XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: David@block.net   
      
   On 4/7/2015 3:03 PM, mur wrote:   
   > 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,   
      
   What do you imagine the word "anomalous" means?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)