Text 15331, 307 rader
Skriven 2014-05-16 15:39:08 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 15240 av Bill McGarrity (7554.2fidonews)
Ärende: Voting (new voting sy
=============================
Greetings Bill!

 RC>> I guess you lieberal types have a script those of faith must follow,
 RC>> but balk when the tables are turned???

 BM>> Only script I follow is that what the Lord said, Love thy neighbor
 BM>> as yourself. It's taken from the book that most religious zealots
 BM>> like to quote, Liviticus.

Haven't read that anywhere in Liviticus, which is mostly about how the
Isrealites are to interpret the old covenent between their god and
themselves. When it comes down to verses 18:22 and 20:13, it has been
historically interpreted as prohibiting all homosexual acts in both the
Christian and Judaism world. When Mohammad came along some 800 years AD,
they interpreted the Judaism writing about it to agree with what Mohammad
had to say about, to mean the same.

 TR>> That doesn't mean its telling anyone they HAVE to support
 TR>> homosexuality (sodomy). In fact...that very same volume to which you
 TR>> refer condemns `sodomy' in pretty clear terms.

 BM> It means love them for whoever they are.  Period....

It means that homosexual acts are prohibited, period.

 RC>> For instance you lieberal types fancy yourselves the party of
 RC>> compassion and tolerance, yet not a one of you will tolerate a view
 RC>> that differs from your own...

 BM>> I tolerate all views as long as it's not a view that goes against
 BM>> the rule I stated above.  Phil wasn't following that rule when he
 BM>> made his statements. He was in a way, bearing false witness. Another
 BM>> strike.

 TR>> Not so. You aren't very smart, are you? Here's another attempt at
 TR>> cooking up a `nothing' burger on your part.

Que the crickets.

 BM> Oh, he compared homosexuality on par with beastiality.

And both are ok by him...right.............

 RC>> In the Phil Robertson case, his viewpoints on the subject were a
 RC>> no-brainer before that interview..

 BM>> Oh really?  Then why even state them in an interview?

8^) Because he was asked about his opinion on the subject.

 TR>> Ever hear of the First Amendment? Wasn't that *you* asking someone
 TR>> that very question recently?

 TR>> What did he actually say?

 TR>> He said:

 TR>> "Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong. Sin becomes
 TR>> fine. Start with homosexual behavior and morph out from there.
 TR>> Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that
 TR>> woman and those men."

 BM> He compared homosexuality to beastiality?  Are you that blind?

He didn't compare anything, he just commented in generality that
everything is blurred in your mind, but what you do is made ok by your
misunderstanding of what came down to 'women sleeping with women and men
sleeping with men', just like animals (beastiality).

 TR>> "Don't be decieved. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male
 TR>> prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards,
 TR>> the slanderers, the swindlers - they won't inherit the kingdom of
 TR>> God. Don't decieve yourselves. Its not right."

 BM> How does he know they won't inherit the Kindom of God? Psychic?

For one, read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13...there are privious chapters and
verse that also state the above.

 TR>> Thats all he said.

 BM> That's all he had to say... but you fail to see the significance..
 BM> which is you being you as usual.

Ahhh, yes more personal attacks when you see that Tim is winning the
discussion. Enjoy.

 TR>> And the sodomite corner came unglued!

Yeup. They can't stand the truth...

 RC>> You see Bill, you lieberals have this script everyone else must
 RC>> follow and if anyone dare stray, POW!

 BM>> No, the only script I follow as stated above is to treat and love a
 BM>> neighbor as one would expect to be treated and loved.

 TR>> But...you say that, and yet your posts in Fido tell a far different
 TR>> story about you.

Yeup...

 BM> Take you for instance, I don't hate you and I respect your views as
 BM> long as those views aren't taking away from another's rights.

You've lost no rights to state your views, although they are border-line
moronic.

 BM> You feel if you don't agree with things then it must be bad and you
 BM> condemn it just as Phil had done. No one on the face of this earth
 BM> knows who will and who will not enter the Kingdom of God.... it's
 BM> that simple.

This is true, but one can always speculate on that, knowing and believing
in what they read in their holy book. You see, Leviticus was written for
the Isrealites and the subject did come up again in the Christian's New
Testment, so there must be something to the truth in it all. Faggots like
you won't be entering the 'Kingdom of God'...

 BM>> Stray from those words and I'll say something about it.

 TR>> You mean....speak a word of opposition to the notion that males
 TR>> sucking other male's cocks, or buggering each other up the shitshut,
 TR>> is the next best thing since Hoover vacuum cleaners....and be
 TR>> forever ostracized! Or say one word of dissent against women doing
 TR>> nose nuzzles on each other's crotch, and get a ton of hate-filled
 TR>> condemnation!

 BM> Don't way anything and let them live their own life.  You complain
 BM> about them "forcing" their chosen lifestyle on you yet you're the
 BM> type who are consistantly brow beating them to the point they have to
 BM> respond.

If they just kept their mouths shut and live with their sodomite
'bretheren', then they wouldn't have anyone pushing that agenda to stop
flaunting their faggot habits in public.

 BM> Basic physics... Newton's Third Law.... For every action, there is an
 BM> equal and opposite reaction. Let them live as they chose and
 BM> they'lllet you live. Is that so hard for you to understand?

