Total posts: 5,875
Regarding the suggestion that Tradesecret and ethang5 are the same user, investigation already turned up negative results on this.
That anyone thought my usage was similar enough to Tradesecret to warrant an investigation is flattering. TS is a very good writer, and I wish the allegation aboutl similarity were more true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think the mods ever knew how much the site needed him.
I'm pretty sure they did. He wouldn't shut-up about it.
Probably because they didn't know how much the site needed him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think the mods ever knew how much the site needed him.
I'm pretty sure they did. He wouldn't shut-up about it.
Probably because they didn't know how much the site needed him
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the entire point.
There is no uniformity of ATHEISTS.
They are quite uniform here.
The actions or ideas of any particular self-identified ATHEIST do not necessarily inform the actions or ideas of any OTHER particular ATHEIST.
This is true of everyone.
There is not uniformity of belief because ATHEISTS do not share any particular belief.
The chances of atheists all spouting the same beliefs coincidentally is so close to zero, the difference is invisible.
They only share a particular LACK-of belief.
But for the word "only" above, your comment would be correct.
Created:
I don't recall claiming omniscience so swing and a miss for you, but feel free to correct me if you read, speak and write Hebrew. Am I wrong in my statement or are you only going to respond to the fact that I made the statement and ignore its content?
I addressed it's contents. You graciously DID NOT say you were omniscient, yet you know what I dont't know.
The verb is eh'yeh, not "to be". It means, quite specifically, "I will be." If you think that that is the same as "to be" then you will come to a different conclusion. In English, "to be" is not the same as "I will be" and it is the same in Hebrew (to be is l'hiyot).
The verb is "be" no matter which language you're using to carry the meaning. The meaning did not change.
The people who did the translation also spoke etc the original and in other cases, they translated that word differently. So what drove their decision here?
Context
It didn't drive other people. If you don't know, then that's fine, but that's the question I'm asking.
And I have answered it 3 times now. But your agenda wants another answer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no ATHEIST clergy.
Sure there are. You guys quote them all the time. Is not your holy book "The God Delusion"?
I've never heard of it.
Lol. Ok. Watch your nose there Pono.
Most of the "founding fathers" were self-identified DEISTS and did NOT call themselves ATHIESTS.
Tell that to the atheist congregation quoting them in support of atheist claims.
Created:
-->
@rosends
I don't think the meaning changed. You do.
That's because I speak, read and understand the original. You don't.
Lol. You're so humble! You didn't even mention you're omniscient! How else would you know what I know?
You think the meaning changed because you're driven by an agenda. The verb is "to be". The meaning is the same. The people who did the translation also spoke, read, and understood the original.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
However it is defined, "Hinduism" is a "worldview" in exactly the same way ATHEISM is a "worldview".
There is no ATHEIST handbook.
So? Worldviews don't have handbooks.
There is no ATHEIST tradition.
Yet every atheist here will quote atheist comments of our founding fathers if you tell them that America's tradition is Christian.
There is no ATHEIST clergy.
Sure there are. You guys quote them all the time. Is not your holy book "The God Delusion"?
And by the technical definition, if you lack-belief in ANY "god($)" you can be described as an ATHIEST.
Lol. Route 66 is an atheist.
If you don't happen to believe in ZEUS for example, you could technically be described as an ATHEIST.
Or a westward highway.
Of course, nobody is under any OBLIGATION to describe themselves as an ATHEIST, regardless of what they might or might not happen to believe.
Just like Hindus!
Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simple
I know. I did not say it did.
Well, case closed.
Lol! It's been closed a lot longer than you know.
Created:
-->
@rosends
...but the decision to abandon that known meaning and adopt another meaning to validate a later text makes sense to you?
I don't think the meaning changed. You do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you're always going to use only stupid examples your perception will always be stupid. Some men can't adapt and learn new things, it's almost as if they're intellectually impaired so they regurgitate the same stupid things regardless if they are relevant.
Hey EtrmlVw, I think our boy may be suffering from slight autism. It's hard to explain his posts otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Since you still don't understand what you are saying,....
He won't understand what you're saying either. Lol.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't your "objective" perfect moral standard perfect and moral and "objective" because it just happens to be written in a book?
