poetically_taken

The Ultimate Gift was really good too, I thought. So if you're looking for a good movie, that's one.

Well lets see... There's ~Capture the Flag ~Red Rover (some of the parents might not be too happy with this one) ~Sardines (not a team thing but still fun... It's like reverse hide and seek. One person hides and when soemone finds them, they hide with them - the last one to get there gets to hide next) ~Red Light, Green light ~ Kick the Can ~this other "tag-esq" game where you are all in a circle and the one person in the middle has to say ask if someone has done something (ie: Has anyone brushed their teeth) and all the people who have done that have to run to a different part of the circle - the person left out has to say the next question. ~ Three-legged race ~ Blob tag ~ Can-Can (you need a trash can in the middle of a circle and if anyone touches the trash can OR loses grip on someone's hand then they are out, when someone is eliminated then you pause to give everyone a break) ~ Human knot (you criss-cross hands across the circle and then have to unravel the knot without losing grip on anyone's hands. You could put them into teams for that) ~Dragon's Tail (in this one everyone gets in line and puts their hands on the person in front of them's waist. Then the last person in line tucks a hankerchief or scarf in their back pocket or belt or something like that and the person in front tries to get it. When they do, they become the end. You can play this in teams by having there be two "dragons" and having them chase each other's tail.) well... I know I know more but I can't think of them right now so I can get back to you on that. I hope this helps out a little. Oh! And by the way, ask me if you don't know the rules to any of them, I think I explained all of them that aren't common but games that are common here might not be common there and such.

lol. I couldn't help but notice this in the article... He has already spent more than three years in prison for habitually driving without a license, kicking a state trooper and other charges. how exactly was he able to kick someone with no arms and only one leg? must have been determined...

The engagment ring and the wedding band are two different rings? I thought they got welded together after the wedding... Obviously I've never been married...

Your Score Your scored -3.5 on the Moral Order axis and -0.5 on the Moral Rules axis. Matches The following items best match your score: 1. System: Liberalism 2. Variation: Moderate Liberalism 3. Ideologies: Capital Democratism 4. US Parties: Democratic Party 5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (96.88%) 6. 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (93.01%), Ralph Nader (87.12%), George W. Bush (57.50%) Statistics Of the 345955 people who took the test: 1. 1.5% had the same score as you. 2. 37.8% were above you on the chart. 3. 51% were below you on the chart. 4. 69.5% were to your right on the chart. 5. 22.5% were to your left on the chart. hm... I've never considered myself a democrat...

First off, welcome! Second off, that is A-W-E-S-O-M-E!! I totally know what you mean when you say that the word of God is like poetry and writing being an outlet - I think my name might give that away a little. So it's awesome to have another fellow writer here and I am so so glad that you're posting it on the boards, don't you dare stop that! alex

Look, you continue to believe that I am giving homosexuals an excuse for their behavior when I am not. Even when I specifically ask you for evidence of me guarding, excusing or showing any form of leniency towards homosexuals by quoting me, you still refuse to explain what has made you think I am lenient. I have no excuses for people in a homosexual lifestyle, there is no option other than to leave it or face the consequences. I do not disagree with anything about that; I agree that it is not acceptable in God's eyes and should not be allowed to continue. At the same time, it is important to show support to those people who are leaving the lifestyle because, like other sins, it is difficult to become free of it. To clarify, that is not to say that they should give up and continue on that path. So if you also believe that it is important to provide support and show love towards the people who are leaving homosexuality then this should be a closed discussion because we both agree with each other on all points. If that is not the case and you beleive that they should just be left alone on their journey out, that is the ONLY point that we are disagreeing on. Finally, you asked for proof of what an ad hominem argument is. The Latin roots can be translated to "argument against the person" and thus it does in fact mean an argument that attacks the person rather than the issue. If you click on this link it'll take you to what I found on dictionary.com and there is a myriad of links that you can click on to verify that for yourself. dictionary.com/adhominem and yes, it could be considered an invective but I was considering it used as a rhetorical strategy rather than a single sentence or two. It's the use that changes which is correct in this case.

Maybe you could find one on ebay. a-ha-ha, I'm so funny.

Where did I ever talk about that? Seriously, I want you to physically quote where there was any mention of "reasonings for desiring to stay in sin". This thread did not hit a sensitive nerve until I recieved your lovely response and I quote, now would that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Especially being accused of a sin that you said you, "would rather take a bullet to the head" than take a moment to step back and try to feel that agony that their souls must be experiencing. an ad hominum argument is insulting the person with your response rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I am going to guess that you took my suggestion in a literal sense. No I do not mean literally become gay for a day or any crap like that. What I do mean is you should take a moment to realize, well you put it best, you can bet your booty that it's misery and THAT, right there, is why it is not optional to stop and consider that before you start heaping more misery upon them. Why in the world would anyone want a god who only doubled the misery when they were down?? And although I do not need witnessing and you have not witnessed to me on this thread, your general tone throughout this whole discussion has led me to believe that you wouldn't do that if you were witnessing to someone and that is what sets me off. We are called to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) From how you've been talking to me, I cannot find love in your truth. That's quite a big assumption there. Tell me, StElsewhere, have you met every single homosexual on the planet? Believe it or not there are countries that accept homosexuality (such as Spain and Greece) and there are also places where the Bible is not widely available in their language, if it's available at all. So my supposition is quite real. It's not common but real none-the-less.

