This Is Steeler Week - At Home
-
@winslow-s-urologist said:
"Toughest fans in pro sports" eh? Yeah, that's why they deleted my "Roethlisberger about to become winningest QB in history of new Browns stadium" topic post, in true snowflake fashion.
Better get a new slogan.
That's too bad because Gipper posted something in that thread that needed corrected.
That's too bad because Gipper posted something in that thread that needed corrected.
Again....you are showing to be as obtuse as the stereotypical Steeler fan. I said that I made that up about OG....simply to counter the stupidity of that original post. I personally was not in favor of deleting the thread....but so be it. We can always rely on Steeler fans to come up with something equally as idiotic. So don't feel bad. You will be have ample chances to display your ignorance.
-
@winslow-s-urologist said:
What's hilarious is that your hero Skippy was notorious for going on the Steeler board and talking garbage. And never getting banned.
Here, the snowflakes suspend accounts if you even sneeze their way. You in favor of that?
Who are you talking about? I don't who you are referring to when you say Skippy.
As for being in favor of suspending accounts...no, not really. I am in favor of allowing you Steelers fans to have the rope you always hang yourself with. As I noted above....you will always be given ample opportunity to display your ignorance....which, given this thread, you do so with vigor.
-
@winslow-s-urologist said:
Skip's the guy who founded this dump. He was a huge blowhard on the Steeler board back in the day.
That thread I posted was actually a legit topic of debate. Roethlisberger is looking to do something Sunday I'm not sure has been done before in pro football. But of course the snowflakes wipe it in typical snowflake fashion. I guess not everyone is as thick-skinned as you.
And I point out the ridiculous nature of the "toughest fans" board slogan because I've never been a fan of false advertising.
Agreed.
My thread was also deleted as to the fact that an opposing team's QB is about to be the winningest QB in your own stadium.
Maybe years of impotence is replacing the "tough as nails Stain fans" with more of a millennial "I need a safe space so I don't get triggered" type of fan.
Pathetic.
And that wasn't, for once, referring to your team.
-
Nothing wrong with Christianity that can't be fixed by tacking a few reforms on a church door now and again. I think we're way overdue for another that hits every denomination under the sun.
It is, after all, the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
(again...not interested in a religious argument...its just that I have read some religious theories that say that therehave been basically 3 ages of man....The Age of God the Father, which was basically the 2000 or so years between the birth of Abraham and the birth of Jesus....then the Age of the Son which is basically from the birth of Jesus to @ the year 2000.....which then becomes the Age of the Holy Spirit...
This "Age of the Holy Spirit begins...which happens to roughly coincide with the beginning of the astronomical age of Aquarius. The Age of the Son coincides with the Age of Pisces, which we have been in. The Age of Aquarius starts when the vernal equinox point moves out of constellation Pisces and into Aquarius.
Approximately every 2150 years a new astonomical age occurs...when the vernal equinox moves from one constellation to another.
Why does it matter theologically? It may not at all....its not like the population of Earth all began doing things differently when Jesus was born. E.g. the Jews would not likely accept the theory that mankind entered a new age just because Jesus was born. Christians would not likely accept that man is entering a "new age" just because the earth, the planet, the sun and the stars are aligned differently. And who knows what other religious groups may believe about this whole astronomical thing.
Again...it is just a theory. The age of Aquarius is theoretically supposed to begin an age of harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding.
Does it seem to you that such a thing is happening? (sometimes it seems quite the opposite)
It is, after all, the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
(again...not interested in a religious argument...its just that I have read some religious theories that say that therehave been basically 3 ages of man....The Age of God the Father, which was basically the 2000 or so years between the birth of Abraham and the birth of Jesus....then the Age of the Son which is basically from the birth of Jesus to @ the year 2000.....which then becomes the Age of the Holy Spirit...
This "Age of the Holy Spirit begins...which happens to roughly coincide with the beginning of the astronomical age of Aquarius. The Age of the Son coincides with the Age of Pisces, which we have been in. The Age of Aquarius starts when the vernal equinox point moves out of constellation Pisces and into Aquarius.
Approximately every 2150 years a new astonomical age occurs...when the vernal equinox moves from one constellation to another.
Why does it matter theologically? It may not at all....its not like the population of Earth all began doing things differently when Jesus was born. E.g. the Jews would not likely accept the theory that mankind entered a new age just because Jesus was born. Christians would not likely accept that man is entering a "new age" just because the earth, the planet, the sun and the stars are aligned differently. And who knows what other religious groups may believe about this whole astronomical thing.
Again...it is just a theory. The age of Aquarius is theoretically supposed to begin an age of harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding.
Does it seem to you that such a thing is happening? (sometimes it seems quite the opposite)
Well something's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.................