No. I can't take you seriously when you say such inane things.
Hinduism is not defined by a LACK-of-belief in "YHWH" (even though it does not include a belief in "YHWH").
However it is defined, "Hinduism" is a "worldview" in exactly the same way ATHEISM is a "worldview".
Bold enough to make a claim. Not bold enough to validate that claim.
Did you really think this clumsy gradeschool taunt would goad me into doing what you want?
Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simple
I know. I did not say it did.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Different words do not necessarily mean a different meaning. You just have an agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
WHOOPS AGAIN! LOL! You forgot to address your Bible stupidity...
But I did address your stupidity.
The same stupidity in every post of yours.
Templates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee. Now that you know your shtick doesn't work, what will you do? Just keep repeating "run away" and "embarrassed" ?
Here is a challenge for you Jim Bakker. Let's see if you can make one normal post. No caps, no bold, no rants, and no template. As if you have a functioning brain. As if you aren't a badly coded bot.
I'm sure the druids at Landover don't monitor you 24/7 do they? Don't be afraid. If you make one coherant post, I promise the sky won't fall. So come on Dee Dee. Show us you aren't totally empty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I used to think God hides from us, and we are supposed to figure it out, but I'm beginning to think it is not on purpose,and that we are just too stupid to understand.
That my dear friend, is growth.
Growth how?
...we are just too stupid to understand.
The first step to growth (knowledge) is when we realize we have none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
God did prohibit slavery, and the bible asserts that it is not possible to own people as property.
Well, you can't own ISRAELITES. SPECIFICALLY, ISRAELITES.
Nope. You just don't know the bible. It was probably not in the atheist website's interest to show you the verses that vindicate the bible.
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."
They also had Jewish slaves. You are either missing or hiding context again.
"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
Here is a question for you. We're any of these slaves not voluntary?
I guess some people are more equal than others.
Yes, some will push what they know to be lies in order to castigate the bible. Such people aren't equal at all.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Words get a variety of levels of meanings, some denotative and some connotative. Choosing one definition or meaning in one context and another in a different context could make sense...
Exactly.
...justify going back and changing the meaning of the Hebrew so that it agrees with the later Greek.
I don't think the meaning was changed.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "NOT-Hinduism" is a "worldview".
ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "Hinduism" is a "worldview".
Can you please share this "objective standard" with the public?
I have before. If you wish to discuss it, make a thread.
Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong?
Yes, it's written in a book.
I doubt Amoranemix, who that question was for, would have answered that stupidly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No support required....
I meant required by sensible people, not you.
The bible that you read is multiple translations, reinterpretations and adaptations of several thousand year old stories.....Undeniable fact.
I deny it just fine. Knowledge allows me to do that.
Differing interpretations thereof, even lead to schism within the regional theistic community.
So do enemies of Christ.
So assuming that your modern American version of events is spot on, is a tad fanciful to say the least.
How it must bug you anti-theists that we exist, continue to exist, and believe! I love it! It may be the way Trump feels everytime he triggers the snowflakes into another outrage. Why you don't just cut and paste your drone ala dee Dee is a mystery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You're empty Dee Dee. You should at least know the thing you're trying to parody. But if you don't know what an axiom is, you probably don't know what parody is either.
I guess my questions must shame you judging by how you Dodge them. I see you only used the "embarrassed" template this time. When you read your old posts, you really can't see how bad they make you look? Really? Lol.
I've been trying to contact one of your elders at Landover. But I think he may have gotten too "holy" with a few prostitutes he was "ministering" to over the new year holiday.
This is why Jesus has sent me here...
To get banned and ridiculed? How come Jesus allowed you to be banned? Do you think Ragnar may be scheming behind your back with your pal Jesus?
Lol. What a doofus!
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
E pong isn't embarrassed.
Nothing about Jesus could possibly embarrass me. It is rather Jesus who should be profoundly embarrassed to be associated with me in any way.
He knows full well that 6000 years old doesn't mean 6000 years old.
He knows that the bible doesn't say 6,000 years. But that won't stop people who want to castigate Christianity more than they value integrity.
And nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old / under 10,000 years old.
