Clarkson censured for 'bit gay' car gibe

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
Here is a list of people who have defended kolofilia and/or sexual acts
pertaining to idiogenogamosis in the Jeremy Clarkson thread.

"Beeblebear" the presidentfsnet.co.uk
"Stephen Wilson"
"Dave Plowman (News)"
"Roderick Stewart"
"Diane L."
"marc_CH"
"+tacos+"
"hulahoop"
"zarbiface"
"Darren Wilkinson" [email protected]
"Chris Slade"

If you think I have mistakenly placed you on this list and you do not
condone anal sex then fess up. Otherwise let this stand as a testimony to
the breakdown of a moral society in the 21st century for the generations to
come.

The list below contains the names of people who may possibly belong in the
list above, but I am not sure if they are posting seriously. If you wish to
distance yourselves from support of anal sex or want to state that you
support it then make your views known.

"john smith"
"Ben Bacarisse"
"Azaxyr"
"the dog from that film you saw"
"Marnok.com"
"Steve Thackery"
"Darren Wilkinson" [email protected]
"Ian"




Beware Azayr!! He has swastikas barnded all over his body.
--
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!

Owain told the audient void (and rec.arts.drwho):
Bill Wright wrote:
... You wouldn't use a 1969
texbook to learn about colour TV maintenance would you?

I can't remember if they *had* colour TV in 1969;

We here in radw know that they had colour TV in 1970 - cos that's when
the first Pertwee episode was broadcast. And, let me check this...
[digs out Prisoner box set]... yep, there was colour TV being made in
1967, according to the copyright messages.

--
Remove caps when replying

Don't they teach recreational mathematics any more?

"The Doctor" wrote in message
...

HAve you met Dr. Laura Schlessinger?

She's apparently some American woman best known for a radio talk show. In
America. I've never even heard of her (until now), let alone met her. Why do
you ask?

"The Doctor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Wilson wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...

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.

Well they wouldn't need it would they with all those foreskins lying
around.

On a more serious note, I don't really see how rules for behaviour laid
down for the very different societies that existed two or three thousand
years ago can have any relevance to modern society. You wouldn't use a
1969 texbook to learn about colour TV maintenance would you?

I can. If you've been brought up as a Christian, you've been taught that
the
Bible is the word of God. Take away someone's religion and part of their
world crumbles.

It could also be argued that technology has changed a lot in 38 years
(although the humble cathode ray tube hasn't changed much since its
invention). The human being has not changed that much in thousands of
year.



Humanity has not chenged since Adam and Eve.

No more than it's changed since Hansel and Gretel.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:36:32 +0100, The Face of Po
wrote:

We here in radw know that they had colour TV in 1970 - cos that's when
the first Pertwee episode was broadcast. And, let me check this...
[digs out Prisoner box set]... yep, there was colour TV being made in
1967, according to the copyright messages.

You're right about colour being available in 1970, and in fact some
programmes were available in colour on BBC2 several years before that.

But citing The Prisoner as proof isn't really valid because it was
made on film. Quite a lot of film programmes were made in colour many
years before we had the means to broadcast them in colour.

Rod.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:25:16 GMT, "Stephen Wilson"
wrote:

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.

Aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? Perhaps there is
some confusion with offering both cheeks......

Rod.

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...
On a more serious note, I don't really see how rules for behaviour laid
down for the very different societies that existed two or three thousand
years ago can have any relevance to modern society. You wouldn't use a
1969 texbook to learn about colour TV maintenance would you?

I can. If you've been brought up as a Christian, you've been taught that
the Bible is the word of God.
You are in effect saying that because a belief is a part of a religion it is
automatically correct. This is clearly not the case.

Take away someone's religion and part of their world crumbles.
Of course. I respect the psychological help that religion gives its
adherents. A belief system that supports people through difficult times has
a lot to commend it, even though it might be based on a series of fallacies.
I'm excluding from this lunatic fringe amongst the religious, of course.
It's important than we don't condemn all religion just because (a) there
isn't a god and (b) there is a lunatic fringe. There are large numbers of
ordinary people who gain great comfort and strength from their beliefs. I
for one would never attempt to take that away from them. After all, they'll
never find out that there isn't a god will they, so they won't suffer any
disillusionment.


It could also be argued that technology has changed a lot in 38 years
(although the humble cathode ray tube hasn't changed much since its
invention). The human being has not changed that much in thousands of
year.

No, but human nature is only one element. Society and technology have
changed beyond recognition. Most of the proscriptions of old were sensible
at the time, but the reasons for many of them no longer apply. There have
also been enormous philosophical advances. There is now (in civilised
countries) a belief in the human being as a self-determining entity, as
opposed to a cog in a machine. We place far more emphasis these days on
self-expression and simple personal happiness.

Bill

On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:57:20 +0100, "Agamemnon"
wrote:

You want something silly do you?

Well, I've just finished watching Look East and abomination knows no bounds.
A transgenic human has been made mayor of one of the towns in the region.

Transgenic? You mean a person with artificially added DNA from a
different species?

Rod.

"The Doctor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Wilson wrote:

Humanity has not changed since Adam and Eve.

When were they alive?

Bill

"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?

That is the English *mistranslation* as has been explained.
The original meant ritually unclean. ie don't do it in church.
--
--
Chris Lyth - shoot the president to reply)

I am the mother of all things, and all things should wear a
sweater.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com