LOLS.
LOLS.
This guy has huge ones.
(Anti and pro-gay protesters)
This guy is equally, uh, bold.
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: dunno source via Poster Builder
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous New Russian Spetznaz Trained | WHAT EVIL LURKS Next »
» 637 Comments
-
Recent Comments
lolwut on Who is that homeless dude… Kraas on Who is that homeless dude… factory on Who is that homeless dude… twot on Who is that homeless dude… Jefafa on Who is that homeless dude… Ruski on You’re wrong about … xmetalheadnyrx on TIANANMEN SQUARE dissimilitude on Vladurday: My name? Hi on Urge to join Army… dissimilitude on SCIENCE 
Cheezburger Network Blog
I think the pink shirt gave it away….
Pink shirt with blue plaid shorts……
I commend this guy, b/c those people a nucking futs!!! Speaking of which I would love to kick most of them in their nucking futs!!!
NOTE: This people are not your typical Christian, they are extemists who are and should be mocked by all.
We find ourselves in total agreement here.
I think it would more funny though if the guy didn’t have “Great” but “Super Duper” or something on his sign.
Definitely.
What did the sign originally say? “sick”?
I’m guessing “sin,” but I could be wrong.
saucy? stoopendess? sticky? $hitty?
Hmmm.. All of those could apply, yes.
Well, the last one only if it’s male homos though.
Except everyone refers to girly sex and lesbo sex anyway.
I believe it says “gay” all in lower-case letters. I think that’d make sense. For sure, though, this is a great picture
*changes ’super duper’ to ’super thanks for asking’*
*adds “you silly goose”
Somebody call my name? Uhhh… oh… carry on then!!
I guess that works too, but it seems lengthy for a sign.
With glitter and confetti.
And some “greek” dinner plates? (Reference to Birdcage)
Diet Mountain Dew isn’t something I want coming out of my nose this early in the morning. Thanks, ILPB.
Betcha didn’t think a conservative would know that movie. One of the best of all times though.
Conservative, liberal, who cares? Comedy is comedy.
But I refuse to watch Bill Maher or Letterman b/c of their views, and some thing that’s comedy.
Amen brother rando. *winky*
hey ivan… i just put up one photo from halloween. yes, i’m SUPER bored at the office today.
Oh SURE taunt the rest of us. Only Ivan gets to see it. Thanks!!! **kicks rock down the street with hands in pocket looking ULTRA pathetic**
Now, ILPB, it’s not Shortright’s fault you’re not FB friends with us!
yeah ILPB… diss, jane, froo, rando, ay dios mio, viking gal, lowly grunt, mina and a bunch of others can see it along with ivan. you’re just not one of the cool kids on FB.
Yay! I’m one of the cool kids! I’ll have to go online at lunch and take a look.
**flash back to high school** They’re all gonna laugh at you, they’re all gonna laugh at you!!!
Adam Sandler/ Carrie FTW.
ILPB – it’s not HARD to be one of the cool kids… you just join the group on FB.
I just never could find it. Just searching “pundit kitchen” never turned it up for me.
Well that would just be too easy. If there wasn’t a challenge involved, then just anyone could wander in off the street!
Don’t go there, FB is dangerous!
ADM – it’s no fun if we make it TOO easy.
gotta work for it a little bit, or swallow your pride and ask one of how to find it.
*pouts* shortright didn’t include me.. Now no one will ever know I’m cool..
*pouts more*
*notices he got left out*
charro and justa are part of the cool kids too! same with danbala, AC, BT, s_b.
i literally couldn’t remember who all was in the group. i’m running on a little over an hour of sleep in the last 48 hours. so this level of coherence is pretty damned good…
You look hot! But…SHOW MORE CLEAVAGE!!
ivan – thanks! if you want cleavage check when i put up the pics from tomorrow nights party. this is my “work friendly” costume.
Have the swiffer mop ready!
ivan – that sounds soooo wrong. lol.
I don’t use FB, but guess what? I’m still one of the cool kids (in an old guy sort of way..)
*walks off grumbling.. stoopid new fangled technology, horse pucky..*
of course you are eddie! and you should use FB. we conned ivan into getting it… you’re next. mwa ha ha.
I agree, Eds is super cool.
No, I resist the urge to be assimilated! I hear that bad things happen to you on FB and your identity gets stolen. I don’t know why anyone would want to be me, but I must be strong and resist..
eddie… jane talked CHARLIE into joining fb. you are next whether you want to be or not. you should just do it under a fake name but join our group and we’ll know who you are.
might i suggest registering as:
first name: eddie
last name: pscetti
Braaaaaaiiiinnnssss Braaaaaaaiiinnnnnnsssss……
ACK CHARRO ZOMBIE-grabs his bitter shotgun-
*ducks* NOOOO bitter! Don’t fire! It’s just my Halloween costume!! *lifts mask* See? It’s me, your mermaid!
i’m on facebook – how come nobody let me join? or is it too elite for me?
whimper,whimper
and i’m back on the laptop with the missing keys again so i’m almost hating the internet!
Bad Fairie – PK Irregulars 2.0
whew, bitter troll didnt know if bitter troll really could shoot his charro….- offers candy-
Bad Fairie: We can’t find you. You have to find us!
*takes candy* I love candy!
bad fairie… you have to search for us “PK irregulars 2.0″. then request to join.
@charro – thanks. did the thing – same name as here (my unproffessional alter
)
omg i LOVE that movie!!
De-railed comments much?
instead of “Super Duper” I was thinking more along the lines of “Fabulous”
Fab-U-LOUS!!!!
Mah-va-lous!
Agreed…people who call themselves Christians but just point out the ways they are morally superior to the rest of society have obviously missed the point of what it means to be Christian (which means “little Christ”). Jesus was hated by the morally superior ultra conservatives of his time for hanging out with and loving the “scum” of his society: the drunks, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc.
The irony here is that these people (the ones protesting) represent the very things that Jesus stood up against.
I don’t see them condemning the individual, but rather the behavior. And Jesus condemned certain behaviors too. And it wasn’t just the “morally superior ultra conservatives” that hated him too. The Pharisees’ were the legalistic crowd, but there other sects that were very loose in the law, that also hated him.
If you believe Paul was the Prophet to follow Jesus, then they are not wrong in speaking out against things. There is scripture to back them up.
Either way, they have free speech rights too. Like I said, we have no idea if they were hateful legalistic people, or someone well meaning, thinking that they were upholding a standard.
I don’t really see being a homophobe as a standard worth upholding. I think it’s pretty stupid.
it is, just another form of bigotry. in another time the same behavior was perfectely acceptible when used to in anti-black speech. wasn’t right then, ain’t right now.
Gay is the new black.
Last I heard Yellow was the new Black. Supposedly it goes with everything. I don’t like yellow though, it washes me out. Yellow usually does not favor blondes.
well that really depends on what you contrast it with, yellow by itself will wash out most caucasians due to yellow and the peachy color of skin being too complimentary to each other. you might want to add in a dark blue (maybe like a dark blue shirt or skirt or something) to add some contrast in and give it some definition from the skin tones.
just sayin’ (sorry, was tutoring a kid the other day in color theory, got it in my head and my girlfriend’s been watching HGTV interior design shows for the last 2 months.. that said, Color Splash really is an entertaining show).
hm… i sounded gay there didnt i?
LMAO, yeah, you did just a little bit, but you explained it away rather well. And to be honest, I’ve worn yellow and it looked ok, but I really just don’t care for the color, so I use that as an excuse to avoid it all together.
Color Splash is one of my favorite shows on HGTV. I just have a hard time catching it on there.
i have incredibly pink irish skin… and i can only wear certain shades of yellow. but if it’s the right shade it looks just right. you might just not have found the right shade yet.
Actually I think Fat is the new black. Unfortunately black is slimming and the contradiction is going to lead to uncontrollable black holes or something which further compress matter and THEN what are we going to do?
Oh the humanity! Won’t someone please think of the children?!
My baby, my baby!!!!!
For the record, I have no desire to curb their rights to free speech. They can say whatever they want…but I will definitely question their tactics and their hearts. How many people have changed their minds due to protests like this? If anything, it just makes people more angry at you and the group you are misrepresenting.
I agree with you that Paul (in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6) condemns homosexual behavior. But he also offers hope by telling the Corinthians that since they have accepted forgiveness for sin that they will not be condemned for their past behavior, including homosexuality (and a list of other sins).
I would argue against the statement “we have no idea if they were hateful legalistic people” because I think to stand on a street corner and hold up a sign condemning people for their sin is inherently hateful. What you are doing is spreading the bad news of scripture (that sin leads to spiritual death) without the good news (that EVERYONE is sinful, including me and the people holding those signs, but Christ died in our place so that we don’t have to suffer spiritual death).
These people don’t love homosexuals. They aren’t being Jesus to them. They aren’t trying to get to know them so they can share the gospel with them. They are merely rubbing sin in their faces. Nothing good comes of that. They have missed the point of the gospel.
I’m not very religious so let me see if I understand that. You’re basically saying that as long as someone accepts God’s forgiveness for sin they have a get out of hell free card? Like if Hitler truly believed he was doing God’s work and the god loved and forgave him, he’s chilling up in heaven right now?
Did he confess before he died?
Essau sought repentance with tears. And was rejected. It’s not that simple.
Ah good that sounds better
I think you’ve misunderstood scripture. Esau was rejected as the next in line to be one of the fathers of Israel, but he wasn’t rejected regarding salvation. I don’t think that example fits here at all.
Care Troll, to answer your question, yes. If someone repents he will be forgiven. But if Hitler “repented” of his many sins, he wouldn’t have kept on doing them. There has to be a true change of heart and a desire to be forgiven and transformed (by God). A true Christian is someone who has recognized her sinfulness, repented (turned away from it), asked God for forgiveness, and has accepted the FREE gift of salvation.
In other words, there is nothing you can do that’s so bad that God will not forgive you. The only people who aren’t forgiven are those that won’t accept forgiveness. It’s a free gift available for everyone. God always accepts those who ask for forgiveness. But He doesn’t force it upon anyone.
I don’t know about you but on my death bed with the threat if hell facing me I’m pretty sure I’d have a true change of heart.
but I see what you’re saying people can’t sin in gods name and get accepted even if they truly believe it’s gods work.
Yeah, that’s the problem…most people live this life with the idea that they will turn over a new leaf on their death beds.
Unfortunately you could die in a car wreck this afternoon and you will have missed your chance. No one knows if they will even have a death bed experience.
And you might be too sick on the deathbed to think of anything at all, except ‘make it stop, please?’
that’s because to hitler he didn’t believe he was doing anything wrong – in his eyes hew as following both his religious and personal moral code. to him, and many like him, he believed whole heartedly he was going to heaven, I’m sure, and who’s to really say, in the end who was right or wrong was prerequesites are required to get in heaven (if there is one, or hell for that matter). you never know that maybe it’s just a giant beaurocracy and in his past life he didn’t fill out form 11.3b and therefore is doomed to live another life, which he, again, didn’t fill out 11.3b due to celestial clerical errors but due to fines he was sent to earth againt as a toad.. or something. makes just as much damn sense.
I find the whole concept of spending your life worrying about what will happen when you’re dead to be completely bizarre.
Because to those who believe in an afterlife for all eternity it makes no sense why you wouldn’t spend a few years thinking about it a little.
it really is, i mean it’s interesting to ponder over, sure, but in the end you really won’t know til you’re dead. and the idea of killing someone because they disagree over where they’re going when they die seems… i don’t know.. ironic maybe?
Simple math you’re alive about 76 years (average) you’re dead a whole lot longer.
You don’t know that PB. The reincarnationists could be right. The muslims could be right. Hell, even I could be right. You can’t know until it happens to you.
Shít. HTML fail. Only the “I” should be italicized.
Well, as there is no evidence of heaven or hell, and since the whole premise seems absurd to me, I’ll choose to concentrate on life.
Not heaven or hell, just the land between.
Concentrating on life is awesome. You should totally do that. I don’t really spend that much time planning for the afterlife anyway. Essentially, my take on it is, I like the idea of God & Jesus & heaven & stuff. But I don’t spend all of every day obsessing over it. I have my beliefs and that’s good. If I’m right, and there is a heaven, then yay! If I’m wrong, and there’s nothing after this life, then once I’m dead I won’t really care, will I?
That’s cool Rando. If your beliefs make your life better, and they don’t harm anyone else, then who am I to judge?
Confessing is a catholic thing, I know that. That’s what I mean though. If he truly accepted god and believed he was doing gods work was he forgiven and allowed into heaven. Sounds kinda cheap to me. “do what ever you want just do it in gods name and you’re fine”
Confession is a Christian thing, just that the means of doing it are different.
Protestant Salvation:
1) You have to admit your sins. This means nothing accept throwing away your pride. You have to know that you can’t do it alone anymore.
2)You have to believe. Again this isn’t enough either. Even the demons believe in God.
3)Commit. Try to live your new faith to the best of your ability.
I don’t know enough about Catholics to comment, but the point here is that
1) I doubt Hitler is in heaven BUT
2) It can happen no matter what you’ve done.
Lame. That’s like going on a killing spree then telling the warden you’re honestly sorry and he lets you go.
Read my post below. God’s not stupid. It’s not a get out of jail free card. It’s a gift to those who are truly repentant.