But if it did, you'd be on hand to smarmily say "6000 years old doesn't mean 6000 years old" right?
Who wants to see ( he pongs )dance?
Apparently you.... Oh, and Mrs. Ethan who raised her lovely hand when she read your post.
Hey Ethan.Do you think the earth is under ONE MILLION YEARS OLD ?
No.
Good game.Good game.
For you, not so much. But I did do a little jig for Mrs. Ethan!
The liberal SJW in you was sure I was a closet young Earther huh? Now let's see if you'll dance.
If the bible does not imply or state any age of the Earth, and says nothing about 6,000 years old, why are you talking about it, and trying to imply I would deny 6,000 years old?
Because you are dishonest. The only way you can convict the bible is if you lie. And you want to convict so badly, you are willing to lie (while not appearing to do so) to get it done.
Oh, sorry! I was supposed to let you dance! Ah, You would have dodged anyway. A good game is not one where you constantly cheat deb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? Cite the specific verses that agree with your conclusion,
What conclusion would that be? You do not believe the bible, and think the verses that "condone" slavery overwhelm the ones that don't, what would a verse quote do for you now?
...and no, the bible goes back and forth on the point you are trying to make in fact some verses even say "Take your slaves from the nations around you."
And the word "slave" in those verses do not mean what you say it does, and that can be shown objectively.
The bible is radically contradictory on this point, but a lot more goes on to inhibit then to prohibit.
It is your misunderstanding that causes you to think the bible is contradictory on this point. It isn't.
You go on this rant about PC culture, yet I don't see you responding to the other criticisms, you pick and choose when you want to go in because you rarely ever actually use logic to come to your conclusions, more often you just continously assert that your position is logical, and that people who disagree are being illogical.
So then challenge a logical point. It is possible my logic just goes over your head.
The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin".... its hilarious how you cry out "CONTEXT CONTEXT" Yet most of the things you cite you don't even know the context of, let's look at it shall we?
OK, but I hope you know, "The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin" was not my comment.
John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendents and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." He's saying that every living person is a slave to sin, but by believing in him, you will be set free. That's what Jesus is talking about here, and its funny how people misinterpret that.
I will allow whomever brought that up to address it.
Also, what about the times whenever he clearly states that you can beat your slaves and not be punished as long as they don't die because they are quote, "your money". Funny how you seem to forget those verses exist.
I forgot nothing. That verse says they are your money, as in your investment, not as your property. The reason beating slaves (and not only slaves) back then was that we had no societal systems like jails and police and courts. It still is not proof that slaves were owned as property.
In most of the world today, children are still commonly beaten. But those that live in the west get bamboozled by their environment, and think theirs is the only moral way. A slave in biblical times was working off a debt. Harming him would harm the master's investment and did not make sense.
The prohibition and punishment for the master who maimed or killed a slave was not condoning slavery but to prevent them from thinking they owned the slave and thus taking undue advantage of them.
Your only experience with slavery is the movies you've seen about the American south, so you view the slavery in the bible through that lens. That is incorrect. The slavery in the bible was indentured servitude, and was entered into voluntarily by the slave. He sold his debt, (a thing still done today) not his person.
Which is why, unlike the American south, a master suffered a penalty for harming or killing his slave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Other than some small questions I have, I think you have been logical and have made a convincing logical case.
Here is a question. Do you think logic is divine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, the fact that god did not PROHIBIT slavery that shows that he condoned it. It is the fact that he is saying that you are allowed to own people as property and beat them.
That is not a fact. That is just your interpretation of the verse. God did prohibit slavery, and the bible asserts that it is not possible to own people as property.
"Steal a man and sell him" nothing about keeping the man as a slave.
Untrue. The rest of the verse says even if the stolen man is found in the thiefs possession (before any possible sale) the penalty is still death.
The fact of the matter is, the "slavery" you are referring to is not the slavery the bible is referring to. This is why the bible seems inconsistent to you.
The bible teaches that...
1. Men cannot own another man. God owns all men.
2. That a man can sell his debt. His services, not his person.
3. Slavery does not free the believer from having to obey God
Ancient Hebrews did not think men could be owned by other men, so a specific command condemning slavery would not have made sense. Plus, other commandments adequately cover slavery.
