Glaswegian;607363 wrote: Is there no one here who will shag this poor b*stard and cure him!
Ted?
Ted's keeping a VERY low profile on this one. I had hoped to find an ally in him, but it's not to be. Not to worry Glas, believe me, there are plenty more of us "poor B*astards" out there. We're the w*nkers who go round tearing down all the contact cards you see in public telephone boxes. You want a number to ring for a nice time - try 123. I'm a right t*ss bag, aren't I? Do you know something - I couldn't give a damn.:-5
Top-shelf magazines and all that
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Top-shelf magazines and all that
weinbeck;607370 wrote: You want a number to ring for a nice time - try 123.
I must say, weinbeck, your number is very easy to remember.
weinbeck wrote: I'm a right t*ss bag, aren't I?
Self-knowledge at last.
I must say, weinbeck, your number is very easy to remember.
weinbeck wrote: I'm a right t*ss bag, aren't I?
Self-knowledge at last.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Glaswegian;607390 wrote: I must say, weinbeck, your number is very easy to remember.
Self-knowledge at last.
:wah:
Self-knowledge at last.
:wah:
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Well-taken, weinbeck. :yh_clap
Top-shelf magazines and all that
o no sex mad perverts murdering people because they knock one off to a mag
dont think so
but vicars and priests abusing school children ........ i wish they got a porn mag instead
dont think so
but vicars and priests abusing school children ........ i wish they got a porn mag instead
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Good grief, Ive been exceptionally busy for the last few weeks. Go away and come back to a bloody semi full to read and think about.
I have a great deal of respect for weinbeck and his faith. That being said, however, I must disagree on some points. A close study of both the OT and the Jewish Encyclopedia will disclose a far different attitude towards sexuality.
It was acceptable for Abraham to have sex with his slave in order to produce a child. It was also acceptable for men to have more than one wife along with concubines. The whole issue of adultery is rather interesting. A married man could go out and have sex with a non virgin and it was considered OK. It was not considered adultery. On the other hand if the wife went out for a fling she and her consort could and would be stoned to death. In fact it was still acceptable to have more than one wife for several hundred years after the death of Jesus. Concubines were OK as well.
The ideas of sexuality are mainly cultural with some some limitations. The greatest limitation throughout is that one should do no harm to another. Thus rape was out unless of course you were a Hebrew soldier during the "invasion" of Canaan. In Numbers 31 it is apparent that God not only condones war crimes including of a sexual nature but promotes them. They were to kill all the men women and children with the exception of the virgins which they could keep for themselves as long as they shared some with the temple authorities.
I'm not sure what is wrong with sex, masturbation, homosexuality, lesbianism, or alcohol. Of course some can and do go "overboard" with alcohol, sex, etc. They can also go overboard with food or fanaticism etc. In all of these we are talking abuse not use.
I am in agreement with "red glitter" on this one.
One of the great problems with the orthodox Christianity is the continual berating of people, putting them down, etc as guilt ridden, unrepentant sinners. This is a highly unhealthy approach for anyone. As humans and as Christians we must learn to accept ourselves as we are for Jesus did nothing less. Of course we all make mistakes. That is part of being human but it is not the result of some mythical being named Satan. We cannot blame anyone except for ourselves when we err.
I could say more about homosexuality etc. if anyone wishes. That is the prime reason that here in the Diocese of British Columbia we are having a special synod to discuss issues of sexuality. We just completed, this morning, a two hour congregational study and discussion on the issue. For me personally, though I'm straight if that actually matter, it has been a prime study for the past several years because of my Christian faith. I recently asked our bishop how long the church was going to continue to perpetrate injustice in the name of God. Christ accepted all and turned no one away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have a great deal of respect for weinbeck and his faith. That being said, however, I must disagree on some points. A close study of both the OT and the Jewish Encyclopedia will disclose a far different attitude towards sexuality.
It was acceptable for Abraham to have sex with his slave in order to produce a child. It was also acceptable for men to have more than one wife along with concubines. The whole issue of adultery is rather interesting. A married man could go out and have sex with a non virgin and it was considered OK. It was not considered adultery. On the other hand if the wife went out for a fling she and her consort could and would be stoned to death. In fact it was still acceptable to have more than one wife for several hundred years after the death of Jesus. Concubines were OK as well.
The ideas of sexuality are mainly cultural with some some limitations. The greatest limitation throughout is that one should do no harm to another. Thus rape was out unless of course you were a Hebrew soldier during the "invasion" of Canaan. In Numbers 31 it is apparent that God not only condones war crimes including of a sexual nature but promotes them. They were to kill all the men women and children with the exception of the virgins which they could keep for themselves as long as they shared some with the temple authorities.
I'm not sure what is wrong with sex, masturbation, homosexuality, lesbianism, or alcohol. Of course some can and do go "overboard" with alcohol, sex, etc. They can also go overboard with food or fanaticism etc. In all of these we are talking abuse not use.
I am in agreement with "red glitter" on this one.
One of the great problems with the orthodox Christianity is the continual berating of people, putting them down, etc as guilt ridden, unrepentant sinners. This is a highly unhealthy approach for anyone. As humans and as Christians we must learn to accept ourselves as we are for Jesus did nothing less. Of course we all make mistakes. That is part of being human but it is not the result of some mythical being named Satan. We cannot blame anyone except for ourselves when we err.
I could say more about homosexuality etc. if anyone wishes. That is the prime reason that here in the Diocese of British Columbia we are having a special synod to discuss issues of sexuality. We just completed, this morning, a two hour congregational study and discussion on the issue. For me personally, though I'm straight if that actually matter, it has been a prime study for the past several years because of my Christian faith. I recently asked our bishop how long the church was going to continue to perpetrate injustice in the name of God. Christ accepted all and turned no one away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
When it comes to porn it seems to me that the advice of the Bible to do all things in moderation would be appropriate. According to psychologists and therapists porn can be of some positive use in a situation where couples are encountering difficulties in their intimate lives.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Ted;608009 wrote: When it comes to porn it seems to me that the advice of the Bible to do all things in moderation would be appropriate. According to psychologists and therapists porn can be of some positive use in a situation where couples are encountering difficulties in their intimate lives.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You're missing the point, Ted. We're not talking about pornography. What people do behind closed doors or in the privacy of their own home is of no concern to anybody else except that of the two, or possibly more, private individuals involved. What my war cry is, is the fact that it is nigh impossible to enter even a corner shop without seeing a proliferation of this type of material being hawked. What I am saying is if people wish to read that type of literature, then let them - in designated bookshops. Porno0graphy has been around since the year dot - what many of us are sick and tired of seeing is how it is rammed down people's throats, just two shelves up from respectable, family reading.
I applaud the actions of one particular minister who strode into a newsagents, bought a porn magazine, opened it and asked the seller in front of his ten year-old daughted whether or not he approved the fact the she could be doing likewise in a few years. The shopkeeper went mad, telling him he was entitled to sell whatever he liked, and if he didn't like it, he could eff off.
"Indeed. Likewise me and my thousand parishoners can shop where we want. Think about that before you lock up tonight." He then tore the magazine in half, and walked out the shop. The next day, the shelves were empty of all such literature. The shop prospered.