For instance, Ted Bundy (one of the most famous and disturbed serial killers of all time) accepted Christ before he was executed. Not right before, but while he was on death row. He was a changed man and he was truly repentant (I believe so anyway…I saw an interview with him). If you think that God shouldn’t forgive killers, I would argue that God doesn’t have to forgive anyone. But you are judging people on your standards – killers are the worst kind of people, right above rapists, who are better than liars, etc. But you don’t deserve heaven anymore than Ted Bundy. You have messed up too. God judged by a law that NO ONE was able to keep – perfection – until Jesus. Now he offers us Jesus’ righteousness as a gift. Since Jesus died for my sin, I am covered. All I have to do is believe, repent, and accept forgiveness.
So a better comparison would be if you go on a killing spree and the Warden sees that you are truly repentant because he knows your heart, and he takes your place in prison so you can be free. Although it’s a bad analogy as well.
I actually don’t believe in heaven or hell. I just was curious about the god forgives everybody thing. Not that I’m judging you. You’re entitled to believe whatever you want of course.
Another thing to consider is that God is a far more powerful and knowledgeable entity than we are. Our standards are not His standards. God may very well be far more forgiving than we are. Just because WE think someone should roast in hell, doesn’t necessarily mean that God agrees.
Actually let me rephrase that. I’m agnostic. There is something out there but I don’t know what.
Wait.. Did you just say rapists are better than liars? WTF?
Wow, I didn’t catch that either (the eyes glaze over when people get to preachin’). I’d love to see the rundown of that list. If Rapists are better than liars, I wonder what’s worse than a liar!
A lying rapist who lies?
But who is he lying with? Is it man or woman? That makes a big difference.
with a llama!
Remember, Charro, it’s when a man LIES with a man as with a woman that it’s sinful; if they’re standing up for sex it’s ok.
Thanks for clearing that up diss!
And if a woman lies with another woman, that’s okay. Because seriously, that’s awesome.
Sorry, meant to say that rapists are worse than liars…lol. But the whole thing was an example of human logic…that people can be completely defined by the worst thing they do in life…when in fact everyone sins and does good at some point as well. I was countering the idea that Christians believe you can earn your way into heaven by not doing something heinous during your life.
Sort of. But lets not forget that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is what allowed God to be a less vengeful God and a more patient caring God. Therefore is someone truely repents, and in their heart is sorry for their wrongs to God, it’s up to God to forgive them.
Unlike the Warden God can see into the hearts of man, and know his/her true feelings/ intentions.
According to Christianity. There are some that take a hardline approach and some that take a more liberal approach.
Doesn’t that make god kind of.. Bloodthirsty?
Again, you have to have true remorse in your heart for what you’ve done. You can say you’re sorry to God all you want, but if you’re lying, He knows. He’s like Santa Claus, except without the reindeer and way more powerful.
I was following you until you compared God to Santa…then I lost you…haha.
I know. That was a joke.
parks: Let’s compare:
Both are giving, both have a white beard, both have been around a LONG time, both celebrate Christmas with the same gusto, both reward good and punish bad, I’m pretty sure God likes milk and cookies I think it’s in Job or Song of Solomon somewhere.
God has a white beard? Interesting.
According to Leonard Da Vinci; and he can’t be wrong can he?
I think you’re thinking of Michelangelo. The famous painting of the birth of man on the sistine chapel.
Yeah, I don’t remember any work by Da Vinci that potrayed God. Jesus, yes, but not the Father. Maybe ILPB was thinking of the Moses statue by Da Vinci.
The Simpsons’ also show God with a white beard. TV wouldn’t lie.. Would it? WOULD IT?!
God in the Simpsons also didn’t know that the Cardinals left St. Louis for Phoenix, which is nonsense since God is the one who blessed our town with getting rid of that piece of crap franchise.
(Yes, the current franchise sucks now too, but they DID win a Super Bowl!)
A good thought on that would be to read Psalms 51, dealing with King David and his wrong with Bathsheeba. Also, Romans 6. Shall we continue in sin, that Grace may abound? God forbid.
Everyone of us also fights a war between our flesh and our spirit. “For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you cannot do the things that you would.”
I am not a great speaker, and certainly not the best to express this to you. But it’s a lot more than just confession.
Hey, I did a little more research on Esau and I see what you were saying. But I don’t think his repentance was genuine.
Hebrews 12:15-16 states that Esau was a godless man who fell short of God’s grace. This paints a pretty dark picture of him. Hebrews 12:17 speaks of Esau’s repentance, but also says that it was not genuine. Whether or not this was the repentance of Genesis 33, however, is not stated (I suspect it refers to the Gen. 27 episode, where we see Esau cry for a blessing). Further, Paul speaks of God’s rejection of Esau as an example of the way God predestines the reprobate to hell (Rom. 9:10), in effect stating that Esau was not saved.
Now you are on to something. And what I was trying to point you too with out being obvious, and the smack down that others would want to get into.
Job 38 is another interesting place to read. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”
If that was true, our God would be a doofus, right? As long as you say the right words, you’re covered!
That’s not how it is. He knows hearts. If I were to just use Him like a lucky charm, He knows that I haven’t had a change of heart and that I’m just using His VERY EXPENSIVE gift to keep on sinning. Which is really a slap in the face.
True repentance receives forgiveness. If it sounds kind of cheap, that’s because it’s FREE. The best kind of cheap. But in reality, God sacrificed his son to purchase this for us, so it’s very expensive. Fortunately, we don’t have the pay the price for it.
Jebus Krispies! When did this become a revival? I thought it was Pundit KITCHEN, not Pundit CHURCH. Can we get back to the LOLs please? I’m choking on all this religion being forced down my throat.
I mean forced probably isn’t exactly what’s going on. Most seem to be talking about it pretty respectfully.
Yeah…not everybody’s going to be interested in EVERY conversation. It’s like a party…you aren’t interested in what one conversation is about, there’s a bunch more a few steps over.
Although when a big conversation gets going on a topic you’re not into on here, I can sympathize…you look at new posts and then think “Oh, it’s that…again.”
Actually, I usually despise religious conversation, and I’m pretty wrapped up in this one. It simply isn’t getting ugly. This is factual, logical, clear, respectful, non-opinionated (in an opinionated field even!) and very informative with references and everything!
I’m actually getting something out of this. It isn’t stifling, preachy, angry, or filled with superiority.
For the first time ever, I get to really really say this:
Well Done, Gentlemen.
I know I’m shocked. Did everyone have ecstasy for breakfast this morning?
as a pagan who’s studied a bit of theology, i’m finding this discussion most interesting — respectful, informative, and open. this is the kind of religious discussion that i enjoy, especially since there hasn’t been a single instance of someone being told they’re going to h3ll when they die.
Well, that’s because you weren’t here yet. YOU are going to hell when you die.
@charro – LOL LOL, actually i;ve been there – married to the Son (capital intended) of a southern bapyist minister…. told him i’d taken over and he was in my world now… we didn’t have a good divorce…cheating, disease ridden drunk
*hugs* That sucks, yo.
it’s not all catty like roflrazzi gets… that’s nice. hey, is it weird that most of the lesbians i know are devout Catholics? one is Southern Baptist and another’s Jewish, but most are Catholic…
@charro – thanks for the hugs
it was an ugly divorce, and it really tore up the kids bad because we’d/i’d worked hard at giving them the best childhood i could. but for me, that pain is the only regrets i have, if i could take away their hurt and pain i would in less than a heart beat. not a thing i wouldn’t do for any one of them.
Don’t think it would matter if Hitler did confess before he died. He killed himself. Isn’t that a one way ticket straight to hell in Christianity?
That’s one of the few things that I still find confusing. It isn’t really addressed.
Some say yes because one’s body is to be a temple and that is difling it beyond forgiveness. I think catholics will say that since you don’t get your last rights (is that correct) you don’t get heaven.
Some say that God’s forgiveness conquers all.
Look at Saul. He killed himself, it’s where we get the saying “fall on the sword.” Yet Elijah, conjured up by the witch of Endor, told him that they would be together before the day was over. And I don’t think Elijah was in Hell.
I guess you’re taking LOTR for the Bible here.
No. Saul, the king before David, but I was wrong. It’s Samuel, not Elijah. I woke up at 1am, and have been awake ever since. I’m so sleepy I keep dozing off, but don’t want to nap, as I won’t sleep tonight.
You can find the passages in 1 Samuel 28.
Yes, but Elijah wasn’t in Heaven either. The two testaments are not always in agreement, which is confusing (at least to me) from a non-religious, academic perspective and in trying to understand the Judeo-Christian beliefs.
So much of it is context. One has to know that in the new testament all the rules change, and it became about having a relationship with Jesus instead of about rules and religion. That alone cleared up nearly all “inconsistencies” between the two testaments with me.
Yes, but JAC is applying “rules” from the Old Testament to questions about the Christian afterlife. Thus my problem with inconsistency. If the rules changed how can you say that in the Old Testament it says *this* so, it applies to the New Testament even though WE CHANGED THE RULES??
I go by new testament in that I don’t have to live by religious rules. I keep it around because the lessons taught can still apply. Just not the law.
HelOnWheels, that’s a really great question…one that tons of people have. To say that the rules changed isn’t an accurate description of what happened, but that’s all that some Christians know to say about it. In the Old Testament God gave us the law. The basic rule was that if you can follow the law perfectly you can enter heaven. Unfortunately no one could. God (being all-knowing) knew all along that we wouldn’t be able to keep the law, so before He created the world He made a plan to redeem us…by sending Christ to keep the law perfectly but suffer our punishment for not being able to do the same. So Christ took our place and opened up a pathway for us to have a relationship with God and enter heaven.
Since keeping the law is not what gets us into heaven (asking for and accepting God’s forgiveness is what Christ opened up for us), the rules have changed, so to speak. This is not to say that what is moral and immoral has changed, but laws regarding priestly duties are no longer necessary (we don’t need priests since we can have a personal relationship with God) and doing what’s moral isn’t what saves you. So people who argue that everything has changed are wrong. What is good is based on the character of God and that never changes.
i think it’s because the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and some things got (literally) lost in translation. it still fascinates me, though
That’s true. There are some words that have no modern translation…we have no idea what the original intention was. Fortunately most of the examples I can think of don’t occur in controversial passages.
I don’t think you understand what I was saying, and will attribute that to my poor ability to express it.
Public reproof of a behavior you believe to be scripturally immoral is different than condemnation of an individual.
Now this crowd may be proven to be the above mentioned zealots, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who speaks out is a zealot.
There is scripture about public reproof and rebuke. And also about putting your sins in the past. But in order for them to be in the past, they have to be, well, in the past.
I guess I just believe that Christians should “publicly reprove” of immoral behavior by living above reproach and loving sinners and explaining sin to them one-on-one, not by standing on street corners with signs that have polarizing statements on them.
I do agree with you that public statements about sin are different (and less harmful) than individual condemnations, but I don’t think either are helpful. I think rebuking should be saved for other believers, not for society. I believe Jesus, Paul, etc. were very honest about sin, but they loved the people they spoke to about it (e.g. the woman at the well, the rich young ruler) and chose their words carefully so that they could reach those people on an individual level.
Christians should not expect nonbelievers to conform to Christian ethics/morality. Sin will definitely come up (as it’s what currently separates them from a relationship with God) in conversation, but the bigger issue is what the sin has done and how to receive forgiveness.
I’d be careful about stating that there’s anything in the Bible that condemns homosexual relationships as we understand them. The differences across English translations of the Bible are pretty amazing.
The Bible been used to back up a variety of ugly prejudices and this is one of them IMO.
ht tp://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
I believe the Bible defines sexual sin as séx outside of heterosexual marriage. I had séx before I was married and that was sinful. I’ve looked at porn and that was sinful. I’ve lusted and that was sinful. A true Christian who understands the gospel will not be prejudiced and will not treat anyone poorly, no matter how much they think their lifestyle is sinful.
I disagree that homosexuality is not labeled a sin in the Bible, but I do agree with you that the Bible should never be used to justify hate and prejudice. In fact, I think God saves the harshest judgment for those who use His words to hurt people. Everyone sins, so the Christian who acts like homosexuals are more sinful than everyone else is sadly deceived. Romans says that ALL have sinned and fallen short. Christians should be acutely aware of this and should be the most humble people out there. Unfortunately there are lots of cultural “Christians” who don’t really care about following Jesus’ example. They just want to be better than everyone else so they pretend to be sinless and call themselves Christians. And they give us all a bad name…
While I agree that these people have freedom of speech, I also have the freedom to oppose their opinion. I just want to add some information for those who don’t know about the Biblical references here: Paul was also against many other things we do today. For example, he had many rules against women such as how they should always have their heads covered when in worship, makeup is evil, jewelry is evil, and women must never teach men. So why have these people chosen to condemn those who’ve broken one of Paul’s rules but not the others? Also to clarify, Paul’s is the only passage in the New Testament that actually says homosexuality is wrong. There are 3 other passages in the NT many people use in the fight against gay rights but these passage don’t 100% say homosexuality is wrong. The debate on these passages is related to varying translations of ancient words, some say they mean homosexuality but most translate them otherwise. The only other plain statements in the Bible stating homosexuality is evil are in the Old Testament along side other rules we don’t follow such as never cut the hair in front of your temple, fathers can sell their daughters as slaves, we should all sacrifice bulls, women are sinful when on their periods. Jesus gave us 2 main commandments, love thy neighbor as thyself and love God. I don’t see how 2 people being in love is breaking either of these rules. The hateful things people calling themselves Christians have done to gay people, directly goes against Jesus’ teaching of peace and understanding.
