Text 15223, 202 rader
Skriven 2014-05-14 04:40:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BILL MCGARRITY
Ärende: Re: Voting (new voting sy
=================================
On 05-12-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to ROSS CASSELL:


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 as
BM>yourself. It's taken from the book that most religious zealots like to
BM>quote, Liviticus.


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


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 the rule
BM>I stated above.  Phil wasn't following that rule when he made his
BM>statements. He was in a way, bearing false witness. Another strike.


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


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?


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


BM>If everyone knew his views then why the interview?


BM>If he would have come out and said he
BM>doesn't believe in homosexuality yet will be tolerent of those who are
BM>then I would have had more respect for the man and his "views".


He did. You (and a lot of other people) just chose not to understand what he
said. Or `pretended' you didn't. You (like the rest of the sodomite crowd and
their cheering section) tried to make `something' out of nothing.


BM>Plus ther
BM>are many others who's views are quite positive with regard to gay and
BM>lesbians yet their views aren't tolerated by the right wing. Case in
BM>point, Robertson's statement in the interview.  Was there tolerance?


He never said anything that was actually offensive. At least not to ordinary
people. Only the sodomite crowd came apart at the seams over a `percieved'
offense!


What did he actually say?


He said:


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


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


Thats all he said.


And the sodomite corner came unglued!


RC> You see Bill, you lieberals have this script everyone else must follow
RC> 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.


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


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


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


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


He did.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


BM>Is that so hard to follow?


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


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





---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 bbs.docsnetservices.com (1:123/140)