I know it's a cliche, but all it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to stand there and do nothing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You're missing the point, Ted. We're not talking about pornography. What people do behind closed doors or in the privacy of their own home is of no concern to anybody else except that of the two, or possibly more, private individuals involved. What my war cry is, is the fact that it is nigh impossible to enter even a corner shop without seeing a proliferation of this type of material being hawked. What I am saying is if people wish to read that type of literature, then let them - in designated bookshops. Porno0graphy has been around since the year dot - what many of us are sick and tired of seeing is how it is rammed down people's throats, just two shelves up from respectable, family reading.
I applaud the actions of one particular minister who strode into a newsagents, bought a porn magazine, opened it and asked the seller in front of his ten year-old daughted whether or not he approved the fact the she could be doing likewise in a few years. The shopkeeper went mad, telling him he was entitled to sell whatever he liked, and if he didn't like it, he could eff off.
"Indeed. Likewise me and my thousand parishoners can shop where we want. Think about that before you lock up tonight." He then tore the magazine in half, and walked out the shop. The next day, the shelves were empty of all such literature. The shop prospered.
I know it's a cliche, but all it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to stand there and do nothing.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
weinbeck:-6
I fully understand what you are saying. However, it is not being jammed down anyone's throat. I don't know where you are but here in Canada if the shop carries such literature it is usually well above a child's reach and quite often in a plastic sleeve. Hell, I couldn't reach it most of the time, even if I was so inclined.
I believe there are far worse things to hawk than such material. The magazines that promote violence, and the TV programs that present violence in many ways are far more pornographic than many of these others. I certainly don't approve of children watching TV programs that have much blood and guts etc. Even that so called bad language is not near as bad. My preference is to call it colourful language unless it uses the divine inappropriately. Then it is taking God's name in vain.
"Make love not war." sounds far better than a replay of the OK corral or some of the horror stories that children often see.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that children should be looking at these forms of "literature". If they do and it does happen often, usually out of sight of the parents, and the parents find out it is a good time for lessons in human sexuality to the level that they are ready to take. To make a big fuss out of it as I have seen some parents, go ballistic, is a very seriously flawed approach in that it gives the child the wrong impression of human sexuality.
Parents need to be far more open at home and willing to discuss issues their children raise and even to the point where children will ask their parent before the discuss it with their friends. Better learned at home than misinformed out behind the garage.
I would go so far as to suggest that these magazines sell because there is a need and obviously there are those willing to respond to that need. I would also suggest that if parents and society were more open such a need would decline thus lowering the amount you see around.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I fully understand what you are saying. However, it is not being jammed down anyone's throat. I don't know where you are but here in Canada if the shop carries such literature it is usually well above a child's reach and quite often in a plastic sleeve. Hell, I couldn't reach it most of the time, even if I was so inclined.
I believe there are far worse things to hawk than such material. The magazines that promote violence, and the TV programs that present violence in many ways are far more pornographic than many of these others. I certainly don't approve of children watching TV programs that have much blood and guts etc. Even that so called bad language is not near as bad. My preference is to call it colourful language unless it uses the divine inappropriately. Then it is taking God's name in vain.
"Make love not war." sounds far better than a replay of the OK corral or some of the horror stories that children often see.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that children should be looking at these forms of "literature". If they do and it does happen often, usually out of sight of the parents, and the parents find out it is a good time for lessons in human sexuality to the level that they are ready to take. To make a big fuss out of it as I have seen some parents, go ballistic, is a very seriously flawed approach in that it gives the child the wrong impression of human sexuality.
Parents need to be far more open at home and willing to discuss issues their children raise and even to the point where children will ask their parent before the discuss it with their friends. Better learned at home than misinformed out behind the garage.
I would go so far as to suggest that these magazines sell because there is a need and obviously there are those willing to respond to that need. I would also suggest that if parents and society were more open such a need would decline thus lowering the amount you see around.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
As someone who writes erotica, I have trouble seeing weinbeck's POV at all.
I think there is an animalistic side of human nature that has been repressed for too long. I actually feel that porn should be more acceptable, though fetishes should be tucked away in specialty shops as they are usually related to emotional damage.
I think there is an animalistic side of human nature that has been repressed for too long. I actually feel that porn should be more acceptable, though fetishes should be tucked away in specialty shops as they are usually related to emotional damage.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Hugh Janus;602338 wrote: Surely this cannot be the same Weinbeck that posted in another slot on this forum? I mean... You are getting all shirty about magazines etc, and then you post elsewhere about internet porn. You denegrade people for looking at pictures of the very thing that you now advocate.
Originally Posted by weinbeck
I've tried it (Viagra), and it's not much cop. What sells it is hype. Far quicker for a desired effect is the adult sites on the internet where just the opening shots show women having oral sex. Gets it up in about eight seconds!
:wah: Caught out, well done!
Originally Posted by weinbeck
I've tried it (Viagra), and it's not much cop. What sells it is hype. Far quicker for a desired effect is the adult sites on the internet where just the opening shots show women having oral sex. Gets it up in about eight seconds!
:wah: Caught out, well done!
Top-shelf magazines and all that
bornbad;607622 wrote: o no sex mad perverts murdering people because they knock one off to a mag
dont think so
but vicars and priests abusing school children ........ i wish they got a porn mag instead
Great post Jess!
dont think so
but vicars and priests abusing school children ........ i wish they got a porn mag instead
Great post Jess!
Top-shelf magazines and all that
koan:-6
I am in agreement with you on erotica and porn as well as fetishes.
The church for far too long, has given the implication that sex is somehow dirty or evil. Blame most of it on Augustine. He had problems coming to grips with his own sexuality and Christians have been suffering ever since.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in agreement with you on erotica and porn as well as fetishes.
The church for far too long, has given the implication that sex is somehow dirty or evil. Blame most of it on Augustine. He had problems coming to grips with his own sexuality and Christians have been suffering ever since.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Ted;609283 wrote: koan:-6
I am in agreement with you on erotica and porn as well as fetishes.
The church for far too long, has given the implication that sex is somehow dirty or evil. Blame most of it on Augustine. He had problems coming to grips with his own sexuality and Christians have been suffering ever since.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Koan and Ted.
Koan openly say she writes erotica and sees no harm in it, you you've managed to find a passage in the Bible that apparently promotes it - strange world! I'll not be swayed by one quotation. Taken out of context, somewhere in the book of Exodus there is a single passage that makes Moses out a crack golfer!
Somewhere along the line in one of the threads, somebody asked me what I base my moral/religious principles on. I base them on, amongst other passages, Galatians, Chapter 5 verses 16 - 25. Now it is my time to quote the Bible:
"I say then: walk in the Spirit, and you shall NOT fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish." It goes on to say that "The works of the flesh are evident which are adultery, FORNICATION, uncleanness, lewdness etc." It goes on and on
"I tell you beforehand... those who practice such things will NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD." The way of the Spirit is love, joy,peace, longsuffering, kindness... "
"Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows he will reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of his flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the will of the Spirit will reap EVERLASTING LIFE."
Shalom.
I am in agreement with you on erotica and porn as well as fetishes.
