₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: sodomite (plural sodomites)
One who practices sodomy; a sodomist.
(derogatory) A male homosexual.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sodomite




You live in the UK, when next you walk across an openly gay guy, pls call him a sodomite

Please explain this to me. Explain to me why a person who openly identifies himself as someone who practices sodomy should take offense at being called a sodomite.
That's like a person who openly identifies himself as someone who practices carpentry getting offended at being called a carpenter.

Logicboy03: MMC, pls ban this guy. This is getting too much.


Imagine a white guy contesting the right to call a black man a Ni66er
This Anony wants to fight for his right to abuse gays.

Non sequitor. Go to the dictionary and look up the word sodomite, it is not an offensive word in any way. Stop being silly

manmustwac: I received a complaint this morning saying that that you calling gays sodomites was offensive to gays so after reviewing the matter i decided to edit the topic title. Don't change it again. You have been warned.

Lol, spoken like a true power drunk dictator. I am really disappointed in you for this post.
Since when did people taking offense at a word give you the right to edit people's topics on their behalf? Have you changed all the topics on this forum that Christians find offensive too?

Which of the 21 rules have I broken? or are you just trying to flex your muscles and massage your ego here?

Btw, I have changed the topic back. feel free to take any actions you want. You have the ability (but not the right) to close threads and ban people as you please but I'll yet implore you

Please don't behave like that, it is not your way. Leave that to Maclatunji in the Islam section. There is a certain respect I have for you, please don't sink to depths that are unbecoming of your person

Van snickers: I find it Ironical that you're bringing up my Tolerance.

I find it equally ironical that tolerance in your book involves shutting down threads just because you don't like what they have to say.

Who is it that keeps changing the title of my thread? Manmustwac, na you dey change am? Why you dey form maclatunji? If na you abeg stop am. . . .Or at least give me an explanation why you are so intent on meddling with my title

Van snickers: I second that.

Lol, of course, suppress the voice of opposing views. How tolerant.

Logicboy03: See this arrogant pharisee.

Erm sir, do you think that your religion gives you the right to use such a word for gay people? Do you think because of Sodom and Gommorah, you now have the right to call gay people "sodomites"?

Sodomite is derogatory and since you are unrepentant, I CALL ON THE GREAT POWER OF THE MODS TO PUNISH YOUR SINS AND TRANSGRESSIONS BY SENDING YOUR THREAD TO THE FIERY LAKE CALLED THE CLOSED THREAD SECTION

This is plainly nonsense. Sodomite is a formal way of describing hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals. There is nothing derogatory about calling a person who practices sodomy a sodomite.

The only wrong done here is the mod who thought he/she had the right to force their own choice of words into my mouth.

thehomer: My opinion of what exactly? I just saw a bunch of people hassling another bunch of people. I don't think people should be hassled for speaking their minds. But then, people shouldn't be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.

So, are you trying to draw any conclusions from it or is it just a pointless opinion sampling?

Good, your opinion has been noted. I saw hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals beating up Christians for their beliefs. I didn't see anyone discriminating against the hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals.

hisblud: gbam. I tire oh. We started, they claim it was lifted from psalm 45.6 and that its just judge not Elohim, looking at the strongs concordance, it did not show judge but Elohim yet again. Yet we are accused of twisting when someone claimed that scholars agree its judge yet the hebrew, doesnt agree but show its Elohim. Who is twisting? Pictures were shown of how God and judge is in hebrew which were completely different, yet we are twisting? Hmm i sorry for all this anti trinitarians oh. Frosbel, with all your indept study with brethern, heb 1.8, psalm 45.6 is exposing your study as a vain deceitful study, showing you have erred badly, repent- change your mind.

Me too, I don tire for them. How someone can accuse people of twisting something that is quoted verbatim baffles me.

Deep Sight: It is certainly okay with me. While you are at it, please also take the opportunity to substitute any other verses that I put up in your behalf in my OP. I was quite surprised that Romans 9:5 was not one of your verses - and when it came up, I had to handle it without the benefit of full responses as would have been the case if it had been cited properly by either of us as a verse for treatment by itself. As it happens, it was only treated as a subset of D1, because you alluded to it in your rebuttal.

