(07-14-2013, 12:49 AM)aussiefriend Wrote: I am worried that our beloved forum leader may not be in the drivers seat with Big Russ and I would hate to see her dominated or worse, hurt on any level.

I can handle Russell. I'll lead him around by his big dick. He might be self effacing in regards to his manhood but it looks to me like he's carrying around the goddamn Sunday paper in his pj's.

(07-14-2013, 06:19 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(07-14-2013, 12:49 AM)aussiefriend Wrote: I am worried that our beloved forum leader may not be in the drivers seat with Big Russ and I would hate to see her dominated or worse, hurt on any level.

I can handle Russell. I'll lead him around by his big dick. He might be self effacing in regards to his manhood but it looks to me like he's carrying around the goddamn Sunday paper in his pj's.

Meh, its probably just where he keeps his socks and rolls of quarters.

Nearly everyone drank wine back in the days of jebus because most fresh water was stagnant or otherwise tainted.

(07-14-2013, 12:49 AM)aussiefriend Wrote:

(07-13-2013, 09:08 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: I recently was in a conversation with a "christian preacher" about the evils of drinking. He said that even one drop of alcohol of any type was unacceptable according to christ. He said the first drink is the first drink in the state of being drunk and being drunk is a sin.

I just shook my head.

Just thought I would mention, the first miracle Jesus performed, he turned the water to wine at a wedding. He had wine at the Last Supper. So Jesus did drink wine, in fact, the religious leaders of the day called him a 'wine bibber' because he didn't mind the occasional drop.

(07-13-2013, 08:45 PM)FAHQTOO Wrote: FFS...you act like she wants to marry him. Maybe she just wants to use him up for an hour or two and go her merry way with a smile on her face.

I hardly think she's concerned about a fucking dear Jane text message, crazy lady!

Don't you dare start on me! Just because your offers are few and far between.

I am worried that our beloved forum leader may not be in the drivers seat with Big Russ and I would hate to see her dominated or worse, hurt on any level.

I mentioned the water into wine in my conversation with that christian preacher. What I was told was that it was not wine as we know it. It was not a fermented wine , it was actually a grape juice.

OK, I just went back to that conversation I was having and C&P'd his comment that explains the wine/grapejuice .
This is what he said ...

Wine, is not ‘wine’ like we think of it today. You say you have read the original languages, then read some secular works in the original where the same word is used in the Bible and you will see how it was used in those times. Again, our English translations must be through 1600 glasses, because definitions have changed since then. As I pointed out, the Greek word ‘oinos’ is generic as is the Hebrew word ‘yayyin.’ It can be either, unfermented or fermented. The context determines which it is. Nothing that God required all things to be holy when in His service, all liquids offered HAD to be unfermented. There is no doubt that Lot and Noah partook of the fermented type, context determines that, but that cannot be used to make the determination that it was allowed when offerings were made to God. His offerings had to be without blemish, pure – fermented grape juice is blemished, impure. Logic dictates that

Hey FU, Jesus did actually drink the actual 'wine' that we refer to today as 'wine'. That's why they were ridiculing him and calling him a 'wine bibber'. Luke 7:34

Whereas John the Baptist his cousin, did not and they called him weird. Matthew 11:18-19.

I think sometimes these people that want to have the Bible fit into their own version will twist and manipulate anything to fit their own agenda. Jesus drank wine, there is loads of evidence in the scriptures.

I tend to avoid getting into debates or any discussion with these people from church, because sometimes it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

(07-14-2013, 06:23 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: Hey FU, Jesus did actually drink the actual 'wine' that we refer to today as 'wine'. That's why they were ridiculing him and calling him a 'wine bibber'. Luke 7:34

Whereas John the Baptist his cousin, did not and they called him weird. Matthew 11:18-19.

I could never pull Luke & Matthew out of my butt like that!

(07-14-2013, 06:23 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: people that want to have the Bible fit into their own version will twist and manipulate anything to fit their own agenda.

That's every religious fruitcake. Including the ones willing to suck some shitdick to avoid a divorce.

(07-14-2013, 05:19 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: OK, I just went back to that conversation I was having and C&P'd his comment that explains the wine/grapejuice .
This is what he said ...

