Friday, December 11, 2015
Must not mention homosexuals and pedophiles in the same breath
Or else people might think that some homosexuals fancy boys. The numerous accounts of boys being sexually abused in British boarding schools testify that some do. It wasn't Matron abusing the boys
Police are investigating comments made by Tyson Fury in which he appeared to link homosexuals to paedophiles.
The world heavyweight boxing champion linked abortion and homosexuality with paedophilia, in an interview with the Mail on Sunday's Chief Sports Writer Oliver Holt.
The self-proclaimed Gypsy King said: 'There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home.
'One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?
'When I say paedophiles could be made legal, it sounds crazy. But if I had said to you about the first two being made legal in the 50s, I would have been looked upon as a crazy man.
'If I would have told you 120 years ago that a 1,000-ton aeroplane is going to fly through the sky, a piece of steel, that would have been considered ludicrous.
'People can say, 'You are against abortions, you are against paedophilia, you are against homosexuality', but my faith and my culture is based on the Bible.'
His comments sparked outrage and Greater Manchester Police has today confirmed they are investigating his comments after receiving a complaint, accusing Fury of a hate crime.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Given how he said what he said, there's no basis for their saying he linked them together other than the obvious linkage that they are all evil.
I thought this topic was discussed here some time ago -?
Yes - on Nov 9th -and got 18 comments. The source here is a different article relating to the same matter.
The police have better things to do then investigating someone who hurt the feeling of some whining little liberal pussietard
I don't understand where the hate part comes in. All he said was that homosexuality, abortion and paedophilia were crimes against the Bible. So what? Many Muslims would agree but I don't see people queueing up to tell them they preach hate speech, even though they actually do.
The "crimes" in or against the Bible (like adultery, witchcraft or working on the Sabbath) demanded execution. But Christians today thankfully ignore most of what the Old Testament says, and even much of the New Testament too; as nowadays it's just a cafeteria religion to back up (they choose to think) whatever contemporary hangups people have, just as many Muslims also ignore (or pretend not to know) what is in their own "Holy Books").
Religion wrecks everything.
"Christians today thankfully ignore most of what the Old Testament says, and even much of the New Testament too; as nowadays it's just a cafeteria religion"
While some do that—exactly as you're cherry picking, BTW—there are direct reasons given in the text of both the Old and New Testaments that controls what laws apply to whom. For example, jurisdiction matters just as laws differ between the United States and England.
I could explain more, but it would be a waste of time trying to explain to someone who clearly does not want to understand. (Something about "throwing pearls" comes to mind.)
The Pharisee Luke strikes again with his predictable rudeness. Elsewhere he says attacking the person making an argument is typical of trolls - and that's just what he does he here so hypocritically to someone who was not even mentioning him.
The reference to "Christians" does not say "all" Christians and can be read as "some" or "many" which Luke admits, so it's dishonest to call that "cherry picking". It is not at all clear which if any Laws applying to the Jews and early Christians should apply to people today who call themselves Christians and it is very clear that they pick and choose and have different ideas. Luke says he can explain but he can only give his own opinion based on selected opinions of others.
Elsewhere he says attacking the person making an argument is typical of trolls
For the record (from here):
maybe some people don't care about the argument and maybe, just maybe want to attack you for the pleasure of seeing your blowhard responses.
Definition of Internet Troll:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
If the bridge fits…
For anyone who actually cares about why some Old Testament laws still mean something (even if the penalties are not applied by Christians) and some don't matter at all, I suggest researching the terms malum in se and malum prohibitum. Old Testament proscriptions against things like adultery, rape, homosexuality, theft, murder, beastiality, etc., fit the former category while things like food restrictions (shellfish), beard trimming, etc., fit the latter. And as I've already pointed out, varying laws and punishments are the realm of political jurisdictions. (It is ignoring details like this and passages that explain this that make the troll's assertions "cherry picking".)
I'm done wasting time on trolling. But watch, the troll will wave off or ignore the point, and once again call me names, or try to claim something about motives again. (The ad hominem logical fallacy.) Thus both proving my point about trolling, and making me say "Thank you." (Luke 6:22)
Luke is a pompous pedant who thinks he is always right and should never be questioned, and anyone who has the temerity to do so is by definition a troll. He also seems to think there is only one "troll" who opposes him, or maybe to his mind opposition is a single evil force.
Luke's quoting of 'malum in se' and 'malum prohibitum' doesn't help, as it begs the question of what are regarded as intrinsically wrong and what a society thinks is wrong, as both are essentially the same in practice for any given society. Although many societies will agree on what seems intrinsically wrong (because it tends to cause instability in the society), they cannot use the self-serving authority of their holy books. Even then, societies make exceptions and qualifications to what they accept as "wrongs", such as "murder", as in claimed self-defence, so-called just wars, or even "theft", etc. As regards the Bible it isn't always clear what the background context was for a prohibited behavior, such as what is now translated as "homosexuality", or what is now thought of as adultery, although the reasons for the dietry laws may be more obvious for the times.
Wow - the arrogant Luke identifies himself with 'Luke 6:22' and must be thinking he's some kind of martyr for Christ, and no doubt in line for sainthood or a special place in Heaven - a very creepy similarity with Muslim martyrs' pathetic belief about winning a place in Paradise (with or without getting your own virgins as a reward!).
Of course the "Luke 6:22" is just one of those obvious "prophesies" that's bound to come true - excentric beliefs and behaviors will always get mocked.
Awww, is the poor widdle troll starving?
GREAT!
Cool - Luke is now resorting to feeble trollish comments to attack the ghost "trolls" - ha ha!
Post a Comment