Three wise former gays

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no slavery is slavery, simply because it happened in a different epoch has no bearing on the extent nor on its severity.

No exceptions

no slavery is slavery, simply because it happened in a different epoch has no bearing on the extent nor on its severity

so you are happy to step forward and condemn the slavery referred to in the bible and gods support of that slavery. good man, well done for speaking out against the big guy.

No exceptions

none at all? really? so you blame people with mental illness for their actions? you cut them no quarter? seems a tad cruel dont you think?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]no slavery is slavery, simply because it happened in a different epoch has no bearing on the extent nor on its severity

so you are happy to step forward and condemn the slavery referred to in the bible and gods support of that slavery. good man, well done for speaking out against the big guy.

No exceptions

none at all? really? so ...[text shortened]... ith mental illness for their actions? you cut them no quarter? seems a tad cruel dont you think?[/b]

No Biblical slavery was not the same as slavery practiced by the Romans or the British, no condemnation of the Most High God.

people with mental illnesses are once again an anomaly and depending on the degree of severity of their affliction can or cannot be held responsible for their actions but its just like the kind of free bird seed that you like to offer up to try to trap people, why don't you try to be simply honest for a change.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Right, so you can alert a moderator if you so choose.

and so could your friends when they read the text 'you ignorant and bigoted ****' but no, it was not until a perceived slur against gays that their consciences were motivated to act, can you tell us why that should be the case for both are transgressions of the ToS.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No Biblical slavery was not the same as slavery practiced by the Romans or the British, no condemnation of the Most High God.

people with mental illnesses are once again an anomaly and depending on the degree of severity of their affliction can or cannot be held responsible for their actions but its just like the kind of free bird seed that you like to offer up to try to trap people, why don't you try to be simply honest for a change.

'no slavery is slavery'............except when its not

'No exceptions'.............except for the exceptions!


and its my honesty you question!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]'no slavery is slavery'............except when its not

'No exceptions'.............except for the exceptions!


and its my honesty you question!![/b]

under Biblical standards someone could choose to enter servitude voluntarily, this is something completely different to the forced capture of slaves practiced by the Romans and the British. Once again its a battle against ignorance.

An anomaly is something different from what is normal, you continue to use anomalies, why don't you address what is normal instead of inventing unrealistic scenarios and trying to utilize anomalies to prove some point after you set a free bird seed trap otherwise i may be forced to start every sentence with, under normal circumstances. . . . . . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
under Biblical standards someone could choose to enter servitude voluntarily, this is something completely different to the forced capture of slaves practiced by the Romans and the British. Once again its a battle against ignorance.

An anomaly is something different from what is normal, you continue to use anomalies, why don't you address what is ...[text shortened]... enarios and trying to utilize anomalies to prove some point after you set a free bird seed trap.

mental illness is an anomaly is it? are you sure?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
mental illness is an anomaly is it? are you sure?

yes its not normal, that why its considered an illness 🙄

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its not normal, that why its an illness 🙄

are blue eyes an anomaly then? would you describe blonde hair as an anomaly? are all illness's anomalies?

can i also ask what method you are using to define 'normal'. do you use the same method for all things or do you change it on a case by case?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are blue eyes an anomaly then? would you describe blonde hair as an anomaly? are all illness's anomalies?

can i also ask what method you are using to define 'normal'. do you use the same method for all things or do you change it on a case by case?

blue eyes are normal, blond hair is normal, as they occur naturally.

Nature is the great decider of what is to be considered normal. If someone is born with no pigments in their eyes then this is an anomaly because generally people are born with blue, green or brown eyes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
blue eyes are normal, blond hair is normal, as they occur naturally.

Nature is the great decider of what is to be considered normal. If someone is born with no pigments in their eyes then this is an anomaly because generally people are born with blue, green or brown eyes.

you will have to help me out here. in your little bit about eyes were you implying that 'no pigments' occurs 'naturally' but is rare, so therefore an anomaly or were you suggesting that because it is an anomaly it is unnatural?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you will have to help me out here. in your little bit about eyes were you implying that 'no pigments' occurs 'naturally' but is rare, so therefore an anomaly or were you suggesting that because it is an anomaly it is unnatural?

indeed

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
indeed

huh? which one?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No one has an issue when you talk about homosexuality, it's when you resort to calling people 'Gaylord' that people take offence. It's a gay slur, and breaks the ToS.

I thought Gaylord was a city in Michigan.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
huh? which one?

the former, because they are rare.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
under Biblical standards someone could choose to enter servitude voluntarily, this is something completely different to the forced capture of slaves practiced by the Romans and the British. Once again its a battle against ignorance.

An anomaly is something different from what is normal, you continue to use anomalies, why don't you address what is ...[text shortened]... otherwise i may be forced to start every sentence with, under normal circumstances. . . . . . .

under Biblical standards someone could choose to enter servitude voluntarily, this is something completely different to the forced capture of slaves practiced by the Romans and the British. Once again its a battle against ignorance.

This is a half-truth at best. RC is up to his usual tricks.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible also condones slavery other than "voluntary servitude".

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)