(this is a serious question)
Where does it say Paul hated women?
I never said Paul hated women, he tells men to treat their wives well. He does, however, make many rules saying that women are beneath men. He says that men are the glory of God while women are the glory of men. I’m not sure of exact passages but I know most of them are in Corinthians and Timothy.
He says that man was made in the image of God and women were made in the image of man. It just means that according to Genesis, man was made first from dust in God’s image and woman was made from the rib of man to complete him. I don’t think he means anything negative against women. In fact, I’m sure he doesn’t, but I know things are lost in translation.
Just a side note, did you know the Genesis actually says “Let us make man in our image”? Note the US and OUR. Not relevent to the subject, just an interesting discovery.
I think the “us” is like a royal “we”. Just in MHO.
It’s a reference to the Trinity. According to scripture Jesus was with God (and He WAS God). Scripture says that all things were made for Christ and by Him. And Genesis refers to the the Spirit — the 3rd member of the Trinity — hovering above the waters in the beginning. So the “us” refers to the Trinity.
I knew that and it’s an interesting thing to ponder. It’s a great defense of the separate trinity.
Ok, see this confuses the heck out of me. How could there have been a trinity during Genesis if JC wasn’t born until much, much, much later? And I know the whole “God is a shamrock” analogy but I’m still confused.
I always looked at the “us” and “our” as God and angels or as the writers’ show of respect to their God.
God didn’t create Jesus at that moment. One can’t filter through our own form of procreation. All three simply have always existed. Jesus (somehow God’s “son” it’s beyond my comprehenion) simply accepted taking a human form.
Realization: Paul was a stupid putz.
Amen to that.
Well, yeah…anyone could see marrying Heather Mills was a bad, bad idea.
That one-legged gold digger.
Replying to HelOnWheels:
This, too, is a great question. John answers this question at the very beginning of his gospel. Jesus has always been a member of the Trinity, along with the Father and the Spirit. Jesus always existed and was there creating right along with God in the beginning.
The Trinity is a timeless mystery. Anyone who claims to understand how “One God in Three Persons” works is probably simplifying it too much. There are some things that we just can’t understand (because they don’t fit neatly into the world that we live in). Some people tend to make Him into three gods, which is polytheistic. Others don’t put any stress on Jesus and the Spirit, which isn’t Biblical. Other say that Jesus wasn’t God, which is heretical according to the tenants of Christianity.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to us, but the best way I can describe God is that He manifests Himself in terms three diverse and completely harmonious ways, kinda of like facets on a diamond. Each way you look at God, it’s still Him, but it’s reflected differently.
It makes a little more sense when you understand that God is love (scripture says this over and over). If God is love, He was love before He created us, but who was there to love? Since He was three Persons in one God, His love was expressed in His relationship to Himself. The Trinity was a perfect harmony before time began.
Anyway, this is way over my head, and I’ve studied this stuff for years. So, if you’re confused, I’m right there with you.
it’s also interesting that in the womb we all start out female before (for some of us) developing into males. genesis got it backwards because it was written by chauvinists.
Bravo.
Also, genetically, it’s the males that are part female, not the other way around.
Ah, yes, when taking many anthropology classes you read the stories of cultures who punish their women for not giving them sons.. Henry IIIV comes to mind.. When in fact girls are the only thing that women can produce..
I always found that a bit ironic.
Oh for fukc’s sake. Roman numeral fail.. VIII..
*heads to kitchen to make wake up juice*
Yes, I just woke up. What? It’s my day off.
uh, Charro, i think you mean Henry VIII (stupid Roman numerals mixing ppl up). oddly enough, he actually had 2 sons before Edward VI. there was Henry IX with his 1st wife Catherine of Aragon (died age 3), and later an unnamed son with 2nd wife Anne Bolyen (stillborn following her panic attack when Henry got in a jousting accident). ntm his huge string of illegitimate kids
Yeah, he’s not being negative toward women, he’s just saying we’re inferior and should live our lives in servitude to men. No negativity there at all. ~eyeroll~
Ugh. Religion makes my brain hurt.
Paul said that women should cover their heads, but it was a cultural thing…doesn’t apply to us today. An equivalent might be that women shouldn’t wear skimpy clothing.
I love how a rule regarding women becomes a rule “against women”. As if Paul didn’t direct lots of stuff at men.
Paul didn’t hate women. If you read his letters he talks highly of individual women a good bit. And he doesn’t hold them to any higher standard than he holds men.
Well, there’s the whole thing about not speaking in churches, too:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” (1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV).
But I think it’s got to be understood in the context of the culture in which he wrote it.
Yeah. Funny, my church is studying 1 Corinthians right now, but we are only on chapter 2. I’ll let you know when I get to chapter 14. My pastor is a genius (a few degrees in physics and mathematics before he went on to study philosophy and religion), and he has a very balanced view of scripture, so I’m sure I will understand this better once he gives me some context.
Pastor with degrees in hard science?!
I’m moving to wherever you are.
That could be just about anywhere then. Just because some people refuse to see it doesn’t mean christians are unedumakated.
Actually, the passages in the New Testament are translated to mean “homosexual behavior” but the words are actually more graphic and specific than that. The passages don’t refer to a sexual orientation, because no one even considered that there was a sexual orientation called homosexuality until the 20th century. The passages refer to homosexual behavior. And Paul condemns the behavior.
I agree that many Christians have been hateful to homosexuals, but rewriting scripture to condone a behavior that is blatantly condemned in the bible isn’t the answer. Building up Christians who love all sinners, including homosexuals and teaching them about God’s love and his plan for human sexuality (which doesn’t include anything outside of heterosexual marriage including unmarried heterosexual fornication, pornography, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) is a more balanced response to scripture and the gospel.
There have been many other translations of those passages that do not refer to homosexual acts. However, even if they do state that it is wrong, in your reply you completely ignored my mention of the other rules stated in the Bible that are ignored in today’s society.
I’m not sure what’s ignored. I commented on head coverings (cultural), and I think makeup and jewelry are often ignored…so I guess I agree with you.
However, scripture holds sexual sin in a special place. It’s different than other sin. Scripture says it’s the only sin in which you sin against your own body. Also, sexual sin harms other people. The other rules you mentioned that are ignored aren’t on the same level as sexual sin. I agree that if something is being ignored, it’s a problem. But I don’t think any of those rules are as important as sexual ones.
parks – it’s not like the bible today is the same bundle of texts that it was a thousand years ago. between tranlastions and edits done by various dominating cultures the book has already been modified.
just saying.
The Bible contradicts itself about sex. God’s covenant to Abraham said go forth and make lotsa babies. But God’s people wanted to be more like God, who doesn’t have a gender or sexual intercourse (lack of genitals + partner), so they started saying all that stuff was evil (seamen, period blood, etc). Another question, why did Christianity stop having circumcision? It was a commandment from God. It was supposed to show them sticking with the covenant. Why did that rule get ditched too (and it came straight from God)?
Ok, the first thing is a problem with the people. It probably made God facepalm ya know?
Second, when the Jews were dropped as God’s chosen people then it no longer mattered. At first it was a physical way to say that you were “clean” when compared to the gentiles. Now it doesn’t matter because Christ died for all.
“when the Jews were dropped as God’s chosen people ”
The Jews don’t believe that. So, how about we not say please.
I”m not sure what you’re saying. All I can do is speak from my perspective of reading the new as well as the old testament. Didn’t mean to offend.
I didn’t think the Jews were ever dropped from being God’s chosen. I can’t think of a reference for that.. I’m gonna have to go look that up.
Curse you internet for making me learn on my day off!
Well maybe dropped was the wrong way to say it. The point was that after the death of Christ it didn’t matter, so in effect there is no “chosen” people anymore. Salvation is a free gift to all now.
“so in effect there is no “chosen” people anymore”
In Christian beliefs, yes. But not in Judaism. The Jews are still the chosen people, according to Jewish beliefs.
Ok but the main theme here seams to be about contradictions between the two testaments right?
If were only talking about the jews then there can’t really be a contradiction can there?
I’m not trying to be judgemental against Jews.
*still hasn’t researched*
After the rapture, during the end times, isn’t there supposed to be like 144,000 Jews that turn to Christ so as to lead God’s Chose People (the Jews) to accepting Jesus as messiah?
Or is that not mainstream Christianity. Do all Christians believe in the rapture?
All believe in the rapture, the difference is when it will happen. Some think at the beginning of the tribulation and some at the end.
On the 144,000. Most now believe that it isn’t just Jews, the verse in Revelation says just from the 12 tribes of Israel. Then some people took 12 apostles 12×12=144×1000(being the perfect number). Revelation is very hard to understand (rightly so since it’s the future) but that number really isn’t biblical.
Not all theologians agree on the book of Revelation being future events. There are 3 main groups of thought:
Allegorical approach: The events in Revelation will not happen literally. They are to be interpreted figuratively and symbolically. This approach leads to a great variety of conflicting scenarios.
Historical approach: Most of the events in Revelation have already happened, perhaps during the persecution of Christians during the reign of Emperors Nero or Domitian before Christianity was tolerated early in the 4th century CE.
(This is what was taught in a World Religion course that I took)
Futuristic approach: This is the approach taken by almost all fundamentalists and other evangelical Christians. The events in Revelation have yet to occur, but are anticipated in our very near future. The end times will unfold exactly as specified when the world as we know it comes to an end. 1
Circumcision in the New Testament changed into a spiritual circumcision or circumcision of the heart.
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. NKJV
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. NKJV
Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, NKJV
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
God made a covenant with Abraham during the time of the Patriarchs when God spoke to the patriarch of a family. Then God gave the law to Moses which was the beginning of the Mosaic era. That is where all the clean and unclean laws came from. There is a difference between something being unclean and something being evil.
“teaching them about God’s love and his plan for human sexuality (which doesn’t include anything outside of heterosexual marriage…)”
This is where I get thrown off. Why does God’s love include heterosexual love but not homosexual love? Is not all love God’s love? Unless you think that homosexuals cannot have genuine love for each other, in which case I say good luck, especially when you look at all the christian gay couples out there (a lot of which do plan abstinence).
Furthermore I do not see an instance where the idea of homosexuality is declared sinful. The famous passage cited from Paul only calls it abnormal or out of place, which it should have been in context since God wanted his people to grow. Obviously that is not as much of an issue today (for all anyone knows, God could be using homosexuality to put a plug on things).
People keep thinking that because we were made in the image of God that somehow we’re supposed to remain unchanged from when we were created, but that is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, the earth was initially a single land mass, with a certain atmosphere, etc. But these things are constantly changing – God made an ever-changing world. And for him to force his creations to remain unchanged in this world is nothing short of torture. Yes, we are in the image of God, but it is a dynamic image, not a static one. That is how I feel about the matter.
Jesse, it’s not an issue of whether homosexuals can love each other. Of course they can. Just like heterosexuals who aren’t married can.
But there is a ton of evidence in the Bible that heterosexual marriage was and continues to be God’s plan for human sexuality. I have never found any scriptural evidence that this could change. And I don’t think the idea that God succumbs to our cultural whims very convincing. God doesn’t change (according to scripture), so his definitions of morality can’t change. In Leviticus (Old Testament), homosexual behavior was considered immoral. In Romans and 1 Corinthians (New Testament), Paul lists homosexuality right along side many other sins that are condemnable. He’s not listing things that are abnormal. He is listing sins that the Corinthians repented of and were forgiven of. I’m sorry…I just can’t follow people who say that the Bible doesn’t consider homosexual behavior sinful. I think it’s pretty clear. That doesn’t mean it’s unforgivable…it’s just as forgivable as any other sin. But God created men and women to compliment each other…this was His plan for human sexuality.
Also, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said we are created in the image of God. There is not a single verse in the Bible that says that God is dynamic or changing. There are tons of verses that say that God is unchanging. And homosexuality isn’t new. Defining sexual orientation is new, but homosexual behavior has been around as long as humans. So to say that we, as God’s creation, have evolved to incorporate homosexuality doesn’t really make sense.
But don’t get me wrong. God loves the world. Everyone, including homosexuals. And Christians should too.
Sorry I feel preachy…I don’t mean to be. This isn’t an issue that I would die over. I have my opinions, but I don’t hate homosexuals. I have gay friends and we agree to disagree on this issue.
if your god created humans in ‘his’ image, how did the first homosexual come into being?
Side note: Jesus didn’t exactly teach peace:
Jesus said
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law –
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me;
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me
is not worthy of me;
Before all the atheists in the group jump on that and say that is what is wrong with the world today, he isn’t speaking literally. In fact he also says this:
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
Jesus didn’t promote physical violence, but he did promote peaceful discourse. When he said he came to bring a sword he was saying that what he was teaching would be divisive and not everyone would accept it. Even family members may reject you for following him and you may have to decide between keeping a peaceful relationship with your family and following him.
You open with “Jesus didn’t preach peace.”
Then close with “Jesus actually did preach peace but told you to expect people to shun you.”
