Anti-Semitism In France!

[Wheetsin 714]

An epispasm sounds like what I gave myself lastnight. :rolleyes

For the body shots we need a volunteer - preferrably a man (or Angelina Jolie) with no chest hair (that applies to Angelina Jolie too).

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

An epispasm sounds like what I gave myself lastnight. :rolleyes

For the body shots we need a volunteer - preferrably a man (or Angelina Jolie) with no chest hair (that applies to Angelina Jolie too).

And how do you know that?

[BJean 16]

Ok we need logs for the fire, kindling and matches maybe we can siphon some gas out of the car to start the fire, so we better bring a hose, at least a 15 footer. Any of you able to suck real good? So you can start the siphon, I mean.

Ok I think I have everything here. We should meet in the parking lot and who has an SUV so we can get everything in?

Do you think we should bring a tent in case with any luck we'll pass out and spend the night? Yeah. That could happen especially with the amount of booze I'm bringing. So we probably should put in a little cook stove and some pans and food for Breakfast. Any of youse bandsters can't eat eggs?

Oooh. I just had a thought...if we're going to spend the night, shouldn't we bring a mattress of some sort? Yeah? Well, I guess we should bring our own blankets and pillows. No sense roughing it.

All set? PART-EE PART-EE PART-EE PART-EE. Oh wait a minute. I forgot something, I have to go to bed and get some sleep because we're looking for office space tomorrow. Darn. How disappointing. Well Wheetsin, let's just say we partied and celebrated your one year in spirit! It was some good time, I'll tell you! And the best thing was that none of us got hurt - nobody got cut or swallowed gasoline, or choked on a pineapple rind. It was all good.

Nite ya'll.

[BJean 16]

P.S. Wheetsin tomorrow would you promise to tell me what an epispasm is? I'm not sure but I think I may want one. Um kay?

[Wheetsin 714]

Oy vey, you got me, and I stand corrected! I was kind of having two conversations in one. With myself, of course. Lucifer the light bringer, Day Star, Son of Dawn, shining star of the dawn, helel, etc. and a conversation I had earlier in the day (with a good christian friend) about some OT scholars who really do believe Satan should not be associated with evil: Some say that Satan was originally not considered evil but gradually became identified with his unpleasant functions. According to this approach, Satan is still God's servant. There is much in the Book of Job that tends to support this view. Satan appears only in the first two chapters and then disappears. Some believe the first two chapters were added much later, for in the last chapter we read: ". . . they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" (42:11).

[BJean 16]

P.S.S. If Ron were to crash the party, can someone make sure he gets one of those Brain drinks that Wheetsin knows about? It's worth a shot, isn't it?

[Wheetsin 714]

I'm borrowing this:

To expose the glans was considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both. This combination of attitudes could be—and often was—devastating for circumcised Jews. Enjoying oneself in a Greek gymnasium or Roman bath, where nudity was de rigueur, was a popular and stylish pastime. Here politics was discussed and business deals concluded. Athletic contests and exhibitions were also conducted in the nude. Participation in athletics was often a prerequisite for social advancement. Yet a circumcised penis effectively precluded this participation.

Consequently, for hundreds of years some Jews underwent a surgical procedure known as epispasm—an operation that "corrected" a circumcised penis. Some might call it circumcision in reverse. From references and allusions to the procedure in classical and rabbinical literature, it appears that epispasm reached its peak of popularity in the first century C.E.

The New Testament reveals bitter conflicts over circumcision among the followers of Jesus, conflicts expressed also in attitudes towards epispasm practiced by Jews. Paul, who thinks circumcision useless, nevertheless forbids epispasm: "Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision," he advises the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:18).

Numerous written sources from the second century B.C.E. to the early sixth century C.E. speak about epispasm and attitudes toward it.

[...]

Epispasm on a circumcised penis required a somewhat more difficult operation: The surgeon would cut around the glans freeing the sheath of skin surrounding the shaft of the penis, pull the skin forward and dress the wound carefully so that the skin would reattach to the glans leaving a foreskin. At a time before effective anesthesia, a man inclined to try this procedure had Celsus' assurance that it was "not so very painful."

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Congrats Wheetsin.

I have to look up some info on HR800 and then hit the sack.

I have been burning the candle at both ends lately and my health will begin to suffer if i don't cut back.

G'night all.

[Wheetsin 714]

If I had waited 6 more minutes, it would be tomorrow.

I need not stay up so late (multitasking while I do homework).

Eekgad.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I'm borrowing this:

To expose the glans was considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both. This combination of attitudes could be—and often was—devastating for circumcised Jews. Enjoying oneself in a Greek gymnasium or Roman bath, where nudity was de rigueur, was a popular and stylish pastime. Here politics was discussed and business deals concluded. Athletic contests and exhibitions were also conducted in the nude. Participation in athletics was often a prerequisite for social advancement. Yet a circumcised penis effectively precluded this participation.