Applying today's PC values on ancient people is always a mistake, and brings illogical conclusions.
Basically the atheist is saying, "God's morality should be the same as mine." Why this belief should be given any respect, is a mystery to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10 seem to be clearly demanding that slaves obey and be submissive to their masters. it says that slaves should obey their earthly masters, just how they would obey Christ. this seems more of a command then a recognition of a part of reality.
Would a better command have been to advise slaves to disobey their earthly masters?
Created:
-->
@ronjs
So, it appears that you believe that consensus determines truth.
Virtually every atheist does. They must because they think "we" are all there is, and thus "truth" IS only what we decide it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I used to think God hides from us, and we are supposed to figure it out, but I'm beginning to think it is not on purpose,and that we are just too stupid to understand.
That my dear friend, is growth.
Created:
...but the KJV seems inconsistent in how it translates the corresponding Hebrew word...
Because translations come from meaning, not words, and words get their meaning from context, not just the dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
...because Einstein was an intelligent man he was infallible. It is a typical appeal to authority. Or in this case - celebrity. Since Einstein was not an authority on religion.
As bright and informed as he pretends to be, one would think that he would know this. But I've noticed he often posts links AS arguments, and we are supposed to get what his link means by some magical process.
I used to think that Skeptical one worshipped science, but FLRW is like it's high priest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I bet you haven't a clue either about the 3 Marys.
Do you have a template for that dee dee? No?
Jesus is not the Father was not a bible quote. Now if you knew your bible, you would have known that. Perhaps more bible study and fewer visits to the Vegas cathouse would be good for you, hmm dee dee?
Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. Go back to Landover and ask them if they have a template with logic in it. You are in sore need.
Stephen can't save you dee dee. Just as Hari couldn't. Your emptiness will be exposed for all to see, and your schtick compulsion will force you to "lift your skirt" for all to see.
Ask the mods if they have extra-extra large letters, bolding and all caps aren't working for you anymore, so perhaps if you wrote BIGGER, you would seem more sensible. A thought for you.
Now that is twice you've rolled out the "runaway" and the "embarrassed" template. Thanks. Do you not have any others? Do you not find posting basically the same lame thing over and over boring?
The sermons at Landover must be boooooring!! No wonder you prefer to hang out here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@SkepticalOne
But do not these good points all equally apply to the spiritual representation of the accused?
What is "spiritual representation"?
What the government wishes to accommodate by placing pastors in the Army and prisons.
My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client).
And my question is what justifies this exception? All the answers currently given apply equally to priests.
To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.
Every exception does that. The only reasonable conclusion for your choice of exceptions seems to be your antireligious bias.
Skep - My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client). To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.
Danni - That would make sense for people who support the mandate. It's interesting that a teacher is considered a mandatory reporter but a nanny isn't, or that a mother wouldn't be legally required to report her husband or something. It seems if the logic stands for one adult it would stand for all adults that are in-the-know.
This is my argument! And lawyers are "in -the-know". Either make it for everyone, or any exception can be legally mandated.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Notice again that it someone with a reality-based worldview who is teaching someone with a god-based wordview, not the other way round.
Would you be that person teaching others?
So God changes depending on who your are talking to.
You think the reality of God changes by peoples opinion? I bet you don't say the same thing for evolution or the constitution. So at least you're half logical.
Atheism is not a worldview, so why would it need to pass a test for worldviews ?
Atheism CAN BE a worldview, and often is. It needs to be justified by those who hold it as a worldview.
So far the only way to discovering that truth has been by making it. How ? Create an objective moral standard and then discover what it says.
So far in the insane world. This is utter gibberish.
First, claiming actions that God cannot do seems at odds with God's alleged omnipotence.
And citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard." Please stay on topic.
Second, God's actions being morally good does not a priori place a limitation on God's actions, since we lack an objective measure for what actions are morally good.
It is God Himself who places limits on His actions. Your incorrect statement assumes God sets no limits. And Christians do have an objective standard for what is morally good, you don't.
If morally good actions are those actions done by God, then he could still do anything he wants, as the only action he could not do would those he does not do. Hence, if morally good is some aspect of his nature, then he could still not restore killed children if it is not in his nature to do so.