As long as they don't parade down main street and flaunt their
homosexuality in front of me, they'll be left to their own devices, no
matter how shortened their lives will be from STDs as; sodomites usually
go early in life.

 BM>> Again, if Phil was trying to evangelize then he should have taken
 BM>> the same path as the Lord.

 TR>> He did.

 BM> No he didn't.  He insulted them.

No he didn't, he told it like it really is.

 RC>> So Phil Robertson can speak out on the present and future, whether
 RC>> he follows your script or not.

 BM>> Sure he can, just as long as he follows the rules handed down by the
 BM>> very Person he's preaching for.

So be it...verse 21 "You shall not give any of your offspring to offer
them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
22' You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination. 23' Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be
defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with
it; it is a perversion."

 TR>> Problem is *you* don't know what you're talking about.

 BM> I know exactly what I'm talking about.  It's you who finds falt in
 BM> everything and one.  Compassion is not one of your stronger suits.

Glad I don't have a falt (sic) like yours.

 TR>> There are several places in the Bible where homosexual (sodomite)
 TR>> activity is clearly condemned and forbidden.

 BM> Fine, then let God deal with it.  Last time I looked neither you or
 BM> Phil had the title God.

LOL! That is god's way of saying, 'see, I'm not alone in thinking that
homosexual acts are detestale'...

 BM>> Stray from those rules and you're not following the Lord's way thus
 BM>> he should be chastized over his remarks. Hopefully he has seen the
 BM>> errors of his ways and became a better man for it with a better
 BM>> understanding.

 TR>> The `real' problem is the sodomite crowd don't like the fact that
 TR>> Christianity is clearly and un-comprimizingly AGAINT the act of
 TR>> sodomy of both the male AND female variety.

 BM> Funny, didn't Pope Francis just prove your statement above false?
 BM> Keep up Tim.

That's news to me. Has the Pope some kind of tunneling with his god and
his god has suddenly, after 4 millinia, changed his mind about
homosexuality being an abomination?

 TR>> I want to draw your attention to something (again)....I've said this
 TR>> before and I'll say it again here;

 TR>> The religion of Islam is STRONGLY against the practice of male-male
 TR>> or female -female sodomy.

 BM> Fine, doesn't make it right.

If it came down from their god and it also came down from your god, there
must be something to it. Did it ever occur to you that it may be your
thinking that is wrong...(you don't need to answer that, since it was just
a rhetorical thought.)

 TR>> Some countries have even legislated AGAINST homosexual activity of
 TR>> EITHER brand!

 BM> Doesn't make them right either.

In whose eyes, then? Yours!? LOL!

 BM>  As you've previously stated quite forcefully, YOU don't give a rats
 BM> ass about other countries... so why start now?

I didnt seem him state that, all I read was a statment that you twisted
around to make it look like he did.

 TR>> In all this controversy in various echoes, I've never seen you or
 TR>> your fellow Fido supporters of the sodomite lifestyle come out
 TR>> openly and CONDEMN either those countries OR Islam for its strong
 TR>> opposition to homosexuals\sodomites!

 BM> I just did above....

Not!

 BM>> You see Ross, when you become a public figure you are bound by
 BM>> certain guidelines regarding what and who you portray.


 TR>> Which, to you and your fellow sodomite-supporters means...YOUR
 TR>> `guidelines', right?

 BM> Nope, God's...

Then you're advocating against god's mandate against homosexuality.

 TR>> In other words....cross lines that YOU draw....and you explode in
 TR>> loud protest AND censorship, right?

 BM> Again, the Lord's first law... Love thy neighbor...

The lord? Who is that, your landlord?

The first law given to the Isrealites was; "You shall have no other gods
before me."

 BM>> No one has an issue on how he feels about homosexuality but the
 BM>> issue lies in the way he said it.

 TR>> Well....I thought he said what he said in pretty easy language.

 BM> He did.... comparing homosexuality to beastiality. You can't see the
 BM> issue with that?

His god said it first, you can't see the issue with that?

 TR>> The reaction of the sodomite segment of society was what it ALWAYS
 TR>> is; completely out of proportion to the `percieved' offense.
 TR>> Overblown, outrageous, and typical sodomite-like over-kill!

 BM> And if someone accused you of beastiality??  What would your reaction
 BM> be?

First, I'd make an assesment of my sexual activities, then if I found it
not to be true, as defined in Leviticus 18:22, etc., then I'd have a
negative reaction to it. But, being a sodomite, there can't be any
negative reaction because homosexuality is compared to a sexual activity
with beasts and that it is a fact.

 BM>> Is that so hard to follow?

 TR>> In other words....`Fall in line! Shut up! Get with the program! Or
 TR>> get censored!'  No....thats not hard to follow. What REALLY piss's
 TR>> you off is, there's a lot of people out here who refuse to go along.
 TR>> Won't be silenced.

 BM> Have I censored you?  What pisses you off there are more and more who
 BM> approve of gay rights and that is driving you the the point of
 BM> insanity!! Remember, the First Amendment has consequences.

LOL!

 TR>> Phil Robertson is one of them. And so am I.

 BM> Sorry to say, today you're both becoming a silient minority.

LOL! Not really.


    Tiddely do and Billy boy too!


         R\%/itt - K5RXT

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012
--- D'Bridge 3.99
 * Origin: Felten's BS Lunch Counter, Special; BS w/Stuffing! (1:387/22)