XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:52:21 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:02:15 -0400, mur. <> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:23:35 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>>.
>>>On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:33:12 -0400, mur. <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:37:05 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 3/18/2015 5:11 PM, mur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not actually supporting your case there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your quotation is quite clear. All sinned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a very common belief. In fact I've never met anyone who
didn't
>>>>>> believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thus we are all damned to hell
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. Do you have any clue why?
>>>
>>>Because if Hell doesn't exist, we aren't damned to it.
>>
>> And if it does?
>>
>>>>>by default regardless of our particular
>>>>>sins.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would depend on the beliefs of the individual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which are whatever the individual wants them to be. Hence the actual
>>>>>>> prospect of going to prison being a more likely deterrent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying we should believe no group of people is more
likely to
>>>>>> abuse children than any other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. That's not what I'm saying. And really I can't recall the last
>>>>>time that someone started a sentence with "So you're saying" and
>>>>>accurately conveyed what the person was saying.
>>>>
>>>> Well so far you've provided no reason to believe I wasn't correct this
time.
>>>>
>>>>>It might in fact be the
>>>>>case that atheists are statistically more likely to molest children than
>>>>>church-goers. You just haven't made a good argument for it or
>>>>>established that the difference, if it exist is particularly large and
>>>>>significant.
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't provided reason to believe I wasn't correct.
>>>
>>>Yes I have. I've pointed out that Judeo-Christian religion doesn't even
>>>ban molestation.
>>
>> How did you find that out?
>
>I read the Bible.
What does it say about people eating their own children and their own
feces?
>>>I've pointed out that even if it did, the punishment
>>>for it would be no more severe than it would be for being alive.
>>
>> We are told:
>>
>>Mark 9:42
>>"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to
stumble,
>>it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck
and
>>they were thrown into the sea."
>
>That is an admonition against drawing children into sinful behavior. It
>has no bearing on sex, assuming you marry the 12 year old first.
People had a different interpretation of maturity back in those days,
probably in part because they didn't live half as long as they do today.
Actually from the impression I get it's not that "they" thought it was ok for
girls to marry at an "earlier" age, but it's more like "we" think they should
wait until a later age than people in most of human history.
>>so there may be more to it than you want people to believe.
>>
>>>>>You just kind of assumed that the many reports of child
>>>>>molesting in connection to religious institutions are anomalous or
>>>>>fabricated
>>>>
>>>> Try providing reason to believe that.
>>>
>>>That's what you said you were doing.
>>
>> Present your quote(s).
>>
>>>Were you lying?
>>
>> No, but so far I must suspect that you may be.
>
>Oh. My mistake.
You didn't provide your quote(s).
>So instead your position is that the reports of child
>molesting in connection to religious institutions are factual and not
>anomalous.
I feel sure that some are and some are not, but if you think that's
incorrect then try supporting the idea.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