This comment did not stay long enough in your oven and came out half-baked.
So from a Christian perspective, assuming the latter definition, whatever the Bible says on the topic, it should not be a problem, as God would merely be acting in according with his nature, which by definition would be good.
Which means something definite, not what you want it to mean, that ANY action can be included. Logic is required here.
That is easy to refute : Torturing little children for fun is wrong.
Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong? I don't think you do. Torturing little children for fun cannot be wrong simply because YOU think it is.
You have not presented a coherent argument, one not plagued with problems. I want logic, not opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
just goes to show that it does not matter how smart you are to be wrong.
I've seen him post that a couple of times. I wonder what he thinks it's supposed to mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi dee dee!
I see you're still as empty as ever and posting templated shtick. Nobody is watching me, and I wouldn't care if anyone was. That is childish grade school goading, it works only on people like you.
No worries, I will toss you, and burn you at will, and you will help me do it because you are trapped in your shtick. The only thing you can do is post basically the same lame thing over, sort of like Hari did. Oh, and mention Tradesecret obsessively. Don't get Stephen jealous!
Me? I may even post some stuff about your loony Landover church. Would you like that dee dee? You must be a big time elder there.
So, again, post another vapid template about embarrassment, running away, and everybody seeing, and I will toast you again. Maybe in the coming new year, Landover will give you evangelists some new templates. Even a retard would be bored with your old ones now.
But you aren't, are you?
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Stephen
I told you I didn't care if you blocked me, you aren't important enough for me to care.
Then stop your bitching and whining like little tart that's lost her gym slip.
Lol! You would be so happy if I was bitching and whining wouldn't you? My god you are pathetic!
....and cowardly.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Stephen
Everything agitates you snowflake. Your name could be Karen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I never said they should NOT be held culpable if the person across from them is a lawyer. So I don't know why you asked that question.
If we implement your opinion, that is what will occur.
I never said a criminal should be "allowed to keep his crime a secret" either.
You said a criminal should be allowed to keep his crime a secret if he only tells his lawyer.
The pedophiles would be in JAIL if they were reported,...
Only AFTER molesting children! Being regulated by societies standards would not have made a bit of difference. Do you know that lawyers molest children too?
If you're saying you do not believe attorney-client privilege is a good thing, then that is an interesting but understandable position. Is that what you believe?
I'm examining your beliefs, not stating mine. I see no reason why all your points for why attorney-client privilege is a good thing do not equally pertain to priests-parishioner privilede. Your beliefs do not seem to be consistent.
But I wholly disagree that priests should be given the same protections as lawyers because lawyers are governed and regulated by objective standards in society, whereas religious officials get to make up their own rules.
This is untrue. Both lawyers and priests are under the same state laws. Priests are not immune from any law that lawyers àre not.
There is no oversight. Lawyers are disbarred and prosecuted if they violate ethical standards.
Not by the state. And priests care defrocked and prosecuted if they violate ethical standards. I think most of the public would still agree that lawyers are the most unethical people around.
So why does it matter if their religion is not recognized by the state if they place their religion above the state?
Because the law says it matters.
You are misunderstanding.
I understand fine. I justvdisagree with the conclusion of the "study". Virtually every "study" today concludes something palatable to liberals. I know this cannot possibly be right because neither nature or science are politically correct. Your study is designed to validate the current group-think that absolves homosexuality of pedophilia.
Attraction to a PHYSICALLY MATURE 16 year old does not qualify as pedophilia.
It does under the law.
You don't even understand the premise of the study to be able to disagree with it lol.
I understand it just fine. It's just that liberals think anyone who disagrees with them must be misunderstanding because their liberal positions are so obviously right.
If most pedophiles are heterosexuals that are married to women, then it makes no sense whatsoever to say that GAYS in particular should be feared.
I did not say gays should be feared. That is just your SJW paranoia making you think anyone not accepting your views is racist/bigoted/homophobic/transphobic or whatever other silly "-ism" is in vogue with progressives today.
I'm saying homosexuals should be treated just like heterosexual. Same freedoms and same restrictions.