Obviously there is some miscommunication here, you seem to be under the impression that you need to defend the Word of God against me. Also, it sounds as if you believe me to be within a homosexual lifestyle - well let us put that little puppy to rest, I'm not. See it's funny, when I have read your responses to me, they have nothing to do with what I am actually saying. I do not see a single bit of either of my comments that twist the Word of God, maybe it's coming across differently than I intended it to - so I'd really appreciate it if you would point out the specific points of my comments that seem to have gotten to you so much. .. You assumed that just because I was identifying with being hurt and hurting others back in return that I was gay. It was a simple flip of a switch for you. The moment I even suggest that homosexuals might have a reason why they call others close-minded you start telling me about "damaging myself physically and spiritually". I am not even sure you took the chance to actually read and try to understand what I was saying because your response back was THAT far off topic from what I was saying. I mean seriously, if you had come back and said, "Well attacking the other back isn't necessarily the best thing" I would have been like, "Sweet, I agree." But it's as if you pulled words and ideas out of thin air and tried to attribute them to me. If I did imply that I was justifying a homosexual lifestyle or anything of that sort, I'd really like you to point out where I did that in either of my comments. lol. I'm not worried about being reported to a Moderator. I just find in rather childish to use an ad hominem argument to prove a point, not to mention its ineffectiveness. The second bit of information that seems to have been poorly communicated is why I am upset. First of all, I never said I was hurt, I said I was angry. Hurt and angry are two wildly different emotions. I am not enraged by the Word of God. The Word of God is awesome, good, and true - I have no problem with the Word of God. What does get to me is how some people seemingly lack the ability to put themselves in other people's shoes before bulldozing them. While defending the Word of God is extremely important, which I absolutely side with you on that, it is equally important to be empathetic. You see, if you don't stop and put yourself into that person's shoes and just harshly pummel them with Bible verses there is a high likelihood that they will not only ignore what the Word of God says but they will also avoid Christianity at all costs. This is not what we as Christians want, to drive people away from Christ, is it? The needs of every person in the homosexual lifestyle are NOT the same. Some of them don't know what they're doing is wrong, others choose to ignore that it is wrong and still others are yearning for a way out - the same is true for any other sin. So it is wise to stop and understand what point they are at in their journey and LISTEN to what they are saying. The point of witnessing is not our need to defend the Word of God. The point of witnessing is to give the person what they need to know to come to Christ and, to reiterate, that is different for each person. To bring all of what I am saying into one concise point, it is absolutely necessary to listen to a person before witnessing to them. What angered me in the last posts was I got the general sense that I was not listened to and that it is not common for you to think about what point the person you are witnessing to is at before beginning to talk to them. I mean, seriously, you started to witness to me about going against God was my right as free will when I hadn't said a thing about free will.

It makes perfect sense. Even though what you're saying is truth, truth is hard to accept sometimes. If a deep rooted part of you was pointed out as immoral, would you just sit there and nod your head? If you were told that you can't love who you think you love, would you quickly agree? I think not. Although it can be frustrating being labeled, the only way most people know how to react when you attack their lifestyle/character (even though it may be truthful) is to belittle their attacker's character right back. It's as simple as that. So your rationale for fostering and feeding that "deep rooted part of you" ...when you know full well that what you do is doing damage to yourself physically ...and more importantly spiritually...before the True and Living God...is what? God made you that way?... No no no! That's not what I'm saying at all! In no way, shape, or form did I defend or justify the homosexual lifestyle with my first comment - let alone say I'm lesbian. I was simply saying, I understand why people in the homosexual lifestyle get so defensive when confronted and, thus, are likely to turn around and label those who attack them. Actually, this is a really good example right now. I'm biting my tongue as I write this - I am absolutely furious at how you responded to me. The second it's even suspected (get that, suspected not even confirmed) that I am a lesbian I am jumped on. No one likes it when they are attacked (even with the truth) and thus I am fighting against my immediate instinct to attack you back with hurtful words. The same thing is happening when a Christian is called close-minded, homophobic, ect. by a homosexual. Am I making any sense to anyone here?

It makes perfect sense. Even though what you're saying is truth, truth is hard to accept sometimes. If a deep rooted part of you was pointed out as immoral, would you just sit there and nod your head? If you were told that you can't love who you think you love, would you quickly agree? I think not. Although it can be frustrating being labeled, the only way most people know how to react when you attack their lifestyle/character (even though it may be truthful) is to belittle their attacker's character right back. It's as simple as that.

Alright!! Finally it won't be nearly impossible to find some shorts that actually fit like shorts!!

really??? Where have I been??

Is that a real bird?!?! wow, that thing's bright!