What are you actually saying?
It was in response to Rachel who wrote that Jesus taught peace and understanding.
Jesus said: I didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword.
and:
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
also:
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
There are people who will hate you for believing what you believe if you are not hiding who you are. In that sense, he teaches that you can’t always live in peace if you want to follow him.
He also said: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Romans 12 sums it up best
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all people.
Yes, we should try to be peaceful people. However, there are times that it will be impossible to be completely at peace with everyone without abandoning your belief in God. When you have a choice between peace and following God, the right choice isn’t ALWAYS peace.
That doesn’t mean I support the people in this LOL. I completely disagree with what they are doing and how they are doing it.
I agree with whoever it was that said earlier that Jesus didn’t try to correct sin in the world, he only did that to people who claimed to be religious or righteous. He sat down and ate with prostitutes and sinners. It was the people who claimed to be men of God and were truly evil that really were rebuked by Jesus.
The stance against homosexuality is one of the things I find most repellant about religion in general. And basing my morality and ethics on some two thousand year old text, even if it’s message is contradictory to what I feel in my heart to be just and true, is something I would never want to do.
I feel the same way SB.
I’m with you, ladies.
Count me in.
Well, to be honest, a lot of Christians pick and choose out of that book what we want to believe because some of it seems kinda silly.
Well as Ned Flanders said (and I’m paraphrasing here): But I did everything the bible told me to! Even the stuff that contradicted the other stuff!
Homophobia has a lot of its roots in hating women. Almost all common religion in general is very anti-female because men want to control women (yes, this includes christianity.)
It might sound odd, but look at the double standards of homosexuality carried around today. Gay men are the most frowned upon, and held as “effeminate”. To be effeminate means “more like a woman”, and to those homophobic people, more like a woman = weak, stupid, worthless.
Lesbians? Oh those are fine, they’re hot and pleasing to men, and there’s no penises involved. It’s not really sex, right? (This is the way those people think.)
I have a link here for more read about that.
To be fair, I do not think they “hate” women. Feel women are inferior? Yes. Feel women should be subservient to men? Yes. Feel women should be chattel? Yes. Jealous of woman for carrying and bearing the gift of life? Yes.
Hate? Probably not.
Though I agree with you. Gays are not “manly men”, embracing the misogynistic views of their hetero counterparts. They make other men feel less “manly” and make them uncomfortable.
From a socio-cultural, not religious standpoint, homophobia abounds because it is a threat to the male-dominated society which has thrived for thousands upon thousands of years. Sure, women get to vote and are supposed to be “equal”, but I think many women here know we are really not. Not yet. But, to have “effeminate” MEN wanting to be treated equal? It flies in the face of what men have been taught for centuries. Be a man, possess as many women as you can, spread your seed, own your property.
And it harm none.. Do what thou willst..
For a very hands-on example of how deep this “manly=good, feminine=not good”-idea runs, most parents even if they consider themselves to be for equality, will feel much, much more uncomfortable with letting their son play with Barbies and wear a pink skirt than with letting their girl be a tomboy.
*applauds* Bravo Danbala. What an eloquent and insightful point.
My opinion of where the cultural preference for men over women is that men are most often physically stronger than women. I believe the preference goes way way back before civilization came about and the basic law of survival and the strongest man wins was all there was. Everyone wanted their sons to be strong and virile.
Yes – there are quite a few various speculations on why masculinity has had a higher status than femininity. I’m also inclined to think that it stems back to the days when physically strongest was all that counted.
I’m certain that’s where it came from too.
Don’t make it right though.
It’s definitely not right, my point is that it didn’t come from Christianity. If some push those ideas because of Christianity, it’s not the fault of Christ. Who was actually pro-women (or pro-people maybe?).
I know what your point was. I just had to add on that it’s not right.
Now I’m going to make my own posterboard.. “Jesus: Pro People!” and join some protest somewhere.
what does chattel mean? (i can’t find my dictionary)
A slave.
Not precise definition, but very close. By making someone chattel, they are worthless slaves.
Chattel – An item of movable property, such as a sideboard. Collins (print edition).
I read the article. Highly insightful. Thank you.
So I feel the need to share some personal experience here.
I’m married. I never took my husband’s name, much to his chagrin. In the beginning of the marriage, even before we got married, he asked me if I would take his name. I said no, I’m Charro Mermaid* (real name has been altered to protect the innocent), I always have been Charro Mermaid and marrying you and spending the rest of my life with you will not change who I am.
*as speaking to husband* See honey, in the olden days, when a woman was married, she was basically “sold” to her husband and that is why women take the last names of the men. It symbolises the passing of ownership from father to husband. I am no longer ward of my father but of my husband. I am not my own person, but someone to be owned by a man.
Well, dear, I am -not- your, nor anyone else’s property. I was born Charro Mermaid, I will die Charro Mermaid.
But honey (he says), isn’t that what the woman is SUPPOSED to do? Take her husband’s name?
Why should I do that.. because society tells me to? Because gender roles tell me to? What about me, who I am, who I will always be?
But, we are a married couple now? How are we supposed to let everyone know we are married when we have different last names?
Why don’t you take my name then? You can be a Mermaid just as easily as I can be a Seahorse* (name altered to protect the innocent)
*husband balks* That’s just outrageous!
Now you know how I feel.
Now, to be fair, I did suggest we BOTH change our last names to something else altogether, but he didn’t like the idea of being a Schlumpfenhausen.
Also, apparently he is too attached to being a Seahorse..
You are a magnificent woman charro my dear. Simply magnificent!
*blushes furiously* Awwww. Thanks Ivan!
Very welcome, and you utterly rule, Charro!
Charro Mermaid, that has a nice ring
I am a mermaid after all. *points at picture* See?
And thanks!! *blushes again*
I will add you have a very good point there. Hatred wasn’t the right word, more like.. delusions of inferiority.
Charro, I think I’m a little in love with you.
I’m going to pass out if I keep blushing this much.
<3
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet.” (Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2, lines 1-2)
I love this.
When we got engaged (loooooong time ago), first friend we told asked me if I was going to change my name. Before I could answer, my husband said “Why?”
So that’s what I say now when people asked me why I did NOT change my name. Why? They always think I should explain why not; why shouldn’t they explain why?
But I still get the people who think you can’t possibly be married if you don’t have the same name as your husband. My youngest brother has the best response to “Why is your name different from your husband’s?” You say, “‘Cause I ain’t such a redneck that I married my brother.” (You have to add a real western drawl — we come from serious redneck country.)
BTW, *redneck* is not an insult. I LOVE Jeff Foxworthy — those ARE my relatives.
Yeah.. That’s pretty much what I say too. “Why should I?”
Then to introduce people to the fallacy “Appeal to Tradition”, and to the word fallacy.
Regarding the name-changing thing, for me it symbolizes “now we’re one family”, as surnames are so associated with family.
That’s what my wife said when I asked if she was going to change her name. There’s an association that goes beyond the implication of “we’re just partners”. I personally wouldn’t have had an issue if she had kept her maiden name.
Family, for me, is much deeper than the sharing of a name. For instance, both my sisters changed their names, but they are no less my family. My husband’s family is no less my family even though I do not share a name with them.
I am very close to Mr. Seahorse’s mom, she’s not a Seahorse, she remarried and has a different name. But she is no less my family.
Family is something I have inside me, that I share with my family, that is indifferent to what I choose to call myself as my identity.
Made a deal with my wife. Get married in a Catholoic ceremony she takes my name.
I can see it from that angle to. But if that’s the case, why doesn’t the man take the woman’s name?
Or why not choose a name for both to change to?
Or why doesn’t everyone hyphenate? I actually plan to eventually hyphenate, but I haven’t filled out the paperwork. To me, that symbolises the joining more than taking one person’s name away in favour of the other.
I don’t have a problem with people doing it however they want, but the hyphenation thing reminds me — when one of my daughters was in kindergarten, for some reason she had a BUNCH of kids in her class who were hyphenated. I used to wonder — If Billy Jones-White grows up and marries Suzie Brown-Taylor, then what? Is their poor child going to be Tommy Jones-White-Brown-Taylor? Poor kid will NEVER be able to fill out a Scantron.
LOL, that’s very true. In fact, hubby brought that up to me.
My response? I don’t plan to have children. I’m not just a vehicle for procreation.. I am ME, and I will live my life as I see fit. That doesn’t include having children. So, there’s no need to worry about those hypotheticals.
Even if there were, changing who -I- am for the convenience of someone in the future is not something I am willing to do. I am me. I will always be me.
Me too! I’ll be me, I mean. Not that I’ll be you. That would be confusing and a little too Single White Female.
I just don’t see my name as defining who I am but more as a label for identification and convenience. I guess if I ever have to go into the witness protection program, the new name will be one thing I won’t have an issue with!
I really think the hyphenation thing is past in a lot of areas of the country. I’ve noticed a lot less of it in the past decade. I think it was a compromise for a lot of people.
I had a friend who divorced an abusive guy, took her *own* (her words) name back, then got engaged. Her husband wanted her to change her name — so he wouldn’t accidentally be called “Mr Mermaid.” So he wanted her to be called by someone else’s name for the rest of her life to avoid the chance of that.
I guess we just have our own ideas of identity diss.
Just so you know, I’m not criticising you at all. I just do as I will, as I expect everyone else to as well. Within reason of course..
Abso-freakin-lutely, Charro! Wouldn’t criticize your take on it, either, just expressing mine.
I heart you diss.
Well, there’s something different that can be done, like John Lennon legally changing not his last name, but his middle name to Ono. Being that I go by my middle name, I could never do that, but it would be an interesting compromise.
finally found my way back to this thread!
one of my brothers married a blue-blood from mexico city – she carried both her mothers maiden name and her fathers last name, when they married, she dropped her mothers maiden name and added my brothers last name after her fathers name. from what i understand this is a cultural thing at least from the part of mexico where she’s from. this was back in the early 70’s, and all of us gringos that she became related to thought that was a very neat way. and of course this was way before the whole hyphenation thing even started
I have a piece of paper that says we’re married; don’t think I’ll forget just because his name’s different. (And we had to pay $35 for it!)
But the annoying thing is that I don’t go around interrogating or even bashing women who do choose to change their names. It’s none of my business. Wish more people could return the favor.
**not aimed at anyone here; just a whine. You get less polite/forgiving about those rude questions after 20 years of them!
Yeah no shit. People ask me often “So what about Mr. Mermaid?” and I correct them “Seahorse”. They become confused, why didn’t you take his name? Fukc you, why the hell should I? It’s MY name!
Though, I do give my one sister a lot of shit sometimes, because her ex-husband was an asshole (of the ridiculous sort – he abused her and tried to sleep with me) and she still has his last name. I’ve said to her “I can understand you don’t want to be Mermaid anymore, but why not pick a new last name that is just you and not associated with some dipshit loser guy?” Her answer? Too much paperwork and hassle. LOL.
I have another friend who didn’t change her last name when she married, she changed her name when she was 18 and legally able to because her dad was (by all accounts) a horrible human being and she did not want to be identified with him anymore. So, she is just herself. Married and all.
My wife was never really thrilled about taking my name, but she also didn’t really want to be associated with her maiden name’s family exactly. If she wanted to keep her name, that would’ve been okay I guess, but I would’ve felt a little like my family wasn’t good enough for her. Not that I have a problem with people keeping their names, because I don’t have a problem with that at all.
To be honest, if I ever get married and my wife decides not to take my surname, I’ll take hers. You may ask why. Well, I just think it would be easier on any possible kids and for various documents to have a single name.
Charro, I went through something similar to you, so I know exactly what you’re talking about! My in-laws wanted to know if I thought their name wasn’t good enough for me, to which I asked “is my name not good enough for your son?” That shut them up!
Wish I’d thought of suggesting something like Schlumpfenhausen as a new surname for us though, just to see the look on my intended’s face. . .
Actually Jesus Christ was one of the worlds first feminists. He publicly included women as his disciples in a culture where the rabbis would daily thank God they were not born women. This is part of what infuriated them and got him crucified. He pubicly stopped the stoning of a woman who was caught in adultery. Women were excluded from learning the Torah but Jesus included women in the crowds of people he taught concerning the scriptures. There are many examples of Jesus talking and teaching women, like the woman at the well. Hatred of women does not come from Christianity, it is more of a cultural thing and I believe what happened in the scriptures is that the writers would just bow to common convention in trying to keep peace in that day.
If you were inclined to base your morality and ethics on a two thousand year old text there are many religions and churches that not only accept gays, but have gay pastors, priests, or whatever you choose to call them. I’m just saying, you can’t throw a blanket condemnation on all religion for any one belief because they don’t all hold the same beliefs. It is the equivalent of saying all blonds are stupid, all Mexicans work hard, all Asians are good at math, etc.
All Mexicans work hard? When did this happen?
The only problem with basing things on what we feel in our hearts is that we are basically self serving and fallible creatures and what we feel in our hearts is most often what is easy and comfortable, it just might not be the best in the long run. For a very very simple example, my heart tells me it is just and right to have ice cream for dinner every night.
And hating that which is different from you (e.g. gays) is not “what is easy and comfortable”? Of course it is. Religion is in no way the final word or best option for moral guidance for everybody.
I don’t think hating gays comes from religion, at least not Christianity.
That’s an example (e.g). There are plenty of other examples besides that one.
i think it comes from gay ppl being “different” and it’s our nature to fear that which is different or unknown. or maybe just b/c certain males are jealous of the gay guys who might be prettier than them. (not meant as an offense or anything)
“Fallible”? We are? I am so bummed. Please don’t tell my teenager.
Of course, now that he’s a teenager, he may have figured it out for himself.
“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
It’s my opinion that Paul was talking about adulterous ceremonies and festivals held by Romans where they conducted worship through sex. Man, woman, children. I highly doubt that Paul ever saw a monogamous, homosexual couple anywhere. Using Paul’s verses, or any other biblical verses, as a blanket statement against homosexuality is dangerous and very against Jesus’ teachings.
Though I thank you for your civil attitude, and I apologize for feeling the need to interject.
Interject away. No need to apologize.
“I don’t see them condemning the individual, but rather the behavior.”
Artificial distinction.
Sexuality is intrinsic to identity. Heterosexual people have options as far as having physically intimate relationships – there are contexts in which it’s considered from a Christian POV to be “okay”. What do homosexuals have?
Just don’t do it?
Ever?
They have 1st Amendment rights too. Same as that guy in the roller skates and the flaming outfit. I think there may be a lot more to this scene than the picture could ever tell us.
Dude this is that wacked out group that protests at soldier’s funerals. They have the 1st Amendment Right, but they are the only Christians I have a hard time defending. Ask the liberals here, I’ve defended Christians alot.
ohh, is this the Westboro Baptist Church group???
I think some of them died recently.
YAYYYY
They are coming to a couple local high schools here to protest that the schools don’t outright condemn homosexuals and homosexuality in the schools. How stupid is that shit?
The problem is the frothing at the mouth anit-christians equate those fvcktards with true christianity at times. Hence the animosity. I wish that more people would mock them.
Where’s those bikers when you need them?
Yeah, I totally know what you mean. I used to go to a pretty liberal Presbyterian church with a REALLY liberal pastor (I miss that dude). He got in trouble with the Presbytery for saying he would have no issues with ordaining a gay/lesbian minister. Now, I know formally most Christian denominations aren’t going to be like said pastor (he wasn’t exactly popular with the big wigs), but most Christian churches also aren’t going to go to protests to condemn homosexuals.
Don’t forget the Episcopal Church that ordained the first openly gay bishop.
As I’ve said what two consenting adults want to do in the comfort of their own home, car, RV, water tower, etcccc whom am I to care, and how does it effect my life?
water tower???
Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.
I would but my water tower is enclosed.
I think that might be difficult with my fear of heights.
Well that just makes it more exciting.
Well, if you like your women curled into the fetal position whimpering, maybe!
Just stand in the middle area. The one I was on was on a mountain too. The worst part was climbing back down the ladder. Given I didn’t actually do what I was joking about, but with enough prepation I can see where it could be pretty cool.
diss–Who says I don’t?
Diss: Where’s that in the Kama Sutra? Is that the “Oh $hit” position or the “WTF” position?
now rando, when said woman accuses you of rape… just tell her that it’s not rape. it’s “surprise sex” and that you were just as surprised as she was. *nods sagely*
Hey, hey, it’s consensual! Weird, but consensual.
No means NO, brother. And apparently “whimper” means no as well. When my girl whimpers, I should stop what I’m doing, right? Damn women and their confusing signals…
It’s the quality of the whimpering you need to be able to decipher, Ivan.
Me on a water tower, the quality is going to be “OHMYGODI’MGOINGTODIIIIIIEEEEE GET ME DOOOOWWWWN!” Which I don’t think would be seeing me at my sexiest.
or boat, garage, backyard toolshed, treehouse, detatched garage, woodshed… though not all are so comfortable, lol
Are you familiar with Derek Webb? He’s a musician (and a Christian) who has written a song directed at Fred Phelps. He also publicly mocks WBC at his shows. When a soldier’s family sued WBC for protesting at his funeral and wiped them out financially he publicly thanked the family at every show during an entire tour.
Someone did that? They’re my heroes.
Had you heard of the Biker group that shows up at soldier’s funerals and block the family from view of the protesters.
Are they the same crowd that came to Charlotte NC and blocked Cindy Shehan? They looked tough.
The patriot guard
Awesome guys.
i’m buying a bike in the spring… if the WBC ever came near my home i’d join right up with those guys and ride with them.
Just to be clear (and to save you from potential embarassment): the biker group ILPB is talking about is more Harley and less Schwinn.
oh i know. i’m looking at a honda spirit shadow 750cc. i’d definitely love to go harley, but they are crazy stupid expensive and i don’t want to spend that much on a first bike that i’m sure will get laid over a few times and get some bumps and scratches.
original: Something about you saying “laid, “bumbs” and “scrathces” in the same post is really HAWT!
well, that too.
biker leather has a double purpose you know…
They may have a dual purpose but I still get looks when I wear buttless chaps when riding my bike.
It doesn’t help that it’s a huffy.
I now have one of the strangest mental images in the world running through my head. LOL
ADM – You need to put some pants under those chaps!
ADM – chaps are by definition assless.
mina – i know, right? doesn’t help that he’s a youngun!
Shortright — You think you feel weird about it…lol.
diss, you’ve got kids older than him, right? lol.
Hell, I’ve got clothes older than him.
Am I being insulted or praised?
diss – sharon osbourne said this line to a really hot 20something guy on america’s got talent a few years ago and it stuck with me as a good one to use when i get older. “i’ve got shoes older than you, but i’d still like to try you on.”
ADM – neither really! you’re just the resident youngun of the group of cool kids. as the youngun we’ll be both jealous of your youth but also incredulous at certain things. we’ll also use your age to make diss feel squeemish for picturing you in chaps.
Speaking of younguns…has anyone seen Tyler lately?
Tyler’s been on YSAC a lot lately; I guess I’ve seen him on FB some, too, but not here much lately. I think he’s busy with school.
ivan – i haven’t seen him since he blocked me because i told him to grow up a bit if he wanted to hang out with the adults.
diss – what is YSAC? i has a braindead today…
I think you mean “young en”
I’m reading the comments as “young gun” and am therefore probably blushing a little.
Tygor and I chat randomly on FB. He keeps me current with what them young kids listen to so far as “punk” these days. It’s very kind of him.
He is busy with school, fo sho.
ADM – probably should be written young’un. but it’s more fun to make it even more awkward by making you think it’s a young gun.
Young Gun? Like Emilio Estevez?
Young gun like Gene Simmon’s interpretation.
Shortright: YSAC = You Suck at Craigslist.
The Patriot Guard Riders are actually just a large loosely connected group of volunteers. They don’t all ride motorcycles. A large portion do, but anyone can join. (Yep, I’m a member – I’ve been to 3 funerals in NC and helped block these people from the sight of those attending a ceremony at the Beruit Memorial).
And yes, it is pretty awesome to be able to give some small amount of repayment to these families who’ve lost a family member in the service of his country.
On a side note, the protesters above do not look like Westboro Baptist Church members (the signs are not nearly inflammatory enough).
*facepalm* His or HER country. There are plenty of female service members who’ve lost their lives, as well.
Oh, and one important caveat. The Patriot Guard Riders ONLY go to funerals to which they have been personally invited by the family of the deceased.
You’re a member? You ROCK!
Seconding Rando’s comment that you rock; Patriot Guard is awesome!
thirded.
Quadrupled!!!
If you go to their picture sites, that guy with the bandana on his head is in some of their pics. Remember we’re only seeing two signs here.
5thed?
6thed.
I salute you, SemperGunny. Thank you for all you’ve done.
Yes, they were great here for one of our state’s solders funerals. But one of those WBC whackos told the police that one of the bikers assaulted him; however, the biker explained that he was simply picking up a flag that was on the ground — as we all know, the flag is not supposed to touch the ground — and did not notice that the guy was standing on it. His words: “Well, why would anyone be standing on the flag?” His expression of bemused innocence (on this leather clad biker) was priceless. The deputy looked like he was trying really hard to keep his serious cop face.
If you don’t know, this is one of the things the WBC jerks do at the funerals. Of course, this one got dumped on his backside.
Oo-rah!
You know, I sometimes forget what “True Christians” are like when I see shit like this. It makes me sad, because (I’m not Christian.. I’m sure most of you know) I -know- that Christians are supposed to love their fellow human and be good to them, to try to turn them away from sin with love care and guidance..
And this *points up* is most certainly NOT it.
Yay! Great! Fags are going to hell. Hating them and condemning them isn’t going to help set them on your (Christian) path to righteousness.
The thing that some “christians” seem to forget is that in the eyes of God all sin is equal. I can’t tell a homosexual they are below me because they aren’t.
Unless you’re pitching and they’re catching. Then they’re usually below you.
Well played
LOL. Well played Clerks..
and a teeny tiny coffee bar, with a even smaller book store inside it, filled with tiny adult magazines
I like tiny adult magazines.
elf p0rn?
I like elves too.
Hi! I’m Minni,ature service!
Don’t start with me pitty. I’m feeling short today.
Into every life, a little rain smut fall.
And rain washes away all that is dirty.
No bawdy, not even the rain, has such small hands.
Randy has very small hands.
Horny is a jolly good felator.
What a cunning linguist you are pitty.
Judge not lusty lewd be judged!
I’m sure there’s positions where the person catching could be above.
That’s why I said “usually”.
i can always confirm/deny with any of my multitude of gay friends if we really wanted to know.
I already know, shortright. My first roommates were gay men.
I don’t believe this is the same group that protests at soldiers’ funerals. That’s Westboro Baptist Church (the true crazies). They are not Christians and should in no way be associated with orthodox or mainstream Christianity. They hold up signs that protest the US as a country (for being a haven for homosexuality) and say “God hates fags”, etc.
Though the group in the picture is similarly misled, calling homosexual behavior a sin and saying that God hates fags are two different things. The sentiment they are expressing in the picture is more in line with mainstream Christianity, but they’re lack of compassion for people who identify themselves as homosexuals is where they are off-base. In other words, the message is correct, but the way the message is being sent (in a hateful, morally superior, disconnected and unloving way) is completely unChristian.
parks: They are the church. The guy with the head band has been in pictures before. I can’t remember where they are.
As I said, I wasn’t able to identify that. If they are the crowd that goes to personal locations, then they are certainly out of order. I never saw Jesus or Paul or any of the Apostles knock on someone’s door and rebuke them.
Are you sure that’s them? Their signs usually seem to have a uniform look. And I don’t see the word “fag” anywhere, which certainly suggests it’s not them. I guess it could be, but I’m guessing no. My guess is these are just more random homophobes.
There’s only two of them. Most of them seemed to have left. If you look at some of their pics you can see the guy with the headband.
Well, frankly it’s irrelevant. Either ways, they’re a bunch of fvckrags.
Thanks for the correction…I’ll have to trust you on that. I didn’t think the signs were offensive enough to be WBC, but I was just hypothesizing.
I see what you’re saying Rando. Their signs are normally a better quality.
And more colorful! You’d think they’d know that the rainbow belongs to the gay rights movement. /snark
I always assumed it was to catch people who are actually against them.
“Oh look a rainbow sign. They must be for homosexuality like me.”
*gets within range*
“oh no they are certaintly not like minded and now they’ve seen us RUN”
And we (well, you – I’m not an American) have First Amendment rights as well, which means we can voice our opinions on these groups of foul opined bigots to our heart’s content.
They wanna protest, fine, protest. But we can talk about what a bunch of complete intolerant fvcktards they are. And wonder how many of them are actually in the closet.
And wonder how many of them are actually in the closet.
statistically, probably about 1/5.
you think it’s that few? i woulda guessed no less than half.
i was talking about across the entire population. in this group of fvckers… it’s probably closer to half.
wait a min. was that a compliment about the U.S.A. from a non resident on PK? What is going on?!
i agreed with dhoti yesterday… the apocalypse is upon us.
*whimpers* Oh noes! *ducks and covers*
Absolutely.
More than half of today’s “Christians” are not Christians. True Christians practice all Bible teachings, not just the ones that can make them feel the most powerful.
“practice all Bible teachings”
Really? Hmmm. You mean, like not eating meat and dairy together in the same meal? Selling your family in to slavery? And fornicating with your own daughter? Cause that’s in the Bible.
the first: that= no cheezburgers… SO not happening! the second: blood is supposed to be thicker than water (wish my father knew that). the third: EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!! that’s the kind of dirty that don’t wash clean! *double gag shudder twitch twitch*
The fundamentalists are the only true Christians according to … All who call themselves Christians? Or, whose definition is that?
It’s always great to see zealots who take themselves so very seriously humbled through the simple use of humor. A round of applause for the man in pink.
except for his choice of outfit. Solid shirt with blue plaid shorts? UGH
This guy gets all my Lolz for the day.
epic win
in soviet america, homo sex is great
You know what they say, only the ones that have tried it really know. Thanks for confirming what some of us have only wondered about!
*pouts* I can’t try homo sex. I’m a girl.
Though, I can try lesbian sex. Does that count?
It most certainly does.
I knew I could count on you Rando!
les sex is fun!
Sure it counts.
But I was insulting mudkipz there for being a homophobic idiot.
I know I was being churlish.
At least the pic is a win, because the caption is a fail.