The church for far too long, has given the implication that sex is somehow dirty or evil. Blame most of it on Augustine. He had problems coming to grips with his own sexuality and Christians have been suffering ever since.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Koan and Ted.
Koan openly say she writes erotica and sees no harm in it, you you've managed to find a passage in the Bible that apparently promotes it - strange world! I'll not be swayed by one quotation. Taken out of context, somewhere in the book of Exodus there is a single passage that makes Moses out a crack golfer!
Somewhere along the line in one of the threads, somebody asked me what I base my moral/religious principles on. I base them on, amongst other passages, Galatians, Chapter 5 verses 16 - 25. Now it is my time to quote the Bible:
"I say then: walk in the Spirit, and you shall NOT fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish." It goes on to say that "The works of the flesh are evident which are adultery, FORNICATION, uncleanness, lewdness etc." It goes on and on
"I tell you beforehand... those who practice such things will NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD." The way of the Spirit is love, joy,peace, longsuffering, kindness... "
"Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows he will reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of his flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the will of the Spirit will reap EVERLASTING LIFE."
Shalom.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
weinbeck:-6
Let me first of all address your comment about using a quote from the Bible to show that God promotes eroticism. That actually is a whole separate issue if you are referring to Numbers 31. Numbers 31 gives a clear statement that makes it appear that God not only condones war crimes but promotes them. In fact the Hebrew soldiers are exhorted to kill all but the virgins which they are allowed to keep for themselves and marry if they like. Nice touch. The writer sure knew soldiers.
As for the comments from Paul re adultery I would suggest you go to the Jewish Encyclopedia to read about ancient sexual practices.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A
JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY
You will find it most enlightening. The term adultery had an entirely different meaning in Paul's day.
Having said that one could write a book on this topic with very little effort. According to James R. Adams in "From Literal to Literary" the use of the Greek word "sarx" which is translated as flesh is highly problematic.
Now lets turn to the writing or erotica. First of all your position would seem to indicate that somehow or another sex is dirty, filthy and a sin. It would seem from the myth of creation that God was totally pleased with all he had created, "It was good". This has to by its very wording include sexuality. This would also suggest that somehow the "flesh" is evil and yet God created it.
I cannot see how the writing of erotica is in any way evil. It can be beneficial in intimate circumstances if the couple are having problems or even if for their own pleasure. Where does the Bible indicate that to seek pleasure from one's own body is sinful or evil.
St Augustine, who really promoted the idea of original sin had his own sexual hangups and has inflicted them on the human race ever since. It was from this that being born in sin comes. He saw the sexual act as evil and far too many down through the centuries have continued to foist this ridiculous notion on the whole of mankind. Yes the Bible speaks out against promiscuity. If you read the above encyclopedia essay you will find that word somewhat difficult to understand.
"Adding to the difficulty of using the flesh metaphor has been the tendency of some Christians to disparage the physical aspects of human existence, especially the desire for sexual intimacy. This tendency has worked against women ever achieving equal status with men in the church. Because women evoke sexual desires in men, the argument goes, women are the cause of sin and must be kept under tight control. As long as men in authority equate sinful flesh with the feelings stirred up by women, the male will continue using all their power to subjugate women." p102-103 "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams.
In Matt 7 we are clearly told not to judge. Judging is God's role alone and does not belong to us.
I draw to your attention that Abraham went to bed with his servant, Solomon had a good time with the Queen of Sheba, David had many wives and concubines, etc. All of these were acceptable in those days.
I could go on but I think you get the message. Judging human sexuality is not so simple. It is a natural drive and one of the most powerful in the human race. God made us that way. What is wrong with erotica?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Let me first of all address your comment about using a quote from the Bible to show that God promotes eroticism. That actually is a whole separate issue if you are referring to Numbers 31. Numbers 31 gives a clear statement that makes it appear that God not only condones war crimes but promotes them. In fact the Hebrew soldiers are exhorted to kill all but the virgins which they are allowed to keep for themselves and marry if they like. Nice touch. The writer sure knew soldiers.
As for the comments from Paul re adultery I would suggest you go to the Jewish Encyclopedia to read about ancient sexual practices.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A
JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY
You will find it most enlightening. The term adultery had an entirely different meaning in Paul's day.
Having said that one could write a book on this topic with very little effort. According to James R. Adams in "From Literal to Literary" the use of the Greek word "sarx" which is translated as flesh is highly problematic.
Now lets turn to the writing or erotica. First of all your position would seem to indicate that somehow or another sex is dirty, filthy and a sin. It would seem from the myth of creation that God was totally pleased with all he had created, "It was good". This has to by its very wording include sexuality. This would also suggest that somehow the "flesh" is evil and yet God created it.
I cannot see how the writing of erotica is in any way evil. It can be beneficial in intimate circumstances if the couple are having problems or even if for their own pleasure. Where does the Bible indicate that to seek pleasure from one's own body is sinful or evil.
St Augustine, who really promoted the idea of original sin had his own sexual hangups and has inflicted them on the human race ever since. It was from this that being born in sin comes. He saw the sexual act as evil and far too many down through the centuries have continued to foist this ridiculous notion on the whole of mankind. Yes the Bible speaks out against promiscuity. If you read the above encyclopedia essay you will find that word somewhat difficult to understand.
"Adding to the difficulty of using the flesh metaphor has been the tendency of some Christians to disparage the physical aspects of human existence, especially the desire for sexual intimacy. This tendency has worked against women ever achieving equal status with men in the church. Because women evoke sexual desires in men, the argument goes, women are the cause of sin and must be kept under tight control. As long as men in authority equate sinful flesh with the feelings stirred up by women, the male will continue using all their power to subjugate women." p102-103 "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams.
In Matt 7 we are clearly told not to judge. Judging is God's role alone and does not belong to us.
I draw to your attention that Abraham went to bed with his servant, Solomon had a good time with the Queen of Sheba, David had many wives and concubines, etc. All of these were acceptable in those days.
I could go on but I think you get the message. Judging human sexuality is not so simple. It is a natural drive and one of the most powerful in the human race. God made us that way. What is wrong with erotica?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
If a man is sitting at his desk at work and has an erection because a beautiful secretary walks by does that mean his evil or has committed a sin? Perhaps it is a natural response to pheromones. If it is a perfectly natural response does that make it a sin?
I think that Paul may have had his own problems. Several scholars are suggesting that he may have in fact been homosexual. Or perhaps he was fighting his own natural sexual urges. Only God knows for sure. It is certainly none of my business.
koan:-6
Carry on with your erotica. Somehow or another I don't believe that it is sinful or wrong. If it gives people pleasure what is the harm?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think that Paul may have had his own problems. Several scholars are suggesting that he may have in fact been homosexual. Or perhaps he was fighting his own natural sexual urges. Only God knows for sure. It is certainly none of my business.
koan:-6
Carry on with your erotica. Somehow or another I don't believe that it is sinful or wrong. If it gives people pleasure what is the harm?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
The whole concept of sin is problematic in this day and age. What exactly is sin? I'm thinking about the phrase used of Jesus where it says "He became sin. . ." That sounds like a noun to me. What precisely does that mean?