Consequently, for hundreds of years some Jews underwent a surgical procedure known as epispasm—an operation that "corrected" a circumcised penis. Some might call it circumcision in reverse. From references and allusions to the procedure in classical and rabbinical literature, it appears that epispasm reached its peak of popularity in the first century C.E.

The New Testament reveals bitter conflicts over circumcision among the followers of Jesus, conflicts expressed also in attitudes towards epispasm practiced by Jews. Paul, who thinks circumcision useless, nevertheless forbids epispasm: "Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision," he advises the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:18).

Numerous written sources from the second century B.C.E. to the early sixth century C.E. speak about epispasm and attitudes toward it.

[...]

Epispasm on a circumcised penis required a somewhat more difficult operation: The surgeon would cut around the glans freeing the sheath of skin surrounding the shaft of the penis, pull the skin forward and dress the wound carefully so that the skin would reattach to the glans leaving a foreskin. At a time before effective anesthesia, a man inclined to try this procedure had Celsus' assurance that it was "not so very painful."

Without anaesthesia or antiseptics. OUCH!!

[BJean 16]

Uh, I guess I'll pass on the whole epispasm idea. Nite again youins.

[gadgetlady 4]

Is it safe to post in this thread yet? I wanted to answer some of the legitimate questions and/or answers that were posted directly to me earlier but there's just so much time in a day. I came back to the thread just now to catch up and I'm a little concerned about getting, well, for want of a better term, :flame:flamed.

[gadgetlady 4]

I did answer your question in post 626.

OK, I am NOT losing my mind. Yes, you did answer in 626. I responded in 630 asking whether you believed if the Bible was literal. You responded to that question in 635 saying, "I've never said one way or another." So I considered that response, or really lack of response, to be a non-answer to the question. I couldn't continue my line of reasoning with you because you didn't really answer the question. You answered that you believed Jesus is Lord, but you didn't answer the prefacing question of whether the Bible was literal or not.

You seem to be confusing belief that every word in the translations we have available now is to be taken literally with an overall belief in the Bible. I can believe the main things in the Bible, what I think is central to my faith, and realize some of it isn't meant to be taken as I read it in my NIV.

And so we get to my real question, which is this: by what criterion do you determine what in the Bible is fact and what is fable? What doctrine(s) do you dismiss because you don't like it, don't believe it, or don't think it should apply to you? What happens if you dismiss something that should be a central doctrine? How do you reconcile a belief that the account of Noah's ark didn't really happen when Jesus spoke about it as a real and true account? It just seems to me that Christianity isn't a salad bar, where you take what you like and leave the onions behind.

I had a friend in high school who pieced together her own religion based on what she liked. She liked the idea of reincarnation, so that was part of her belief. She liked this thing from this religion, and that thing from that religion. The whole thing just never made sense to me, because she wasn't justifying or basing her faith on anything other than "I like it" (now before I start getting hate PM's and flames, she had and has a perfect right to believe whatever she wants to believe -- with that I have no quarrel). And if what she liked changed tomorrow, so did her religion. I don't think life (and afterlife) is like that. I think life and afterlife just plain IS, and whatever we think about it doesn't affect the reality of what it IS. So if I care about the afterlife, it's really in my best interest to determine what it IS and not what I would like it to be. You can sit under a tree looking at a present hoping and hoping it will be what you want it to be, but when you unwrap it, it is what it is and it may not be what you thought it was.

I know some of you are saying, "But the present might not be what YOU think it is; don't you see that?" Of course I do. And here's where I'm going with this. I don't choose to base my life on a book that I think is partially true. It's either true or it's not, and if it isn't I'd darn well better start searching for the thing that is.

[gadgetlady 4]

So now I'm pretty well exhausted. I know there are a few others who responded to me and asked me for a response, but quite frankly with 2619 posts on this thread and a lot of yelling and screaming, I don't have the energy to go back, wade through all of the crap flying all over the place, and figure out who asked what and when. I am a believer in reasonable discourse and discussion, so if anyone wants to ask anything of me on any of the subjects discussed herein, or if anyone feels I dissed them because I didn't answer them, please either re-ask or just direct me to the post # and I will answer tomorrow. Peace, love, and blessings to all!

[wavydaby 1]

Its not worth it. I dont feel like looking it up again.

Plus, I have been insulted by Ron, on a subject that I didnt say squat about.

And HE STILL DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

I guess the echo of nothingness means he has no answer.

Oh and here is the article that HE wrote from his website.

http://www.shiloh-ministries.org/html/lions_9.html

"Their hidden agenda"

I guess I took it out of context. *SNORT*