Text 15285, 589 rader
Skriven 2014-05-15 22:38:00 av Bill McGarrity (7599.2fidonews)
Kommentar till text 15264 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: Voting (new voting sy
=================================
-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to BILL MCGARRITY <=-
TR> 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....
TR> Here's a real interesting turn of evnts! A `liberal'...most of whom are
TR> NON believers in `religion', or `God'....suddenly `finds the bible and
TR> starts interpreting it to others!
Most are... this one isn't and I found the bible many years ago... so your
little theory has about as much teeth as a new born baby..
TR> And by the way...I've never seen anywhere in the bible that it says
TR> `love them for whoever they are'.
TR> In various places it says to love;
TR> To love God...your neighbors, strangers, salvation, God's name, God's
TR> word, mercy, good, truth, peace...love your enemies, one another, your
TR> brethern, the saints, love peace, wives, husbands, children...(speaking
TR> of which...since you've suddenly become a `bible thumper' here, I'll
TR> have more to say on that subject shortly)...
Oh good... can't wait too see that nonsense...
TR> By the way....you've yet to demonstrate or directly `quote' me
TR> expressing `hate' toward the sodomite set.
You truly live in a fantasy...
TR> I don't like their lifestyle, I detest their *forcing* it into our
TR> national culture in that `in-your-face' tactic they employ to do so,
TR> and I enjoy pointing out their hypocrisy of demanding their `right' to
TR> be what they are...but denying the rights of the rest of us to make any
TR> public protest of it.
First Amendment there Tim.... and if you believe in the Constitution as much as
you say you do, then you need to accept and allow others to express themselves.
I don't like people burning the Flag yet the SCOTUS has ruled on that many
times. Catch up will you.
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...
I have no problem with your views. It's the issue you want to force others
into giving up their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.
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.
TR> Who made *you* the `maker of the rules'? I find it surprising that you
TR> suddenly find the bible!
Who made you? I ahve teh Constitution on my side and also the Lord's teaching
of love they neighbor. You're treating the gays through your remarks as
animals therefore you must enjoy being treated as one yourself.
TR> Not so. You aren't very smart, are you? Here's another attempt at
TR> cooking up a `nothing' burger on your part.
You just say that because you don't have either an answer or a clue.
BM>Oh, he compared homosexuality on par with beastiality.
TR> The `biblical' meaning of `homosexual' is *sodomite*. And also the
TR> `biblical' meaning of *sodomite* also equates it with *beastiality*.
TR> In Genesis it describes Sodom as a city destroyed because of
TR> homosexuality, aka `sodomy'!
TR> `Sodomy' is also put inthe same class as `beastality' by the bible.
TR> `Sodomy' is defined by the bible as an act of un-natural sexual
TR> activity as between two people of the same sex, or with beasts.
Can you show me the exact verse where Sodomy and bestiality are equated? Only
reference I can see is a mention of a creature which, according to scholars,
was Satan.
TR> So....what Phil Robertson stated was right on the mark.
Phil Robertson was wrong for saying it just as I would be wrong for saying he
goes out and fucks ducks.
TR> And THAT is why the sodomite crowd came unglued! They come unglued like
TR> that and raise a hue and cry, because, every once in awhile somebody
TR> like Phil Robertson holds a mirror up for them to see themselves, and
TR> they don't like what they see! Not that its THAT that bothers them so
TR> much...what REALLY bothers them is that a large part of society sees
TR> them for what they are: common sodomites! Not `mainstream'....not
TR> `normal'....but common sodomites!
Believe what you want but as per the Constitution they're allowed. Funny how
53% of the country agrees. Are you now saying majority rule is useless as well?
TR> THATS what bothers the hell out of them! And THATS why they have to
TR> come out swinging at even the slightest hint of opposition. they can't
TR> stand the lifestyle they follow being dragged out and closely inspected
TR> in the light of day.
And if someone make a derogatory remeark about your wife? Would you just go
with the flow?
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....
TR> That goes both ways.
Sure it does... I never debated that.... but I am sure if a gay came out and
said he dated Ronald Reagan during his movie career you'd be the first one out
the door screaming bloody hell.
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.
No, you chose not to understand what he said because you're of the same mold.
When anyone of either pursuation does or says something that is wrong, I say
it's wrong. The issue with the waitress and the remark on the check a few
years ago was wrong. She was wrong and I'm glad she was outed, gay or not.
She broke the law.
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?
Should there be if he equated them on a level of bestiality?
TR> 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!
