no, just the word meaning happy "Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry."

 

 

but whatever...

I'm sorry PA.. what's the point you're trying to make here?

 

That "gay" has been used to describe positive things...? If so... so? It's also been used to describe in a negative way someone's sexual orientation.. no?

 

:banghead

why? I think that's a great picture of you and besides, it's great publicity for my mythical creature's dominate the world picture.

I was talking about you...

 

 

Isn't it time for the daily "don't me and my gal make a cute couple" thread..?

I'm sorry PA.. what's the point you're trying to make here?

 

That "gay" has been used to describe positive things...? If so... so? It's also been used to describe in a negative way someone's sexual orientation.. no?

 

:banghead

actually, it's not a negative description of homosexuals.

 

take a look:

 

If I said, "hey, look at those two gay men, It looks like they really love each other."

 

this sentence would be correct and would not offend anyone.

 

If I said, "hey, look at those gays, I bet they really love the butt sex."

 

this sentence would be incorrect and probably would offend someone.

 

 

the problem I have, is that the word "gay" was hijacked in the sixties when clearly the word homosexual wasn't nearly as accepted. So now that the word gay has come full circle and means something else, it of course is deemed as intolerant or negative. Well to me, it means one thing, to you it means another.

 

so, my point? that if you're looking to be offended and get all over someone for their usage of words, I would hope you'd see me as far a less dangerous threat as those who actually use words of hate, i.e. f*g, queer, fudge-packer. The word gay should never have belonged to the homosexual community, so I'm taking it back.

I was talking about you...

 

 

Isn't it time for the daily "don't me and my gal make a cute couple" thread..? 

now, you've got it steff

 

THAT made me laugh...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(but seriously, don't we? )

actually, it's not a negative description of homosexuals.

Yea.. it's been used as one.

 

 

The end.

while you are taking back usage, could we get back community service? t use to be a good thing. People wanted to volunteer and improve their communities. Now community service is viewed as a punishment. America is losing something that made us great and word usage is partly to blame.

while you are taking back usage, could we get back community service? t use to be a good thing. People wanted to volunteer and improve their communities. Now community service is viewed as a punishment. America is losing something that made us great and word usage is partly to blame.

I thought that was being discussed in the other thread..?

Don't we all hate pants?

2 things: 1st, PA it's Loch Ness not Lock Ness, and her name is Nessie. Sorry, just had to do it.

 

And I think that a better example for the negative connotations surrounding a word used for homosexual that is becoming more mainstreamed would be the word Queer. The word was originally hijacked to mean deragatory and condescending things about people with an "abnormal" or "wrong" orientation. Lately it has become more and more reclaimed in the, well, the Queer community--and most of my gay and lesbian friends actually prefer the word queer (which includes both gay men and lesbians). I think that is a more legitimate example than when we use the word gay in a derogative fashion--which is, I think, ripping on people's sexual orientation; whether it is mean in that spirit or not it can still be hurtful.

2 things: 1st, PA it's Loch Ness not Lock Ness, and her name is Nessie. Sorry, just had to do it.

 

And I think that a better example for the negative connotations surrounding a word used for homosexual that is becoming more mainstreamed would be the word Queer. The word was originally hijacked to mean deragatory and condescending things about people with an "abnormal" or "wrong" orientation. Lately it has become more and more reclaimed in the, well, the Queer community--and most of my gay and lesbian friends actually prefer the word queer (which includes both gay men and lesbians). I think that is a more legitimate example than when we use the word gay in a derogative fashion--which is, I think, ripping on people's sexual orientation; whether it is mean in that spirit or not it can still be hurtful.

I agree. but getting back to the very original comment, who can't agree that naming your kids after you Magglio and Magglialina or whatever, is the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

 

and besides, I was messing around with their names... the yetti's name is surely not "yanni"...

I agree. but getting back to the very original comment, who can't agree that naming your kids after you Magglio and Magglialina or whatever, is the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

I'm afraid naming all 7 of your kids George is a tad silllier and stupider. And, I actually like Maggliana...But the naming after yourself (over and over and over) is rather egocentric. But I think you might be underestimating the stupid stuff I have heard in my life.