About 1 in 7 girls and 1 in 25 boys will be sexually abused before their 18th birthday (again it looks like gays are not the problem after all).
1 in 25 is acceptable to you? Pedophiles are the problem, gay or straight.
Apparently it's not easy to figure out since it is incredibly rare to hold people accountable for these crimes.
How do you know this?
It's true that sexual predators will seek out kids that seem troubled or more likely to be ignored, but it is unequivocally wrong to suggest that "loopy progressive ideas" about parenting have anything to do with it.
If you look deeper into the cases that go to court, it's mostly parents who believed insane things like children be given contraceptives, 12 year olds be able to have abortions without parental notification, and 8 year olds deciding their gender. Liberal looniness.
You literally just made that up.
No sir. It's just that, for some reason, common sense is not common to liberals.
Grooming is a common practice for child molesters where they form close bonds with the parents and kids in order to be trusted.
And involved, conservative parents nip that in the bud right away.
So you agree that gay men are not more inclined to rape children than straight men since they are so alike. That's good.
It was your liberal PC bias that triggered you. I was never against gay men. My point was that gay men should have the same restrictions with boys that straight men have with girls. We don't know who pedophiles are, so we take precautions. That is just common sense.
But note it is not PC nonsense to accept reality and not be a bigot. That's just called common sense and human decency. Stick with that.
Lol! Welcome to my side. Don't worry, I'm a conservative, I will stick with that, as I always have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If Jesus is GOD...How could he ascend to his father, if he is his own father....One and the same as it were?
Jesus is not the Father.
And Mary is a four times translated version of something vaguely Hebrew....So actually there were no Mary's in J's posee.
Right, and Mexicans and Spanish people do not know who jeorgé washing was.
It's all latter day reinterpretation of a reinterpretation of a reinterpretation of a reinterpretation of a regional folk tale.
So goes your opinion unsupported by any study, knowledge, or freedom from bias. You just get a kick from telling Christians that. Must be why you do it over and over. Has your opinion ever changed anyone?
Do you get a dopamine rush every time you post your tired, "Christianity is just a fairytale" drone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Be careful Mikey, you'll be getting banned if you keep this up.....
He never listens. Because compulsion. But he has backup socks on the ready. 33 that we know of so far. I warned him at DDO years ago that untreated compulsions only became worse.
Even he wouldn't recognize himself now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You got this?
Sure. Your insipid, repetitive shtick is easy to handle. No one reads you, or cares about your cosplay. I can toss you at will and with abandon.
You actually think you're hurting Christians, but when you encounter someone like me, who is not bothered by your childishness, you have nothing. Your schtick was old 2 years ago. You're like the kid who keeps coming out in the bed sheet going "boo!!" long after it has ceased being remotely scary.
You are like my punching bag. The only attention I pay to you is when I need something dense and unintelligent to hit. You accommodate me until your compulsion forces you into the party van. Eventually you will find some forum where the people there don't yet know your shtick. But you get old real fast.
I can ignore your template posts because they will remain the same regardless of what I post. So I can just toss you for fun, and you, clueless and predictable, will simply post another brainless template. Don't worry, you won't hear them laughing, and Stephen will egg you on.
Hopefully, Ragnar's work will be long and require his undivided attention. Come, tell us again how I ran away and how I'm embarrassed. Or maybe how you and Jesus are best buds as you cruise whorehouses.
I will always have new, fresh stuff for you. I will toast you even though your IQ will not alert you to the smell of burnt buns. Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Studies show there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because he often finds adults of either sex repulsive, and often molests children of both sexes.
Bolderdash. A heterosexual man would find any sexual contact with another male, regardless of age, repulsive. I call bs on this study.
Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations.
More bs. Many, many otherwise "normal" adult guys would sleep with a physically mature 16 year old female if they could get away with it. It has nothing to do with regression or stress.
Researchers found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute reports that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.
Word play. The majority of pedophiles ARE men, and the majority of men ARE married to women.
Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside bathrooms waiting to snatch children or whatever other nonsense the far-right peddles to fear monger and scare ignorant people that are easy to trick.
More deceptive word play. Male child molesters who molest boys ARE gay. We know most child molesters are not gay, because most men are not gay.
