Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,16:46)|
|Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,16:40)|
|Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,16:35)|
|Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,15:38)|
|Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,15:09)|
|First of all, when people engage in sex with *whatever* merely for instant gratification, sex becomes no more unique than taking a dump every day. Sex is what bonds a man and a woman. It makes their union special and unique. When people have sex with anything that walks, it takes away from the beauty of that act, and it also makes it harder to form a lasting relationship with one partner. That leads to the break down of the family, which is harmful to future generations.|
And I'll give a damn what the fundies say about that when they stop getting caught soliciting sex in bathroom stalls. Or when the conservative hero (Regan) isn't well known for pleasuring an 18 year old staffer during his campaign, or when Newt Gingrich (ugggh) doesn't say he only does oral sex outside of marriage because that doesn't count. Or when the most overly religious man I know doesn't randomly talk about this great porn he saw last night.
Fundies talking about morality and sex is like thieves talking about security.
You love to make Pronouncements from On High about how other people should live their lives - very rarely do you follow them yourselves.
So, what you are saying is that since Christians are also susceptible to sin, that means God doesn't exist and his word is bogus.
No one is immune to temptation...my goodness, if I started writing about all the mistakes I've made, it would fill a book. We're tempted, we screw up, this is true, and it is far worse when a Christian does so because they are setting a horrific example of what Christianity encompasses.
I'm saying its the height of hyprocracy to make grand pronouncements about morality to everyone else while you are quite often worse than those you preach at.
This argument is a fine example.
We must all be nice to each other, except when its politically convenient to smear a 17 year old with sexual rumors - you'll defend doing that to the end!
Would you like to go back and count how many times I've stated that Sal's choice in how he addressed this issue what *not nice*. I said he was being a "jerk". I believe he made a *poor choice*. I've taken this position from the start and voiced it at least a dozen times now.
Please recognize that.
Oh, before or after you say he was just trying to be funny, and we should all get a sense of humor?
I do have a sense of humor. I don't find this crap about friends of mine remotely funny. I don't think PZ finds it funny, and Skatje sure as hell doesn't think its funny.
This is beyond "Oh, he just made a bad joke! Har! Har! Har!".
If PZ had done something like this, you'd be calling for Scienceblogs to shut him down. But since its your buddy Sal, we just get "It was just a joke, lighten up".
It takes a lothesome, despicable person to do that to someone.
Combined with your stupid definitions game, I have zero respect for either of you. Sal didn't have much to begin with, but I had at least considered you misguided and stubborn - I won't say I liked you but I didn't hate you. You've fixed that.
If your god is real, the lot of you can rot in hell.
(You don't expect to get into heaven for ignoring half the things he told you, do you?)
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris