XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: David@block.net
On 4/29/2015 5:59 PM, mur wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:48:48 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
> .
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:56:00 -0400, 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 and found that you couldn't support your claim
>>> because it was a lie
>>
>> No, I didn't.
>
> You're letting us know that you're either too half ass to try supporting
> your own claim which still clearly appears to be a lie,
If "supporting my claim" would accomplish anything I'd do it. Since it
won't, I won't. Instead lets move on. Is it your position that the
reports of child molesting in connection to religious institutions are
factual and not anomalous?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