Instead most pedophiles are people who seem normal and trustworthy; that is why parents do not suspect anything and give them access to their children.
Most child molesters are easy to figure out if the parents paid attention and weren't fooled by insipid political correctness that tries to cancel reality. Most children are never molested. Molesters look for children of poor, uneducated, uninterested parents with loopy progressive ideas about parenting.
But I digress. I hope you find it in your heart to do some research and accept that your beliefs about gay men are totally invalid and predicated on bigotry and discrimination that is not substantiated by the facts.
I don't subscribe to PC nonsense, and I never allow it to cancel reality I see before my eyes. Gay men are just like straight men. That is how I know them. They are no more honest or saintly than straight men. And homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is nothing to be cheered, or congratulated. It does not bestow virtue. It just is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
There is no such thing as "spiritual rights" under the law.
I said nothing about spiritual rights. I said spiritual representation. The government provides spiritual representation at prisons and in the military.
There is such thing as the right to a fair trial under the law, which is why attorney-client privilege is not the same as clergy privilege. It is completely incorrect to say that priests keep secrets for the same reason lawyers do.
The law may treat lawyers and priests differently, but that may not be the reason lawyers and priests keep secrets. The point is, and the question you dodged, is, "Why should they not be held culpable for their crimes if the person across from them is a lawyer?"
You answered the question, "Why is a lawyer allowed to keep their secrets?" But that is not the question I asked.
Lawyers are legally obligated to provide the best possible legal counsel that has a tangible influence in the physical world; they are managed and regulated by society's standards. Priests provide subjective spiritual guidance that has no legal implications and no oversight whatsoever.
This has nothing to do with why a criminal should be allowed to keep his crime a secret.
That's why so many Catholic priests allowed their collogues to continue raping and molesting little children for decades with no repercussions.
Nope. So many Catholic priests allowed their collogues to continue raping and molesting little boys for decades because they to were homosexual pedophiles. Being regulated by societies standards would not have made a bit of difference.
We have a criminal justice system that exists to enforce the law. If someone's child is molested or killed, I doubt the parent would feel justice was served by the perpetrator doing some charity work, saying a few Hail Marys or whatever else the priest told them might absolve them of their sin.
Would the parent feel better if the crime never came to light because a lawyer is allowed to keep it secret and the criminal did nothing at all in terms of penance?
The victims would want to seek justice under the law which they deserve -- so there is a clear difference between the role of lawyers and the role of priests.
How would the victims seek justice if the crimes are kept secret? Basically, you don't want priests to be able to do what lawyers already do, because you have an antireligious bias.
Priests are not qualified to provide legal advice because they are not proven experts in the law of the land that governs people of all faiths.
Keeping knowledge of a crime secret is not legal advice and one needs no legal training to keep a secret.
I noticed you did not answer my question: if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable?
No, but not for the reason you think. I agree with people who place their religion above the state law. I do too. And I am willing and ready to suffer the cost of that belief. But FGM is not a recognized official religion that is entitled to protection by the state.
If a person was to show that a real existing religion to which he belonged, believed that it's adherents did not have to report child molestation that they knew was occurring, I would judge him less harshly than a person like a catholic priest whose religion had no such prohibition. Follow your religion if you must, but the state will judge you on their terms.
My issue with you is the incoherent imbalance between lawyers and priests. Either no crime should be able to be kept secret, or Priests deserve the same protections as lawyers. As a father, telling me that my child's killer went free because he confessed to his lawyer instead of his priest would not be justice to me.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Stephen
And yes, that is a terrible thing to do. And I am ashamed to have done so, I really am. But do you know what caused me to do that don't you. Elmer?
what you should be ashamed of is blocking and then responding to the one you blocked when he posts a thread to someone else.
That is EXACTLY my point , Elmer.
Mine too. And you rather are ashamed of the blocking. Correct your shame.
I am not going to have the piss taken out of me any longer by your buddies and especially YOU!
So you decide to publicly shame yourself by being a moron coward?
Like you I agree that it is cowardly but NOT AGAINTS THE RULES, by all accounts Elmer.
