(July 31, 2012 at 7:53 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(July 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Sorry? Did you just imply that asking whether you believe hermaphrodites to be abominations is the same as asking you if you believe overweight ladies to be abominations?

Nope

Now, watch carefully what comes next....

(July 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I think both minorities would be rather offended by that comparison.

You mean the comparison YOU made?

(July 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The idea that you think a severe genetic defect comparable to a weight condition is quite horrendous.

No - the idea that YOU think that is horrendous.
The idea that YOU want to project that thinking onto others is worse.

(July 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I sincerely hope we are not to take this as the typical view held by your religion.

It's not. And I dont.

(July 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I wonder what W.L. Craig would say about this rather ugly insinuation hastily made to dodge a simple question.

What ugly insinuation? The one YOU keep hammering on with?

Mr Craig is probably used to atheists making ugly insinuations about what Christians really mean

I threw up in my mouth when you said you - quote - ''sincerely hope'' - unquote - that I wasnt going to be baited into a discussion...about rough anal sex, prolapsed rectums, ''fat chicks'', hermaphrodites...(how long is your list?)

I'm not being evasive. I already told you, pages ago, I am not going to answer those (type of) questions.

Well that was entertaining, lets take a quick trip back to reality now:
What you said was that you didn't use terms like "fat chick". Then I changed the term and you didn't want to discuss "women of a large disposition" ingeneral. Then you accused me of a fixation with women of a larger disposition and then when I asked you about whether you considered hermaphrodites were abominations you responded "Hmmm. So it is a fixation." implying you bundled them in with women of a large disposition.

I find it somewhat shameful that you would rather bundle in those with a life altering defect of a genetic nature with those who have trouble with their weight than give a straight answer to a perfectly valid question.
My conclusion is that you consider them both abominations as you treat both subjects with equal disdain.
W.L. Craig would be ashamed of you and although I dislike him I'd be inclined to agree.

I would say welcome, though apparently that might not be such a good idea. Just out of curiosity did I sense a bit of anti-homosexual rhetoric in one of your posts? I ask because if so we should probably avoid each other. It's a valid question and your answer will determine our interactions so please be honest. I do so like honesty when learning how I should conduct my interactions with others.

Hi C.W. Sims,

God made everyone and I'm not anti-anyone.

If a person held that God does not exist, then it seems to me that they wouldnt have much basis on which to tell others
what they should or should not think about ANY sexual proclivity.

I respect your right to abstain from discussion with those whose ideas you dont like. (Theres some things I wont discuss too.)

Best regards - Lion (IRC)

(August 2, 2012 at 11:32 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Hi C.W. Sims,

God made everyone and I'm not anti-anyone.

If a person held that God does not exist, then it seems to me that they wouldnt have much basis on which to tell others
what they should or should not think about ANY sexual proclivity.

I respect your right to abstain from discussion with those whose ideas you dont like. (Theres some things I wont discuss too.)

Best regards - Lion (IRC)

Doesn't matter if they do believe, they still have jack shit on that count. I try to avoid telling people that they shouldn't be bigots. Pointing and laughing seems good enough.

(August 2, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Doesn't matter if they do believe, they still have jack shit on that count.

Do you think that nobody has a basis to give moral instruction on any topic? Or are sex acts alone outside the scope of morality? What do you think of rape and pedophilia?

---

(August 2, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I try to avoid telling people that they shouldn't be bigots. Pointing and laughing seems good enough on that count.

...wait, you think that you disapprove of bigotry? That's actually kind of sad.

Is there some law that states that christians absolutely must make comparisons to rape and pedophilia whenever this subject arises? Seems to be.

-Points, laughs.

Is there a law that atheists are only concerned about pedophilia when it occurs in the clergy?

A clergy - we are told - that is riddled with atheists pretending to be Christians

---

WAIT A MOMENT...................

---

I just thought of something shocking.
Anyone else wanna play a game of join the dots?

(August 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Is there some law that states that christians absolutely must make comparisons to rape and pedophilia whenever this subject arises? Seems to be.

-Points, laughs.

Especially given that Catholics are also Christians. If I were a bible thumper, I would avoid the p word.

---

(August 2, 2012 at 11:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Is there a law that atheists are only concerned about pedophilia when it occurs in the clergy?

A clergy - we are told - that is riddled with atheists pretending to be Christians

---

WAIT A MOMENT...................

---

I just thought of something shocking.
Anyone else wanna play a game of join the dots?

You are told that? By who, your local fucking predatory priest? Don't you fucking dare pass the buck to people outside of the motherfucking church. You don't like the feeling it gets knowing they are raping children so you try to pass that off on atheists? Shame on you, you fucking cretin. That was seriously and awfully low. Child abuse is not a way to push your fucking agenda. I care about every single abuse that children suffer in every walk of life. There just happens to be an awful lot of Catholics doing it. If there were a way to bleach your brain and start over, I would really suggest it for you. So hung up on your fucking fairy tales that you would use the plight of children to insult people who have nothing to do with Catholicism's many shortcomings?

(August 3, 2012 at 12:15 am)Shell B Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 11:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Is there a law that atheists are only concerned about pedophilia when it occurs in the clergy?

A clergy - we are told - that is riddled with atheists pretending to be Christians

---

WAIT A MOMENT...................

---

I just thought of something shocking.
Anyone else wanna play a game of join the dots?

You are told that? By who, your local fucking predatory priest? Don't you fucking dare pass the buck to people outside of the motherfucking church. You don't like the feeling it gets knowing they are raping children so you try to pass that off on atheists? Shame on you, you fucking cretin. That was seriously and awfully low.

I hate to break the news to you but its actually atheists putting that rumour out there. I am inclined to believe them.

Lion IRC Wrote:Is there a law that atheists are only concerned about pedophilia when it occurs in the clergy?

A clergy - we are told - that is riddled with atheists pretending to be Christians
WAIT A MOMENT...................
I just thought of something shocking.
Anyone else wanna play a game of join the dots?

Is there a law that when Christians are caught doing immoral things, such as the raping of young boys and the systematic cover up thereof, that they must desperately somehow try to blame it on the baby-eating, godless atheists?

---

Lion IRC Wrote:I hate to break the news to you but its actually atheists putting that rumour out there. I am inclined to believe them.

Well then, I guess if atheists are saying it, then we as atheists must just accept it as true. Quit being so fucking stupid.