(August 19, 2015 at 12:15 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Anything by either Hovind - they're interchangeable - Ham, Pendleton etc are low-hanging fruit. Too easy. So for my money I'd probably go with that pastor who got caught bragging about punching a kid in the chest for Jesus.

I saw that one, Stimbo. It was mind-boggling.

Here's another:   A Priest talking about the glories of circumcision:

One was describing how the early church tried to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to be Xtian. He was talking about what a wonderful practice it is, what a glorious way to remind men that they have a relationship with God. He said "I feel sorry for uncircumsized males. They don't have the joy of being reminded, every few hours, that they are special to god."  

I turned to a friend and said "did he really just say, every time I take a piss . . . " [Friend] "Yep. That's exactly what he said."

A couple of points on this one:

1. Circumcision WAS sign of Israel's covenant with God.
2. Priests tend to be reasonably well educated having a bachelor's degree and another four years of seminary.

So, this was probably either a wry observation, a bit of hyperbole about the circumcision covenant or both.

And in the context of his talk on the subject of circumcision in the early Church, it may have sounded stupid (to you), but he was technically correct.

(August 19, 2015 at 12:18 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Age 13 in the deconversion moment. The youth pastor, getting tired of questions regarding evidence and inconsistencies stated " I don't have to prove anything to you, this is gods word and you must believe. That's why they call it faith!" He got up and stormed off. I was out.

Just out of curiosity...what if he had given you a really strong, solid answer?

Would you still be in?

(August 19, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Pedophilia is a love of feet anyway, so the two couldn't really be more different.

You Limeys and your extraneous As!

(August 19, 2015 at 5:51 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "It's ephebophila, not pedophilia."

The former is sexual interest in adolescents aged 15-19. The latter is sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

Since there is a pretty big difference between the two in terms of physical development, why do you think it is stupid to distinguish between the two?

(August 19, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 5:51 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "It's ephebophila, not pedophilia."

The former is sexual interest in adolescents aged 15-19. The latter is sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

Since there is a pretty big difference between the two in terms of physical development, why do you think it is stupid to distinguish between the two?

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it's because they violated the trust of their followers by abusing their positions of power?

Just a guess. I know it sounds strange, but I've always assumed that those who occupy positions of alleged moral leadership would exemplify the morality they wish to inculcate.

(August 19, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The former is sexual interest in adolescents aged 15-19. The latter is sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

Since there is a pretty big difference between the two in terms of physical development, why do you think it is stupid to distinguish between the two?

Gee, I don't know.  Perhaps it's because they violated the trust of their followers by abusing their positions of power?

That's a separate issue that doesn't answer the question: Why is distinguishing between the two "stupid" in your opinion?

Quote:Just a guess. I know it sounds strange, but I've always assumed that those who occupy positions of alleged moral leadership would exemplify the morality they wish to inculcate.

Like teachers, coaches, scout masters, Protestant leaders...

Oh, wait, I almost forgot...you only get upset about the smaller per capita percentage of Catholic priests who have violated that trust.

(August 19, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Gee, I don't know.  Perhaps it's because they violated the trust of their followers by abusing their positions of power?

That's a separate issue that doesn't answer the question: Why is distinguishing between the two "stupid" in your opinion?

Quote:Just a guess. I know it sounds strange, but I've always assumed that those who occupy positions of alleged moral leadership would exemplify the morality they wish to inculcate.

Like teachers, coaches, scout masters, Protestant leaders...

Oh, wait, I almost forgot...you only get upset about the smaller per capita percentage of Catholic priests who have violated that trust.

Unfortunately, there are sick fucks who diddle children in every walk of life. There is the matter of the the sick fucks that actively protect and enable child sex abusers to consider in this matter. The Catholic's Church's involvement in the cover-up of child molestation and rape on such a wide scale is as deplorable as the actions of the abusers, regardless of the per capita percentage.

You'd think after 14 years of going to church I'd have a list of things to say to this, but I'm drawing a blank. I think my filter have gotten better on blocking this stuff out for the sake of my sanity. I want to say, "Satan was a dinosaur" for my example, but I know that wasn't a preacher, and I wasn't there. That was a story I read from someone else about how dumb their co-workers were.

Wait, I got it, "Stem cell research is all about keeping abortion legal!" Oh, and some ramblings about Harry Potter being evil.

(August 19, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Pedophilia is a love of feet anyway, so the two couldn't really be more different.

Didn't Jesus have a foot fetish?

(August 19, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 12:15 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: I saw that one, Stimbo. It was mind-boggling.

Here's another:   A Priest talking about the glories of circumcision:

One was describing how the early church tried to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to be Xtian. He was talking about what a wonderful practice it is, what a glorious way to remind men that they have a relationship with God. He said "I feel sorry for uncircumsized males. They don't have the joy of being reminded, every few hours, that they are special to god."  

I turned to a friend and said "did he really just say, every time I take a piss . . . " [Friend] "Yep. That's exactly what he said."

A couple of points on this one:

1. Circumcision WAS sign of Israel's covenant with God.
2. Priests tend to be reasonably well educated having a bachelor's degree and another four years of seminary.

So, this was probably either a wry observation, a bit of hyperbole about the circumcision covenant or both.

And in the context of his talk on the subject of circumcision in the early Church, it may have sounded stupid (to you), but he was technically correct.

Circumcision got started because some guy like giving BJs on baby boys and he needed an excuse.  So he claimed that it was a religious practice and he was able to keep sucking boys' bloody penises throughout time, even to this very minute.