust which is a sin, very much talked about in the Bible. While you may not be a hypocrite, many in your camp doubtfully don't control their sexual urges. Any type of data I've seen on masturbation, shows that male masturbation is way up there in the 90 percentile. For those that judge others on homosexual behavior while not controlling themselves are indeed hypocrites.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Matter Eater Man, how many times are you going to come back
and ask the same question, that's already been answered?
It is not "Clinton speak" to say that the Bible does not
specifically address masturbation or pornography, or less-
than-pornographic enticing images of women.
That is an absolute fact.
There is no such verse in the Bible.
The specific point where these images become sinful is not
specifically stated.
And my take is, if masturbation were a sin, or at the
lesser argument here, if looking at scantily clad or
semi-nude images of women were prohibited, the Bible
would specifically SAY these things were sinful.
In ancient times, they could have been jerking off to
suggestive statues of women, or painted pictures.
The Bible would have specifically addressed this, if it
were sinful.
Like I said ( and Pariah also said) the interpretation of
the Matthew verse...
(chapter 5:verses 27-28, " anyone who looks at a woman
lustfully, has already committed adultery with her in his
heart")
...is widely held to mean that if you look at a woman with
the intent and motive to seduce her, THAT is when it
becomes adultery in one's heart.
But simultaneously, yes, many believe that looking at a woman
with the slightest desire violates Jesus' standard in the
Matthew verse.
But the right Biblical course of action is open to interpretation.
While not specifically addressed in the Bible, many Christian churches and individuals hold to a stricter interpretation, and are critical of sexual content in movies, television and advertising, gyrating sexual images in music videos, and other popular culture, which constantly incite desire to sell their product.
That's certainly a valid interpretation, held by many.
Myself included.
I actually think the antics and lyrics of Britney Spears
are a lot more culturally damaging than a centerfold or semi-
nude pictures of a girl, like the ones in the WOMEN
section.
Because a centerfold is clearly a fantasy for men, and not
typical of how a woman stands or poses naturally in real
life, whereas Britney Spears and other celebrities project
an image as if it were reality, and fashionable "normal" behavior.
A role model.
And by presenting itself as real, cultivates a new
reality, that promotes as the new status quo such behaviors as group sex, promiscuity, bisexuality, and other cultural icons
that promote bondage and other degrading behavior as chic,
and a new standard for the mainstream, the cutting edge
of "cool".
Which deliberately promotes the idea that "everybody's doing it",
and peer pressure to do it.
A non-sexual example is the TV series Miami Vice. No one in
Miami dressed like that in the 80's, but a month or two after
the TV series began, everyone in Miami dressed like
Crockett and Tubbs. A clear example of life imitating art.
Before popular culture promoted it, virtually no one
was really doing it. But after popular culture sold the
idea to the public, everybody is doing it.
Pin-ups go back to the time of at least Rita Hayworth. And
probably further back, to the origins of photography in
the late 19th century.
Some obscure semi-nude photos projecting "lust" didn't
change the culture, despite decades of pin-ups.
What's happening through mainstream images and role models
is degrading the standard in our culture.
I mean, when I walk down a street, or around female clients or
co-workers during work, or at the mall, or the beach, or
the movie theatre, or in a restaurant, I see attractive
women and have sexual thoughts at least a hundred times a
day.
Is that in itself sinful?
That's as open to interpretation as sinful, as looking at a
centerfold, according to Matthew 5:27-28.
Again,
With my interpretation of actual scripture, I draw the
line at which "sin" occurs, with images that depict actual
sex, where fornication or prostitution (as I described
above) is actually occurring.
That is what it literally says.
But you got me to thinking...
In the larger picture, reading into the deeper
interpretation, the spirit of the scripture, and not
just the scriptural letter of it, the idea of scripture is
that we are all inherently sinful, and disobey
scripture (i.e., God's standard of behavior for all human
beings) countless ways, in both thought and action, every day.
It is a lesson in humility as Christians, that we are all
saved by grace, and no one has earned superior redemption,
all have fallen short of worthiness of salvation. That
salvation cannot be earned, it is a gift.
Quote:
Ephesians 2: verses 1-9 :
Made Alive in Christ
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of
this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the
spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying
the cravings of our sinful nature[1] and following its
desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature
objects of wrath.
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich
in mercy,
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in
transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the
incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness
to us in Christ Jesus.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--
and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
to do good works, which God prepared in advance
for us to do.
and
Quote:
Romans 3: verses 20-27 :
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=ROM+3&language=english&version=NIV
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
In that reading, desire for a woman at the mall or the
beach is equally sinful with looking at semi-nude internet
photos or whacking it to a GLAMOUR magazine (yes,
Seinfeld reference )
It's a lesson in humility, that no one is perfect, that
only God is pure enough to judge, and that all are equally
sinful in the eyes of God, and only through faith in God
and following belief in Jesus as the promised Savior
prophecied in the Old Testament, do we receive purification
through faith in the afterlife.
