BleedBlue12

Is it strange that my first thought was "Don't worry, the people posting over at 4chan and reddit who are responsible for the continued operation of the internet won't let this happen."?

:lol: Not at all. I thought the same thing.

You have a verse to back up your comment on Homosexuality. Or is it your view, which is fine.

Larry, when a gay man isn't thinking about or acting upon his desires, is he sinning at that time?

I just have a hard time believing people choose to be gay. Given the social stigma it brings and hardships a lot of gays endure, WHY on Earth would anyone WANT that lifestyle?

 

I would also contend that you can tell early on in many people's lives if they are gay. There are some that exhibit characteristics a heterosexual child would not normally exhibit early on in life. This being well before today's media driven society.

I am not arguing your point about whether or not being gay is inherent or not, but I will argue what you say in the first sentence with this:

Why on Earth would anyone want the lifestyle of being with an abusive spouse? Some people do choose to lead unhealthy, hard lifestyles. As for why they do it, I don't have a clue.

I agree, but I'm saying I have a difficult time believing that God would create someone who's entire life was a sin. Hence, I don't know if I feel being homosexual is a sin or not. It's a tough one for me.

I understand what you're saying. Here's the way I see it:

Being a homosexual isn't a sin. A man lusting after a man is a sin, in the same way that a man lusting after a woman is. Homosexual intercourse is a sin in the same way that pre-marital sex is a sin.

Gay people do not constantly think about other men and have homosexual intercourse. Their entire life is not a sin, however they do sin their entire lives. We all do though. There is no reason to make a distinction between the two. A gay man sins no more than I do, just in different ways.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I've grown up always believing it was, however I also am firmly of the belief that one does not choose to be a homosexual, that it is a genetic makeup. If that's the case, I have an extremely difficult time thinking God would intentionally create people genetically disposed to sinning. :idunno:

Every single human being on the planet is genetically disposed to sinning.

I'm really not much of a reader, mostly because I don't feel I ever have the time for it. I think I am going to try to read "The Hunger Games" over the holidays though. Has anyone read these? Are they a quick read? How did you like them?

I think Bama actually wins this one 13-10.

I'm having a really hard time with my RB and WR decisions this week.

 

Pick 1 - Michael Bush (vs. Detroit) or Shonn Greene (at Philadelphia)

Pick 2 - Mike Wallace (at San Francisco), Dez Bryant (at Tampa Bay), Victor Cruz (vs. Washington)

 

The RB question is only a question because of how well Greene has been running lately. Philly doesn't have a great rushing defense, but neither does Detroit. I think Bush will get the larger workload. When I submitted my lineup on Sunday, I had Greene penciled in, but I'm starting to think it should be Bush.

 

The WR question has been a question for weeks now. Ever since I've picked up Cruz, he's been this blight that I couldn't make myself start. Well, I started him last week, over Wallace, and that worked out as Dez did better than both of them (thanks to one loooong TD) and Cruz and Wallace were equivalent. I had both Julio Jones and Nate Washington who did better, but no way I start either of them. This week, I currently have Bryant and Cruz going. I know I'm playing with fire if I bench Wallace, but I don't really like an injured Big Ben throwing to him. Once he got hurt the other day, I don't think Wallace had a single catch.

 

What say you?

Tough decisions to be honest...

I do expect a good game from Greene, but the safer pick is Bush. I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either. Greene's been running with a purpose in recent weeks. I see no reason for that to stop, as the Jets are making that final playoff push.

The WR question is impossible to answer. Seriously, those are 3 really good receivers. Miles Austin is back this week, so does that hurt Dez any? A trio of Austin, Dez, and Robinson is LETHAL. The problem is the majority of the offense could go through any of them, but I fully expect Dez to get his. I say roll a die and see which one to sit. :lol:

I'm not giving you an actual answer, because I know whoever I pick to sit will have the best week of them all.

Does anyone have a Turtle Beach headset? My girlfriend is asking for suggestions on what I want and I'm considering telling her to get me this. Would like some reviews first though.

I agree. However, every candidate's past will be used against him/her.

 

Secondly, before anyone starts yelling left-wing agenda I heard of this story yesterday while in the car listening to Sean Hannity. He was really ripping Paul.

I have no doubt about that...

How does a candidate's personal past affect your decision in who to vote for, if you don't mind my asking? For example, does it really bother you if a candidate has cheated on their wife? Are these factors as important as their political past?

Here's a couple of cool bonus features the Beats come with:

Built-in Mic for Hands-Free Calls and Online Chats

ControlTalk's built-in mic lets you talk hands-free on your iPhone or music phone. It works with online voice or video chats on iPod® touch or iPhone®.

Control iPod and iPhone the Easy Way

ControlTalk™ gives you on-cable playback control of your iPod or iPhone, including pause, next track and volume.

Went with the $179 white Dre Solos. Not the $400 Pro ones that she undoubtedly would have preferred and were "definitely worth the money", but think she'll be happy. She also recommended we get the higher grade iPad because that, too, is apparently well worth the added expense.

I have no doubt she will be happy with the Solos. Much less bulky, more streamlined appearance. From what I can tell, the sound quality is essentially the same as well.

If she doesn't approve, you can always pull the old man card and act like you didn't know there was a difference.

I was always under the impression Jesus spoke in parables quite a bit. Especially when he talked about a rich man entering heaven and stated it would be harder than a camel trying to go through the eye of the needle. I have never heard that he meant an actual needle, rather he was referencing a small gate.

This is a very good point as well. If the son of God utilizes parables, why can't some of the Bible be in the form of a parable as well?

Ever seen a good God debate? All of the ones I've seen the religious scholar or priest always concedes if you don't believe all of the bible, or at the very least the NT you don't believe Jesus is the son of God. Granted I've only seen about 10 but I wholeheartedly agree with that. I just don't think you can pick and choose true bible stories.

It isn't so much picking and choosing, but rather interpreting it in a different way. I don't see how believing that God actually created the world over a much longer period of time than 7 days is changing the message. I do believe that the stuff in the NT is to be taken literally, as they are actual accounts written down by those present at the time. However, I have not read all of it so I am not worthy of a debate on the subject.

^ MJ, I have had similar struggles. However, I trust the wisdom of God to do the right thing. Just having faith that he is never wrong is enough to keep my worries about this issue subdued.

I'm guessing he'd be in the same boat as Beckham and would sit out until second semester of next season? He's definitely a good player and I would love to see him at UK. Anything on why he wants to leave Pitt?

I was just pointing out that it's all or none IMO. If you believe Jesus is the son of God you can't pick and choose truths in the bible IMO.

Why? Why can't some stories in the bible be parables?

I'm wondering the same thing. Are you saying it is not Christian to believe that not everything in the Bible is meant in the literal sense? I can honestly say that is a view I've never come across before and am quite interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Which a few of you have already proven. ^

This "news" does not affect my vote one bit. I am voting based off of what I know, and what I know is that Ron Paul has always been firm in his policies and they are policies that I agree with. What I know is that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the least likely to flip flop on issues once in office.

I was simply stating that the media does have a huge effect on the outcomes of elections, simply because a majority of the population is too casual in their political interest. They don't put the time and effort into researching candidates to make an educated decision. They vote based off of what the media tells them to do.

Very likely. I'm only hesitant because I'm unsure about the six days of creation.

 

There are two things that I believe give the impression that the world is older than it is: 1) I believe the flood is literal & that the devastation it created altered the face of the planet. 2) I believe God created things with age already on them. Adam, I believe, was created as an adult. On the day he was created, he was only one-day-old. But he appeared much older than that, because he was created with age on him. Same is true with everything else in creation. It's appears older than it is, in part, because it was aged at birth.