I do like that commandment "Love thy neighbour only leave his wife alone." Unless of course you happen to be Solomon in which case it is probably OK.
Now I'm rambling.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I do like that commandment "Love thy neighbour only leave his wife alone." Unless of course you happen to be Solomon in which case it is probably OK.
Now I'm rambling.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
weinbeck;610321 wrote:
...Koan openly say she writes erotica and sees no harm in it...
I say it openly and happily.
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
...Koan openly say she writes erotica and sees no harm in it...
I say it openly and happily.
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
Top-shelf magazines and all that
koan;610609 wrote: I say it openly and happily.
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
well said koanie ,i'm not really into erotica to be honest but in life whatever rocks your boat and your not harming anyone else good on you enjoy:-6 :-6
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
well said koanie ,i'm not really into erotica to be honest but in life whatever rocks your boat and your not harming anyone else good on you enjoy:-6 :-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Soberano;610616 wrote: Just finished perving another mag, anybody want it after me. I will dry it out first.:wah: :wah: :wah:
I drooled over it, put your mind back in the gutter Jimbo.:wah:
i think thats what they call coming to a sticky ending
i guess they are hard back books eh unsober one , you have used all the smiley things so aha ha ha ha ha
I drooled over it, put your mind back in the gutter Jimbo.:wah:
i think thats what they call coming to a sticky ending
i guess they are hard back books eh unsober one , you have used all the smiley things so aha ha ha ha ha
Top-shelf magazines and all that
koan;610609 wrote: I say it openly and happily.
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
Good on you Koan, You write it, I talk it
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
Good on you Koan, You write it, I talk it
I am nobody..nobody is perfect...therefore I must be Perfect!
Top-shelf magazines and all that
koan;610609 wrote: I say it openly and happily.
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
Wow, You're good at it too Koan. One or two more I write erotica's and you would have gotten me.
I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica. I write erotica.
You know what, weinbeck? It makes people feel good. Really good. I love that. I can make people feel really good, to the point of orgasm, by just typing some words onto my computer. No one gets sick. No one dies. Just a lot of people enjoying their bodies. All in a day's work.
God, I love life!
Wow, You're good at it too Koan. One or two more I write erotica's and you would have gotten me.
-
Hugh Janus
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:55 am
Top-shelf magazines and all that
The Bible. One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Not too sure that I would want to read it again though... As for "idiots" living life according to this piece of fiction... I would rather live my life using rules gleaned from "The Lord of the Rings" trillogy... Yes I know. It sounds stupid. But it makes as much sence as using rules from any other work of fiction...:sneaky:
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Hugh Janus;611281 wrote: The Bible. One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Not too sure that I would want to read it again though... As for "idiots" living life according to this piece of fiction... I would rather live my life using rules gleaned from "The Lord of the Rings" trillogy... Yes I know. It sounds stupid. But it makes as much sence as using rules from any other work of fiction...:sneaky:
good post .... no really very thought provoking :-3 :-3
i might start living my life according to the viz comic
good post .... no really very thought provoking :-3 :-3
i might start living my life according to the viz comic
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Hugh Janus;611281 wrote: The Bible. One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Not too sure that I would want to read it again though... As for "idiots" living life according to this piece of fiction... I would rather live my life using rules gleaned from "The Lord of the Rings" trillogy... Yes I know. It sounds stupid. But it makes as much sence as using rules from any other work of fiction...:sneaky:
So I'm an idiot, along with all the other sad, deluded dummies who have given their lives to a non-existant Jesus, am I? Well, if it is one big con, no more than a work of fiction, then I will die a truly happy man.
Because I have many millions of Brothers out there whose lives have been changed out of all recognition, and I know the second I walk into a House of God my Brothers will be there. In fact, wherever we meet, either in a church or socially, there will be genuine warmth and fellowship. It is often unnecessary for us to introduce ourselves as Christians, for a tree is known by the fruit it bears. Our actions make us instantly recognisable amongst ourselves - all living in a fool's paradise, but only during out time on earth, for there are no fools where we're going. As I said, you appear to be happy where you are, whereas I'm happy where i'm GOING.
So I'm an idiot, along with all the other sad, deluded dummies who have given their lives to a non-existant Jesus, am I? Well, if it is one big con, no more than a work of fiction, then I will die a truly happy man.
Because I have many millions of Brothers out there whose lives have been changed out of all recognition, and I know the second I walk into a House of God my Brothers will be there. In fact, wherever we meet, either in a church or socially, there will be genuine warmth and fellowship. It is often unnecessary for us to introduce ourselves as Christians, for a tree is known by the fruit it bears. Our actions make us instantly recognisable amongst ourselves - all living in a fool's paradise, but only during out time on earth, for there are no fools where we're going. As I said, you appear to be happy where you are, whereas I'm happy where i'm GOING.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
weinbeck;611623 wrote: ................for there are no fools where we're going. As I said, you appear to be happy where you are, whereas I'm happy where i'm GOING.
Don't you mean where you hope you are going?
As an aside, please tell me what faith Jesus was baptised into.
Don't you mean where you hope you are going?
As an aside, please tell me what faith Jesus was baptised into.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Pinky;611674 wrote: OMG!!! 
:wah:
That's why the middle won't open!!:D
Actually, no. The middle pages are banned unto readers of the female gender. They have zips.
:wah: That's why the middle won't open!!:D
Actually, no. The middle pages are banned unto readers of the female gender. They have zips.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Dost thou imply that thou art ambisexual?
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Top-shelf magazines and all that
weinbeck;611623 wrote: So I'm an idiot, along with all the other sad, deluded dummies who have given their lives to a non-existant Jesus, am I? Well, if it is one big con, no more than a work of fiction, then I will die a truly happy man. Because I have many millions of Brothers out there whose lives have been changed out of all recognition, and I know the second I walk into a House of God my Brothers will be there. In fact, wherever we meet, either in a church or socially, there will be genuine warmth and fellowship. It is often unnecessary for us to introduce ourselves as Christians, for a tree is known by the fruit it bears. Our actions make us instantly recognisable amongst ourselves - all living in a fool's paradise, but only during out time on earth, for there are no fools where we're going. As I said, you appear to be happy where you are, whereas I'm happy where i'm GOING.
It's nice to know that there is warmth and fellowship when you meet your brothers, but why would it be necessary for anyone to introduce one's self as a Christian anyway? I have had this happen to me many times upon first meeting someone and I become very leery of them. I don't introduce myself to some one as a "Secular Humanist". I also hate the display of Christian symbols on business letterheads and business cards. Just what is that to indicate? That they are trustful, honest and fair? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
Because I have many millions of Brothers out there whose lives have been changed out of all recognition, and I know the second I walk into a House of God my Brothers will be there. In fact, wherever we meet, either in a church or socially, there will be genuine warmth and fellowship. It is often unnecessary for us to introduce ourselves as Christians, for a tree is known by the fruit it bears. Our actions make us instantly recognisable amongst ourselves - all living in a fool's paradise, but only during out time on earth, for there are no fools where we're going. As I said, you appear to be happy where you are, whereas I'm happy where i'm GOING.It's nice to know that there is warmth and fellowship when you meet your brothers, but why would it be necessary for anyone to introduce one's self as a Christian anyway? I have had this happen to me many times upon first meeting someone and I become very leery of them. I don't introduce myself to some one as a "Secular Humanist". I also hate the display of Christian symbols on business letterheads and business cards. Just what is that to indicate? That they are trustful, honest and fair? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Lon;611684 wrote: It's nice to know that there is warmth and fellowship when you meet your brothers, but why would it be necessary for anyone to introduce one's self as a Christian anyway? I have had this happen to me many times upon first meeting someone and I become very leery of them. I don't introduce myself to some one as a "Secular Humanist". I also hate the display of Christian symbols on business letterheads and business cards. Just what is that to indicate? That they are trustful, honest and fair? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
I feel the same way about this...