Nevertheless I am satisfied with our treatment of it, so please do feel free to substitute any verses for a more apt verse.

I await, sire.

Hi Deep Sight, if it is ok with you, I'd like to substitute two of the verses you put on my behalf (A6 and A9) with the following:

A6 - Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

A9 - Luke 5:20-21 When He saw their faith, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Please copy and paste them over the corresponding numbers in your post so that the thread reads smoothly. These are the only changes I'll be making, the other verses you presented are fine with me. Many thanks.

Logicboy03: 1) Illegal immigration
2) Bribery/Fraud with the help of christian ship captains
3) Colonial subversion of the sovereignty of the Japanese kingdom

Lololol..........Interesting.

You are criminal for commiting a crime. You can break the law and not be a criminal.

And this is because breaking the law is not a crime?

It is clear that you had no argument against the crimes of the missionaries and so you had to anonynize and compare their illegal immigration and colonialism to blasphemy.

Lets examine how silly you are for even comparing the two

Illegal immigration + smuggling; Universal, logical and easily provable crime that destroys a society/economy

Blasphemy; ambiguous, subject to religion, archaic and impratical law(A sunni will blaspheme to a shia). HAVE YOU NOTICE THAT IT IS ONLY BACKWARDS COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS? COMPARE THE TOP 10 ADVANCED COUNTRIES AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NONE HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS.

No sir, you don't get to cherry pick for your own convenience which laws soveriegn countries ought to have. If you claim that the missionaries committed a crime, then you must hold that your blaspheming brothers in Bangladesh committed a crime as well namely,
1. Illegal use of the internet
2. Offensive and Defamatory speech against the religion of the citizens of the land (similar to how you are calling for a ban on me for exposing the vile behavior of certain sodomites by claiming I am being "offensive"
3. Subversion of the sovereignty of the Bangladeshi nation

. . . .unless you subscribe to a higher law than those made by men by which you judge the nations you have no basis upon which to claim some people are criminals and others aren't when they both committed crimes against law of the land they were inhabiting.

It is clear that you are ignorant of history. These missionaries already conquered Phillipines with their false gospel. They were trading slaves in Africa and marginalising the native indigines of the Americas. Yet, the Japanese emperor should have let them freely carry out their dubious missionary activities knowing that they would colonize the Japanese society?

...and so the Japanaese shogunate was justified in killing and imprisoning the missionaries including Japanese citizens who converted to Christianity?

Not what they might do. What they have done and what they will do. Notice how all catholic societies of the past were subbject to rome? Even the UK until a King rejected the pope? The wise Asians saw through the missionary nonsense.

Speculation

These same missionaries engaged in racism, slavery and fraud of the highest order, yet they shouldnt go to prison.

Give a few examples of such missionaries

ANONY, SHUT UP

yawn

^^
LOAD OF BULLSHYT

Christian missionaries from Europe did engage in imperialism and yes, it means that christianity as practiced by the spaniards and british were imperialistic. The Japanese govt was right to put a stop to that nonsense. Note how Japan today is better than all the christian colonies where the azzhole missionaries went to spread their false gospel.

I am sorry but you have made a very silly argument that doesn't follow. You might as well argue that Germany is prosperous today because it killed all those Jews in the 30s.

Atheism doesnt lead to communism. Dont be an 1diot. Communal practices, nationalism and collectivist ideologies lead to communism.
You didnt study politics, economics or history past a basic level. and it is very evident. Please kindly keep quiet on things you dont know

Christianity doesn't lead to colonialism. Don't be an 1diot. Imperial practices, nationalism and jingoist ideologies lead to colonialism.
You didn't study politics, economics or history past a basic level. and it is very evident. Please kindly keep quiet on things you don't know

Funny how your own words condemn you, Mr DoubleStandard

SMH. Faulty premise, faulty conclusions. I do not support unnecessary killings. You can never be right with the above comment. Even if you could make the above comment true by some miraculous feat, you would still be a foolish person. Why?

