Pro-choice at record low...41 percent.

I'm just wondering what kind of God considers homosexuality a worse sin than offering up your daughters for gang rape. Especially daughters who apparently had no sexual experience themselves and in that time period were pretty young.

In fact, God considers that such a bad sin that he will not only kill the gays, but had to kill all the non-gays, women, children, puppies and kitties in the town. Just had to kill them all. And turn Mrs. Lot into a pillar of salt because she looked back.

Meanwhile, our boy Lot, the wonderful guy God just had to save (keep that in mind the next time you pray for your Mom's cancer to get better and it doesn't) went on to have drunken sex with both of his daughters.

Actually, I think that the idea was that homosexual rape was worse than hetero rape...or maybe it had to do with the fact that the gangs probably had a history of murdering the unfortunate people they met in the streets after dark.

anyway, I see all the anti-Christian weirdoes are here, along with the anti-marriage freaks. Yuck.

As a philosophy I have no problem with Christianity.

Love they neighbor, treat others as they would treat you, if someone asks for your coat give them your shirt as well, render unto Ceasars what is Ceasars...

It's all the othe weird Old Testament stuff you guys try to justify that's kind of freaky.

Again, these two guys were angels... Now, I'm not even sure if Angels would even have rectums for the town to violate, but it wasn't like they could actually KILL them. So I'm not sure what offering Lot's daughters would have really accomplished, exactly.

Who tried to justify the weird OT stuff? Can you link it?

And Lot didn't know they were angels, neither did the wandering band of criminal rapists, so your musings on their assholes is irrelevant. I see the anti-Christian freaks spending a lot more time on this story than my Christian brethren.
 
Contradiction only works through grade school. After that, refuting requires more effort.

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

BD Boop isn't a guy... and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

I personally find the thought of Boop lecturing anyone on the proper form and function of refutation and snide comments about failed argument to be over the top hilarious.
 
Contradiction only works through grade school. After that, refuting requires more effort.

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

BD Boop isn't a guy... and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

Not that there's anything wrong with that ....
 
Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

BD Boop isn't a guy... and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

I personally find the thought of Boop lecturing anyone on the proper form and function of refutation and snide comments about failed argument to be over the top hilarious.

Of course you do, Ms Ass Fedora.
 
Contradiction only works through grade school. After that, refuting requires more effort.

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

We all, including you, knew I was correcting your nonsense, JoeB. But here, since you are confused:

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,
 
BD Boop isn't a guy... and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

I personally find the thought of Boop lecturing anyone on the proper form and function of refutation and snide comments about failed argument to be over the top hilarious.

Of course you do, Ms Ass Fedora.

Can you direct me to the last intelligent comment you made?

Has there ever been one?
 
Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

We all, including you, knew I was correcting your nonsense, JoeB. But here, since you are confused:

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,

BUT! You quoted me. :eusa_angel:
 
Who tried to justify the weird OT stuff? Can you link it?

And Lot didn't know they were angels, neither did the wandering band of criminal rapists, so your musings on their assholes is irrelevant. I see the anti-Christian freaks spending a lot more time on this story than my Christian brethren.

Well, yeah, you don't like talking about the details. You never did.

I went to Catholic Schools and remember the nuns ranting about how God destroyed Sodom and turned poor Mrs. Lot into a pillar of salt.

Oh, they never went into details about why they were wicked. They saved that propaganda for High School, where we had a religion teacher was about too Gay for an episode of Will and Grace explain to us about the whole sodomy thing.

( Ah, the Catholic way. Take gay dudes, make them swear a vow of celibacy, and then leave them alone with teenage boys. That worked out about as well as you'd expect. )

Of course, they leave out the part about Lot offering his daughters up for Gang Rape or having drunken sex with them himself. That would have just confused us.
 
I asked for a specific thing. And I get an incoherent rant. Thanks for proving my point.
 
JoeB: engaged in group atheist think, group hate.

Um, guy, I was having a very thoughtful discussion about the whole Sodom and Gomorrah Story... but that's okay, I know this is horribly confusing for you, having thrown in with Homophobes but not being able to agree with them. Faustian Bargains suck, don't they?

You are a hater, JoeB, on religion generally and Mormons specifically.

That is what you are.
 
JoeB: engaged in group atheist think, group hate.

Um, guy, I was having a very thoughtful discussion about the whole Sodom and Gomorrah Story... but that's okay, I know this is horribly confusing for you, having thrown in with Homophobes but not being able to agree with them. Faustian Bargains suck, don't they?

You are a hater, JoeB, on religion generally and Mormons specifically.

That is what you are.

I don't like haters.

I like JoeB.

Therefore, I do not believe your statement to be correct.
 
That is like the epitome of logical fallacy. I think it's actually a form of the example used to explain logical fallacy in debate class.
 

Forum List

Back
Top