About the leeriness as well. I'm also turned off when people I'm just meeting for the first time tell me they're born again or that they want to tell me all about their saviour or worse, ask me if I'm saved. As if that's any of their business, which of course they think it is, and that's a main tenet of their religion and the main problem of my disdain for them.
You can find warmth, fellowship and bonding in many social settings, not just church.
I understand they feel their obligation is to tell the world but that's where we differ. Religion is deeply, deeply private to me and I respect that in others as well.
I feel the same way about this...
About the leeriness as well. I'm also turned off when people I'm just meeting for the first time tell me they're born again or that they want to tell me all about their saviour or worse, ask me if I'm saved. As if that's any of their business, which of course they think it is, and that's a main tenet of their religion and the main problem of my disdain for them.
You can find warmth, fellowship and bonding in many social settings, not just church.
I understand they feel their obligation is to tell the world but that's where we differ. Religion is deeply, deeply private to me and I respect that in others as well.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
RedGlitter;611697 wrote: I feel the same way about this...
About the leeriness as well. I'm also turned off when people I'm just meeting for the first time tell me they're born again or that they want to tell me all about their saviour or worse, ask me if I'm saved. As if that's any of their business, which of course they think it is, and that's a main tenet of their religion and the main problem of my disdain for them.
You can find warmth, fellowship and bonding in many social settings, not just church.
I understand they feel their obligation is to tell the world but that's where we differ. Religion is deeply, deeply private to me and I respect that in others as well.
Lon and RedGlitter
I have to agree with both of you that when it comes come to Christian fellowship, some of us do tend to be just a wee bit over the top, a prime example being where you might get an over-enthusiastic stranger fervently shake your hand in a church and say: "Hello, my name's Malcolm - may I pray for you?"!:wah: It actually happened to me once and is enough to make you run a mile! We're not all crackpots. The over-zealous born-again Christian means no harm - it just that he's probably still on a "high" and, true to Christ's teachings: "go make disciples of all nations..." he finds he can't contain himself and wants to share this wonderful news about his personal salvation with every person he meets. It is a natural phenomina - when I found Christ, I was at the nadir of my life, and believe me, the raw emotion of salvation is something you never forget. I was on an emotional/religious high for weeks. I'm over it now, of course, but I too wanted to shout it from the highest roof top! It is all you can think of morning, noon and night.
We tend to recognise one another because, as opposed to wearing a cross or a crucifix, which so many people wear as jewelry the message is lost, we tend to wear either a small brass cross on our lapel or, more often than not, especially in the case of born-again Christians, a small, simple fish. It is instantly recognisable amongst Christians, the same as a plain, simple outline of a fish on the back of a car.
Of course you can find warmth and fellowship anywhere, be it at home, in a social club, pub - anywhere, and by fellowship I don't just mean Christian fellowship. I was merely referring to our own particular fellowship within the church.
Regarding Christian symbolism on headed notepaper, unless it is from a religious institution, it is something I would most definately frown upon, and if I got a flier through my letter box saying Bill Blogs - master Christian builder, it would go straight into the bin, because you'd be using God to your own ends.
As I said, we're not all religious fanatics, the same as you're not all baseball fanatics.
Reading through this thread begs the question: what has this got to do with pornography and top-shelf magazines??:wah: :wah: :wah:
About the leeriness as well. I'm also turned off when people I'm just meeting for the first time tell me they're born again or that they want to tell me all about their saviour or worse, ask me if I'm saved. As if that's any of their business, which of course they think it is, and that's a main tenet of their religion and the main problem of my disdain for them.
You can find warmth, fellowship and bonding in many social settings, not just church.
I understand they feel their obligation is to tell the world but that's where we differ. Religion is deeply, deeply private to me and I respect that in others as well.
Lon and RedGlitter
I have to agree with both of you that when it comes come to Christian fellowship, some of us do tend to be just a wee bit over the top, a prime example being where you might get an over-enthusiastic stranger fervently shake your hand in a church and say: "Hello, my name's Malcolm - may I pray for you?"!:wah: It actually happened to me once and is enough to make you run a mile! We're not all crackpots. The over-zealous born-again Christian means no harm - it just that he's probably still on a "high" and, true to Christ's teachings: "go make disciples of all nations..." he finds he can't contain himself and wants to share this wonderful news about his personal salvation with every person he meets. It is a natural phenomina - when I found Christ, I was at the nadir of my life, and believe me, the raw emotion of salvation is something you never forget. I was on an emotional/religious high for weeks. I'm over it now, of course, but I too wanted to shout it from the highest roof top! It is all you can think of morning, noon and night.
We tend to recognise one another because, as opposed to wearing a cross or a crucifix, which so many people wear as jewelry the message is lost, we tend to wear either a small brass cross on our lapel or, more often than not, especially in the case of born-again Christians, a small, simple fish. It is instantly recognisable amongst Christians, the same as a plain, simple outline of a fish on the back of a car.
Of course you can find warmth and fellowship anywhere, be it at home, in a social club, pub - anywhere, and by fellowship I don't just mean Christian fellowship. I was merely referring to our own particular fellowship within the church.
Regarding Christian symbolism on headed notepaper, unless it is from a religious institution, it is something I would most definately frown upon, and if I got a flier through my letter box saying Bill Blogs - master Christian builder, it would go straight into the bin, because you'd be using God to your own ends.
As I said, we're not all religious fanatics, the same as you're not all baseball fanatics.
Reading through this thread begs the question: what has this got to do with pornography and top-shelf magazines??:wah: :wah: :wah:
Top-shelf magazines and all that
RedGlitter;602293 wrote: Oh heck no! What are your sources for this? That's not sexual titillation, that's being a freaking crackpot! They have deeper seated problems than just getting off to a glossy with staples down the middle! This theory is overblown.
Indeed, and hear hear.
Indeed, and hear hear.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
koan;608564 wrote: As someone who writes erotica...
Oh my gods, where???
koan;608564 wrote: ... I think there is an animalistic side of human nature that has been repressed for too long. I actually feel that porn should be more acceptable, though fetishes should be tucked away in specialty shops as they are usually related to emotional damage.
I don't quite agree on the "emotional damage" bit for all fetishes (mine are pretty benign, I think), but I do think pornography (awful word; I prefer "erotica") should be more acceptable among consenting adults.
Okay, here is where I might get in trouble with some of the more liberal folk.
