And we get to pay . . .

[Heid the Ba]

No idea where the bestiality claim comes from.

[Lonewulf]

I suppose this might count:

If a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--Lev.20:16

But if that counts as depicting bestiality, don't ever look through a law book! :D


Anyways, part of my problem is also the bit where it says, "Exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and object reasoning abilities"

I mean, it's fun to laugh and point at fundamentalists as being "delusional" or "voodoo" (:roll:) or whatever, but I've found that atheists/agnostics are quite as capable of being delusional or illogical themselves. And I've known quite a few -- in fact, a vast majority (since statistically, I'll know more religious people than atheists if I don't discriminate) -- of Christians, and Muslims, etc. that are perfectly capable of reason and logic. I know that the label is just a bit of snarky humor, but it all falls within that kind of Dawkins' "God Delusion" type argument that just drives a bigger divide between people more than it does anything.

[Lonewulf]

You know, I just realized; voodoo really is a good insult towards the Catholic Church. I mean, who would want to be like the filthy Haitians?

It's their voodoo that caused them to be cursed, after all. Maybe the Catholic Church also worships the devil! :o










(Okay, okay, I'm done being silly now)

[Blue Monster 65]

Sheesh! Go away for a few days and you miss out on all the fun.

OK, Wulf - I'll bite. I think you did learn more than you know at your high school. So permit me to re-post my original statement, but in such a way that those of your argumentative ilk cannot tell me what I said, nor potentially mis-interpret my words to suit their own purposes. I'll also do so without the salty language that so offends your delicate sensibilities. Here goes:

I believe that this fellow, who is the figurehead of an organization whose policies I generally disagree with, would be of better service to those he is supposed to serve and lead were he to suggest practical solutions to their problems, rather than profess belief that a mythological being will solve said problems for them. For example, instead of allowing his followers to be taught that condoms cause AIDS, he should instruct his subordinates to inform their followers that condoms, along with other safe sex practices (including abstinence) would help combat both the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

How's that? Any clearer?

As far as calling you out and not calling Heid out: here I'm going to call bull ... no! ... baloney! I'll call baloney! I sincerely doubt it was any attempt at humour, but rather an attempt to add some other form of attack point for your argument, which it obviously did. Good for you! I like the way you played that - I walked right into it. Pity trying to turn the next responses around doesn't seem to be working out.

Now, as far as charges of hypocrisy. Ooo. Ouch. Oh my. Call my lawyer and get my affairs in order. Bring my loved ones close, as my life is over - some kid on the internet called me a hypocrite. I know you're really trying to get a rise out of me here, but that doesn't really work for me (see above). But it was a nice try.

Here's something you may learn as you gain a little more life experience: The world is full of little hypocrisies, not the least of which is to profess that it does or doesn't matter what someone else believes in.

Does it matter that someone believes that the rocks they study were brought here by little green men from beyond our galaxy? Probably not, unless they're going to use that believe to further their cause that affects the way others live their lives. Then it does become a problem.

However, the real hypocrisy here comes into play now: virtually everyone filters through their beliefs and experiences, no matter how small or how large the matter is. Should it matter? It doesn't, but it does.

I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible, just so it doesn't get too twisted around, though I'm sure it will. I've had this same discussion with my former college roommate and friend Peter (now Father Pete) for years. Mind you, our debates generally start out with such lofty pretensions, but we usually digress into more important matters, such as who was the better band: the Clash or the Ramones (we tend to change positions on this, depending on the amount of beer we've had). However, I will be more than happy to report to him that you taught me that in the roughly 25 years since we earned our degrees, the church has changed course and is no longer in the business of saving souls; even those they hope to find beyond the stars (something the Pope weighed in on not too long ago). Oh wait. You didn't say that, did you? My mistake.

Now, on to the real reason I'm bothering to respond, Wulf, and that is a disappointment in myself. I have precious little time to spend on line these days and to engage in mindless tit-for-tat with a combative person like yourself is a waste of it. Earlier I put it down to stress from your school work, but when even a friendly post results in some nasty, troll-like response, I wonder why I bother? So from here on, I promise you I won't.

[Dragon Star]

ROFL, what in the FUCK are you all going on about? I just skimmed this thread and went from Voodoo to pedo-priests to women fucking goats to illogical atheists and agnostics.

I had my doubts about this forum in the last year, but holy hell is this thread awesome.

[Blue Monster 65]

We aim to please, DS.

But as far as goat-lovin' goes ... you're on your own there.

[MM_Dandy]

Why? Did you take them all?

[Blue Monster 65]

Nope! Plenty o' goats 'round these parts ... they're just waiting for you to show up.

[Enzo]

Baa! Ewe guys...