yeah.Yeah?
yeah.Yeah?
yeah.
I wish I could move this to the arcadium then move it back...it will be up to a mod in here to get it done.If you said every white needs to be hanged from a tree.... and say you're not even factually incorrect but you're a public figure or even a face of the company in some capacity. Should you expect to keep your job?
FYI Your position doesn't involve marking ropes for the slaughtering of cac.
in these scenario... is it actually possible for me to make that happen??? or would I just be talking out my ass.If you said every white needs to be hanged from a tree.... and say you're not even factually incorrect but you're a public figure or even a face of the company in some capacity. Should you expect to keep your job?
FYI Your position doesn't involve marking ropes for the slaughtering of cac.
in these scenario... is it actually possible for me to make that happen??? or would I just be talking out my ass.
my answer would depend on that.
fawks chus talmbowt breh, the nikka said he use to pick cotton with black folks, so he had his fair share of contacts, but still felt comfortable with such a racist toned commentnot a racist comment actually. kinda shocked to be honest. sounds just like someone who has had VERY little contact with black people or culture since then.
More ignorant than anything.
Because whites could care less about racist statements being made as its cool to shyt on blacks. Gays on the other hand are off limits.
i see, reading is fundamental for you dear sir. go back and read what i posted. i then explained it again. just because i see a RACIST doesnt mean nothing he/she says is 100% incorrect. they can be correct about a part and wrong about the rest. that is possible.The man said Blacks were happier in the fields. How is that at all true if you arent trolling? Wtf does the bible have to do his comments on Blacks?
i dont see da prollem wit whut missuh robberson said. blas were moor happy back when dey wuz singin in da feeld and tiptowin thru da toolips. das whut dey wuz ment to do by god. dey used to pick kotton and smell da dazies just a merry and singin wit dey eyes all big.
dat wuz da good ol days when amurica wuz still grate. blas were not on welfair, rapin whie wimmen and buyin gold teef and old inglish wit food stamps. blas had jobs and used to work until sundown to earn dere keep. now dey r shifless and lazy and going around terrarizin good whie folts wit da nockout game.
dass why i say if i wuz prezodint da furss thing i wood do is put blas back on da plantashun so dey can learn how to work like dey ansessors.
You aren't a troll just an idiot. I don't give a fukk what this clown's opinion on homosexuality is or what parts of the Bible he lives by. I never brought it up. I'll ask one more time, how were his comments on blacks "facts".i see, reading is fundamental for you dear sir. go back and read what i posted. i then explained it again. just because i see a RACIST doesnt mean nothing he/she says is 100% incorrect. they can be correct about a part and wrong about the rest. that is possible.
is dude a racist for saying that? YEP. was dude just repeating what the bible says about sin? YEP.
is having a homosexual relation a sin IN THE BIBLE? YEP
is committing adultery a sin in the BIBLE? YEP
is being a terrorist a sin inthe bible? YEP
is all Sin = any other Sin in the bible? YEP
so therefore PER the BIBLE(not someone elses opinion. we're talking about thebook, not my opinion, not the duck guys opinion. the books take on sin... SO is the bibles take on sin mean that terroist sin is the same as a homosexual relationship? the answer is YES according to the bible. all sin is sin. there are no levels of little white lie vs big black lie. sin = death. regardless in the bible.
now if you dont believe in the bible. what you crying about. if you believe in the bible but didnt read those scripts.. READ some more.
READ or never use this same old response again.people who eat shellfish are no different than murderers, rapist, homosexuals, and prostitutes. They are ruining the fabric of American values and destroying families across this great nation. I know I'm right because the bible tells me that eating shellfish is a sin you lobster eating heathens.
So, why do Christians feel free to ignore OT commands regarding food laws in Leviticus, but insist that the commands regarding homosexual practice are still binding?
I am aware that there are probably a lot of other objections about other laws in the Old Testament which Christians also might not appear to take seriously. I cannot cover these in detail. With regards to Old Testament penalties, it should be noted that the Mosaic law was given to the Jews, and was not meant to be a law for all people in all times. I think the coming of Christ and the destruction of the temple, as begun symbolically by God himself in Matthew 27:51, signified the end of a lot of the Mosaic law as a law meant to be put into practice by a nation. The gospel going out to the Gentiles marks the end of Israel as a theocratic nation, which makes various OT laws impossible to practice. We can, of course, still draw many principles from those laws, which is what Christians attempt to do
- The language and context used for these words makes it clear that food laws were distinctively Jewish laws, while the prohibition on homosexuality is a law binding on all nations, and so serious that their failure to observe it was part of the reason for God bringing severe judgement on them.
- The teaching of the New Testament clearly indicates that food laws (as well as some other ceremonial laws) are not binding in the post-Jesus period in which the good news goes to all nations.
- The OT framework on sexual ethics (permanent heterosexual marriage only) is reinforced and tightened by Jesus, never revoked, and male-male sex is specifically highlighted by Paul as an example of one of the most serious and flagrant sins, using exactly the terminology of Leviticus.
the fact that you're asking me that very question tells me you dont know how to read. i just called the dude a racist. i think that answers your question on that subject. this thread was not about his comments about blacks. it was about his comments about homosexuality.stick to the topic.You aren't a troll just an idiot. I don't give a fukk what this clown's opinion on homosexuality is or what parts of the Bible he lives by. I never brought it up. I'll ask one more time, how were his comments on blacks "facts".
u r a etselent posser suh. wear u lern all dem big wurds frum dough? i wood love to talk to u won day when deres no whie folts aroun.
he's an ignorant southern cac. what would you expect from someone like that? he said some stupid sh1t in a magazine i don't care about... i've only seen 50 cent's gq cover. that's all i know about gq magazine. infact 50 was lookin like a fakkit on it. it's probably a gay magazine and they, gq, are the ones offended trying to turn this sh1t around..
this cracka didn't know he was walkin to a slaughterhouse and being setup.