|
Post by Nemonus on Feb 8, 2011 4:07:56 GMT 1
The guitar has a bit of a story. He called it his spite guitar. LOL. I need an item graced with the title "spite". Thanks for the re-welcome, everyone! Lieden, you rawwwwwwk even moar.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 8, 2011 5:29:28 GMT 1
Anyone who does not particularly value their eyesight can find a pic of me on page one. You have been forewarned. DEAR GOD, WHAT IS THAT THING?!? (What? It's a Princess Bride Quote!) I see your Princess Bride quote and raise you a Shrek quote "Oh that's not very nice, it's just a donkey"
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Feb 8, 2011 6:05:24 GMT 1
Someone mentioned Shrek! Have to post the Robin Hood song!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Glow on Feb 8, 2011 6:28:19 GMT 1
He's not the best Robin Hood, but that song is damned catchy!
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 8, 2011 7:39:04 GMT 1
DEAR GOD, WHAT IS THAT THING?!? (What? It's a Princess Bride Quote!) I see your Princess Bride quote and raise you a Shrek quote "Oh that's not very nice, it's just a donkey" You're bluffing. I raise you a quote from the Jewish Talmud (Or that's what the quotes website said anyway) "If one man says to thee, ''Thou art a donkey',' pay no heed. If two speak thus, purchase a saddle.”
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 8, 2011 14:31:30 GMT 1
I see your Princess Bride quote and raise you a Shrek quote "Oh that's not very nice, it's just a donkey" You're bluffing. I raise you a quote from the Jewish Talmud (Or that's what the quotes website said anyway) "If one man says to thee, ''Thou art a donkey',' pay no heed. If two speak thus, purchase a saddle.” Bluff? Pfff, I'll see your quote and call. Saddle? Little out of date. That's the whole problem with scripture. "If Jesus were here today, he wouldn't be riding around on a donkey. He'd be taking a plane, he'd be using the media." Joel Osteen
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 8, 2011 17:44:34 GMT 1
Nonsense. Scripture is perfectly appropriate:
Proverbs 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. "
Side Note: Joel Osteen has missed the entire point of Christ's coming to earth. Had Christ wanted public acclaim, all he would have had to do was nod. In fact several times he deliberately bowed out of such opportunities, and was quite vocal in condemning the people who already used the "Jets and Media" of his day.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 8, 2011 19:07:16 GMT 1
Of course he missed the point. So did Lennon with his ridiculous assertion (you know which one). Still it worked for the occasion so i used it.
Anyway, I won't argue with you anymore after all "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." William Shakespeare
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 8, 2011 19:36:32 GMT 1
Damnit I was having fun.
|
|
|
Post by Rascarin on Feb 8, 2011 19:38:56 GMT 1
You're bluffing. I raise you a quote from the Jewish Talmud (Or that's what the quotes website said anyway) "If one man says to thee, ''Thou art a donkey',' pay no heed. If two speak thus, purchase a saddle.” Bluff? Pfff, I'll see your quote and call. Saddle? Little out of date. That's the whole problem with scripture. "If Jesus were here today, he wouldn't be riding around on a donkey. He'd be taking a plane, he'd be using the media." Joel Osteen The way I see it, Scripture was perfectly relevant for its time. The metaphors and so on just need to be interpreted into a modern fit. For example, lets modernise the above quote - "If one guy calls you an arse, ignore him. If two guys call you an arse, you might actually be an arse." Also the way I see it - if Jesus were here today, he might take a plane, but he'd fly coach, one of his disciples would be gay, and he would have a LOT to say about modern fundamentalist christians, and none of it good. (Sorry, christian here - in as much as i believe in jesus and the message he gave. I guess I follow the spirit of the law, not the [seriously outdated] letter of it. "Love one another", not any of the gay hatery, sexism and general judgementalist attitude that most people manage to interprete from scripture ¬-¬ )
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 8, 2011 19:46:53 GMT 1
Good point about flying coach... lol
I agree and disagree with you. Modern fundamentalists are a lot like the pharisees of Christ's day, and by no means do I support the idiots like Pat Robertson and Westboro Baptist Church, but I don't think Christ would welcome homosexuality any more than any other sin. Granted, on earth he hung out with the social degenerates and sinners of his day but he never took up that sin himself. In fact, on several occasions, he talked with them and eventually convinced them to put sin behind them.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 8, 2011 20:31:25 GMT 1
Getting way off topic here but I'll digress this much and go no further. I don't really want to see this happy thread degenerate into a whether homosexuality is a sin thread but since we are there now I'll put my 2 pesos in then shut the Hell up. Fist and foremost, perhaps Jesus never took up that preference himself because he did not have that preference. Secondly, while I am fully aware that there are passages that rail against it later on I lump it in with other outdated unclean habits like not eating pork or shellfish.
There are good health related reasons not to eat pork or shellfish under the context of the time, water and cooking and storage being rather primitive by today's standards. People got sick from eating these things so it became religion not to eat them. Same with male on male intercourse. Like it or not there is higher chance of spread of disease from it and it was poorly understood at the time.
Lastly, many cultures at the time(especially Rome and Greece) practiced sex with a healthy disregard for gender. But these activities were often in contrast and contention with monogamy which is largely insisted upon in Christianity. Men had sex with men in complete disregard for their marital status and I can't help but think that concern for the state of marriage had a lot do with the objection held against "free love."
I have yet to see a single even remotely competent argument presented by anyone of any faith why God would object to a monogamous gay relationship especially when it is seen so frequently in nature by animals who have not tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Now that I have probably offended everyone on this board I'll shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Rascarin on Feb 8, 2011 21:23:56 GMT 1
Thinking maybe we'll take this discussion to Off-Topic... I would be interested to gather more opinions on the matter, without spamming this thread with a debate.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 9, 2011 0:07:22 GMT 1
Thinking maybe we'll take this discussion to Off-Topic... I would be interested to gather more opinions on the matter, without spamming this thread with a debate. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jun 10, 2011 4:29:00 GMT 1
Ten points to whomever can guess what I'm supposed to be in the sword pic. And since it was a quasi-cosplay, bonus points to whomever can guess who I'm emulating.
|
|