I know what you want me to say, Matter Eater Man, is that
homosexuality is no more or less a grave offense than
looking at a woman with lust, or masturbating, or looking
at images of semi-naked women online, or fornication or
adultery.
I don't fully understand the difference, but fornication
and adultery are more severe crimes in the Bible( and again,
homosexuality is a form of adultery, as I've said
repeatedly throughout this topic. I'm not singling
out "the homos" for a greater condemnation, I've stated
both, hetero- and homo- adultery are condemned, and that's
what the Bible says about both).
And the Bible does make a distinction of greater severity
for these more serious offenses.
Widespread homosexuality is a sign of end-time prophecy coming to fulfillment.
All people are equally sinful in the eyes of God, but
certain acts are given greater condemnation. I don't
fully understand the details of how that plays out, but
that's what it says.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Actually love does set Homosexual & Heterosexual apart from those other things. A fetishes for example, is lust. The object doesn't love you back. Pedophiles are in lust with a child. If they truly loved the child they wouldn't take advantage or harm them. Furthermore the pedophile is interested in the youthful state the child's body & mind are in. Once that is gone the pedophile moves on to another object of desire.
MEM, the love doesn't have to be returned to establish it's wrong and (to paraphrase) wasn't meant to be. All you need is the physical differences that create the incompatibility in the situation
Even so...
You're making some huge exceptions here. That pedophile you used in your scenario might have a different definition of love. They might think that they wouldn't actually be taking advantage of the child, but expressing affection normally. Here, love can be given by a child to a pedophile and the (very well could be) equally loving pedophile might return that said love by statchitorically(sp) raping him/her. What the topper here is the ever important element of impression. That child might see pedophilia as the norm from there after. Same goes for animals too.
The only real equalizer to all the situations that contain legally/sexually cognizant individuals is age of consent. And this counts for absolutely nothing. Because consent doesn't change the fact, which I explained before, that love is no excuse for physical acts which put the body at a potentially high risk--There are other ways of expressing and signifying love. Very physically friendly ways.
Last edited by Pariah; 2004-03-02 7:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I found this list somewhere. I couldn't stop rolling with laughter after I read it. It's funny cuz it's true. Quote:
TOP 9 ways you know your a christian.
1. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of Gods claimed by other religions,but feel outraged when someone denies the exixtence of yours.
2. You feel "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms,
but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
3.You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exeption of those who share your beliefs--though exluding all those in rival sects-will spend eternity in an infinate hell of suffering. And yet you consider your Religion the most "tolerant" and " loving".
4 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
5 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
7 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
8 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
9 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
It's amazing how the contents of that list are so outdated and completely full of holes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
whomod
Contributor
Member # 95
posted March 01, 2004 11:49 PM
quote:Originally shat out by Danny:
I didn't mean to imply that everyone at Rob's is a dumbshit. Yes, the place has its share of dumbshits, but the same could be said of any board that size you're likely to find on the net. I wouldn't post there if there weren't some cool people I happily get along with. There just happens to be some dumbshits too. This is no slight against Rob, or the people at his boards that I do like.
1. Matter Eater Man.
2. (Typhoid) Dave
3. KrazyXXXDJ
4. Animalman
and
5. Jim Jackson.
There. I've listed the only people there who aern't fucktards.
And here's the fucktards.
1)Mr.JLA
2)Dave TWB
3)Pariah
4)The G-Man
I MADE THE CUT!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Quote:
8 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
This one's not out of date - some of these southern churches still do this. It's quite scary when visiting!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Whomod, I'm sorry that you're so pissed off at whatever handful of Christians it was that didn't do right by you. But I don't appreciate your sweeping, derogatory overgeneralizations. I haven't done anything to you, and neither have 99 percent of the people you're blasting by making just such a statement.
When it comes to issues of this magnitude, I try to live by a certain time-honored quote that I find quite applicable. "Whereof we do not know, we ought not speak." You'd make a lot more friends if you gave it a shot as well.
Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
You're assuming of course that i'm an atheist.
To quote Grant Morrisson "Don't be such a tight-ass".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:
8 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
This one's not out of date - some of these southern churches still do this. It's quite scary when visiting!
Yeah, I've been to Southern Baptist churches that still do that. They're weird, though not really the norm.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
whomod said:
You're assuming of course that i'm an atheist.
To quote Grant Morrisson "Don't be such a tight-ass".
What are you exactly? I THINK I once heard you say you were Christian, but that's not true even if you say you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:When it comes to issues of this magnitude, I try to live by a certain time-honored quote that I find quite applicable. "Whereof we do not know, we ought not speak." You'd make a lot more friends if you gave it a shot as well.
Just a suggestion.
