GTAVercetti

Are you sure? I would think it was the other way around. A crack whore does it for crack. A dirty whore does it for anything. Yeah but usually being a crack whore also implies the dirt factor. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Did you get in trouble for joining a club or for CLUBBING someone....cause that would hurt them. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

This just in from the Onion: http://www.onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2 Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

the other threads piqued my interest in the subject. this thread was not intended towards any particular poster(s). Well, glad we cleared that up. My opinion: I think the lower back, if done right, can be okay...but most of the time I find it lacking. I much prefer a tattoo higher up on the back (around the middle). Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

that was sexist? Hey, i don't like boobs on guys. I don't like it when girls wear men's suits. it does nothing for me. Seems that is a preference to me. Overeacting just a bit? as for this poll, I think this is because someone has a problem with someone else. See other threads for info. Anymore ambiguity and my head might explode. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Yes, come and see our SWEET twin turbine King Air...sitting there without engines as you taxi by it in our C206 or C182. Oh. That is fucking hilarious. It won't be long now. I hear it could be just a couple more months til its up again. That's good. That line is still making me laugh though.

Yes, come and see our SWEET twin turbine King Air...sitting there without engines as you taxi by it in our C206 or C182. Oh. That is fucking hilarious. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

No problem here. Whenever a girl burps and it is good I give them a compliment.

This has got the be a DZ.com classic lapsus! HAH! that is awesome. And I am going to leave it in for posterity sake. Plus Orange IS known as the "Naked" dropzone afterall. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, I jump at Orange. we are having a boogie this weekend too so you could come out and check us out then. We are a very fun group of people. You can check out the info for the boobie here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/calendar/page.cgi?g=Detailed/477.html&d=1 Louisa is also a DZ near Orange if ya don't like what ya see at Orange (but most people do!

I think Hillary is all about molding herself for a seat on the latest bandwagon. Just look at her and GTA. Where was she when it first came out? It has COP KILLING in it ferchristssake! But the minute some poorly animated sex is revealed..there she is, jumping all over it. No sir, I don't like it. She has never seemed genuine about anything to me. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I am all about getting rid of the trolls...but I have to agree on the lower back tatoo. That ranks right up there with a tribal on the bicep. bleh. go for the forehead. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I get very very cranky. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Sure they can...and more. I have seen a guy with 4. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Walt, i'm sure billvon can stroke his own cock, no need for you to do it for him. As for Condi running for Pres.... I think it's a great idea. She has the formal education and foreign policy experience needed. yes, that is it exactly. This TV show is obviously a way to help people like women presidents! it is so clear that whenever something comes up on TV, it HAS to be based TOTALLY in reality. And the name? I seem to recall, and correct me if I am wrong, but SOME people refer to the PResident of this country as "Commander in Chief." Some people. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, I see this thread has run to its end. It was good while it lasted. After this, I am done with this thread. So here is my last thought: You posted that link for the Ten commandments explaining how the translation of Thou Shalt not Kill is actually not correct. I would say that this simple "translation" error creates a VERY different fundamental belief. On one hand, all killing is wrong. On another, only Murder. If the application of improper translation has been applied to just this portion of The ten Commandents, how can it possibly be true that other improper translations have not crept in elsewhere? As I said, the difference between murder and killing is IMMENSE. I would say this is a good indication of the faultiness of humans and their keeping of the Bible. Way back in the thread, I posted a link on how people interpreted The Bible improperly about sexual orientation. If a commandent was done wrong in some cases, why could this not also be true? And that is it for me. Thanks for the cleverr insights and ideas.