Tim, an example... I go on national tv and say Tim Richardson's wife is
screwing animals. Would I be wrong in saying that? If the answer is yes, then
what Phil said was just as wrong.
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?
TR> Homosexuality is considered on the same level as beastality by the
TR> biblical definition of `sodomy'. Are you that blind?
Again, show me the passage.
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."
Where does it say bestiality??
BM>How does he know they won't inherit the Kindom of God? Psychic?
TR> Because the teachings of both the bible itself, AND the teachings of
TR> Jesus tell him so.
TR> Mathew 25:34...Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
TR> Come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
TR> the foundation of the world:.....
TR> Exodus chapter 22 v19:
TR> "Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."
Beast is a reference to Satan... try again..
TR> 1st Kings chapter 14 v24:
TR> "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to
TR> all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the
TR> children of Israel."
Still no reference....
TR> In other words...God had `cast out' sodomites, even prior to the time
TR> when `the children of Israel' had come into being.
TR> 1st Kings came chapter v11-12:
TR> "And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David
TR> his father."
TR> "And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the
TR> idols that his fathers had made."
TR> Thats all he said.
BM>That's all he had to say...
TR> Yeah...and the sodomite crowd went on a rampage over it. Overkill at
TR> its worst.
BM>but you fail to see the significance.. which is you being you as usual.
TR> *You're* the one trying to lay `biblical' justification for *sodomy's*
TR> right to be `mainstream' in our society and culture...not me.
No, I am pointing out that the Lord said love thy neighbor and I do. I am
tolerant of their views and do not pass judgement. I'll let God do that. You
on the other hand are condemning gays and acting as judge, jury and
executioner. Doesn't work that way Tim.
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.
TR> point entirely; hate the `sin' even as you love the `sinner'.
I do... something wrong with that? Do you think I need to be on the street
forcing religion on gays? What about the ones who love God... and see it as a
different picture. It's their right. You nor any other hater of gays can take
their rights away.
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.
TR> Nothing I've said has *taken away from another's rights*. I've only
TR> expressed my position. *YOU*...and your supporters in here are the ones
TR> throwing the insults, not me.
You sure want to. Have you not said they have no right flaunting their views
in your face? You're denying their First Amendment rights. I can't say there
are some gays that are just as psychotic as you regarding straights and I feel
they are just as guilty. If a gay person said what Phil said, I'd be just as
outraged. That's the difference between us Tim. You talk a good talk but deep
down inside you're the type of person where tolerence of others who are
different just doesn't compute in your brain. We all have our cross to bear.
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.
TR> You're wrong on both counts.
TR> It isn't `bad and you condemn it' just because I don't agree with it
TR> `just as Phil had done'.
TR> Its bad because all my mental and physical senses are repelled by
TR> it...and Phil's view is its bad because he is a believing and
TR> practicing Christian, and the bible teaches him its bad, as is
TR> explained and taught in MANY places in the bible, which to Phil is
TR> God's Holy Word.
Then all he had to say was I don't agree with homosexuality and be done with
it. That would have been a respectful way of dealing with his views. he took
that extra step and crossed the line.
TR> As for `...enter the Kingdom of God'...The Kingdom of God is for
TR> `believers' in His word...and `practitioners' of His teachings.
TR> In both His word...AND His teachings IN that Word...`sodomy' is not
TR> only `forbidden' activity'...it also is equated with `beastality'.
Still waiting for that verse....
BM> Stray from those words and I'll say something about it.
TR> Neither Phil nor I `stray from those words...' and what you say on it
TR> is not only un-biblical, your words are also completely out of line
TR> 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.
TR> That works both ways.
Action... reaction. Leave them alone and I'm sure they'd go about their lives
leaving you alone. Making remarks equating homosexuality to bestiality is a
little irritating.. don't you think? Now remember if someone made that remark
about you? What would be your reaction? Silence? I highly doubt it.
TR> Oh yeah....remember I said up there near the top I'd have something to
TR> say about `children'?
TR> Here's this:
TR> A person by the name William Vahey is one of the most prolific and
TR> successful pedophiles in recent history. According to th eFBI he had
TR> the photos of almost 90 young boys on his computer, a number which they
TR> consider low in the face of having been contacted by several hundred
TR> who have some forward and revealed they were among his victims. His
TR> method of operation was to place oreo cookies laced with sleeping pills
TR> to render them unconcious, and then photographed and molested them, and
TR> stored the photographs on a computer! Nice, huh?
Off topic and irrevelent. Just your way of getting your shit out on the
street. Take it to another discussion.
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?