You support the right of the isrealites to kill and occupy lands that had no trouble with them in the old testament. Take the promised land. It was not an empty land . Yet, the isrealites took it on the orders of their God. This makes you a hypocrite

Interesting how you don't support unnecessary killings yet you think that the extermination of Christians in ancient Japan was necessary to Japan's current economic success.

Secondly, your personal swipe at me is irrelevant to the discussion and does not change the fact that you have defended the horrific persecution of a people just because of what they believe

Besides, I thought the bible was fiction to you. Nonetheless, your ignorance of biblical and ancient near east history is at it again. We shall explore that tangent upon a day but that day is not today. I'm not chasing your red herring tonight.

Frank4YAHWEH: I have already answered the question. It is not my fault that you are not satisfied with it and that your whole agenda is only to twist Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word in an attempt to promote your false and demonic doctrines "Jesus IS God!" and "Jesus pre-existed his birth."

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

Lololol.....Hebrews 1:8 clearly refers to Christ as God. Psalm 45 from where it is taken makes it equally clear that He is God. You are the one who claimed that "God" there really meant "judge" and when were shown to be in the wrong, you manufactured another word 'ayil' that wasn't found anywhere in the text. When that also failed, you jumped to another tangent: an allegation of plagiarism against the HRV that had absolutely nothing to do with the text in question.

Despite all your jumping around all over the place, you still want to accuse others of twisting? Please don't make me laugh. Hebrews 1:8 speaks clearly and it says:

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.


....and yes, Jesus Christ pre-existed His physical birth

Frank4YAHWEH: Hebraic Roots Version?
http://www.lebtahor.com/truth/trimm/plagiarisms/hrvpage.htm

It is interesting to notice how you are deceitfully trying to stir away from the topic at hand by focusing on the tangent of an allegation of plagiarism against the HRB which has absolutely thing to do with whether or not Yahshua is Elohim.

Please stay on course. . . .and if you cannot contest the verses put before you, concede the fact that Jesus is God, repent of your sins and be on your way. Trying to evade the topic does not help you at all.

Frank4YAHWEH: The problem is, Scripture nowhere teaches "Yahshua is Elohim" [God]." Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua is the Messiah the SON of the living Yahweh. I myself never give reference to FATHER Yahweh or His SON Yahshua by the name/title 'Elohim.' I prefer to refer to FATHER Yahweh in our English langauge as 'Mighty One' and to distinguishing Him from other 'mighty ones' I refer to Him as 'Almighty One.' This is why I had mentioned one of the root words from where 'El, Eloah, Elohim, etc. derived. It originally has the meaning of power, strength, might and can give reference to anything. Ayil as compared to a ram and in like manner another root of the same catigory which is yl is campared to an oak tree in Hebrew. The "Mighty Oak" and a ram signify power.

You are just talking in circles here. You have been shown clearly that Yahshua is Elohim from Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45. You can either accept it or reject it, going to such desperate lengths to twist it simply doesn't help you.

thehomer: Are you trying to draw any conclusions from it?

I am more interested in your opinion of it

Logicboy03: Your story is incomplete and those that died were criminals not matyrs or saints.

Interesting. What was their crime?

Using your incomplete story;
The missionaries were deported, yet they came back again through smuggling thus, breaking the law. Yet your argument is that they should not have been imprisoned

If this is truly what you think, then you must also hold that the atheists in Pakistan who were imprisoned for blasphemy were criminals who deserve to be put in jail for breaking the law.

Using the full story ad facts
These missionaries were colonialists who converted, dominated and conquered foriegn lands in the name of the Queen and God. They were never innocent. They deserved prison for trying to colonize a foreign territory

You have to ask yourself honestly, did they try to conquer foreign lands? If so, with what guns and swords? . . .or were they killed on the mere suspicion of what they might do? Let us look at your attempt at justification shall we?

The shogunate and imperial government at first supported the Catholic mission and the missionaries, thinking that they would reduce the power of the Buddhist monks, and help trade with Spain and Portugal. However, the Shogunate was also wary of colonialism, seeing that in the Philippines the Spanish had taken power after converting the population. The government increasingly saw Roman Catholicism as a threat, and started persecuting Christians. Christianity was banned and those Japanese who refused to abandon their faith were killed.

All you have shown is that the Japanese government were afraid that Christian ideas might lead to a European controlled government this is similar to people who are wary and rightfully so, that atheistic and materialistic ideas would lead to a socialist/communist government. Should atheists then be imprisoned or put to death because we are wary of a communist threat? In like manner, what prevented the Japanese government from engaging in a battle of ideas with the Christian position? Was imprisoning and killing them for their faith the right thing to do?

From your persistent attempts to defend the vile actions of the Japanese shogunate, it appears to me that you really hold worse views than those expressed by the guy in the video.

Logicboy03: Anony, I go back to the original argument-



You are an 1diot

What a reasonable man you are

thehomer: What is the point of posting this video?

For people to watch and comment on it

Hello Moderators,

I do not appreciate the changing of the words I chose for the topic of my thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1371463/amusement-meet-tolerant-sodomites-it

Someone decided to change my title of my thread from "meet the tolerant sodomites" to "meet the tolerant gays"

Last I checked, the word "sodomite" is not a banned word on this forum. I was also fully aware of my choice of words before I typed them. I am not a child incapable of making my own decisions neither was I intoxicated when I typed those words.
I do not appreciate anyone changing my words as they see fit, nothing gives you that right. It is an abuse of the moderator's privileges. In fact which ever of you that was responsible for it ought to apologize for your wrongdoing.

I have now changed it back to the original topic, Please respect my choice of words and leave them be. Thank you.

Logicboy03: lol....Anony, you mamaged to escape a ban.....your thread should have be closed for saying "sodomites"


lucky you it was only changed to "gays"

Lucky? You must be joking.

^^^^^Why don't we read a few details of this "Self defence"

Martyrs of Japan
...After the Shogun decided that Christianity needed to be suppressed, the Christian teachers were ordered to leave the country. They did so, however, a few decided to sneak back in, including the Augustinian Father Pedro de Zuiniga and the Dominican Father Luis Florez. They went on board a ship from Manila captained by a Japanese Christian named Joachim. The vessel, however, was captured and plundered by the Dutch who reported to the Japanese (into whose custody they were given) that there were Catholic priests on board. They were imprisoned in Hirato; however, they (along with a number of other Christians) broke out of prison with the help of another Dominican father from Manila.

All the prisoners were recaptured, and the emperor ordered the governor of Nagasaki to burn alive Captain Joachim with his entire officers and crew, the two priests, and all the other monks in this and other prisons (both foreigners and Japanese), as well as all the wives and children of those who had previously been martyred.

The governor then proceeded to Hirato and examined the prisoners. He questioned them about whether they were Christians, where they were born and when they were baptized. He instructed them to renounce Christianity, and that the Emperor had given him a promise that if they did so, their lives would be spared. They repeatedly refused to renounce the faith. Therefore, the governor ordered the captain and the two priests to be burned alive, and for ten sailors to be beheaded. The three to be burned asked for what reason they were being killed, and when upon being told they were being executed for illegally seeking to spread the Christian faith in Japan, they rejoiced for being able to die for Christ.

They were executed in Nagasaki on August 19, 1622. The sailors were first beheaded, as the three were made ready for burning. Before they were burned, Joachim began preaching to the crowd that had come to watch. He was ordered to stop, but he asked what greater pain they could inflict upon him that than which they were already going to do. The fire was then set and Joachim continued to preach as he was being burned.

The heads of the three were removed and placed upon a board as a public warning. The bodies were left where they were for several days, and large crowds of Japanese Christians arrived, venerating them. The guards beat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Japan

Yeah, I know you don't agree with the killing. You only wanted them to be kept in prison for wanting to share their faith.

Logicboy03: Wow....


