Text 15264, 477 rader
Skriven 2014-05-15 15:46:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BILL MCGARRITY
Ärende: Re: Voting (new voting sy
=================================
On 05-14-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to TIM RICHARDSON:



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.


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


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


Here's a real interesting turn of evnts! A `liberal'...most of whom are NON
believers in `religion', or `God'....suddenly `finds the bible and starts
interpreting it to others!


And by the way...I've never seen anywhere in the bible that it says `love them
for whoever they are'.


In various places it says to love;


To love God...your neighbors, strangers, salvation, God's name, God's word,
mercy, good, truth, peace...love your enemies, one another, your brethern, the
saints, love peace, wives, husbands, children...(speaking of which...since
you've suddenly become a `bible thumper' here, I'll have more to say on that
subject shortly)...


By the way....you've yet to demonstrate or directly `quote' me expressing
`hate' toward the sodomite set.


I don't like their lifestyle, I detest their *forcing* it into our national
culture in that `in-your-face' tactic they employ to do so, and I enjoy
pointing out their hypocrisy of demanding their `right' to be what they
are...but denying the rights of the rest of us to make any public protest of
it.


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.


Who made *you* the `maker of the rules'? I find it surprising that you
suddenly find the bible!


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


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


The `biblical' meaning of `homosexual' is *sodomite*. And also the `biblical'
meaning of *sodomite* also equates it with *beastiality*.


In Genesis it describes Sodom as a city destroyed because of homosexuality,
aka `sodomy'!


`Sodomy' is also put inthe same class as `beastality' by the bible.


`Sodomy' is defined by the bible as an act of un-natural sexual activity as
between two people of the same sex, or with beasts.


So....what Phil Robertson stated was right on the mark.


And THAT is why the sodomite crowd came unglued! They come unglued like that
and raise a hue and cry, because, every once in awhile somebody like Phil
Robertson holds a mirror up for them to see themselves, and they don't like
what they see! Not that its THAT that bothers them so much...what REALLY
bothers them is that a large part of society sees them for what they are:
common sodomites! Not `mainstream'....not `normal'....but common sodomites!


THATS what bothers the hell out of them! And THATS why they have to come out
swinging at even the slightest hint of opposition. they can't stand the
lifestyle they follow being dragged out and closely inspected in the light of
day.


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?


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


BM>First Amendement rights do have consequences....


That goes both ways.


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".


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


BM>Don't think so...


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?


There was no `in'tolerance in what he said. None.


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


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?


Homosexuality is considered on the same level as beastality by the biblical
definition of `sodomy'. Are you that blind?


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


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


Because the teachings of both the bible itself, AND the teachings of Jesus
tell him so.


Mathew 25:34...Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come ye
blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world:.....


Exodus chapter 22 v19:


"Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."


1st Kings chapter 14 v24:


"And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the
abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of
Israel."


In other words...God had `cast out' sodomites, even prior to the time when
`the children of Israel' had come into being.


1st Kings came chapter v11-12:

"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his
father."


"And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the idols that
his fathers had made."

TR> Thats all he said.


BM>That's all he had to say...


Yeah...and the sodomite crowd went on a rampage over it. Overkill at its
worst.


BM>but you fail to see the significance.. which is you being you as usual.


*You're* the one trying to lay `biblical' justification for *sodomy's* right
to be `mainstream' in our society and culture...not me.


TR> 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.


You miss the point entirely. Actually...you pretend not to `see' the point
entirely; hate the `sin' even as you love the `sinner'.


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


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


Nothing I've said has *taken away from another's rights*. I've only expressed
my position. *YOU*...and your supporters in here are the ones throwing the
insults, not me.


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


You're wrong on both counts.


It isn't `bad and you condemn it' just because I don't agree with it `just as
Phil had done'.


Its bad because all my mental and physical senses are repelled by it...and
Phil's view is its bad because he is a believing and practicing Christian, and
the bible teaches him its bad, as is explained and taught in MANY places in
the bible, which to Phil is God's Holy Word.


As for `...enter the Kingdom of God'...The Kingdom of God is for `believers'
in His word...and `practitioners' of His teachings.


In both His word...AND His teachings IN that Word...`sodomy' is not only
`forbidden' activity'...it also is equated with `beastality'.


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


Neither Phil nor I `stray from those words...' and what you say on it is not
only un-biblical, your words are also completely out of line with God's
teachings on the subject of `sodomy'.


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


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


That works both ways.


Oh yeah....remember I said up there near the top I'd have something to say
about `children'?


Here's this:


A person by the name William Vahey is one of the most prolific and successful
pedophiles in recent history. According to th eFBI he had the photos of almost
90 young boys on his computer, a number which they consider low in the face of
having been contacted by several hundred who have some forward and revealed
they were among his victims. His method of operation was to place oreo cookies
laced with sleeping pills to render them unconcious, and then photographed and
molested them, and stored the photographs on a computer! Nice, huh?


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


Your (and *their*) notion of `let them live as they chose and they'll let you
live', is: `Shut your mouth! NO verbal opposition what-so-ever! Not a single
word! Or else!'


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


TR> He did.


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


He only `held the mirror'. It isn't HIS fault they didn't like what they saw
in themselves.


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.


He did.


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.


On the contrary. You're pissed off because I don't look at the subject of
sexual perversion (sodomy) the same way you do. I don't share your notion that
its on the same level as `civil rights'. It isn't. Although the sodomite crowd
has taken to attempting to hitch their star to the `civil rights movement' in
recent times...in actual fact the sodomites were nowhere to be seen at
Birmingham...or Washington...


When King made his now-famous `I have a dream' speech...ther were no `pink'
sodomite banners in sight, anywhere! IN all the news film footage on the
violence and bloody scenes from those days and times...not *once* is a
homosexual group shown with bloody faces from being punched by cops, or blood
streaming from their scalps from blows by night-sticks from authorities.


NOR at any time during that era is any sodomite group vocally or publically
identified WITH the movement of blacks nad their white supporters for equal
rights for all! Not once!


BM>Compassion is not one of your stronger suits.


`Compassion' has nothing whatever to do with being both disgusted and repelled
by evil incarnate: sodomy and beastality.


`Hate the sin...but love the sinner'...is the teaching of many a past and
present minister of the Gospel AND the entire bible.


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 Phil
BM>had the title God.


Last time *I* looked...Phil was just following what *God* taught and spoke of
in His book; the bible, on the subject of `sodomy' and `beastality'.


BM>Stray from those rules and you're not following
BM>the Lord's way thus he should be chastized over his remarks.


You're a fine one to be `thumping' anyone with a blble. Your `intolerance' has
been rife throughout this entire thread!


BM>Hopefully he has seen the errors of his ways and became a better man for it
BM>with a better understanding.


He saw no such thing! In actual fact....he WON!


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 sodomy
TR> of both the male AND female variety.


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


IN what way, pray tell?


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


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


BM>Fine, doesn't make it right.


And that ALL you've got to say about it?


Phil Robertson speaks what the Word of God teaches about sodomy...and the
homosexual community comes unglued! Attacks on all fronts! Pressures a network
to drop Phil from the show...


I have not thrown any of the usual taunts or profane expressions typical of
hate-filled individuals during our exchanges on the subject of sodomy and
sodomites, in any echo we-ve had this discussion in.


Yet you and others have insulted me, made false accusations about what I've
expressed, etc etc.


And now....*you* (of all people) try to put on the cloak of `rightous
indignation', of `biblical' accusation ( a subject upon which you are sadly
lacking in both knowledge AND standing), and attempt to use the bible as your
weapon.


Problem is...you picked up the wrong weapon this time. You know little of the
bible, even less about the teachings of both God, and His son Jesus, and
either un-knowingly or deliberately, mis-interpret what the bible teaches on
the subjects of both sodomy AND beastiality.


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