Did we save the world? No. Have we all read some interesting points? Surely. I will try to keep it shorter (plus, we are winding it down anyway...I am getting tired of typing) Quick response to your link: If people use Jesus as a way to say that some old Laws and rules are different from what they are in the OT, then you surely must say that "turn the other cheek" trumps any reference to allowing war in the OT. Jesus was the final word on what to do. He said "turn the other cheek" when someone hits you. That is all there is. No other quoting is needed. Mockingbird: One sin is NOT greater than another. In God's eyes, lust and killing are both sins and both equal. You are applying relatvism to the Bible based upon the constraints of our society. If the Bible is truly the Word of God and literal and exact, then the only context we should use is that of the time in which it was written, not today's. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Vercetti, WHEN are we going to agree on something??? Killing in the line of duty (soldiers, police, etc.) I know is a tough one for many people. I'm sorry, but I just see a huge difference between murder and killing "in the line of duty." Loss of life at another's hands is horrible, and I hate war. I hate the fact that people kill with the backing of their authority or without. When an islamic extremist cuts off an enemy's head with malice and forethought in front of a camera, it simply cannot be justified in any civil society. The same goes for an abortion bomber-- he does it with premeditation and malice, not in self-defense or for any just cause. I guess I trust the law when it stipulates that one act of killing is "lawful" and another is "unlawful".... although I don't like either kind! Okay, I have NO problem with seeing killing by soldiers are different from killing by abortion bombers (indeed, I do). HOWEVER... If you are going to say you are truly Christian and follow Jesus and follow the Bible AS IT IS WRITTEN (specifically what Jesus taught...which is supposed to be the final word on interpretation anyway)... you are NOT following what Jesus preached. Following the law of the land (whatever country you may be in) does not make things okay and good. In this country, we allow shows to appear on TV which incite lust and wanting of the opposite sex. According to Jesus, such things are wrong. Yet, they are not against the law. So, do you feel these things which violate what Jesus said to be okay because they are legal? Saying something is, particulary murder, legal is NOT a valid defense and justification under Christianity. You can be try to make it jive with your life and make yourself feel better by saying that, but it cannot be true. You can personally see all the difference you want (and I agree with this type of pragmatism) but you cannot say that it is the Christian way. Once again, this extends my point. You, as a Christian, have said you feel that killing, if lawful, is justified..even if that law is not God's Law; the fact that one set of killing has government backing makes if easier to digest than another. But what makes your interpretation of Christianity better than another? Your side: killing, while horrible, is okay if OUR government says so. Their side: killing is okay because I believe I am serving God. Which is the BETTER version of Christianity? One Bible, so many different interpretations. Why did God make it so hard? I think the Ten Commandments would have been enough.

Wow, this is alot of stuff! As we can see from pajarito and my discourse on ONE prophecy...there are many different views on the same thing; by both Christians and Jews. I think that point a a dead horse...so I will move one.

Well, obviously we are not getting anywhere here. I have said it already: lineage and genealogy only count through the father. Mary is irrelevant as far as it is concerned. But, for the sake of argument, lets say that Mary is indeed of the line of David and that it counts. Now, look at Chronicles: 1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. Coupled with the Psalm: Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. [35] Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. [36] His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. [37] It shall be established for ever as the moon, and [as] a faithful witness in heaven. Selah And we see that the king of Israel was to be descendant from David AND Solomon. However, in Luke, where he metions the genealogy of Jesus (through Mary or whatever), it gets to David in Luke 3:31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David So, if Luke's writing is about MARY's lineage, then it shows that she if of the line of David, but NOT of Solomon. And yet, the Messiah was to be of the line of both. It seems that everyone ignores that bit about Solomon having the throne forever but keep the David part. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Actually, that depends on what is considered "counting." Which tribe you belong to is through the father, but one's Jewishness is transferred through the mother -- it takes both parents. If a Jewish man marries a Gentile, the children must be converted to be considered Jewish by either Orthodox or Conservative. If a Jewish woman marries a Gentile, no problem. But being of a priestly tribe etc. comes through the father. Wendy W. True. As I pointed out from Numbers: Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV) Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (KJV) That is for lineage. And the lineage of Jesus is the question at hand. There is no doubt he was Jewish. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

That square game is awesome. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

? It seems that it's OK to do in order to deal with different lineages and all kinds of stuff, but not to deal with women's role in church, or whether homosexuality is a perversion? It's all in whom you accept doing the interpretation. Wendy W. I did not even think of that. That is a great point. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

The simple fact is that, under Jewish law, the only lineage that counts is the father. And that is interpreting it in its historical and cultural context. Going through Mary's line, even by mentioning Joseph instead, does not list HIS HOUSES. And indeed, if Mary was counted "in" Joseph, then his lineage, not hers, should be listed. The way it is written, he is being included in HER headship not the other way around. When God said that the seed of david would always have the throne, he said it to JEWS, who lived under Jewish Law that was supposed to be inspired by God, and they would take that to mean tracing the Messiah through Joseph, not Mary. by the way, this is a great debate.

Sorry for the delay. Had to catch up a bit. Why are there two genealogies of Jesus? Unfortunately, Jewish law states that a person's lineage is traced through the father. Since Joseph and Mary were Jews, there would be no reason to not follow such a law: Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV) Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (KJV) Since Jesus did not have Joseph as his actual blood, he can not be considered descended from David. Genealogical rights do not pass by adoption. Even if you WERE to consider adoption to make him of David's blood, Jpspeh is a decendent of Jeconiah who's line God cursed from ever holding the throne. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.