I didn't say it was against the rules homer, it just shows how mentally off balanced you are, and how dishonest you are, all without me doing anything.
Well I thought I would give it a go even knowing full well what a cowardly act it is do on anyone, even those we don't like.
Lol. Thanks coward.
I never once heard you call out your friends "cowardly actions and cowardly behaviour" when they did exactly this to me on hundreds of occasions.
Because I don't follow you. I don't know who has blocked you and I don't care. You really aren't important to me. It isn't my responsibility to call out anyone dusting you. Your horrible militant behavior makes you deserve it anyway.
If you block me, it means you don't want me to talk to you, yet you will seek out and answer a post of mine not addressed to you! Are you sane? And you will later whine that I attacked you.
No.
Yes. Sorry man, but that isn't sane behavior.
If I see a post, any post, including yours, that is worthy of a response from me, then I will respond to it. It's not against the rules, Elmer. " suck it up" as your cowardly friends like to remind me.
Lol! OK jasper.
At least we agree that you're a coward.
We can
We do. But we have always known you were a coward from the way you run away from questions and lie in your posts.
And doesn't sound like something a real coward would admit to does it.
A dumb one would.
But I agree , it is a cowardly act to block someone and then persistently respond to those you have blocked.
Not to mention stupid. Especially if you think the blocked person's responses to you would be "harassment." It verges on insane.
I can't understand why it is that you are moaning and whining so early and so soon after I blocked you.
Lol!! I never even asked about you blocking me, you rushed to tell me. I told you I didn't care if you blocked me, and that I would not block you. You want attention so bad, its pathetic.
I endured months and months of it before I even considered complaining about it. And then it was months more before I raised this irritating and antagonising and cowardly behaviour with moderation and got banned for doing so. ( I actually believe that there was a misunderstanding as to who was flagging whom) , but banned I was.
The mods were right. And you have just validated their ban.
So if you do not like the fact that I can respond to you directly but won't afford you the same curtesy, then take it up with moderation. Or simply block me. I won't hold it against you princess.
I won't block you. You aren't important enough, and nothing you do here is important enough.
Well lets be honest. The way the blocking function works on this forum doesn't really serve its purpose does it? We can still communicate.
Especially with you posting TO me after you block. Lol. It serves it's purpose well, it's just that your purpose is not blocking, it's attention whoring.
On other forums I wouldn't even see your posts once I had you on block affording me a right to ignore you without me even knowing.
Lol!! Protecting you from yourself! Are you sane?
But what it does do though is serve as an official warning that I do not want YOU to respond to ME, at all and especially on my own threads, when I have politely asked you on a number of occasions not to post in reply to me or on my threads.
OK Jasper. You do not want me to respond to you, but you will respond to me. We'll see if that idiocy passes muster with the mods.
Any further comments made to me by YOU especially on my own threads I will take as harassment and stalking and will expect them to be treated as such.
Treated as such by whom? The clown posse? Because we don't have a single mod that stupid. Not one. Lol!!! You're responding to me even when I'm not posting to you, but if I post to your loser threads that would be harassment?? Hee! Hee! That's hilarious.
Exactly. You obviously haven't understood what I have been saying to you. And on reflection, I am truly thankful that you haven't.
Oh stop! You're killing me. rofl!
I thought I told you why I blocked you.
I didn't ask.
There now. I hope that clears everything up nicely for you, Elmer.
Lol. You really want me to care and I just don't. You're just another lonely, confused, obsessive guy looking for attention online. You're even faking my posts to make it seem like I give one fart about you and your block. Hee, hee!
Wow, are you unhinged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
ROFL!
You didn't have the nerve to separate the words did you, you chicken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Dee dee, still babbling about his embarrassment after 11 months and a trip in the party van.
Created:
--> @Stephen
I noticed that you never once addressed your lie.
Will you now admit to lying just as you admitted to cowardance?
Or are you too cowardly to admit to your lie? Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Stephen
Hey coward, still confused about the 3 Mary's?
Created:
--> @Stephen
When you show evidence that Jesus Wasn't Dead When They Took Him Down From The Cross, I'll show you evidence that John was there.
I guess our coward never found any evidence that Jesus wasn't dead when they took Him down from the cross.
Created: