J.C.. Oh yeah. I always figured Deadwood was a hell of a lot more accurate and realistic representation of the real American west than Bonaza or Gunsmoke, silly shows like those.
On May 17, 4:05 pm, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > You have to remember the real Al Swearingen was even more ruthless > than the one in the show. They actually tamed him down for the > program. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Swearengen > > On May 17, 1:19 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > J.C. > > Yeah, I'd have to go with Al. Tony would end up getting fed to Wu's > > pigs. > > > On May 17, 9:13 am, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That would be a tough one to call, but I'd go with Swearingen. > > > > On May 17, 7:53 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > KIT, > > > > > I have all 6 seasons of the Sopranos in my DVD collection. Will be > > > > getting Deadwood soon. > > > > So who would win a fight to the death between Al Swearinger and Tony > > > > Soprano? > > > > > On May 16, 11:35 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sopranos.....But I liked Deadwood too!!1 > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:01 PM, J.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > DEADWOOD!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > On May 16, 4:01 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > I gave you the verses. Don't take my word for it, look them up and > > > > > > > come to a rational conclusion yourself. > > > > > > > Hell man, i thought all conservative had a King James version of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Bible around their necks on a gold chain. :-) > > > > > > > > That's not too far, maybe I'll do that if I go down and see "T". I > > > > > > > AIN"T going out on a boat with a bunch of conservatives though. I > > > > > > > saw > > > > > > > that episode of the Sopranos where Pussy got his "early > > > > > > > retirement". > > > > > > > BTW, aren't you a friend of Bill W.? > > > > > > > > Which was better "The Sopranos" or "Deadwood"? > > > > > > > > On May 16, 3:50 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As stated, J.C. is our resident Biblical scholar.....I am not, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > never > > > > > > > > claimed to be..... > > > > > > > > > At any rate, come on down!! Atlantic Beach is up around > > > > > > > > Jacksonville, > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > is less than three hours from Tampa Town!! We'd love to have > > > > > > > > ya!! > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Hollywood < > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > > Keith, Keith, Keith, > > > > > > > > > > Let's look at this a bit more closely. > > > > > > > > > > Matthew 10:5: It says "What God has joined together......" I > > > > > > > > > see no > > > > > > > > > mention of specific genders. Interestingly enough that > > > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > > > verse is commonly used to "prove" divorce is a sin by the > > > > > > > > > Catholic > > > > > > > > > Curch as well as others. > > > > > > > > > > Corinthians 1:7 dosen't say jack-shit about marriage. > > > > > > > > > > All the verses you quote have to do with how to treat each > > > > > > > > > other as a > > > > > > > > > married couple. No mention of genders. Actually , most of > > > > > > > > > this area > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the Bible is usually used as a rationalization for women to be > > > > > > > > > controlled by men. Ephesians 5:21:23 "You wives must sunbit > > > > > > > > > to your > > > > > > > > > husbands leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord. > > > > > > > > > For a > > > > > > > > > husband is in charge of his wife in the same way Christ is in > > > > > > > > > charge > > > > > > > > > of his body the church. So you wives must willingly obey your > > > > > > husbands > > > > > > > > > in everything, just as the church obeys Christ." End quote. > > > > > > > > > > It don't work friend, tried MANY times to tell my first wife > > > > > > > > > that I > > > > > > > > > was God so far as she was concerned. She wasn't buying that. > > > > > > > > > > C'mon, damn near anything can be "proven" or at least > > > > > > > > > rationalized by > > > > > > > > > the Bible if you try hard enough. What? You didn't think I > > > > > > > > > had a > > > > > > Bible > > > > > > > > > and could read? > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 9:51 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Holly, Holly, Holly, > > > > > > > > > > > I have already given the verses that point out why the Old > > > > > > Testament is > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > to be taken literally, and why all of these Moonbats who > > > > > > > > > > sling up > > > > > > > > > Biblical > > > > > > > > > > verses from the Old Testament as if Christians are somehow > > > > > > > > > > facing a > > > > > > > > > dilemma > > > > > > > > > > or a conundrum are misplaced. > > > > > > > > > > > If you are referring to the verses which demonstrate that > > > > > > > > > > marriage > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > between a man and a woman, here are a few: > > > > > > > > > > > "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has > > > > > > > > > > joined > > > > > > > > > together, > > > > > > > > > > let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6). > > > > > > > > > > > There are several epistles written by the apostle Paul that > > > > > > > > > > refer > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > marriage and how believers are to operate within the > > > > > > > > > > marriage > > > > > > > > > relationship. > > > > > > > > > > One such passage is 1 Corinthians chapter 7, and another is > > > > > > Ephesians > > > > > > > > > > 5:22-33. When studied together, these two passages provide > > > > > > > > > > biblical > > > > > > > > > > principles that form a framework for a God-pleasing marriage > > > > > > > > > relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > gave > > > > > > > > > himself > > > > > > > > > > up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). "In this same way, husbands > > > > > > > > > > ought to > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > > their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves > > > > > > himself. > > > > > > > > > After > > > > > > > > > > all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares > > > > > > > > > > for it, > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > Christ does the church” (Ephesians 5:28-29). “For this > > > > > > > > > > reason a man > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and > > > > > > > > > > the two > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > become one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31). > > > > > > > > > > > In Hebrews 13:4; "Give honor to marriage, and remain > > > > > > > > > > faithful to > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral > > > > > > > > > > and those > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > commit adultery." > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Hollywood < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > > > > So, give me the verse in the New testament that supports > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > position. I can wait while you ask J.C. as neither one of > > > > > > > > > > > us are > > > > > > Bible > > > > > > > > > > > scholars. > > > > > > > > > > > > We both realise i'm sure that people on the both sides > > > > > > > > > > > use the > > > > > > Bible > > > > > > > > > > > to justify their political/social attitudes and > > > > > > > > > > > cheerfully ignore > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > it says when convient. You in this case seem to want to > > > > > > > > > > > use it to > > > > > > > > > > > justify your position. All i'm asking is for the verse(s) > > > > > > > > > > > in said > > > > > > > > > > > Bible your using as your authority. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 8:55 am, Keith In Tampa > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, J.C. is literally much more qualified than I, to > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects of the Bible!! I am a rookie as compared to > > > > > > > > > > > > her, and > > > > > > although > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > don't always agree with J.C. in her viewpoints, I > > > > > > > > > > > > concede that > > > > > > she is > > > > > > > > > far > > > > > > > > > > > > more qualified to talk about Biblical passages than I!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > A couple of points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, the reason that I even delved into the New > > > > > > > > > > > > Testament, is > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > there is this trend by far left extremists to sling up > > > > > > > > > > > > passages > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Old > > > > > > > > > > > > Testament, which are conflicting, sound hateful, and > > > > > > > > > > > > provide a > > > > > > > > > conundrum > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > one were to take the passages literally. My point in > > > > > > > > > > > > citing > > > > > > the New > > > > > > > > > > > > Covenants, was to demostrate that nothing in the Old > > > > > > > > > > > > Testament > > > > > > is to > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > taken literally, as per Christ's words. Christ > > > > > > > > > > > > explicitly > > > > > > preached: > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > spiritual equality of men and women but not of violently > > > > > > overthrowing > > > > > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > > > > > > practices that differentiate male and female roles. > > > > > > > > > > > > Christ > > > > > > preached a > > > > > > > > > > > high > > > > > > > > > > > > degree of tolerance and non-judgment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, as stated, (and I see that you just > > > > > > > > > > > > posted again, > > > > > > so I > > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > > > mean to be redundant) marriage is clearly between a > > > > > > > > > > > > man and a > > > > > > woman. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Hollywood < > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blah, blah, blah, so give me a verse in the New > > > > > > > > > > > > > Testament > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually defines/describes marriage so I can find a > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bible and > > > > > > read > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There must be at least one. After all ,Jesus's first > > > > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > miracle > > > > > > > > > > > > > was turning water into wine at a wedding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 10:18 pm, Keith In Tampa > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey J.C.!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (LOL, Here We Go Again!!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, I am not a Biblical scholar, as you are!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > that, > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > note > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