I have to agree with weinbeck on the accessability of erotic materials, not for religious reasons but for reasons of civic standards. Erotica shouldn't be displayed where minors may view them, nor should they be available where adults may request and acquire them in the presence of minors. Sexuality isn't solely an adult prerogative (Show of hands, how many of you became sexually aware only after the clock ticked over into your eighteenth birthday? Anyone? Anyone?), but adults must assume that children don't have the logic skills nor the personal discipline to view or experience these materials for themselves (I know, I know, many adults don't either, but the laws mandate a chronological rather than a psychological yardstick for this sort of thing).
Lest ye think I'm singling out erotica, I believe the same thing should apply to tobacco and alcohol consumption. This of course will never happen. :rolleyes:
One more thing, and with no disrespect for anyone's spiritual bent: Civic standards should be measured by logic and practicality alone, for the overall good of the citizenry.
Oh my gods, where???
koan;608564 wrote: ... I think there is an animalistic side of human nature that has been repressed for too long. I actually feel that porn should be more acceptable, though fetishes should be tucked away in specialty shops as they are usually related to emotional damage.
I don't quite agree on the "emotional damage" bit for all fetishes (mine are pretty benign, I think), but I do think pornography (awful word; I prefer "erotica") should be more acceptable among consenting adults.
Okay, here is where I might get in trouble with some of the more liberal folk.
I have to agree with weinbeck on the accessability of erotic materials, not for religious reasons but for reasons of civic standards. Erotica shouldn't be displayed where minors may view them, nor should they be available where adults may request and acquire them in the presence of minors. Sexuality isn't solely an adult prerogative (Show of hands, how many of you became sexually aware only after the clock ticked over into your eighteenth birthday? Anyone? Anyone?), but adults must assume that children don't have the logic skills nor the personal discipline to view or experience these materials for themselves (I know, I know, many adults don't either, but the laws mandate a chronological rather than a psychological yardstick for this sort of thing).
Lest ye think I'm singling out erotica, I believe the same thing should apply to tobacco and alcohol consumption. This of course will never happen. :rolleyes:
One more thing, and with no disrespect for anyone's spiritual bent: Civic standards should be measured by logic and practicality alone, for the overall good of the citizenry.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
RedGlitter/lon:-6
I am in agreement with your feelings about the over zealous Christian. Yes, apparently Jesus told his followers to evangelize. However, one great church father, I can't remember who, once said, "Evangelize, yes but with words only if necessary". He certainly had some wisdom to pass on.
The term "born again" is one that I dislike immensely. Probably because I was raised in a very fundamentalist church where I heard that term every Sunday. In fact Jesus never said one had to be born again. What he said was that one had to be born from above.
The term I prefer is "transformed". This transformation has been found in all of the great faiths of the world. During the Axial age which spanned about 300 years all of the great faiths, unknown to each other, came to the conclusion that we must work towards compassion and justice. It is this that is the basis of all the great faiths. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong who by the way came to despise the term "born again" for exactly the same reasons that I did.
BTW Two interesting words; the word translated into righteousness actually should be translated as "justice" and the word translated as saviour should be translated as "healer". This knowledge has profound implications for the reading and understanding of the sacred scriptures. "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams and "The Heart of Christianity", Marcus Borg.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in agreement with your feelings about the over zealous Christian. Yes, apparently Jesus told his followers to evangelize. However, one great church father, I can't remember who, once said, "Evangelize, yes but with words only if necessary". He certainly had some wisdom to pass on.
The term "born again" is one that I dislike immensely. Probably because I was raised in a very fundamentalist church where I heard that term every Sunday. In fact Jesus never said one had to be born again. What he said was that one had to be born from above.
The term I prefer is "transformed". This transformation has been found in all of the great faiths of the world. During the Axial age which spanned about 300 years all of the great faiths, unknown to each other, came to the conclusion that we must work towards compassion and justice. It is this that is the basis of all the great faiths. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong who by the way came to despise the term "born again" for exactly the same reasons that I did.
BTW Two interesting words; the word translated into righteousness actually should be translated as "justice" and the word translated as saviour should be translated as "healer". This knowledge has profound implications for the reading and understanding of the sacred scriptures. "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams and "The Heart of Christianity", Marcus Borg.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
As I have pointed out earlier. Human sexuality poses great problems for the church today. When we couple that with our knowledge of the history of sexuality it gives one a great deal to think upon. The decisions are not easy when it comes to judging what is moral or immoral.
Our knowledge of the nature of sexuality as driven by hormones and our knowledge of the lack of choice in homosexuality are just two examples.
Is a king with hundreds of wives and dozens of concubines, besides being worn out from all that activity, living an immoral life? Apparently not during the ancient times. Is a man stepping out with a non virgin, unmarried female, adultery? Apparently not, according to the Jewish encyclopedia.
Is homosexuality immoral. If we look at Leviticus we see it lumped with eating shell fish, wearing clothing of two different fabrics at the same time, sowing more than one kind of seed in a field. Not only that parents can have their recalcitrant children stoned to death at the city gates. If we say that the Bible is against homosexuality we also have to avoid the above and have the right to stone misbehaving children. Picking and choosing? I would say so.
The Bible is definitely not clear on what it has to say about homosexuality. In fact it says almost nothing about lesbianism. These are not problems that can be solved by reading the sacred scriptures. I doubt very much that Lon has seen any physical illnesses that have been caused by demon possession though that was also believed in ancient times.
It is time to reinterpret the wisdom of the sacred scriptures in light of modern science and our historical and cultural knowledge.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Our knowledge of the nature of sexuality as driven by hormones and our knowledge of the lack of choice in homosexuality are just two examples.
Is a king with hundreds of wives and dozens of concubines, besides being worn out from all that activity, living an immoral life? Apparently not during the ancient times. Is a man stepping out with a non virgin, unmarried female, adultery? Apparently not, according to the Jewish encyclopedia.
Is homosexuality immoral. If we look at Leviticus we see it lumped with eating shell fish, wearing clothing of two different fabrics at the same time, sowing more than one kind of seed in a field. Not only that parents can have their recalcitrant children stoned to death at the city gates. If we say that the Bible is against homosexuality we also have to avoid the above and have the right to stone misbehaving children. Picking and choosing? I would say so.
The Bible is definitely not clear on what it has to say about homosexuality. In fact it says almost nothing about lesbianism. These are not problems that can be solved by reading the sacred scriptures. I doubt very much that Lon has seen any physical illnesses that have been caused by demon possession though that was also believed in ancient times.
It is time to reinterpret the wisdom of the sacred scriptures in light of modern science and our historical and cultural knowledge.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Hugh Janus;611281 wrote: The Bible. One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Not too sure that I would want to read it again though... As for "idiots" living life according to this piece of fiction... I would rather live my life using rules gleaned from "The Lord of the Rings" trillogy... Yes I know. It sounds stupid. But it makes as much sence as using rules from any other work of fiction...:sneaky:
APPLAUSE! Great post.
APPLAUSE! Great post.
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Hugh Janus;611281 wrote: The Bible. One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Not too sure that I would want to read it again though... As for "idiots" living life according to this piece of fiction... I would rather live my life using rules gleaned from "The Lord of the Rings" trillogy... Yes I know. It sounds stupid. But it makes as much sence as using rules from any other work of fiction...:sneaky:
Well that's the thing...No one can prove that it's fiction no more than anyone can prove that it's not...