I'm afraid naming all 7 of your kids George is a tad silllier and stupider. And, I actually like Maggliana...But the naming after yourself (over and over and over) is rather egocentric. But I think you might be underestimating the stupid stuff I have heard in my life. 

duely noted...

 

yeah, mr foreman needs to be kicked in the nuts.

 

 

"Thanks for the grill, george, but.....*WHACK*"

and besides, I was messing around with their names... the yetti's name is surely not "yanni"...

Hey PA, you dont know the big guy like I do...he does respond to Yanni, but his full name is Yannimagglioordonezasaurus.

Hey PA, you dont know the big guy like I do...he does respond to Yanni, but his full name is Yannimagglioordonezasaurus.

LMAO...........

 

you and I are on the same page steve.

Wow, talk about a thread hijack. Is this even the same thread anymore.

 

To answer ChiSoxy's question, I think a Christian is required to forgive if the person is seeking forgiveness. So I answered "Depends".

Yes they sure do... Me being one of them.

For those who said no or depends do you have any resounding theological/biblical reasons for why? I just want to make sure I can give voice to both sides...

I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but unless they have taken that whole "turn the other cheek" bit out of the Bible, then yes I would say Christians are supposed to be in the forgiveness buisness.

I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but unless they have taken that whole "turn the other cheek" bit out of the Bible, then yes I would say Christians are supposed to be in the forgiveness buisness.

well, the "turn the other cheek" phrase depends upon some things. first of all, it comes right in the heat of the sermon on the mount. Jesus is listing all his beliefs on different topics and how we should be acting accordingly. I think people might have been asking him questions about their particular problems and he was just answering them as they came. Matthew and Luke were just writing things down as they went. Right before he discusses the "turn the other cheek" idea, he talks about our "yes" meaning "yes" and our "no" meaning "no". He's talking about integrity and he's talking about honoring each other.

 

Then he discusses "an eye for an eye", which is where the "turn the other cheek" phrase comes from. I think Cwsox is on to the right idea. if we gouge out an eye every time someone wronged us, we'd all be blind. So what Jesus is talking about is the idea of mercy, forgiveness, persecution, and perseverence.

 

if I'm beating up a midget and he turns the other cheek to be struck again, that's him doing me a favor. If a midget spits in my face, I don't strike him down and pummel him, I offer him my other cheek to spit on. As Christians, our first reactions should not be how can I repay the person that has wronged me, but it should be of witness and mercy. To give mercy to another person requires that the giver have some power over the other individual. That doesn't mean just brute strength, but also position of leadership, position of account, etc.

 

In the situation with Dru's family, they're not literally going to give this psychopath another one of their children to murder, but they show him mercy and forgiveness through words, because on the day of judgement, this man will pay for his crimes.

 

So jim, you're right, I just wanted to unpack it a bit more.

I didn't bother to read the whole thread,

Is there a market for the Reader's Digest Condensed thread service?

Just to add my two cents, and another interesting scholarly take on the "turn the other cheek" phrase. It is not a form of passivism as is often interpreted, but instead can be viewed as a form of civil disobedience. In the ancient world it was considered wrong to strike someone with the right hand--it was unclean or just not done. So, in order to strike someone you would use the left hand. Also, different methods of striking meant different think a "b****" slap left hand to right cheek would be used in situations where you were fighting with an equal or challenging them. But to strike someone lesser than you or someone you wanted to humilate (i.e. Roman slapping Jew, master slapping slave) it was correct to backhand that person. So, the way that people were actually hit during Jesus' day actually says something about their status.

 

In regards to the bible passage you can see that where Jesus actually says, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Well, by doing so you make it impossible for them to backhand you again. Instead they will have to raise you to the level of an equal by slapping you straight upside the face. So, Jesus here is not activating violence, nor passivism, instead it is sort of a daring way to show that violence is not a means to gain peace or the end of violence (see Wink). Basically, I think that this context is sort of a way to possibly say that Jesus is arguing that violence degrades us.

LMAO...........

 

you and I are on the same page steve. 

It is pretty clear to me.  The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

I find that way of thinking VERY narrow minded.

I find that way of thinking VERY narrow minded.

If that comment came from anyone else it might bother me...

 

But in reality, read the bible, decide for yourself.