So you believe that the story of creation is to be taken literally? Why is that? Is it not possible that the six days of creation represent a much larger time period than six literal days, over which all of what science tells us has happened actually occurred?

Let's play along and say there was a ghostwriter. Are we to really believe Mr Paul and his staff let his name go on it without checking its content?

 

I didnt come to town on a turnip truck.

Do I think it's possible that Ron Paul didn't read completely through every newsletter released under his name? Yes I believe it is POSSIBLE.

Is it likely? Probably not, hence my saying that I want to believe him. I didn't say I do believe him.

I also think it's possible for a person's views on a subject to change with time. I believe people who are racist can overcome that racism. Nothing I have heard from Ron Paul in the recent past communicates racism to me. Again, it is possible that he hides that fact. However, I personally believe that he is not racist. In the past? There's a chance that he was.

None of this really matters though, because regardless of what you or I believe, if the media gets a hold of this information then he is done. People are far too easily swayed by what the media says, whether it has substance or not.

I never have and never will understand why people get so upset about these things. Christians don't NEED public prayers to speak with God. They don't NEED nativity scenes in school. They don't NEED the 10 Commandments in front of a public building, or a cross in the school hallway. How does the restriction of any of these things affect you personally, mountain ref? If you want to pray, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. If you want to watch or participate in a nativity scene, I know many a church that put on that production.

Some people get upset over the term Christmas. That is fine with me. It doesn't stop me from referring to the holiday as Christmas. In the future, I will raise a family and I will teach them what Christmas is really about. That is my job, not the government's.

This is a nation of religious freedom, and you are free to worship as you please. I have yet to see how any of these examples of so called "Christian restriction" affect your ability to be a Christian.

BTW, I am a devout Christian and very proud of my beliefs. I will witness to anyone I see in need of it. I will not force my beliefs and rituals upon them though. If I want to participate in group worship, there are several places I can go to do so. It doesn't have to be in class or at a sporting event. No matter what the government does to appease the non-believers, it will never affect my personal beliefs or how I share them with my family and friends.

Relating more to the initial post in this thread, I do believe the government could use a greater sense of morality and common sense. Morality isn't Christianity though.

I don't buy into the seven literal days as we know it, and I don't buy the insanity that would forward the idea that Dinosaur Dan hopped upon his trusty brontosaurus steed as the first Texas outlaw (or, as some would have it, the God planted dino skeletons as a means of testing our faith in the 6,000-year timeline.

 

Those first seven days were millions of years in our time, but a blink of an eye in God's eternal timeline. It's why science/evolution and God can be reconciled with one another and don't have to be an either/or proposition.

Apparently, Jim and I share the same beliefs on this subject. By looking at it this way, there is no reason for science to discount religion and vice versa. The two can work together.

He'll play quite a bit IMO.

 

I see them playing Billups and Paul together a lot. He'll be the next in line IMO.

 

Any chance they cut ties with Mo?

Do you think Bledsoe will play mostly at the point or at SG?

I actually bought my little sister a pair of Beats Solos for Christmas this year. Price on Amazon is $179. The sound quality really is quite incredible, and believe me when I say that noise canceling technology is NOT a marketing ploy. The technology allows you to listen to music at a lower level without having to hear distractions of the world around you. As others have said, an imitation will fall short in her eyes.

I'd go with the Beats Solos... Half the price, same brand, same quality as the $400 pair. Personally, I think they look better as well.

I'm in the semi's of my $$ league. I've got some options at RB and WR this week.

 

RB

Felix Jones

Ryan Grant

Steven Jackson

Ray Rice

Pierre Thomas

 

WR

Welker

Miles Austin

Laurent Robinson

Lance Moore

Johnny Knox

 

We start 2 RB's, 2 WR's and flex from those groups.

 

Right now, leaning towards Rice, Jones, Jackson, Welker and Robinson. Anyone see anything better?

 

TE - Jimmy Graham or Antonio Gates?

I've got the same problem with Austin and Robinson. Will Austin's return affect Robinson's numbers?