sox4lifeinPA

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) yeah I should sue Vanna White, the Hubble Telescope, and the Statue of Liberty strictly because France gave it to us. btw, where's Gregory Pratt when you need him to complain about wasting tax payer dollars??!?!

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) i've actually never seen that movie, but i'm thinking that's not a good thing. nah, I like Ed Burns, who I actually thought was ben affleck at one point which was weird, but he has a moment where he doesn't see the point of risking 8 lives for 1.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 10:20 AM) this probably sounds very hard to do, but if other people's lives are going to be at risk trying to save the 6 people who are very likely to be dead, then they should reconsider putting more people in danger. i'd hate to see anymore people die from this. You'd play Ed Burns in Saving Private Ryan.

from foxnews.com The Link In similar news, The American Red Cross has announced it's canceling their recent ad campaign. (copyright PA 2007)

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) Because she's like way better looking than you. No offense and all oh none taken. you're right.

s***, I gots beef's with half the people on this list, too. dag, son, I need to sue.

My World of Warcraft private server is Burning Crusade ready, in case anyone wants to give it a go for free.

geez, finally caught the wife up on Harry Potter movies so I can finally see the "new" one. Why did I marry a "non movie watcher"???

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) A few thoughts I am glad a major religion does not change easily. Our understanding of Biblical truths happens gradually and change must be done with great thought and not to bend to popular whims. I wonder why God would spend so much time allowing gay sex. I great deal of people are offended by the notion of homosexuality. It isn't that they are concerned about what others do, as Soxy mentions, but become involved when the issue is placed in front of them with protests, demands to allow homosexual unions, etc. It becomes a matter of public discourse then and people have opinions. Seismic shifts in our society do not occur without a great deal of debate, anger, and sometimes hurt feelings. When we are messing with eternal life, some people get really concerned. So I applaud the intelligent debate, no matter their opinion. I personally favor civil unions as the only legally recognized contract recognized by this country. Further, since we would be taking sex out of the equation, you should be able to form one of these unions with anyone you desire. Relatives for matters of health care, survivorship, etc. But one at a time. We agree on all accounts, ESPECIALLY the last part. Churches should not be influenced by popular movements and legislation shouldn't be influenced by churches. Civil unions should be allowed for ANY two people. Sex shouldn't matter, relationship shouldn't matter. Apply at the court house and get it signed by a non-church official. Marriage, if it is of a religious nature, should be monitored more closely and should be up to the church leadership. Two seperate issues, imo. I'm sure I come off as "anti-gay"...but I'm really not. I'm anti-agenda. David and Jonathan being gay is an agenda. Accepting anyone into the kingdom is not.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 12:03 AM) I think the Jon and Dave story is as hit-you-over-the-head obvious as anything gets in the Bible. Admittedly, I'm reading from KJV where this stuff really, er. . . comes out. I read your explanation of an OT covenant. But whether or not a ritual sacrifice was involved, THE recurring love covenant was a marriage covenant. I don't see how you can say the getting naked part had nothing to do with that because of the proximity of the verses to each other. And there is already the admission that these two men loved each other. This is a gay marriage OT style. Samuel goes on to record more physical affection, kissing, between the two of them. And, to make sure that readers don't misconstrue this as merely a strong brotherly bond, the author doesn't say Jon and Dave loved each other in a way that surpasses other such fraternal male bonds. No, the author makes the purposeful point of comparing this love with love between a man and a woman, and says that this love surpasses it. Odd, indeed, if the point was to emphasize the fraternal aspects of the relationship. I agree, that these verses seem a little odd... But again, you're making leaps that aren't there. There a numerous occassions that nudity in the bible is not connected with sexual activity. One guy swears on Abrahams testicles, and a disciple goes streaking, for instance. You've never gone skinny dipping? or gone to the doctor's office and put on a gown? changed a diaper? These are activities where heterosexual males see each other naked and sex is not present. the hebrew word for love used in this passage is also used in describing God's love for his people. It's not an erotic or sexual word. Please post the scripture that Samuel writes about their physical affection. You still haven't made a remark on the difference between being "one as flesh" and "one in spirit". Or what I like to call 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 So, there is a big difference. You're right. David and Jonathan loved each other beyond that of a women. But you have to look at the context. OT israelites didn't exactly have "E-harmony" to "meet their soul mate". Love for a women from a man was sexual in nature and has served purposes throughout history for reasons ranging from keeping peace to satisfying debts. However, the love between two men (friends) can be deep if they face life threatening situations with each other.... like two guys in a fox hole or police partners. The division between Saul and Jonathan predates David even arriving. Read 1 Samuel 14. Jonathan is commanding an army and goes out to fight without his father knowing. (verse 1). And then later breaks his father's vow and commandment on his people by eating honey (Verse 24). So then David is annoited King and Saul is rejected by Samuel. (Which leads to) Which, again, should be read as "John, you son of a b****, don't you see that you're choosing Jesse's son David over me? This is shame to me and to your mother who was naked as she bore you. In other words, Saul is pissed at Jonathan because after God had abandoned Saul, now his own family was doing so. David is pretty much set up to be king, this is something Saul knows and fears, and it's pretty much sad ending away from happening. Even if their sexuality was real, it would be a foot note to the real issues at hand. Therefore, it seems less obvious because the argument in favor depends heavily on Saul's reaction. So as it seems, David, who's greatest sin was that of adultery WITH A WOMAN, was highly unlikely a homosexual. This is a reach at best and an attempt to justify behavior that seems contrary to biblical teachings. That being said, I believe homosexuals have a place in heaven as would anyone. Flaxxseed, if you would have posted I might agree with you...THAT'S odd and extremely homoerotic.

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) You'll notice he went right past the "Dress up games" one. that's not odd at all for the soxtalk crew.... but owl insurance?

Best to you, nuke! have a good one.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 11:48 PM) You said it well. check the quote. I said nothing.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 11:23 PM) Jumping to that conclusion s less of a leap than the leaps requierd to turn other Biblical passages into anti-homosexual screeds. The relationship is drawn out in Samuel, and dwelled upon and the reader feels a bit voyueristic at the end of it. There are criticisms with every translation, and you know that NIV is no exception. A cheif criticism is that it has a slant to it that supports an evangelical agenda (what was that you said about biblical stories for political gain?) compared to KJV and others. Convenient substitution of "effeminate" as "homosexual" is a populatrly cited case in point (would that we all could read Hebrew), and it's likely the NIV authors similarly intentionally dialed down the gay in Samuel to nuance the translation as they saw fit. I don't think verse 30 is dialed down. I think it just makes more sense from a clarity standpoint. I see where you are making your leaps and see how there's a logical and reasonable answer to your comments. The Message: 30-31 Saul exploded in anger at Jonathan: "You son of a slut! Don't you think I know that you're in cahoots with the son of Jesse, disgracing both you and your mother? For as long as the son of Jesse is walking around free on this earth, your future in this kingdom is at risk. Now go get him. Bring him here. From this moment, he's as good as dead!" KJV: 30Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? NASB: 30Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? ESV: 30Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die." They all show Saul pissed at Jonathan for choosing David over his flesh and blood. (something that our culture doesn't have the same depth of understanding for) These aren't lovers fighting their parents, they're best of friends defending each other to the death.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) I was going to stay clear of the Jonathan and David row mostly because I didn't know the nature of their relationship was much in question. Whether or not the lovers' relationship was physically consummated or not, this is way more than a coupld dudes knocking back beers at the bowling alley. PA, explain away this statement of Saul's from 1 Samuel 20: It is quite evident that Johnathan "delighted much in David." And in 2 Samuel, David confesses his delight in turn: I think we've definately got some Brokeback Gilboa Mountain here. But I think the relationship is on the whole shown in a favorable light which is refreshing for the OT. For verse 30, it seems NIV is easier to read: it would seem that Saul is pretty pissed about his flesh and blood siding with David...who Saul had to know was just waiting to take his place as king. To jump to the conclusion that they some how had a homosexual relationship is pretty ridiculous and seemingly an attempt to mischaracterize a biblical story for political gain or at least a foot hold for an argument in favor of homosexuality. This is the same guy that let his rape his daughter and another son kill that son with little response.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) meh...not exactly what I was thinking.

dude, I love my palm t/x... great screen, wifi and bluetooth... I even have a program for it that controls itunes and windows media player on my pc via bluetooth like a remote control.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 08:14 PM) There's other evidence too of David and Jonathan's love for each other. 1 Samuel 18: So, David slays Goliath and Saul's son is so pleased that he immediately strips naked in front of David and enters into a covenant with him. David than moves into Saul's house. Hmmm.... what does the bible say about the union of two people? Genesis 2:24 So they loved each other as they loved themselves and entered into a covenant with each other by getting naked. David then moved into Jonathan's parent's place. The language here seems oddly similar to the language used to describe marriage in Genesis. And there's no additional context in the surrounding passages of the bible. The story goes on to talk about David's conflict with Saul over the glory David acheived in Saul's service. Now you might also say that David was presented with a wife, Saul's daughter. This is true. But then again, Merv Griffin was married to women too. Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of someone trying to find something where it's not...water from a stone, if you will. 1) What is Jesus' response to the Nicodemus in the "what is the greatest commandment" story.... after loving God? Loving your neighbor...."as thyself". I think I've already made my point on that one. Jesus didn't mean this in the literal carnal way. 2) to enter into a "covenant" with someone in OT times usually entailed cutting an animal in two and walking through the middle to symbolize the blood bond between the two individuals. (which we know was undone by Jesus' death) "getting naked" had nothing to do with this. In fact the ESV simply says "4And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." No mention of nudity whatsoever. I would read this as Jonathan rejecting the past and accepting his future. We'd later learn that Jonathan would die fighting for David. 3) In fact, your use of Genesis contradicts what you're trying to prove. Samuel writes that Jonathan and David were of "one spirit" and genesis speaks of being "one flesh"....which are two MAJOR differences. What do they call two people that are inseparable because of the things they have in common and their like mindedness? "kindred SPIRITS. Sorry, dude, but I don't buy it. I'm sure if I looked at the actual Hebrew, it would smoke your argument even more. The translations often leave us with a little wiggle room.

For you, that might be true. and Good on you if you don't feel that God has a place or input in your marriage. You're correct in saying that Love is the most important thing in any marriage, but isn't love from ourselves without the input of a pure Love only "trying" or "obligation"? ok, so I'm only in the "gregory pratt" stage of marriage, but Love isn't something I've only just stumbled upon. God's love in my life is the only reason I've been able to sacrifice and love mrs pa like I have.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) 2 Samuel 1:26 (King David speaks) I'm sure they were toking papyrus cigarettes too. conveniently, you left out the CONTEXT which is that Jonathan just died in battle and David is speaking/lamenting this. I'm sure I'll say some nice things about my friends, especially if they die prematurely/unexpectedly. nice try though.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) A bright spot in the darkness of American Christian leadership woes. Whatever version of the Bible the ELCA is using, it must be the only version that hasn't had that bit about "love your neighbor" redacted. I told you I'm not much of a literalist. I figured Jesus meant like bake cookies for them and occassionally mow their lawn while they're on vacation....not eff them. hmm, boy did I get that wrong.

Credit Cards | Personal Loans | Cornhole Forum | Myspace Layouts | Mortgage Loans WHAT?!?!!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 05:18 PM) You obviously have not read the last Harry Potter book, have you? no! Hoodwink! Hufflelink! Hedwig! (that's it)

Dress up games | Car Finance | Insurance-owl information Centre | Myspace Layouts | Remortgages I'm straight up concerned for soxtalk now. Why would I insure my owl?

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) Dry since December, thank you very much. Uh oh...looks like Soxy's gonna win the "Soxtalk Wet T-shirt" contest by default!