1) The "tolerant" atheist in the video said christians should be put in prison just for their beliefs which he doesnt agree with

2) I was talking about a past event where missionaries came to Japan to dominate/conquer in Japan (just like they did to red indians) and the Japanese emperor killed them. Self defense. I said that imprisonment would have been better option for those killed.



Anony says 1 and 2 are the same. If I say Anony is dubious.....

Good now let us compare the two of you a it more critically.

1. You both believe that Christians support slavery and racism.

2. He believes Christians should be imprisoned for racism and slavery, while you on the other hand justifies the actions of ancient Japan as "self-defence" for killing Christians who had not done anything. In fact, you would recommend imprisonment for what you suspect the christians were going to do.

....Yeah I see a world of difference between the two of you. At least he condemns people for what he thinks they did. You on the other hand are quite happy to condemn them for what you think they might do.

Logicboy03: smh......everyone can see who the troll is between us

Hahahaha....so it has now broken down to the point of accusing me of trolling in my own thread? Your tank must be running low on gas again.

P/s: I am assuming you are referring to me as the troll, if on the other hand you were actually referring to yourself then I guess I'm fine with that.

Logicboy03: Have you seen me shouting on the street or saying that christians should be put in prison?

If not, you are a douchebag for saying that he reminds you of me.

Interesting. Why don't we study this comment of yours here:

logicboy: Look, I have already said that Pagan Naija's picture of a burnt church is aggressive. We do not need to burn churches. Violence not needed.

The part about Japan is fair game. Christian missionaries did not go to Japan to do good. If they were allowed to carry out their mission, it would have been Shintoists and Buddhists executed and persecuted for their heresy. I do not believe in the death sentence but those christians in Japan needed to be punished. Imprisonment could have been a better punishment.

While I agree that Pagan Naija's rhetoric might be over the top, he is not a terrorist.

I agree with his sentiments regarding the removal of christianity and islam in Nigeria. We dont need both. However, I do not suscribe to terrorism.

https://www.nairaland.com/953389/let-us-work-strategy-fellow/1#11018959

Logicboy03: Retreat? Of course.

Cant you see that the others left this thread for dead because you become the master of the merry go round and strawmen. You tried to make fun of nairaland atheists by posting a video of a mentally unstable atheist shouting at an innocent christian in public but it backfired

Urhm....I wasn't making fun of nairaland atheists, I was only feeling sorry for them. The dude reminded me of you lot. . . . . .and no I don't think he was mentally unstable

Logicboy03: Lol....enjoy your Anonyism while it lasts.

"anonyism" Logicboy's cop-out

Mr Troll: anony one question? Or two...
1) Did the christian in my imaginary video use profanity?

No he didn't

2) Would you say all internet christians argue like him then? What parts would they disagree with?

The don't disagree with what he said but then you didn't give us much to go on concerning the "how" that can be gleaned from typing.

Logicboy03: Lol.....your comments do not change the factS.

A christian, an agnostic and an atheist have all shown you that your op is not only nonsense but silly with respect to atheists. Go home

Lolol....Logicboy fires his retreating shot. Please what exactly did they show? ok never mind, I won't stand in the way of your retreat.

Logicboy03: Dont mind him.....he doesnt realise that he is a bigot for 2 reasons

1) Anony is no different from racists that use one video to stereotype other races
2) Calling gay people "sodomites". Wow, what a tool Anony is

Lololololol.......meet the "tolerant" logicboy.

1. Logicboy is no different from racists that use one posted video to stereotype other races
2. Calling Anony a bigot. Wow, how tolerant Logicboy is.

Van snickers: Stop being a Troll. Do you know how many Homosexuals and gay-rights activists have been brutally killed?!

.....and that somehow justifies their actions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQvjKEP6xDE

What is their problem?

Frank4YAHWEH: The word 'ayil' means: mighty ones, leaders, nobles of state. Would not this include judges? As to your question, it would depend on the context as to how it is to be translated, right?

...and the word 'ayil' appears where and in what context as regards to the verses being considered?

I hope you do realize that the word 'ayil' does not even appear in Psalm 45.