Wine, is not ‘wine’ like we think of it today. You say you have read the original languages, then read some secular works in the original where the same word is used in the Bible and you will see how it was used in those times. Again, our English translations must be through 1600 glasses, because definitions have changed since then. As I pointed out, the Greek word ‘oinos’ is generic as is the Hebrew word ‘yayyin.’ It can be either, unfermented or fermented. The context determines which it is. Nothing that God required all things to be holy when in His service, all liquids offered HAD to be unfermented. There is no doubt that Lot and Noah partook of the fermented type, context determines that, but that cannot be used to make the determination that it was allowed when offerings were made to God. His offerings had to be without blemish, pure – fermented grape juice is blemished, impure. Logic dictates that

Was it by any chance a Methodist preacher? My grandpa was a Methodist preacher and that was also his thought on wine.

Jehovas on the other hand are all for drinking as long as you don't take too much and act a fool.

(07-14-2013, 06:26 PM)Duchess Wrote: I could never pull Luke & Matthew out of my butt like that!

You just Google part of the scripture you remember and it comes up with the actual spot you are looking for. Cheater.

(07-14-2013, 06:30 PM)crash Wrote:

(07-14-2013, 06:23 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: people that want to have the Bible fit into their own version will twist and manipulate anything to fit their own agenda.

That's every religious fruitcake. Including the ones willing to suck some shitdick to avoid a divorce.

That may/may not be true on some level. I am always surprised when I come across someone with no spiritual connection to themselves at all. There is another dimension to their person that they are ignoring. Not that hard to find if you go looking for it. But who has all the answers? Those who say they do are usually the most arrogant.

(07-14-2013, 06:26 PM)Duchess Wrote: I could never pull Luke & Matthew out of my butt..

The first ever altar boy probably uttered the same words.

Yes, I believe he is a Methodist Sally.

(07-14-2013, 06:57 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: But who has all the answers? Those who say they do are usually the most arrogant.

Nobody does. There is nobody who even knows what all the questions are.

What if there is no spiritual dimension? That its all just fluff? Can I get in touch with my fuzzy green Spider-Man dimension instead?

Faith is a powerful thing; religion takes advantages of its weaknesses.

Spirituality is a private thing, I think. It should challenge you to grow and learn. Far from making you weak, it can allow you to find strengths within yourself. That is if you are doing it properly. If not, there is always the option of revering a man in a white dress.

(07-14-2013, 07:10 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: It should challenge you to grow and learn. Far from making you weak, it can allow you to find strengths within yourself.

Life has done that for me; I didn't need an imaginary higher power to make it happen.

(07-14-2013, 07:18 PM)crash Wrote:

(07-14-2013, 07:10 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: It should challenge you to grow and learn. Far from making you weak, it can allow you to find strengths within yourself.

Life has done that for me; I didn't need an imaginary higher power to make it happen.

There is an arrogance in your statement. What if the higher power that others tap into isn't imaginary. Your remark sounds condescending, like you know better. If life has done that for you, then good for you.

(07-14-2013, 07:30 PM)aussiefriend Wrote:

(07-14-2013, 07:18 PM)crash Wrote:

(07-14-2013, 07:10 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: It should challenge you to grow and learn. Far from making you weak, it can allow you to find strengths within yourself.

Life has done that for me; I didn't need an imaginary higher power to make it happen.

There is an arrogance in your statement. What if the higher power that others tap into isn't imaginary. Your remark sounds condescending, like you know better. If life has done that for you, then good for you.

I do know better, for me, that's why I was talking in the first person saying 'I' instead of you or we; if you find my opinions about what I think about me is arrogant, that is your problem, not mine.

Maybe imaginary wasn't the right word there and I can see why you think it's condescending. I probably should have said "I don't need to believe in a higher power to make it happen"

I don't find that Russell guy cute at all. I bet HotD's bologna pony looks better in PJs.

(07-14-2013, 08:18 PM)crash Wrote: if you find my opinions about what I think about me is arrogant, that is your problem, not mine.

I believe the tone of your remarks were contemptuous and intolerant. That is not a problem but a perception. I often find that when people are intolerant of others beliefs it is mostly fear based. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are afraid of what might be there so you just don't go there.

(07-14-2013, 06:57 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: I am always surprised when I come across someone with no spiritual connection to themselves at all. There is another dimension to their person that they are ignoring.

I'm sure many people would argue a similar arrogance, condescending tone and intolerance about them.

I know my response, as I previously said, was just about me, not about a collective 'people' like yours. If you interpret that as me being intolerant and entering into an amateur psych analysis, then that is your problem, it's not bothering me.