Pointing out obvious =/= LOL
i think it’s a play on words, lols for balls – this guy has huge ones.
or do i also a fail for pointing out the obvious?
oh for christ’s sake…
i fail for other reasons, obviously.
We all love you anyways!
That’s okay. At least it’s funny. And I think you’re right.
Are they hairy and sweaty too?
Schwetty…
Or salty-chocolate.
what exactly is “great” about taking it up the ass and dying of AIDS?
Hey liberal idiots, did you know there’s like 1 BILLION people in the world who think homos and YOU should be killed? You have no problem putting down Christian white people but you celebrate “diversity” (aka Muslim terrorists) cuz it shows how wonderful you are, right? Let’s see how much you love diversity when it blows you up at the mall.
Oh did someone not get enough snuggles with Daddy when they were little? Or was it that Mommy and daddy had to tie a pork chop around your neck to even have the dog play with you.
Wait I think I hear something, yes yes it’s the door hitting your ass on the way out!!!
Homosexuals inspire terrorists to blow up at malls? Wow! Is this breaking news? I had no idea their mere presence inspired spontaneous combustion. This could solve the world’s energy crisis!
I wonder; could we modify the homosexuals in order to get terrorists to blow up in less public places, in toilets or bedrooms for example?
That would be sweet. It would be like mixing explosives. We could get two small boxes, like the size of a telephone booth, and send them someplace. At the right time, we open the doors and the terrorists realizes who he is near and then *boom*. We have a new pool in the back yard. Of course, we will have to make the homosexuals booth explosive proof. Don’t want to hurt anyone. Well other than the terrorist/ target. But they were gonna explode anyway.
Teach me to skim….I thought terrorists were blowing people at malls.
Which might be what we need to lead to world peace and understanding.
wait bitter troll is confused…again…is it homoterrorists or homo inspired terrorists, last bitter troll checked the terrorists didnt like the gay guys either. blowing up malls? NOOO WHERE WILL BITTER TROLL RUN WHEN THE ZOMBIES INVADE??
Under the sea with me bitter love..
In an octopus’ garden in the shade.
*lies beneath the ocean waves*
Meet you by the waters
To dance beneath the waves
Your pinions will support us
As you fulfill my craves
OK! Anyone know if ginger gets soggy when wet?
I hear Bon Jovi gets slippery when wet.
He gives love a bad name.
Shot through the heart.
in a blaze of glory no less.
*ahem* VNV…I just noticed that your name has been spelled wrong in several posts from you today. Might want to look at that.
Oh God D_mmit!
Fxd. Thx.
Thats what I get for typing it in early in the morn. Geez. Killed all my jokes.
Art of Conflict, VNV. Art of Conflict.
Well we’d have a lot less Rest Stops on highways if this was the case.
no no the gays don’t blow up. They so offend the terrorist that the terrorist burst into flames.
They why don’t we send the Pink Brigade to Iraq and Iran?
Wouldn’t that be cool. Send a gay pride parade (which honestly their acts make me ashamed) marching through the streets of towns where we believe terrorist are and just watch random people go up like popcorn in a popper
Oooh I like popcorn.
Yes, backed up by the First Battalion Transvestite Brigade, Airborne Wing! (They’re not gay, but hey, the homophobes don’t know that, do they?)
“Were you surprised? I was surprised.”
That was exactly the idea; I was just trying to achieve the goal of getting the terrorists to blow up in places where they won’t injure other people when they blow.
Actually, yes. Muslims hate the American LIFESTYLE and blatant homosexuality is one of the things that they hate the most, much like every major religion in the world…actually. But Muslims take it to much further extremes than these people so get a clue.
Colonel Mustard in the Kitchen with the tire iron.
Muhammad at Mecca with a star of David?
Hey right-wing nutjob, did you know that there’s like 6 BILLION people in the world who DON”T think that homos and we should be killed? So if you’re talking numbers, we win.
that’s interesting since the entire population is less than 7 but it’s safe to say that a MAJORITY of people in the world, regardless of religion are repulsed by 2 guys doing each other in the ass.
I rounded up by .2 billion – big whoop. But to make your tightly-clenched-in-more-ways-than-one sphincter happy: Hey right-wing nutjob, did you know that there’s like 5.794 BILLION people in the world who DON”T think that homos and we should be killed? So if you’re talking numbers, we win.
Satisfied? And since there is a significant number of people who are repulsed by hetero sex (ask anyone who’s been married for twenty years), shall we take to the street bearing signs avowing our disapproval of that as well?
Eh, I’d say I’d be more repulsed by Roseanne & Tom Arnold doing it then to be honest. I’m sure I could come up with other examples, but that’s the first one that came to me.
Well, that’s hetero-ish. Sort of hetero/mammalian.
2 beached whales? is that the image you were going for…?
I see, and how many times have you been forced to witness two guys doing each other in the ass? Besides your dad, I mean.
Now, Rando, I think “yur clueless” is having a hard enough time adapting to life in the state penitentiary.
Right now he’s in denial about being gay in prison. He shouldn’t worry. Stockholm Syndrome should set in soon.
So what. You have the right to be repulsed but you have no right to take other people’s right to the pursuit of happiness.
And its not really that you dislike two hot women doing it do you?
true and why is he in their bedroom watching them do it anyway?
Crying in the corner about how his asshole boyfriend is always going out and picking up other guys and doing them right in front of him, maybe?
lol. You’re anger indicates closet homosexuality.
so the question is, just how often do YOU take it up the a**?? (in the closet of course)
Hmmmmm.
we’re waiting.
As I’ve heard some say, he’s so far in the closet he’s in Narnia.
my favorite is: so far in the closet he’s finding the lost christmas presents.
i’ve heard narnia too…
I fail to see how what two grown human adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms equals terrorism.
Therefore, you fail, good day sir.
I’ve got nothing against fags, unless they talk through the nose, do loads of silly arm and hand gestures, and swing their hips while they walk.
I know plenty of heteros that talk through their nose/with their hands and swing their hips. In fact, I do two of those three things.
And I think they prefer the epithet “queers” nowadays. Fags are what the British call cigarettes (or a small bundle of sticks, your pick).
the term “fag” in reference to homosexuals comes from the age of witch-burning. “fag” is short for “faggot,” which is what a bundle of firewood or kindling was called back then. in addition to the alleged witch, homosexual men would be tied up together and burned alive like kindling, hence the name.
plus, talking through the nose, silly hand/arm movements, and hip swishing describes a lot of Monty Python, and how can you not love that?!
I like it when it’s used on purpose to make fun of others.
Hey, cool, a troll! How about we just kill you instead, fvckrag?
You’d better patent that one Rando. If it takes off, you could really be rolling in it! Look what I got yesterday for “fu(kweasel”! *holds up half empty pitcher of Stoli & lemonade*
someone stole my Fvcktard a while back. Been using that since the 80’s. (Can you imagine a 12yr old running around calling people fvcktards?)
I blame Red Vs. Blue.
“You shot Church, you teamkilling fvcktard!!”
That’s where I first saw it.
Yeah, me too. I wasn’t aware the term was around before RvB.
2nd favorite insult from RvB (they’ve got tons of good ones): dick sniffer. Funniest damn thing on the Internet.
Nah, I’ve already got my own internet acronym. I’m expecting to be able to retire soon once that picks up.
nesting fail. That was in response to Ivan.
You’re STILL working on the Stoli??!! I’m on my third pitcher of the day. Which means I could have a drinking problem…eh, fvck it!
Ok FINE. I refilled it. A few times. Are you HAPPY?
Shaq is holding a panda. Your argument is invalid.
Shaq is a panda win!
Shaq is HOLDING a panda win.
Rando fail.
Well no Shaq could be a Panda, he has let himself go some so he is rounder!! I say Rando semi-win, which could equate to a semi-fail.
*changes the name of Cleveland’s NBA team to the Pandas*
There, now I’m right. Shaq is a Panda. Your argument is invalid.
**calls ACLU** I find Cleveland’s NBA’s franchise’s new name offensive to my Panda beliefs and heritage. You must have them change it.
**ACLU sues Cleveland who changes name to the Mashed Potatoes**
Your arguement has become invalid once again.
Peta protests the whole thing.
Peta protests themselves….
Pandas eat all the members of PETA.
Dinosaurs eat man.. Woman inherits the Earth..
woman cant take the trash out, enter the wall-e story
I love WALL*E!!!!
-gives jealous glare at cute lil box robot- bitter troll SMASH!
No don’t smash my little robot bitter love!!! I don’t love him like I do you.
shaq sucks. he’s gotten old and fat and the cavs paid a bloody fortune for him. why don’t they just get delonte west some good psychiatric care and stick his ass back on the court?! besides the whole “arrested carrying 3 loaded guns while driving a 3 wheeled motorcycle” deal he was pretty damned good. i want boobie gibson to get some play time too. and bench “z”… he’s gotten too old and slow.
cavs are supposed to be our good team. we get screwed with the browns and indians… we gotta get something in return. but nope, we get screwed there too. *hands head in shame*
Hmph. At least you have an NBA team. If St. Louis got one I might actually take some interest in basketball.
All we have is an NBA team (we have minor league baseball and NO football…) and they suck harder than a Dyson.
I live in York, Pa… home to the York Revolution semi-pro baseball team in the Atlantic League… Starring Pete Rose, Jr at first base!!
We’ve got a decent hockey team, the Cardinals (who speak for themselves), a semi-pro football team, and NO basketball. And I remember when the St. Louis Blues previous owner was trying to lure your NBA team here when it failed in Vancouver. I doubt we’ll ever see basketball here again. St. Louis DOES have an NBA title, though. The St. Louis Hawks like back in the 60s or something.
We have, hockey, football, baseball, basketball, soccer, WNBA… too bad they ALL SUCK, excpet possibly the Caps.
Nope, Caps suck too… go Flyers!!!!!
The Caps have Ovechkin. Who cares if they suck? They. Have. Ovechkin. But I’m more of a Sidney Crosby fan.
The main reason I watch the Caps is Ovie. Love him!
I will gladly pack the Grizzlies in cartons with those styrofoam packing peanuts and send them to St. Louis if you guys will split the UPS Ground charges with me.
Won’t their claws tear through the box? And if they ingest any of that styrofoam, you’ll have the PETA people on you like stink on $h!t…
It’ll make Bill Laurie’s day. He was the previous owner of the Blues. When he couldn’t score the Grizzlies or any other team, he threw a hissy fit. He gutted the hockey team and sold them, ruining our run of 25 straight years in the playoffs. Fortunately the new owners are awesome and have turned the team around big time.
People aren’t thinking as much about a two loss opening as me. I’m not an expert but I would be a little worried. Shaq can’t even defend the pick and roll. What sucks is if they don’t get it done this season then I don’t see that Lebron freeagent thing working out well.
the one reason lebron might stay and not jet off to NY… braylon edwards.
they freaking HATE each other. i’m convinced that the braylon trade wasn’t entirely because he couldn’t catch a pass to save his life. i think it was a sneaky backhanded way to keep lebron in cleveland because he will not go where edwards is. call me a conspiracy theorist, but i’m hoping it’s true.
however, if lebron moved it’d be pretty shitty. his whole family is here and his mother has said time and time again that she will be mad at him if he plays for another team.
but yeah, the cavs are sucking it up. not a good sign.
I think when your son says “Want a new house entire family?” You’ll be like, well alright we can move.
I don’t think it’s too big of a conspiracy. I’ve always suspected that games are thrown in the NBA a little more then in other sports. Trading someone to keep the better doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. Just making you feel better in case you really do feel paranoid.
you’ve never seen an interview with his mom, obviously.
he makes the $$ and she tells him when and how he can spend it. it’s hilarious. between his mother and his children’s mother (he’s got like 3 kids with her) he has NO say over his life. if mom tells him to keep his ass in cleveland he’ll stay. not to mention, he owes his mother a ton… she raised him in the projects and managed to send him to a good private school so he could get noticed. of course, he got scholarships but she worked like 3 jobs to pay his tuition.
as for the conspiracy… i don’t see how edwards could have thrown an NBA game since he used to play for the browns.
but he got traded to the jets just 3 days after he punched one of lebrons friends in the face outside of a nightclub in downtown.
As long as shaq isn’t acting I don’t really care.
aw, come on… space jam was awesome.
(i very nearly kept a straight face whilst typing that.)
I don’t think Shaq was in that one. That’s Charles Barkly and Michael Jordan.
Shaq made “Steel”, “Shazam” ummm what else..
He had a cameo in “Good Burger”.
I think it’s funny that Shaq has a “add photo.”
Apparently too many people used the Shaq/panda pic online already, and there must be a quota so IMDB go screwed.
you’re right. it was MJ.
it was still really “awesome”.
Anything with Bugs Bunny is awesome, however the rest was aweful. Too bad all the looney tune movies with live action have been really horrible.
WOW I didn’t know women couldn’t get aids.
Yeah, it’s funny. I thought that stereotype died in the 80’s.
No WAM died in the 80’s. Stereotypes never die (similar to Bebe Kids).
We don’t die, we multiply!
You know; I’ve heard that there are ways of contracting Human Immuneodeficient Virus that don’t involve having sechs with either gender, such as getting jabbed by a syringe that had previously been used by/on someone who had HIV.
also if you bite someone and ingest their blood. so vampires really should do a blood workup on their victims prior to feeding.
