Getting divorced and climbing is a big reason why. Advice?

Eddie Purcellwrote:

 the hell is wrong with you idiots

sigh. Invite rescinded.

J W wrote:

Also, Dude, “Jesus christ people” is not the preferred nomenclature. Christians, please.

I am not Christian, but this just about made me snarf my tea. 

L Kapwrote:

I am not Christian, but this just about made me snarf my tea. 

I am, and I just about dropped my one-hitter laughing at JW's retort. Well-played.

EDIT: post limit for the day. See y'all tomorrow, keep it classy. May the gotez be ever in your favor.

J W wrote:

Also, Dude, “Jesus christ people” is not the preferred nomenclature. Christians, please.

Maybe he's just being inclusive lol.  I prefer Catholic personally though, the OG Christians.

J W wrote:

Au contraire! The OG Christians were Jews.

Dang you got me there actually......

J W wrote:

Au contraire! The OG Christians were Jews.

Ahem. We are not "Jesus CHRIST" people. We are "Jesus was one of us, he just wanted to change a few rules and for people to be nice to each other" people. 

J W wrote:

Gesundheit.

I didn’t say anything about you. You’re free to define your identity as you wish. The earliest Christians, however, were Jews.

You did actually, since I'm Jewish. No Jew is a Christian. "Jews for Jesus" is a contradiction in terms. The first Christians may have started out Jewish (maybe that was your point with saying the OG Christians _were_ Jews), but if you believe Jesus was christ (the messiah, the son of God, part of the holy trinity, etc.) then you cease to be a Jew. You converted. You are a Christian. Believing in the divinity of Jesus is what defines Christians. Jews believe that historic Jesus, if he existed, was a human man, a reformer, and he died for it. We do not believe he was a prophet nor divine. Hence, Jews are not "Jesus CHRIST people". See my previous post.

J W wrote:

…I didn’t say anything about you. You’re free to define your identity as you wish. The earliest Christians, however, were Jews.

But you are trying to set definitions yourself and are in fact confusing different issues - religion with ethnicity 

The earliest Christians were Christians.  They ceased being “Jewish” when they ceased believing in Jewish ideas and created Christian ideas.   Sure, they came from ethnic Jewish stock, but this was always more of a belief/religion point rather than an ethnic origin point of discussion.  As “Catholic” or Christian implies no ethnicity.    

If you just stick with “Jesus people…” , that is very inclusive. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all fit.  
when you go with “Christ Almighty people..” then it starts to be exclusionary, but not as much as “Holy Cow, people”. Now If you go with “Fuck people…”, that’s practically universal.

soft cruxwrote:

This thread has taught me that it is possible to be a perfect parent. 

Just give your kids 365 Christmases every year.

We shoot for at least 372. We cram in extras during the holidays.

Mark Pilatewrote:

But you are trying to set definitions yourself and are in fact confusing different issues - religion with ethnicity 

The earliest Christians were Christians.  They ceased being “Jewish” when they ceased believing in Jewish ideas and created Christian ideas.   Sure, they came from ethnic Jewish stock, but this was always more of a belief/religion point rather than an ethnic origin point of discussion.  As “Catholic” or Christian implies no ethnicity.    

If you just stick with “Jesus people…” , that is very inclusive. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all fit.
when you go with “Christ Almighty people..” then it starts to be exclusionary, but not as much as “Holy Cow, people”. Now If you go with “Fuck people…”, that’s practically universal.

Weren't the "holy cow people" the one that Moses got pissed at when he brought the tablets down from the mountain?

Andrew Krajnikwrote:

Weren't the "holy cow people" the one that Moses got pissed at when he brought the tablets down from the mountain?

I believe the ones that think cows are holy are Hindu.

Obviously joking. Just wanted to chime in that I appreciated your Dude reference. 

J W wrote:

Let’s agree to disagree. You think my comment about a few people who died two millennia ago is a comment about you. I think otherwise.

Mark, if the aforementioned chaps thought they were Jews, I can see no reason to argue. L Kap’s point about conversion is fine today, but that’s not how they saw it then. For many years, they were simply Jews who happened to believe in the divinity (But did they actually? Unsettled point here.) of the man who later came to be called Jesus.

What a weird discussion. I was just making a bloody grammar joke, and paraphrasing TBL, about the importance of commas, for god (of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, if that placates the mob)’s sake.

your biblical history is rough here--a large reason for the "if you believe in jesus in a THAT way, you're a christian, end of story" thing is that the reasons outlined for his divinity in the NT were specifically because he was doing not-judaism--like, the mosaic laws were framed as incomplete and were nullified through a new covenant. contemporarily, there's a reason why messianic "jews" don't know torah; more historically, there's a reason why early christians were subject to different persecutory laws than those experienced by jews, regardless of their ethnic background. peter may have been from a jewish background preaching/writing for a jewish audience for conversion, but that doesn't mean that they were capital-j Jews. because judaism [even pre-rabbinically] is irreconcilable with the earliest tenants of christianity

what a fitting tangent to cap off hannukah

J W wrote:

Nevertheless, no hard feelings. My peace I give unto you. Not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

Not at all.  Who doesn’t enjoy a good parsing of ontological niceties?  As Erroll suggested, ‘Tis the season…

soft cruxwrote:

Last relationship failed, but the next one will be great. 

It's always good to be optimistic and I wish everyone the best of luck, but a lot of these posts are the equivalent of beta from someone that "led without difficulty, but did not send." 

If you're referring to my marriage, I actually see it as a huge success. We had a wonderful couple decades and many great life experiences. And we're still supportive, mutually appreciated co-parents of some wonderful young humans. Relationships can have a shelf-like just like anything else. Moving on to a different phase isn't a failure. 

Free Spiritwrote:

I think in this modern day and age, relationships don't tend to last FOREVER the way they used to. 

When was this time period when relationships lasted forever? I can't think of one. Also, if you come up with one, what was the average life expectancy then?

Dan Schmidtwrote:

Laid out in bed, in an empty room save for a browser window open to my stellar 5.10+ tick list, I die without regrets. 

Jesus Christ! What a sad thought!!!!!!

William Carson wrote:

ive got a little sweetheart now, weve been together going on two years. it hasnt always been easy, but..... LOL. no. just kidding. it absolutely HAS always been easy, and the second its no longer easy, im fuckin outta here. and she knows that. and she has promised me that she'll do the same, if the time comes. life is WAY too short to be shackled to someone you arent happy with.

This is a pretty banal outlook on life.....just have to say it's honestly childish to throw a tantrum the moment you aren't happy in life.