Moderator: Moderators
Forgive your good lady Baggy and continue to see out your days togetherBaggyTrousers wrote:Jack, 2 fine pieces of splendid bit of wisdom, but FFS man ..............the question is to stone or not to stone?
The mentalists appear to be adherents of Bob Dylan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Zxd5jp-lI
Good call. The auld scapegoat - a get out in the Biblical small print.caledoniancelt wrote:Forgive your good lady Baggy and continue to see out your days togetherBaggyTrousers wrote:Jack, 2 fine pieces of splendid bit of wisdom, but FFS man ..............the question is to stone or not to stone?
The mentalists appear to be adherents of Bob Dylan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Zxd5jp-lI
for many more years DV.
If you fancy a proxy punishment burn wee Mads and/or Big Rob K. :stir:
No mention in the bible of using Leinster players as animal sacrifices and burnt offerings, it is strictly, cattle, sheep, goats, turtledoves and pigeons.caledoniancelt wrote:Forgive your good lady Baggy and continue to see out your days togetherBaggyTrousers wrote:Jack, 2 fine pieces of splendid bit of wisdom, but FFS man ..............the question is to stone or not to stone?
The mentalists appear to be adherents of Bob Dylan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Zxd5jp-lI
for many more years DV.
If you fancy a proxy punishment burn wee Mads and/or Big Rob K.
A common theological misunderstanding, or misconception. if you don't mind the odd bad pun. Mary's shagging, as you put it, is covered by the doctrine of the Virgin birth. The doctrine of the Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the begetting of jesus, but rather covers the birth of Mary herself. As the future mother of God, you see, it was inconceivable -CIMANFOREVER wrote:Well the Egyptians were f*cked after the plagues.. were they a metaphor for STI's?
And Mary's shagging was, in His own words, Immaculate, so fair do's Big Man...
- that she should be born, like other mere mortals, with the mark of original sin staining her soul. (Adam's fault, and hence the need for Christian weans to be baptised). She was, unique in the history of mankind, excused this shame and was therefore conceived immaculately. Like Anakin Skywalker?promenader wrote:A common theological misunderstanding, or misconception. if you don't mind the odd bad pun. Mary's shagging, as you put it, is covered by the doctrine of the Virgin birth. The doctrine of the Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the begetting of jesus, but rather covers the birth of Mary herself. As the future mother of God, you see, it was inconceivable -CIMANFOREVER wrote:Well the Egyptians were f*cked after the plagues.. were they a metaphor for STI's?
And Mary's shagging was, in His own words, Immaculate, so fair do's Big Man...
As Baggy says, you have been helped.
promenader wrote:A common theological misunderstanding, or misconception. if you don't mind the odd bad pun. Mary's shagging, as you put it, is covered by the doctrine of the Virgin birth. The doctrine of the Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the begetting of jesus, but rather covers the birth of Mary herself. As the future mother of God, you see, it was inconceivable -CIMANFOREVER wrote:Well the Egyptians were f*cked after the plagues.. were they a metaphor for STI's?
And Mary's shagging was, in His own words, Immaculate, so fair do's Big Man...
As Baggy says, you have been helped.
Was she found in a Lucky Bag?promenader wrote:A common theological misunderstanding, or misconception. if you don't mind the odd bad pun. Mary's shagging, as you put it, is covered by the doctrine of the Virgin birth. The doctrine of the Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the begetting of jesus, but rather covers the birth of Mary herself. As the future mother of God, you see, it was inconceivable -CIMANFOREVER wrote:Well the Egyptians were f*cked after the plagues.. were they a metaphor for STI's?
And Mary's shagging was, in His own words, Immaculate, so fair do's Big Man...
As Baggy says, you have been helped.
We need to learn the mistakes from fiction toorumncoke wrote:Baggy as a matter of Interest what is an old Hedonist like you reading the bible ? I thought you had found salvation in a bottle !!
Anyway my question/statement did you still love your wife? then do nothing, is based on the experiences of life that only those who want a divorce look for grounds for divorce in the actions of their partners . They do so for two reasons firstly to justify their own wish for a divorce and secondly to transfer the guilt of the failed marriage onto the other party.
I have known several women whose husbands walked out on their wives to live with the other woman it wasn't that the husband walked out that hurt them most but the fact that in the letter of departure they blamed their wives for the failure of the marriage .
Look what is in the papers today Ironically, given the historic tension between pornography and religion, watching porn may make you more religious.
That’s according to a study published in the Journal of Sex Research, which suggests that those who watch porn more than once a week may ‘stimulate greater religiosity’.
Historically, religiosity was associated with low pornography use as almost all major religious disapprove of it.
Thanks to the upsurge in porn use, more and more research is being conducted into the area.
The research, which was done by a team at the University of Oklahoma, involved following the same 1,314 adults over six years, periodically measuring their porn use and religiosity.
After controlling for outside factors like age and gender, use of pornography was associated with low religiousness until the rate of consumption became more frequent than once a week.
‘Findings suggest that viewing pornography may lead to declines in some dimensions of religiosity but at more extreme levels may actually stimulate, or at least be conducive to, greater religiosity along other dimensions,’ said study author Samuel Perry.
In other words, if you watch porn more than once a week you’re likely to become more religious.
Perry suggests this might be because in some people exposure to pornography brings about guilty feelings, especially if they were religious to begin with, and this may drive them to turn to religion to try and overcome the behaviour or repent in some way.
OK Rum'n, here are your answers in order, though the information is already there:rumncoke wrote:Baggy as a matter of Interest what is an old Hedonist like you reading the bible ? I thought you had found salvation in a bottle !!
Anyway my question/statement did you still love your wife? then do nothing, is based on the experiences of life that only those who want a divorce look for grounds for divorce in the actions of their partners . They do so for two reasons firstly to justify their own wish for a divorce and secondly to transfer the guilt of the failed marriage onto the other party.
I have known several women whose husbands walked out on their wives to live with the other woman it wasn't that the husband walked out that hurt them most but the fact that in the letter of departure they blamed their wives for the failure of the marriage .
That said, the issue is that I fear I may fall down in relation to "God's Law" 
I have yet to be properly advised if I need to wheek her off to Israel for a stoning. She will smell a rat as I have often said I would never set foot in Israel - nor the rest of the Middle East forebye, (just for balance) and I may as well add that I have little interest in the Far East, could live without visiting the horrendously rude NZers & drunken racists in Oz, but I still enjoy the USA & have a wee hankering to visit South America.
but those days are past barring the occasional splurge. These days I am a man who drinks well within the approved levels (possibly before the most recent nonsense) for no other reason than, in general, I really just can't be bothered. , looking forward to our next large adventure, pissing off to Spain to live in just over a year.