Well that's the thing...No one can prove that it's fiction no more than anyone can prove that it's not...
-
Hugh Janus
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:55 am
Top-shelf magazines and all that
K.Snyder;612126 wrote: Well that's the thing...No one can prove that it's fiction no more than anyone can prove that it's not...
Ok. I will agree with the above, in sentiment, however. If you actually look at how "the Bible" came to be published. I think you will find that it was not actually made into book form untill the 14th centuary... Quote..
Various parts of Scripture were first translated into English in the 7th to 10th century.
Aldhelm (640-709) translated the Psalter (Psalms) into Old English shortly after 700 AD.
Egbert of Northumbria (ca. 700), served as the Archbishop of York and was the first person to translate the synoptic Gospels into English in approximately 705 AD.
The Venerable Bede (674-735) was one of the greatest scholars in Europe and he translated the Gospel of John working on it until literally his last breath.
Alfred the Great (849-901) was the King of England and an excellent scholar. He translated the Ten Commandments, and various sections of Scripture such as Exodus 21-23 and Acts 15:23-29.It was only in the 14th century that the first English translation of the entire Bible came into being.
This is from Yahoo answers..... Quote..
Originally, there were only scriptures from the Old Testement. About the 3rd century a group of people put together the books of the Bible as they are today.
So now we have a book that has for 300 years, been told as tales round camp fires... (Brothers Grimm, anyone?) The tale is in the telling, not necesarily in the facts...
Did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?... It seems so funny that a simple phrase as "I want to go see a Kiwi" can get translated as "Michael Jackson helps me wee wee." So how the hell can anyone follow something written down at least 300 years after the event? I am sorry but Naive is a word that springs to mind. Maybe a few other words too. How about "Brainwashed, Simple minded, Lacking in moral fortitude, (Go on, look it up.)
How about words like, "No self confidence, Lacking Self Esteem, Unable to face reallity." Now maybe we are starting to hit the nail on the head. If all you "Do gooders actually started to follow the teachings in this "Fictional Book." Then you would all suddenly give up your jobs, give all your hard earned money to the poor and needy, don sackcloth and ashes, "To repent for all your past misdeeds." And then go and follow the way of the lord...
So tell me then O great weinbeck. What have you given up to follow the way of the lord? BTW. If you have got a nice car, I will be willing to take it off your hands, to help you to atone for all your misdeeds...:sneaky:
Ok. I will agree with the above, in sentiment, however. If you actually look at how "the Bible" came to be published. I think you will find that it was not actually made into book form untill the 14th centuary... Quote..
Various parts of Scripture were first translated into English in the 7th to 10th century.
Aldhelm (640-709) translated the Psalter (Psalms) into Old English shortly after 700 AD.
Egbert of Northumbria (ca. 700), served as the Archbishop of York and was the first person to translate the synoptic Gospels into English in approximately 705 AD.
The Venerable Bede (674-735) was one of the greatest scholars in Europe and he translated the Gospel of John working on it until literally his last breath.
Alfred the Great (849-901) was the King of England and an excellent scholar. He translated the Ten Commandments, and various sections of Scripture such as Exodus 21-23 and Acts 15:23-29.It was only in the 14th century that the first English translation of the entire Bible came into being.
This is from Yahoo answers..... Quote..
Originally, there were only scriptures from the Old Testement. About the 3rd century a group of people put together the books of the Bible as they are today.
So now we have a book that has for 300 years, been told as tales round camp fires... (Brothers Grimm, anyone?) The tale is in the telling, not necesarily in the facts...
Did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?... It seems so funny that a simple phrase as "I want to go see a Kiwi" can get translated as "Michael Jackson helps me wee wee." So how the hell can anyone follow something written down at least 300 years after the event? I am sorry but Naive is a word that springs to mind. Maybe a few other words too. How about "Brainwashed, Simple minded, Lacking in moral fortitude, (Go on, look it up.)
How about words like, "No self confidence, Lacking Self Esteem, Unable to face reallity." Now maybe we are starting to hit the nail on the head. If all you "Do gooders actually started to follow the teachings in this "Fictional Book." Then you would all suddenly give up your jobs, give all your hard earned money to the poor and needy, don sackcloth and ashes, "To repent for all your past misdeeds." And then go and follow the way of the lord...
So tell me then O great weinbeck. What have you given up to follow the way of the lord? BTW. If you have got a nice car, I will be willing to take it off your hands, to help you to atone for all your misdeeds...:sneaky:
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Hugh Janus;612146 wrote: Ok. I will agree with the above, in sentiment, however. If you actually look at how "the Bible" came to be published. I think you will find that it was not actually made into book form untill the 14th centuary... Quote..
Various parts of Scripture were first translated into English in the 7th to 10th century.
Aldhelm (640-709) translated the Psalter (Psalms) into Old English shortly after 700 AD.
Egbert of Northumbria (ca. 700), served as the Archbishop of York and was the first person to translate the synoptic Gospels into English in approximately 705 AD.
The Venerable Bede (674-735) was one of the greatest scholars in Europe and he translated the Gospel of John working on it until literally his last breath.
Alfred the Great (849-901) was the King of England and an excellent scholar. He translated the Ten Commandments, and various sections of Scripture such as Exodus 21-23 and Acts 15:23-29.It was only in the 14th century that the first English translation of the entire Bible came into being.
This is from Yahoo answers..... Quote..
Originally, there were only scriptures from the Old Testement. About the 3rd century a group of people put together the books of the Bible as they are today.
So now we have a book that has for 300 years, been told as tales round camp fires... (Brothers Grimm, anyone?) The tale is in the telling, not necesarily in the facts...
Did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?... It seems so funny that a simple phrase as "I want to go see a Kiwi" can get translated as "Michael Jackson helps me wee wee." So how the hell can anyone follow something written down at least 300 years after the event? I am sorry but Naive is a word that springs to mind. Maybe a few other words too. How about "Brainwashed, Simple minded, Lacking in moral fortitude, (Go on, look it up.)
How about words like, "No self confidence, Lacking Self Esteem, Unable to face reallity." Now maybe we are starting to hit the nail on the head. If all you "Do gooders actually started to follow the teachings in this "Fictional Book." Then you would all suddenly give up your jobs, give all your hard earned money to the poor and needy, don sackcloth and ashes, "To repent for all your past misdeeds." And then go and follow the way of the lord...
So tell me then O great weinbeck. What have you given up to follow the way of the lord? BTW. If you have got a nice car, I will be willing to take it off your hands, to help you to atone for all your misdeeds...:sneaky:
funny you should post this , as i drove by the chuch today i saw all the flash cars and i thought to my self if these people really believed in god they would sell their flash cars ,drive an old wreck and give the money to the starving ... and now you have pretty much posted exactly that :-3 :-3
Various parts of Scripture were first translated into English in the 7th to 10th century.
Aldhelm (640-709) translated the Psalter (Psalms) into Old English shortly after 700 AD.
Egbert of Northumbria (ca. 700), served as the Archbishop of York and was the first person to translate the synoptic Gospels into English in approximately 705 AD.
