![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
..
Anus Anos Argyros Argyrou Argynnus Arsoles Agamemnon wrote: kolofilia = love of the anus Wow. Planet irony or what? Your arsehole obsession makes you the prize uk.* kolfiliac. You've even contrived to bring dogs' arses into your posts, you sick ****. |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Agamemnon wrote: POPPYCOCK. Leviticus 20 13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. The teaching or guidance of these religions is perfectly clear. Idiogenogamois and bestiality are unacceptable. Now show me how you can interpret these passages otherwise? What does 'lie with a man as one lies with a woman' actually mean? If it It means an act that is punishable by death. means having a **** it should say so but doesn't. Ok to say to put to death - that's clear enough - but not say what you mean about sex. Of course bigots like you will read into it what you will. That's exactly why much of the bible is translated in an ambiguous way. Bigots, ambiguous, ha.... You are the bigot kolofile and there is NOTHING ambiguous about what Leviticus says about idiogenogamotics. It uses the expression as one lies with a woman because it not only means having sex with them but also touching them up, kissing them, and treating them in any other way that you would treat a woman sexually. Welcome to a warped society. Do not give in. -- Member - Liberal International This is Ici God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! PEI!! On 28 May Get rid of the extremists and VOTE LIBERAL! |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Wright wrote:
I think we need an interjection by new voices, because I'm getting tired of the present ones. Are there any homosexuals in the group who would like to tell us ... -- how they feel about their sexuality from a religious or philosophical viewpoint ... Hell, Bill. No, we DON'T want that. Not after the way that Aggie has managed to spin out his anus obsession here even in the absence of the above. |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
marc_CH wrote: Agamemnon wrote: You've clearly never read 'Symposium'. From your comment it is obvious that you have not whereas I have. In Symposium Plato condemns kologamosis, and in fact all kinds of sex and advocates a relationship based on friendship and not lust. Serious question; did Plato die a virgin? -- marc "There are no such things as witches, and homosexuality is a choice of how to masturbate. -- Aggy" As Basil Fawlty would say about the Greeks: "They are the ones who started it." -- Member - Liberal International This is Ici God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! PEI!! On 28 May Get rid of the extremists and VOTE LIBERAL! |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
+tacos+ told the audient void (and rec.arts.drwho):
Anus Anos Argyros Argyrou Argynnus Arsoles wrote: Go tell them Yads. Go tell them. Kolofiles the lot. Yads=Jews? For the benefit of people following this from uk.tech.digital-tv: "Yads" is a nickname for the person who posts as "The Doctor", to whom the above was directed. If Agado had learned to punctuate, this might have been clearer. -- Remove caps when replying Don't they teach recreational mathematics any more? |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Wright told the audient void (and rec.arts.drwho):
This is like one of those late night pub arguments that go on and on getting louder and louder and more and more repetitive until one or more of the protagonists slides under the table. It's like this all the time... I think we need an interjection by new voices, because I'm getting tired of the present ones. [...] ....which is why I'm glad for an interjection by the new voices of another group. That's probably not why the crosspost started, though. -- Remove caps when replying Don't they teach recreational mathematics any more? |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian Salsbury wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message . uk... ****ing loonies. So its perfectly alright to have John Barrowman inviting Andrew Lloyd Weber to shove his cock up his arse and bend over for some more on the Jonathan Ross show, as if that is not offensive to Christians, Muslims, Jews and the majority of the public who consider anal sex to be perverted, but not this. *snipped* The difference here is Clarkson was using the word "gay" in a derogatory fashion whereas in Who and on the Ross show homosexuality has been used to promote tolerance and in the interviewing of a gay man respectively. The point is that homosexuality has certain stereotypes which are perpetuated by the very queens which pervade our TV screens - John Barrowman, Graham Norton etc - so if a car looks a "bit gay" it probably has some of the characteristics these famous gays posess. So it's probably a bit effeminate and a bit over-the-top. If he'd said "it's a bit gay - so we should kill anyone who owns one because all gays are evil" then you'd have a point. Geoff |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Face of Po wrote:
For the benefit of people following this from uk.tech.digital-tv: "Yads" is a nickname for the person who posts as "The Doctor", to whom the above was directed. If Agado had learned to punctuate, this might have been clearer. OK, thanks for that clarification. In the TV group, the resident obsessive is somebody known as half_pint or half_wit, currently posting as Lord Turkey Cough, and he posts about the evils of widescreen TV, repeating exactly the same thing over and over. I thought that *he* was bad until Aggie started on his arsehole obsession. At least half_wit is merely exasperating rather than repellent. I've no objection to off-topic stuff in principle, but I think that this is about the third time that Arsehole Boy has indulged himself with his favourite subject in the TV group, and is now distinctly repetitive. I understand that the Dr Who group is Planet Arsehole thanks to him at the moment, so maybe we in the TV group should count ourselves lucky. |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Agamemnon" wrote in message . uk... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , The Doctor wrote: Get back to reality. Homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity, Judaism and Islam I'd suggest you read all the other 'sexual guidance' given by these various religions and see how much you agree with and how much is actually taken notice of these days - even by those praticing those religions. And since the majority in this country don't actively follow any religion why should they care what those religions say? Thing is you can't have it all ways, if you call yourself a Christian. Either every single word of the authorised version of the Bible is gospel and must be followed to the letter or parts are only for guidance. If the latter it just comes down to interpretation. And that interpretation is done by humans who are fallible and will allow their prejudices to influence them. POPPYCOCK. Leviticus 20 13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. The teaching or guidance of these religions is perfectly clear. Idiogenogamois and bestiality are unacceptable. Now show me how you can interpret these passages otherwise? There is a passage in Leviticus that states, quite unambiguously, that all male babies should be circumcised when they are 8 days old. There is a passage in Leviticus that states, equally unambiguously, that pork should not be eaten. I don't see Christians obeying these laws. You cannot quote one rule in Leviticus as evidence if you then turn a blind eye to the next rule. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|