TR> Your (and *their*) notion of `let them live as they chose and they'll
TR> let you live', is: `Shut your mouth! NO verbal opposition what-so-ever!
TR> Not a single word! Or else!'
No, you have every right to feel the way you do but when you cross the line and
insult then you're going to get a reaction. Phil got a reaction. You and the
rest of the anti-gay feel he was treated unjustly. He was the one who threw
the first stone. Reap what you sow...
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.
TR> He only `held the mirror'. It isn't HIS fault they didn't like what
TR> they saw in themselves.
Good try... useless analogy...
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.
TR> 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.
TR> On the contrary. You're pissed off because I don't look at the subject
TR> of sexual perversion (sodomy) the same way you do. I don't share your
TR> notion that its on the same level as `civil rights'. It isn't. Although
TR> the sodomite crowd has taken to attempting to hitch their star to the
TR> `civil rights movement' in recent times...in actual fact the sodomites
TR> were nowhere to be seen at Birmingham...or Washington...
Tim, you can have any feelings you want about it. Insulting and degrading
someone because of their choice on how to live their life opens the door to
that reaction I was talking about. I am sure if you took a pole of all the
gays in the country and asked them if Phil had ONLY said he doesn't agree with
the gay lifestyle, 90% of them would hafve been fine with it. Yes, there are
lunitics on the gay side as well. That's the difference...
TR> When King made his now-famous `I have a dream' speech...ther were no
TR> `pink' sodomite banners in sight, anywhere! IN all the news film
TR> footage on the violence and bloody scenes from those days and
TR> times...not *once* is a homosexual group shown with bloody faces from
TR> being punched by cops, or blood streaming from their scalps from blows
TR> by night-sticks from authorities.
Different times Tim.. and you know that. Coming out and flaunting it was a
death sentence. Funny though, just a few years later there was Stonewall...
TR> NOR at any time during that era is any sodomite group vocally or
TR> publically identified WITH the movement of blacks nad their white
TR> supporters for equal rights for all! Not once!
So? Your point? Do you know for a fact there were no gays or lesbians in the
crowds? Didn't think so.
BM>Compassion is not one of your stronger suits.
TR> `Compassion' has nothing whatever to do with being both disgusted and
TR> repelled by evil incarnate: sodomy and beastality.
The Lords words Tim... Love they neighbor... I know you can do it...
TR> `Hate the sin...but love the sinner'...is the teaching of many a past
TR> 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.
TR> Last time *I* looked...Phil was just following what *God* taught and
TR> spoke of in His book; the bible, on the subject of `sodomy' and
TR> `beastality'.
Still no passage regarding sodomy and bestiality... keep trying...
BM>Stray from those rules and you're not following
BM>the Lord's way thus he should be chastized over his remarks.
TR> You're a fine one to be `thumping' anyone with a blble. Your
TR> `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.
TR> He saw no such thing! In actual fact....he WON!
The only thing he won was a TV contract. As I said, I watched that show pretty
religiously. I don't now so A&E lost me as a viewer and that equates to lost
revenue.
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
TR> 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.
TR> And that ALL you've got to say about it?
I don't agree with it... what's more to say. They are being just as intolerant
as you are. Two wrongs don't make it right.
TR> Phil Robertson speaks what the Word of God teaches about sodomy...and
TR> the homosexual community comes unglued! Attacks on all fronts!
TR> Pressures a network to drop Phil from the show...
TR> I have not thrown any of the usual taunts or profane expressions
TR> typical of hate-filled individuals during our exchanges on the subject
TR> of sodomy and sodomites, in any echo we-ve had this discussion in.
TR> Yet you and others have insulted me, made false accusations about what
TR> I've expressed, etc etc.
Oh please... the martyr routine is getting old...
TR> And now....*you* (of all people) try to put on the cloak of `rightous
TR> indignation', of `biblical' accusation ( a subject upon which you are
TR> sadly lacking in both knowledge AND standing), and attempt to use the
TR> bible as your weapon.
Still waiting for the passage where sodomy and bestiality are equated...
TR> Problem is...you picked up the wrong weapon this time. You know little
TR> of the bible, even less about the teachings of both God, and His son
TR> Jesus, and either un-knowingly or deliberately, mis-interpret what the
TR> bible teaches on the subjects of both sodomy AND beastiality.
Show me the $$$$ You talk a good game but you have no clue what I know or don't
know. A few days you said you've never even heard of the show, just happened
to stuble upon it and now you're an expert. I guess two days of reseach makes
you an expert. Should we give you your Doctorate next week?
Love they neighbor....
Bill
Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live
... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
* Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
|