If that's the case, DaveTWB wouldn't have anything at all to say about probably anything.
Jim
PS. I'm with Whomod on this one, too.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Midknight
Contributor
Member # 96
posted March 02, 2004 05:44 AM
So what criteria do you judge people with?
Yes GayLA & Pariah go out of their way to annoy people but G-Man puts together well constructed posts even if you dont agree with what he says!
I for one rarely agree with him but I also rarely agree with you or Jim Jackson,so does that make you two "fucktards"?
Animalman has also had some less than sterling arguments that very few people agree with so does that make him a "fucktard"?
No it doesnt,cause everyone is entitled to their opinions,but you are an elitist wanker who actually thinks only your opinion & those that agree with you count!
Now lets take Dave (Typhoid variety),he is one guy who knows that this world takes all kinds to get along.
He enjoys both ridiculous posts & well thought out serious posts.
Dave is equally at home with guys like GayLA or guys like you & Jim Jackson.
Lighten up dude,smell the same coffee Dave has,and stop obsessing over who is & who isnt cool!
Hurm.......I'd like to say that this post was made by either JQ or MEM. But judging from the more passive writing and less condescending tone (not to mention the SN).....I'm gonna say it's Darknight613.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
I think it's Nowhereman.
Where are these quotes coming from now? The Knoll again("Bedpan Fury"...heh!)?
And that's terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
From the "Daniel.." topic, page 2, on the GRASSY KNOLL boards:
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001768&p=2
Quote:
posted by Danny:
I feel I should clarify something. I didn't mean to imply that everyone at Rob's is a dumbshit. Yes, the place has its share of dumbshits, but the same could be said of any board that size you're likely to find on the net. I wouldn't post there if there weren't some cool people I happily get along with. There just happens to be some dumbshits too. This is no slight against Rob, or the people at his boards that I do like.
Quote:
posted by Midknight
Contributor
Member # 96 posted March 02, 2004 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally shat out by whomod:
1. Matter Eater Man.
2. (Typhoid) Dave
3. KrazyXXXDJ
4. Animalman
and
5. Jim Jackson.
There. I've listed the only people there who aern't fucktards.And here's the fucktards.
1)Mr.JLA
2)Dave TWB
3)Pariah
4)The G-Man
Everyone else there falls in between the 2 poles. Rob tries to keep it cool so I respect that. Still, I don't think he's all that removed from the latter list though.You're welcome.
So what criteria do you judge people with?
Yes GayLA [ Mister JLA? ] & Pariah go out of their way to annoy people but G-Man puts together well constructed posts even if you dont agree with what he says!
I for one rarely agree with him but I also rarely agree with you or Jim Jackson,so does that make you two "fucktards"?
Animalman has also had some less than sterling arguments that very few people agree with so does that make him a "fucktard"?No it doesnt,cause everyone is entitled to their opinions,but you are an elitist wanker who actually thinks only your opinion & those that agree with you count!
Now lets take Dave (Typhoid variety),he is one guy who knows that this world takes all kinds to get along.
He enjoys both ridiculous posts & well thought out serious posts.
Dave is equally at home with guys like GayLA or guys like you & Jim Jackson.
Lighten up dude,smell the same coffee Dave has,and stop obsessing over who is & who isnt cool!
Quote:
Mad Hatter
Contributor
Member # 4 , posted March 02, 2004 10:35 AM
.
For the record, people who make less than sterling arguments using Internet shorthand are, in fact, fucktards. People who accuse others of being elitist are often simply those who don't wish to express themselves in whole words and refuse to put any actual logical thought into their stance. And people who come here to carry on grudges from other boards, attacking the people they followed over without contributing anything of actual worth, find themselves without membership pretty damn quickly.
Man, I love this.
It's why I didn't rush to post a response on your GRASSY KNOLL boards. Because you already spinelessly edited out every contradiction you were called on, I figured as much, that as moderator of your forum, you'll edit and delete posts of your opposition as well.
And consistent with that, you'll delete any members or opinions from your smug, pretentious GRASSY KNOLL community that don't fit neatly into your condescending, pretentious liberal worldview.
This is classic liberalism. Scream and posture loudly about the cause of free speech. And then slander, ridicule and shut out any views that contradict your own.
Once again, liberals think that free speech is a right that only they should have.
On the subject of Dave (Typhoid Dave ) without getting into it, I hold a different view than Midknight. On topics such as this Gay Marriage topic, Islamic ignorance, the Iraq war topics, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he has a great tendency toward bypassing the issue and resorting to labels and namecalling.
Pig Iron is a poster who I think is the model of moderation and conciliatory diplomacy. Even when I disagree with him, he does so respectfully, and I don't feel slandered, misrepresented or insulted by what he says.
Although there are apparently some topics where he's had a
major clash with the Nature Boys, which I haven't seen. But the barbs they exchange indicate a heated conflict
I've missed.
