|
|
<joerevskelton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Vnf8e.62320$UW6.33984@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Z8c8e.7249$yq6.3949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> No, he wasn't.
I am crushed by the logic of your argument, overwhelnmed by the sheer power
of your rational thought. "No, he wasn't". Wow.
>
> You need to look it up.
Zounds. What a devastatingly subtle debate technique.
Clearly there's no arguing with you, professor. You have all the bases
covered, alright.
> You are misinterpreting what is written there. There is nothing in these
> passages which yuou can use to excuse child molestation.
How did the position that Christ did not regard child molesting as
unforgiveable suddenly get transformed into an argument that Christ excuses
child molesting?
Yoo hoo! I'm over here! That's a straw man you're whacking.
while[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The point was that he was capable of indignation. Do you really consider
> selling crap in the Temple worse that child molestation?
Yoo hoo! I'm over here! That's another straw man! That Jesus got mad at
merchants defiling his temple has nothing whatever to do with whether it's
worse than some other sin. So I don't see what there is in my statements
that leads you to interpret them as meaning that I claimed that the temple
incident means that child molesting is a lesser or greater sin. Let me
repeat the crucial point. The temple incident has nothing to do with what
Jesus thought about child molesters. I never said it did. Yet you seem to
be insuisting that I am making such a statement. That's a straw man,
professor. It's not me you're arguing with. It's something you made up all
on your own.
> All valid data does suggest that repeat offenders are unable to change
their
> nature.
Well, in might if you had any. Let's see this "valid data" that suggests
this to you. And let's also hear your reasons why you declare as invalid
every citation I've provided in this thread. Let's see how that devastating
intelligence of yours operates.
>
> If they do it repeatedly, we must find some way to insure that they are
> never permitted to drive around with children in the car.
What!!!?
You're going to let them get away with murder once, and then turn them loose
to destroy some other child before you do something? Now how come you're
not thinking about that poor victim you gave this horrible monster
permission to hurt? Are you, as Shez suggests, an apologist for pedophiles
because you don't advocate drastic and immediate action to eliminate these
child-killers as soon as they are identified, with no second chances for
them to destroy other innocent lives? Are you apologists, as Shez suggests,
guilty of molesting children yourselves because there is no other plausible
reason why *anyone* would prefer to *permit* known criminals to hurt
children just because you don't think he's hurt *enough* children *yet*?
You are no longer human in Shez's eyes, you pervert. She hopes you'll be
eliminated from the human race before you can strike again, as you no doubt
have, since you argue in favor of child molesting.
But it's too late to change now, you degenerate monster. As you've been
saying, everybody knows pedophiles can't change, so now that Shez has
decided that apologists for pedophiles are in fact pedophiles themselves,
there's absolutely nothing you can do to save yourself. Best nip out and
shoot yourself, thus sparing some innocent child from the hell you're going
to put her (or him) through.
Remember, Shez tells us that pagans are much nastier than Christians. So
pagan Inquisitions ought to be much nastier, too. Don't wait for them to
catch you and get *really* medieval on your XXX.
|
|