The Venerable Bede (674-735) was one of the greatest scholars in Europe and he translated the Gospel of John working on it until literally his last breath.
Alfred the Great (849-901) was the King of England and an excellent scholar. He translated the Ten Commandments, and various sections of Scripture such as Exodus 21-23 and Acts 15:23-29.It was only in the 14th century that the first English translation of the entire Bible came into being.
This is from Yahoo answers..... Quote..
Originally, there were only scriptures from the Old Testement. About the 3rd century a group of people put together the books of the Bible as they are today.
So now we have a book that has for 300 years, been told as tales round camp fires... (Brothers Grimm, anyone?) The tale is in the telling, not necesarily in the facts...
Did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?... It seems so funny that a simple phrase as "I want to go see a Kiwi" can get translated as "Michael Jackson helps me wee wee." So how the hell can anyone follow something written down at least 300 years after the event? I am sorry but Naive is a word that springs to mind. Maybe a few other words too. How about "Brainwashed, Simple minded, Lacking in moral fortitude, (Go on, look it up.)
How about words like, "No self confidence, Lacking Self Esteem, Unable to face reallity." Now maybe we are starting to hit the nail on the head. If all you "Do gooders actually started to follow the teachings in this "Fictional Book." Then you would all suddenly give up your jobs, give all your hard earned money to the poor and needy, don sackcloth and ashes, "To repent for all your past misdeeds." And then go and follow the way of the lord...
So tell me then O great weinbeck. What have you given up to follow the way of the lord? BTW. If you have got a nice car, I will be willing to take it off your hands, to help you to atone for all your misdeeds...:sneaky:
funny you should post this , as i drove by the chuch today i saw all the flash cars and i thought to my self if these people really believed in god they would sell their flash cars ,drive an old wreck and give the money to the starving ... and now you have pretty much posted exactly that :-3 :-3
Top-shelf magazines and all that
jimbo;612163 wrote: funny you should post this , as i drove by the chuch today i saw all the flash cars and i thought to my self if these people really believed in god they would sell their flash cars ,drive an old wreck and give the money to the starving ... and now you have pretty much posted exactly that :-3 :-3
Yeah, I don't believe all that bible crap, one of you bible bashers please give ME your car!
Yeah, I don't believe all that bible crap, one of you bible bashers please give ME your car!
Top-shelf magazines and all that
crazygal;612167 wrote: Yeah, I don't believe all that bible crap, one of you bible bashers please give ME your car!
you dont look like your starving to me:wah:
oh crap i dont either i will have to buy my own car :rolleyes: :driving:
you dont look like your starving to me:wah:
oh crap i dont either i will have to buy my own car :rolleyes: :driving:
Top-shelf magazines and all that
jimbo;612168 wrote: you dont look like your starving to me:wah:
oh crap i dont either i will have to buy my own car :rolleyes: :driving:
Not starving but I don't have a car either so have to get exercise, it just ain't on. :-5
oh crap i dont either i will have to buy my own car :rolleyes: :driving:
Not starving but I don't have a car either so have to get exercise, it just ain't on. :-5
Top-shelf magazines and all that
Ted;611888 wrote: RedGlitter/lon:-6
I am in agreement with your feelings about the over zealous Christian. Yes, apparently Jesus told his followers to evangelize. However, one great church father, I can't remember who, once said, "Evangelize, yes but with words only if necessary". He certainly had some wisdom to pass on.
The term "born again" is one that I dislike immensely. Probably because I was raised in a very fundamentalist church where I heard that term every Sunday. In fact Jesus never said one had to be born again. What he said was that one had to be born from above.
The term I prefer is "transformed". This transformation has been found in all of the great faiths of the world. During the Axial age which spanned about 300 years all of the great faiths, unknown to each other, came to the conclusion that we must work towards compassion and justice. It is this that is the basis of all the great faiths. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong who by the way came to despise the term "born again" for exactly the same reasons that I did.
BTW Two interesting words; the word translated into righteousness actually should be translated as "justice" and the word translated as saviour should be translated as "healer". This knowledge has profound implications for the reading and understanding of the sacred scriptures. "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams and "The Heart of Christianity", Marcus Borg.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You dislike the term "born again" because you say Jesus never said it??
"Born from above?" That's news to me! Taking the reading from the New King James Version, I'll start off with John, Chapter 3, verse 1:
"There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, , a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbiwe know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, UNLESS ONE IS BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."
Nicodemous said to him "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?..." I won't continue, because Jew or Gentile, every person who has ever read the Bible knows that passage as well as the other famous passage: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son..."(John, ct3 v 16) Maybe the wording on the Bible you use is slightly different. But those two passages are so often quoted by lay preachers and the like, we know them backwards. I've just read a the conventional Holy Bible "ye, thee, thou" etc, and the wording is exactly the same. I think where you may be finding it slightly confusing is where, in verse 5, Jesus continues: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
That came from the authorised King James Version. This is not a challenge, but a straight queary: how does the wording compare with your Bible?
Finally, I understand you have slight difficulty seeing. May I help you by using a larger font? This is size 10 - would it help if I used 14 point? Finally, thank you for your comments.
I am in agreement with your feelings about the over zealous Christian. Yes, apparently Jesus told his followers to evangelize. However, one great church father, I can't remember who, once said, "Evangelize, yes but with words only if necessary". He certainly had some wisdom to pass on.
The term "born again" is one that I dislike immensely. Probably because I was raised in a very fundamentalist church where I heard that term every Sunday. In fact Jesus never said one had to be born again. What he said was that one had to be born from above.
The term I prefer is "transformed". This transformation has been found in all of the great faiths of the world. During the Axial age which spanned about 300 years all of the great faiths, unknown to each other, came to the conclusion that we must work towards compassion and justice. It is this that is the basis of all the great faiths. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong who by the way came to despise the term "born again" for exactly the same reasons that I did.
BTW Two interesting words; the word translated into righteousness actually should be translated as "justice" and the word translated as saviour should be translated as "healer". This knowledge has profound implications for the reading and understanding of the sacred scriptures. "From Literal to Literary", James R. Adams and "The Heart of Christianity", Marcus Borg.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You dislike the term "born again" because you say Jesus never said it??
"Born from above?" That's news to me! Taking the reading from the New King James Version, I'll start off with John, Chapter 3, verse 1:
"There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, , a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbiwe know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, UNLESS ONE IS BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."
Nicodemous said to him "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?..." I won't continue, because Jew or Gentile, every person who has ever read the Bible knows that passage as well as the other famous passage: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son..."(John, ct3 v 16) Maybe the wording on the Bible you use is slightly different. But those two passages are so often quoted by lay preachers and the like, we know them backwards. I've just read a the conventional Holy Bible "ye, thee, thou" etc, and the wording is exactly the same. I think where you may be finding it slightly confusing is where, in verse 5, Jesus continues: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
That came from the authorised King James Version. This is not a challenge, but a straight queary: how does the wording compare with your Bible?
Finally, I understand you have slight difficulty seeing. May I help you by using a larger font? This is size 10 - would it help if I used 14 point? Finally, thank you for your comments.