I find myself most frequently agreeing with G-Man. He backs his opinion with documentation and clear argument better than anyone here. His opposition treats them pretty much the way they treat me, and he takes it in stride with remarkable civility.
Mister JLA, britneyspearsatemyshorts, Llance, Kristogar Velo, Pariah and others here I find myself agreeing with almost always.
They post, at turns, playful banter and avoid deep discussion, and in my opinion, by doing so give the rude, insulting, irrational and skewed emotional liberal arguments here the lack of seriousness these liberal arguments deserve.
And at other turns they post articles and interviews that expose the liberal crap arguments for the flawed logic that they are.
But either way, I find myself agreeing with close to 100% of what they post on political issues.
While I disagree frequently with JQ, he seems open to hearing both sides.
I've had clashes with Darknight613 and Animalman, and agree with maybe 10% of what they post. And while Animalman doesn't like to be labelled a liberal, and may not be, his political leanings are certainly to the left of my own. But despite earlier clashes, I at least admire their efforts at civility, as things have gone forward between us.
And Whomod... geez, buddy !
I don't think there's anyone on these or the DC boards who has expressed so much unrestrained anger at conservatives, Republicans, and Bush in particular. Your 10 stereotypes of Christians at the top of this page being just yet another example.
While at times you post articles with real information from mainstream sources, so much of what you post is pure hate, pure venom, pointlessly inflammatory, without any credible information.
And then you have the audacity to call anyone else hateful ?!?
No one else on these boards approaches your hatred and antagonism.
Jim Jackson, far beyond Whomod, all you have to contribute are insults as well. You seem to be a very unhappy person. And you lash out and personalize the debate when addressing me, because it really gets your goat that there are facts that contradict your pro-gay world view.
And unable to prove me wrong, your only alternative is to insult me.
[ ****** POSTSCRIPT, 3/14/2004:
Since I posted this, three more examples have given more documentation of the tactics used on GRASSY KNOLL:
Mad Hatter has given further evidence of his shameless stupidity, first with deceitfully editing posts of other RKMB members who have gone to GRASSY KNOLL, and then quickly after deleting them as members:
( Kristogar Velo )
"Bedpan Fury gets VELOED !!!
http://www.rkmbs.com/...rt=1#Post249484
( Stupid Dogg )
"Banned from posting at Deadpan Fury!"
http://www.rkmbs.com/...;o=&fpart=1
( Mister JLA )
"Important: About Your Registration on Deadpan Fury"
http://www.rkmbs.com/...;o=&fpart=1
The posts speak for themselves. ]
[ ******* A second postscript, 3-18-2004.
And these additional topics:
(begun by Britney)
Fucking Morons
http://www.rkmbs.com/...o=&fpart=1
(begun by Pariah)
FNB
http://www.rkmbs.com/...;o=&fpart=1
(begun by Mister JLA)
FNB sold out
http://www.rkmbs.com/...rt=1#Post254093
(Dr Z Smith)
Why wont they let me in to The Deadpan Fury?
http://www.rkmbs.com/...rt=2#Post253673
And just for the fun of it:
(Mister JLA )
WTF? I just got an E-Mail from robkamphausen.com
http://www.rkmbs.com/...rt=1#Post253676 ]
(Pariah's history of Athanon and GRASSY KNOLL forums, and their tactics: )
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=chat&Number=649637
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Kristogar Velo said:
I think it's Nowhereman.
Where are these quotes coming from now? The Knoll again("Bedpan Fury"...heh!)?
They let him on there? 
I figured they would be scared shitless of being fucked up by a mouthpiece of the NBs. Not to mention he'd prolly sneak in some hard hitters himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Midknight
Contributor
Member # 96
posted March 02, 2004 05:44 AM
So what criteria do you judge people with?
Yes GayLA & Pariah go out of their way to annoy people but G-Man puts together well constructed posts even if you dont agree with what he says!
I for one rarely agree with him but I also rarely agree with you or Jim Jackson,so does that make you two "fucktards"?
Animalman has also had some less than sterling arguments that very few people agree with so does that make him a "fucktard"?
No it doesnt,cause everyone is entitled to their opinions,but you are an elitist wanker who actually thinks only your opinion & those that agree with you count!
Now lets take Dave (Typhoid variety),he is one guy who knows that this world takes all kinds to get along.
He enjoys both ridiculous posts & well thought out serious posts.
Dave is equally at home with guys like GayLA or guys like you & Jim Jackson.
Lighten up dude,smell the same coffee Dave has,and stop obsessing over who is & who isnt cool!
Hurm.......I'd like to say that this post was made by either JQ or MEM. But judging from the more passive writing and less condescending tone (not to mention the SN).....I'm gonna say it's Darknight613.
Not me.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Quote:
-On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a University
of Va. professor, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well
as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself?
6. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
