XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: David@block.net   
      
   On 4/17/2015 2:56 PM, mur wrote:   
   > On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:01 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   > .   
   >> On 4/7/2015 3:42 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> And the incidentally the reason I didn't provide the quote was because   
   >> sifting through dozens and dozens of your e-mails to find it would take   
   >> too long and accomplish too little.   
   >   
   >      Translation: You did try   
      
   No, I didn't.  So which is it?  Are the reports of child molesting in   
   connection to religious factual and not anomalous or not?  Here's your   
   chance to make your position clear.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)