-
Jesus. Also definitely fine with not only quoting Scripture but increasing its demands, and doing so for the express purpose of "beating everyone else down." Paul spends the first three chapters of Romans (New Testament) quite literally bringing every man who's ever lived (Christ the exception) under condemnation. He pronounced various men anathema throughout the book of Galatians. He plainly instructs Christians to not even eat with an unrepentant sinner who calls himself a Christian in the Corinthian epistles, among various calls for cleanness of the mouth.
Furthermore even Christ himself, whom you claim to affirm as the SON OF GOD said that man is defiled by what comes out of his mouth. I know you know it's there. So are you really doing your "very human best"? I believe you can do better! For a dude who detests liberals so much, you're sure quick to embrace their hermeneutics.
Nothing wrong with Christianity that can't be fixed by tacking a few reforms on a church door now and again. I think we're way overdue for another that hits every denomination under the sun.
Nothing wrong with Christianity that can't be fixed by tacking a few reforms on a church door now and again. I think we're way overdue for another that hits every denomination under the sun.
What are your reforms? I'm listening.
Well, yeh . . . That's where the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ends and all of the BS of the church begins.
Or if you want to go further back. consider that Torah says that Torah is all that there is and should ever be. We are commanded to neither add nor take away from Torah. That did not stop the Jews, Christians and Muslims from adding and adding and adding to create 3 different religions from one.
Lol. "Rabbi Yeshua" most certainly added to the Torah, as did (and are) many of the actual Rabbis.
Not the jester, the Judge. No one says you have to be here Mr. Sensitive.
And my daughter is a pretty tough cookie. You wouldn't like her. She is not a gutless wonder like you are apparently.
So you talk about jism with your daughter?
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
He may have been liberal politically. He most certainly was not liberal in his hermeneutics of the available Scripture of the time.
-
-
Nothing wrong with Christianity that can't be fixed by tacking a few reforms on a church door now and again. I think we're way overdue for another that hits every denomination under the sun.
What are your reforms? I'm listening.
Well, yeh . . . That's where the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ends and all of the BS of the church begins.
Or if you want to go further back. consider that Torah says that Torah is all that there is and should ever be. We are commanded to neither add nor take away from Torah. That did not stop the Jews, Christians and Muslims from adding and adding and adding to create 3 different religions from one.
Lol. "Rabbi Yeshua" most certainly added to the Torah, as did (and are) many of the actual Rabbis.
Not the jester, the Judge. No one says you have to be here Mr. Sensitive.
And my daughter is a pretty tough cookie. You wouldn't like her. She is not a gutless wonder like you are apparently.
So you talk about jism with your daughter?
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
He may have been liberal politically. He most certainly was not liberal in his hermeneutics of the available Scripture of the time.
What are your reforms? I'm listening.
Martin Luther Jr. can take it from here. All of them need it one way or another. At least Galileo was finally absolved. Might take another 500 years before Darwin is too by "fundamentalists". Who knows maybe even dinosaurs will be recognized as existing for millions of years before puny humans showed up.
-
brunch in PA:
You know that the term "Cleveland Steamer" is actually in the dictionary.
-
Jesus. Also definitely fine with not only quoting Scripture but increasing its demands, and doing so for the express purpose of "beating everyone else down." Paul spends the first three chapters of Romans (New Testament) quite literally bringing every man who's ever lived (Christ the exception) under condemnation. He pronounced various men anathema throughout the book of Galatians. He plainly instructs Christians to not even eat with an unrepentant sinner who calls himself a Christian in the Corinthian epistles, among various calls for cleanness of the mouth.
Furthermore even Christ himself, whom you claim to affirm as the SON OF GOD said that man is defiled by what comes out of his mouth. I know you know it's there. So are you really doing your "very human best"? I believe you can do better! For a dude who detests liberals so much, you're sure quick to embrace their hermeneutics.
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
Well, I didn't see you busting my hump at all. I was merely siding with you that Jesus didn't intend for us to wipe a sinter from another eye, while we have one burining in our own. Jesus was not a liberal, he was not a conservative. Never, not once did he ever engage in political debate or conversation.
The Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL -
That's too bad because Gipper posted something in that thread that needed corrected.
Again....you are showing to be as obtuse as the stereotypical Steeler fan. I said that I made that up about OG....simply to counter the stupidity of that original post. I personally was not in favor of deleting the thread....but so be it. We can always rely on Steeler fans to come up with something equally as idiotic. So don't feel bad. You will be have ample chances to display your ignorance.
Again....you are showing to be as obtuse as the stereotypical Steeler fan. I said that I made that up about OG....simply to counter the stupidity of that original post. I personally was not in favor of deleting the thread....but so be it. We can always rely on Steeler fans to come up with something equally as idiotic. So don't feel bad. You will be have ample chances to display your ignorance.
My my aren't we testy today. The browns haven't lost yet.
Otto Graham means as much to me as Otto Orf.
You tried to minimize the browns "era of suck" to only the last 17 years in comparing it to Pittsburghs 37.