Drinking blood from a willing partner, though legal, is medically risky.
I don’t think vampires are susceptible to any diseases. Although, the image of a vampire asking you for a blood sample prior to feeding on you is making me giggle a lot.
Don’t knock it ’till you’ve tried it.
USSA,
you can get AIDS in traditional sex as well as several other methods (the instance something touches your ass does not infect you with AIDS and lead to death, if this was the case you’d have died the first time you took a shit)
second, muslims, to my knowledge, are just as anti-gay as their christian peers (yes, peers, you’ll all monotheistic, god damnit, get the fuck along – you’re worshipping the same thing)
third – most gays are not suicide bombers nor are they typically ones to blow up one of their most sacred sites (i mean seriously, a gay person destroying fashion? that might make them into a terrorist but not they wouldn’t do that as a terrorist action).
oo i was approved!
i feel special
(comment awaiting moderation, here’s a “G” version)
USSA,
you can get AIDS in traditional [fornication] as well as several other methods (the instance something touches your [colon] does not infect you with AIDS and lead to death, if this was the case you’d have died the first time you took a [poo])
second, muslims, to my knowledge, are just as anti-gay as their christian peers (yes, peers, you’ll all monotheistic, god damnit, get the [f-word] along – you’re worshipping the same thing)
third – most gays are not suicide bombers nor are they typically ones to blow up one of their most sacred sites (i mean seriously, a gay person destroying fashion? that might make them into a terrorist but not they wouldn’t do that as a terrorist action).
On the other hand, I would totally go see a movie about a gay terrorist cell plotting to blow up Bryant Park during Fashion Week.
Wouldn’t they get distracted by the shoes?
Clearly we need to write the screenplay.
New Sit Com; Akmedoine the Gay Terrorist
Hazim: “We’re going to blow up fashion week”
Akmedoine” “Wait wha? We’re going to blow all the male fashion models?”
Hazim: “Akmedoine, no no no, we’re going to kill the infidels at fashion week”
Akemdoine: “Oh ok. why? I love fashion week. Hedie Clum will be there to release the new line from Project Runway. I bet it’ll be FAB- YOU- LUST!”
It’ll never happen. We can’t get along internally among our respective relgions. How are we gonna get along with anyone else? (We–in general, I get along just fine with people of all faiths.)
coz it’d be boring if we all got along.
Wow, a liberal who completely ignores FACTS but since you’re such an expert on all things liberal and stupid, can you name me ONE well known female who has died of AIDS? Didn’t think so.
Muslims KILL gay people, can you name me one Christian who has killed a gay person in the name of religion? The Muslims have killed probably thousands if not millions. And you say they’re on the same level? Nice job proving you’re a moron.
Amanda Blake (1929–1989) American actress best remembered for her role as Kitty Russell in the television series Gunsmoke.
-
Elizabeth Glaser
Born Elizabeth Meyer
November 11, 1947(1947-11-11)
She contracted HIV very early in the modern AIDS epidemic after receiving an HIV-contaminated blood transfusion in 1981 while giving birth.
There we have at least two. Isn’t it funny how Elizabeth Glaser didn’t even contract the virus via sexual intercourse, let alone homosexual activity? AMAZING!
From Wikipedia:-
Gia Carangi is a Philadelphia native who moves to New York City to become a fashion model and immediately catches the attention of powerful agent Wilhelmina Cooper. Gia’s attitude and beauty help her rise quickly to the forefront of the modelling industry, but her persistent loneliness drives her to experiment with mood-altering drugs like cocaine. She becomes entangled in a passionate affair with Linda, a make-up artist. Their love affair first starts when both pose nude in a photoshoot. However, after a while Linda begins to worry about Gia’s drug use and gives her an ultimatum. Gia chooses the drugs. Failed attempts at reconciliation with Linda and with her mother Kathleen Carangi drive Gia to begin abusing heroin. Although she is eventually able to break her drug habit after much effort, she has already contracted HIV from a needle containing infected blood and dies of complications from AIDS in 1986 at the age of 26.
“can you name me one Christian who has killed a gay person”
Matthew Wayne Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998) was a student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered near Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. He was attacked on the night of October 6–7, 1998 and died at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado, on October 12 from severe head injuries. During the trial, witnesses stated that Shepard was targeted because he was gay.
Thanks Hel.. I was going to say that.
My pleasure. I know there are sooo many more others but I can’t think of them without deep research.
Also, why does it matter if a Christian killed a GAY person?? How about asking us to name ALL the people (in modern history) that were killed by a Christian in the name of religion? I thought that murder was one of the worst, mortal sins and against Christian beliefs.
Well, except the abortion doctors. Jebus says it’s ok to kill them, ’cause they’s BABY KILLERS!
*grabs up pitchfork* KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
*froths*
Ivan, don’t start that. *whacks Ivan across nose with newspaper* Not today. Please?
*cries*
There there Ivan. Where is shortright? shortright come comfort your man. I don’t want you getting jealous. Or bitter troll getting jealous for that matter either.
*hands Ivan a tissue*
Sorry, Ivan. Here *hands over Dark Side cookie* I just don’t have the stomach for another “one of those” awful, slimy threads.
*cuddles* s’ok ivan.
*is cuddled and munches cookie* Works every time…
January 1979; Tennessee Williams was the victim of an assault in Key West, being beaten by five teenage boys. He escaped serious injury. The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister.
In several jail house interviews, Mangum discussed his motive for killing Cummings. He told The Houston Chronicle that he had studied the bible for “thousands and thousands and thousands” of hours, and that God appeared to him in a dream or “visitation” during a prison stay in 2001 and commanded him to kill.
Examples like that only bother me because with so many that believe in a certain God who else is somebody with real mental probelms going to see?
Delusions still come from what the mind knows. It’s either the Christian god or aliens. That doesn’t mean Christians are inherently violent.
neither are muslims they just pervert their faith. I’m not the one claiming entire religions are violent the was for clueless there.
And as far as the baptist minister go, we have no idea what the ad run actually said. For all we know it simply said. “There has been confusion lately….blah…..blah….. we love the sinner and welcome them, but this congregation does not recognize the lifestyle as in accord with God’s plan.”
Now you can agree with that thought or not but it isn’t mean.
I admit I don’t know what the ad said either, but I suspect it’s probably closer to what I said.
It doesn’t matter what that minister’s ad said. It incited people to commit violent, brutal, hateful acts.
With all that frothing, raging hate, I’m guessing…and hoping that you’ll be dead from a stroke in a matter of days. Apparently you’re intolerant of everyone except YOU. Are you REALLY so fvcking stupid to think only gays get AIDS? Honestly? And you have the nerve to call other people morons?
What’s your issue, dude? Not only do you hate gays, but you hate people who hate gays. Who do you LIKE?
you know, i was about to look up some people to disprove what he said but i was beaten to the punch.. like quite a few times. thanks guys (and gals)!
laziness ftw!
[quote]can you name me ONE well known female who has died of AIDS? Didn’t think so.[/quote]
Ok, yur clueless (ironic name, that), you’ve been given the names of two well-known women who died of aids. Where’s your finely crafted riposte?
And now we’re up to three well-known females. He’s looking more and more like his unfortunate, but accurate, name.
@yur:
I didn’t ignore any facts, just stated what should be common knowledge. I mean, hell, the concept that AIDS was a government-created virus to destroy they gay population was a conspiracy theory from ways back (I mean, it’s so totally 90’s, dude, catch up). The fact that other people besides homosexuals was contracting it was evidence enough. Oh, and the fact that it was discovered in Africa as a virus that jumped species.
Not to mention: remember that guy who shot up the Holocaust museum not too long back? He’s just as bad as any muslim terrorist on a jihad.
I don’t think I did much of anything but allow you to show you’re as ignorant as USAA above. Go you.
p.s. just to piss you off a bit – you do realise that Christianity as a relgion has been the cause of millions if not billions of deaths and countless wars? not just homosexuals – peeps of all kind, yo. Just sayin’, you shouldn’t just condemn one religion for something if yours is doing it, too.
The Crusades (and we all know it will go there) were economic wars that the Pope (a man) convinced his followers was necessary. Only a couple of the crusades were as bad as people make them out to be (bad is relative. I just mean that there wasn’t BILLIONS dead) because the Christian population lost interest quick when they figured out they were being used.
ay – i wasn’t just referring to the crusades, but you can also argue that hitler’s holocaut was guided by an extreme interpretation of christian (and nordic) ideals, among other more twisted concepts.
i was addin’ em up, usin “fuzzy math”
I tie that back to just using whatever excuse is convenient and will win the most people over. If you’re crazy you use whatever you know and since most believe in a monotheistic god guess what gets used. That plus Hitler was smart enough to know that he would win nobody over if he said aliens wanted to genocide.
true, i won’t argue that point – religion (any of them) has been used as a political force since it’s inception. no denying it’s an efficient method.
Wa`alykum As-Salaam Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear brother in Islam, we do really appreciate your question, which shows how far you are interested in getting yourself well-aquatinted with Islam and its teachings. May Allah bless your efforts in the pursuit of knowledge!
First of all, it should be clear that this man committed two heinous crimes: 1) homosexuality, and 2) murder. Each crime is sufficient to warrant death penalty. In addition, this man has severed ties of kinship by seducing and killing his nephew.
The Glorious Qur’an is explicit in deciding the Hadd (legal penalty) for the crime of murder, when saying: “O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: …” (Al-Baqarah: 178)
Homosexuality, moreover, is an abomination and a grave sin. In Hadith, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, clarifies the gravity of this abomination by saying: “Allah curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lut” repeating it three times; and he said in another Hadith: “If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers.” Here, he considered homosexuality tantamount to adultery in relation to the Shari’ah punishments because it is an abomination on the one hand and the definition of adultery applies to it on the other hand.
However, death fall is not the sole penalty agreed upon by the Muslim Jurists as a punishment for this crime. The punishment here is controversial due to divergence of views among `Ulama in deducting ruling as regards this case from Shari`ah sources.
Focusing more on the question in point, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh `Abdel Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef, states:
“As regards this case (if genuine), this man committed two heinous crimes, which deserve severe punishment. He is a murderer and homosexual. Besides, he severed ties of kinship by doing such grave sins.
Death penalty (Qisas) is well established by the Qur’an in more than one verse. Allah, Most High, says: “O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: …” (Al-Baqarah: 178)
As to the issue of how the homosexual person is judged in an Islamic State, the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him differed among themselves on this issue, and this led to different views maintained by Muslim Jurists. For example, in the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, death penalty is to be applied. As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment of adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication, while the Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, the anus (a place of impurity) may also be involved while in adultery (and fornication), the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved. Some scholars hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building as a punishment for his crime, but other scholars maintain that he should be imprisoned until death.
Based on the above fact, we can conclude that, the judge is invested with full discretion as to whether this man is to be thrown from a high place or not, as a punishment for his crime. However, if the man survives death fall, the judge has the right to sentence him to death.”
Shedding more light on the legal penalty for homosexuality, Dr. Taha Jaber Al-`Alwani, President of the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and President of the Fiqh Council, states:
“The scholars of this Ummah are in agreement – based on what has been revealed in the Qur’an and what has been authenticated in the Prophetic Tradition (Sunnah)- on prohibiting both behaviors (gayness and lesbianism) because in each of two actions there is an assault on the humanity of a person, destruction of the family and a clash with aims of the Lawgiver, one of which is the establishment of sexual instincts between males and females so as to encourage the institution of marriage.
Islam does not view sexual desire as the main aim of marriage; for marriage is a means to acquire tranquility and to actualize the love and mercy between spouses. Furthermore, it is a means for the survival of human kind and fostering a web of sound relations that aid in building sound families that constitute the smallest units for the society at large; this healthy society being the final aim of Islam.
Actually, humans are not animals controlled by their sexual instincts, answering the call of sexual desires every time it is aroused in them. Rather, it is their responsibility to know how they can orient this craving, which is a trust Allah has implemented in them, both male and female, in addition to the will and power to choose, a blessing Allah has bestowed on humans; all this is what distinguishes them from the rest of the creatures in that they orient their conduct and do what is good.
So, viewing (material) desires as aims in themselves is a deviation from one’s natural disposition and a departure from the natural order. If the trend in the West is to legalize this conduct, it should be noted that such things did not materialize until after religious values had been diluted and had been changed to relative values that glorify individuality and make pleasures as an end and aim.
In Hadith, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, clarifies the gravity of this abomination by saying: “Allah curses the one who does the actions of the people of Lut” repeating it three times; and he said in another Hadith: “If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers.” Here, he considered homosexuality tantamount to adultery in relation to the Shari’ah punishments because it is an abomination on the one hand and the definition of adultery applies to it on the other hand. It has also been narrated from the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that this crime deserves severe punishment more than that of adultery to insure its deterrence and restraint. Verily, the punishment here is the burning of both homosexuals (the actor and acted upon) or stoning them with rocks till death because Allah Most High stoned the people of Lut after demolishing their village.
As for lesbians, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said about them: “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses”. The scholars mentioned that it is incumbent on the authority to enact a reprimand on lesbians that is fitting to the crime committed.
It is true that some of the scholars disagreed with these punishments not because of doubt that these actions constitute a crime, but because of a lack of divine textual stipulation for a worldly punishment. But the actions of the Prophet’s Companions do indicate that in fact this crime has a worldly punishment, to be carried out by those in authority among the Muslims. The story of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq when Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed wrote to him on this matter is famous and can be referenced in many sources.
[The story referred to above goes as follows:
"In his book Fat-h al-Qadir, the famous Hanafi scholar, Ibn al-Humam states:
“Al-Bayhaqi reported in his book Shu`ab al-Iman on the authority of Abu ad-Dunya that Abd al-`Aziz ibn Abi Hazim related from Dawud ibn Bakr who related from Muhammad ibn al-Mukadir the following:
“Khalid Ibn al-Walid wrote to Abu Bakr [seeking the legal ruling] concerning a man with whom another man had sexual intercourse. Thereupon, Abu Bakr gathered the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and sought their opinion. `Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was the strictest of all, saying, ‘Only one nation disobeyed Allah by committing such sin and you know how Allah dealt with them. I see that we should burn the man with fire.’ The Companions unanimously agreed on this.” This incident is also mentioned by al-Waqidi under the subject of apostasy at the end of the section on the apostasy of Bani Salim.]”
OK, now quote me the Bible verse that says the punishment for being a homo is the death penalty and then you can call them equal.
MORON
Dude, I think taking the entire bottle of ampthetamines was a bad idea. Maybe you need to lay down and try to relax until the paramedics arrive.
*opens empty bottle of amphetamines* GodDAMNIT! I JUST bought those!!!
Hmmm, for somebody that hates Muslims yur sure can cite the Qu’ran pretty well. (Or can do a pretty decent web search). Maybe he’s a self-loathing Muslim (or gay man).
I don’t hate Muslims.
But I’m pissed that this guy took my drugs.
Will this begin to make up for it? *hands out another pitcher of Stoli and lemonade*
*drinks deeply* Ah.. Thanks. That will go well with the valiums I ate earlier.
Is it bad that I took a few of those?
Of course not Rando. What’s mine is yours.
*noms amphetamines, cleans entire house*
*drowses on valiums and stoli* Nice work there, Rando Young Bean.
or of course a self loathing gay muslim
COOL STORY BRO !!
Well, I can tell you; if he inches it in like a gentleman, then taking it up the ass IS great.
ROFLMAO!! OMG, Dr. Pepper through nose is painful.
Sorry about that..
-is a gentleman troll-
You sure are bitter love. You’re especially gentlemanly with the candle wax and riding crop.
and the nacho cheese!
Anal sex for a male can stimulate the prostate which can induce orgasms without touching the penis and prostate stimulation has also been shown to reduce the risks of prostate cancer. And it feels good too. so that’s what so great about it.
Thanks Care Troll. A very correct and PHYSIOLOGICAL reason for male anal intercourse.
I like to share my knowledge. What can I say?
Knowledge is power. Fo sho.
And knowing is half the battle.
PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!
The other half is getting into those damn rubber pants.
ussa, i desperately hope that was an awkwardly failed attempt at humor, b/c you sound like a bitter, ill-mannered sulky spoiled brat. the people in the picture blasting homosexuality are NOT Christians- they’re selfish narrow-minded hypocrites who give real Christians a bad name. also, do the world a favor and get the tree out of your anus.
Why is it that when I read the combined signs I hear it in Tony the Tiger’s voice? “Homo sex is grrrrrr-eat!”
This really doesn’t need a caption to be full of win and cookies, though.
Tony the Tiger has been the advertising mascot for Kellogg’s Frosties (suger-frosted cornflakes) in the UK since at least the 1960s.
(in case anyone lacks the cultural base to understand the reference)
He advertises for them in the US as well.
Seriously, with a name like Tony the Tiger, wouldn’t you think he bats for them as well?
Tony: “Guh-ROWELL!!”
His stage name is Antoine le Tigre. He’s faaaaabulous.
He tried painting himself white so he could work with Siegfried and Roy, but it never worked out.
Did you know that the voice of Tony the Tiger died recently? Tony Ravenscroft.
I didn’t know that. I has a sad.
wasn’t he also the voice of the grinch?
Yep
seeing as how kellogg’s is based in battle creek, michigan and i know lots of people who live in BC… i know the GIRL who currently wears the tony costume when they do promotions and stuff.
she hates the costume. apparently it stinks. badly.
can you imagine how many people wore it before her? Also thanks for ruining my image of tony the tiger. Next time I’m driving through battle creek and see him/her I’ll know it’s a girl inside
He’s always been girl inside.
Tony the transgender tiger?
Still kinda fits my claim, possibly.
this might help with your image: she’s got HUGE boobs. like, HUGE.
Huge boobs always help any image.
-daydreams of tony the tiger with whopping whoppers- ……Ewwwwwww
Now I want a Whopper.
bitter troll has whopper for charro- offers whopper with cheese- extra cheese
ZOMG I love cheese.
What Goes On In Rando’s Brain:
5%–family
3%–sports
2%–other stuff
90%–boobs
You have my attention.
that’s what i thought…
If tony has large boobs then the pic in my link worries me
Gay furries. Back away from the internet. you’ve spent too much time here.
Lol, damn christian fuckers.
Westboro Baptist Church does not equal Christian. If you’re looking for another reason to hate Christians, look elsewhere.
*is actually puzzled* What makes them not a Christian? Baptists are Christians, are they not?
The people just throw the name baptist on their church. They have no membership in the baptists organizations. It’s my understanding that they register their church and always get turned down. They don’t hold loving beliefs.
Not being accepted as members of anything doesn’t mean you aren’t what you say you are, does it? I mean – if they think they are Christians, although their interpretation of what that means isn’t very modern, surely they are Christian?
Well Christian = Christ like
Christ =/= hateful and judgmental
Westboro =/= Christian
Then many Christians are not. By the definition of Christian as believing in Jesus as the son of God and the saviour of the world (sorry if I get anything wrong there, just a direct translation) they might very well be Christian.
That didn’t seem clear to me. I’ll try though
Christ like means to follow in his footsteps, not actually be omnipotent. I assume they just say christian to gain some tax status so they can spew their hate.
You said being hateful and judgmental is to not be Christian, hence my “then many Christians are not” (Christian),
I understand what Christ-like would mean. Another question is exactly which kind of Christ-likeness to strive for? The activist who drove mongers out of the temple, for instance? I see it quite likely that quite a few people who commit atrocities in the name of their religion have some internal justification for it that means it is not up to anyone else to condemn them as not being of said religion. (Christians would leave that particular condemnation up to God anyway, right?)
I am not saying that any Christian must huggle and cuddle the WBC and go “one of us, one of us”, but I think the “They’re not REAL Christians”-comments are … short-sighted? Is that the proper word? :p
(And Argh, I am not saying that Jesus driving mongers out of a temple is an atrocity. I skipped a few sentences there and it turned out a bit too curt. Sorry.)
They just need to eat some ecstasy.
They’re nothing but pretenders. The might claim to be Christian, but they’re not really Christians.
They certainly consider themselves to be Christians. Maybe they’re just really bad at it?
No they just aren’t Christians.
Who decides that though? I mean, don’t THEY think they are Christians?
and the crazy man in the loony bin thinks he is a zebra, dont mean he is
Well, I’m certainly not going to argue that point, but I’m not trying to make light of it bitter dear.
Certainly the WBC may exhibit some symptoms of delusional behaviour, but to label them actually insane is something we’re just not able to do.
If a person who reads the Bible thinks they are a Christian and follows the bible as they understand it, how are they not a Christian? Is all I mean.
to follow teachings of christ is to be christain, like follow teachings of buddah is to be buddist
so the question is, do they follow the teachings of christ?
But the interpretations of the teachings of Christ are varied, especially when taken out of 2000 years of context.
Well, to be honest, every Christian is going to interpret things differently. Everyone has different beliefs, no matter what they might say. I think it’s very possible there are a LOT of Christians (not just WBC) that claim to be Christian but really aren’t. Everyone interprets the Bible a little differently, even those who take every word literally. I tend to have a slightly more radical view in that I just concentrate on Jesus’ teachings and lean away from the rest of it. Many people would say I’m not a real Christian for that. I think that make my Christianity pretty simple. My wife has a friend who thinks we’re not “real” Christians because we’re not fundies like she is.
Ultimately, according to Christian beliefs, it doesn’t matter what Christians think of each other because the only one who can actually judge us is God.
That I can agree with.
I can think I’m Mexican, but I’m not really Mexican. Other Mexicans can tell I’m not a Mexican. I don’t know why I picked Mexican, but I hope you get the point. Just saying you are something doesn’t make you one of them.
But. When it comes to beliefs, who can say that someone else believes wrong? I am sure there are protestants who think Catholics aren’t Christians and vice versa.
(When I say I am sure, that is for a rather faint value of “sure”.)
Technically, we can’t. The only one who can judge who is a real Christian and who isn’t is God. That being said, there are some basics in the Christian faith, and WBC doesn’t follow ANY of them. Their belief structure is based entirely on hatred and fear and it goes against EVERYTHING Christ taught. Some might argue that those before or after Jesus would at least lend a little legitimacy to what they do, but when you get down to it, they don’t do ANYTHING even remotely Christian.
Well ok then. I guess I’ll have to defer to your knowledge then Rando.
“That being said, there are some basics in the Christian faith, and WBC doesn’t follow ANY of them.”
Do they believe in Jesus as the son of God and that he died for humankind’s sins? Do they believe (ferociously) in the God as the Bible describes him?
As far as I can tell the answer is yes to those two. They read the Bible in a very oldfashioned, firey and brimstoney manner, which is quite a rare Christianity in modern times. I am not sure that trends in what the most common view of what it is to be a Christian should be the only right one.
Do they attend their Church, play to their God, pray for their loved ones? (This I have no idea about, really, therefore asking if someone knows.) Do they see their actions as a fight to do God’s work?
Is it not at all the beliefs, the faith and the religious reasoning behind the actions that matter, and only the actions themselves?
But what if you grew up in a Mexican family, learned all these teachings you were told were traditional Mexican teachings, went to schools where you were accepted as a Mexican, and then one day someone said “You’re not Mexican, you’re white?” Would you believe them?
Or better, what if you grew up in isolation, just you and your parents. And they taught you red is green and green is red. And you grew up all your life believing this, and suddenly someone told you you’re wrong?
Just because you don’t know something is wrong, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. The WBC may think they’re right and may not know any better, but that doesn’t make them any more right.
It would be the equivalent of being raised in a family that you’ve been told is a traditional Mexican family when you’ve really been taught Russian culture the whole time. Not to say Russian is evil, but it’s not Mexican.
I still think it’s in the eye of the beholder.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians “not really a Christian” were to vanish, there’d be no Christians left.
-gasp- THE RAPTURE!
Alien abduction would be real??!!!
Hahaha, I like this guy! He looks happy, and fun to be around, and he clearly has a good sense of humor.
“My choice is what I choose to do,
and if I’m causing no harm, it shouldn’t bother you. Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you’re causin’ no harm, then you’re alright with me.”
Caption fail, photo win!
Actually reminds me of somebody I used to know…I had to look close before I decided it wasn’t him. He had a pretty good sense of humor so it wouldn’t have surprised me too much.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” (Gandhi)
That’s really how I feel about all this… And I know that Gandhi’s context was a different one, but that doesn’t mean I can’t interpret it in my own way. Why condemn someone for loving someone else? There can never be enough love, and if any god forbids that, I can’t possibly understand why someone would worship them. I would also advice that intelligent people start making their own decisions according to their conscience, instead of adhering to texts they don’t even know in their original version… Btw, did you know that for quite a while Moses was depicted with horns due to a mistranslation?
Did you know that for quite a while, Moses was forced to wear horns, because God missed the brain when attempting to augment it, instead fortifying Moses’ skull?
True story.
I was there.
lol, that’s the best reason i’ve read in a long time for his horns.
and just because i don’t feel like hunting down the right thread here’s a quote to stir the pot:
“I am not sure exactly what Heaven will be like. But I do know that when we die and it comes the time for God to judge us, He will not ask, “How many good things have you done in your life?” Rather, He will ask, “How much love did you put into what you did?” – Mother Teresa
and yes, i’m a pagan, but there are some things that are universal…
I would really love to let these guys (all 3 of them) try this stunt in NOLA in the rainbow district. Pinky boy will be a hero and the other two would probably be… enlightened.
Back where I come from we call doing it the hibbity dibbity
with the jello pudding pop
And that is why Ted Haggard is no longer welcome.
amazing that this post has the most comments xD
Nice post – kitchen pictures ..Keep Posting– Tip: Keep your post active- commenting helps it – Ron kitchen pictures
^^ This just makes me happy.
599th comment! and this picture is made of epic win!
I love that guy. 600 posts? Also the number of times I’d like to kick Brad Lidge in the nuts. Shoulda started Lee. Shoulda started Lee.
To be fair, 70% of Posts are people complaining about their skin color and/or talking about what movie they saw on the weekend
I think the funniest part is those two rednecks don’t even notice! I find that ironic.
Wow. Look at the size of his…megaphone.
And the “Nerdy Kids who pwnt Phelps” Award for awesomeness in the face of asshattery goes to… pink-shirted guy with sign! We salute you, sir!