Surely you remember the browns from 1990 to 1999:
3-13
6-10
7-9
7-9
11-5
5-11
2-14
The 70's browns managed only 5 winning seasons...just barely. 1972 was the only year they had double digit wins at 10.
Except for 1980, the early 80's sucked for you as well.
Yep the Bernies browns had a revival in the late 80's, but for all intents and purposes the browns "era of suck" has lasted 47 yrs.
Remember Otto Orf? He was the great Cleveland soccer player.
-
Jesus. Also definitely fine with not only quoting Scripture but increasing its demands, and doing so for the express purpose of "beating everyone else down." Paul spends the first three chapters of Romans (New Testament) quite literally bringing every man who's ever lived (Christ the exception) under condemnation. He pronounced various men anathema throughout the book of Galatians. He plainly instructs Christians to not even eat with an unrepentant sinner who calls himself a Christian in the Corinthian epistles, among various calls for cleanness of the mouth.
Furthermore even Christ himself, whom you claim to affirm as the SON OF GOD said that man is defiled by what comes out of his mouth. I know you know it's there. So are you really doing your "very human best"? I believe you can do better! For a dude who detests liberals so much, you're sure quick to embrace their hermeneutics.
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
Saying Jesus was a liberal is making a simpleton observation.
Him resembling a sandal wearing long haired hippie doesn't count.
-
A Browns fan was sitting in McDonalds having a burger, when his friends noticed a steeler fan across the street
continually trying the climb the pink flag pole in his front yard with a tape measure. He kept trying, but he would
only get a third of the way, and would slide back down. This was getting noticed by a lot of customers, and they were laughing.
It had been a half hr, and the steeler fan kept at it.
Finally, the Browns fan couldn't take any more, so he walked across the street
and offered to help the poor guy out. He said, "Say, man, how about I help you unbolt your flagpole, lay in the ground, and you
can measure it that way?"
The steeler fan said "Oh, mind your own business, you idiot. I want how high it is, not how long it is"
-
-
-
-
-
So, we cut Joe Haden and the squealers picked him up, and Garrett and Shelton are out for a few games,
we are starting our terrific rookie qb, Bitonio was "limited" earlier in the week...
going to be really embarrassing for the squealers when they lose today.
-
What are your reforms? I'm listening.
Martin Luther Jr. can take it from here. All of them need it one way or another. At least Galileo was finally absolved. Might take another 500 years before Darwin is too by "fundamentalists". Who knows maybe even dinosaurs will be recognized as existing for millions of years before puny humans showed up.
Martin Luther Jr. can take it from here. All of them need it one way or another. At least Galileo was finally absolved. Might take another 500 years before Darwin is too by "fundamentalists". Who knows maybe even dinosaurs will be recognized as existing for millions of years before puny humans showed up.
I have no idea what "all of them need it one way or another" is supposed to mean. The racist theories of Charles Darwin will never be accepted by evangelical Protestants en masse. And Luther would have been strongly against them too. It's not "Sola Scriptura....minus Genesis."
Well, I didn't see you busting my hump at all. I was merely siding with you that Jesus didn't intend for us to wipe a sinter from another eye, while we have one burining in our own. Jesus was not a liberal, he was not a conservative. Never, not once did he ever engage in political debate or conversation.
Read the whole chapter not just the parts that make you feel good.
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
-
Nothing wrong with Christianity that can't be fixed by tacking a few reforms on a church door now and again. I think we're way overdue for another that hits every denomination under the sun.
What are your reforms? I'm listening.
Well, yeh . . . That's where the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ends and all of the BS of the church begins.
Or if you want to go further back. consider that Torah says that Torah is all that there is and should ever be. We are commanded to neither add nor take away from Torah. That did not stop the Jews, Christians and Muslims from adding and adding and adding to create 3 different religions from one.
Lol. "Rabbi Yeshua" most certainly added to the Torah, as did (and are) many of the actual Rabbis.
Not the jester, the Judge. No one says you have to be here Mr. Sensitive.
And my daughter is a pretty tough cookie. You wouldn't like her. She is not a gutless wonder like you are apparently.
So you talk about jism with your daughter?
Jesus was a liberal. Or, he would have been. (and no....I don't want to get into a theopolitico discussion about it....each to his own...I just wanted to bust your hump by making a simple accurate observation)
He may have been liberal politically. He most certainly was not liberal in his hermeneutics of the available Scripture of the time.
What are your reforms? I'm listening.
Lol. "Rabbi Yeshua" most certainly added to the Torah, as did (and are) many of the actual Rabbis.
So you talk about jism with your daughter?
No....except to tell here that this guy Wargogay on the Browns Board is a real piece of smegma.
He may have been liberal politically. He most certainly was not liberal in his hermeneutics of the available Scripture of the time.
OK, I don't know what Hermeneutics is (is that the study of Herman Munster or Herman's Hermits)....or how they relate to whatever Scripture you want to refer to. (while recognizing that Scripture itself is completely contradictory at times)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login