Oh please...
Submitted by J on 2003-02-16 18:22:31, Sunday
In reply to Re: Thanks for stopping by... submitted by Ron on 2003-02-16 04:50:29, Sunday
|
I’ve somehow given you the impression that I hate you personally. Since I really don’t know you, it isn’t possible for me to feel something as intense as venal hatred for you. Have you ever even met any pedophiles? I bet you’d be surprised at how well we got along if we ever met in real life… I will say that I already don’t like you because you’re obnoxious, pompous and sarcastic. Oh please, I guess you don’t like yourself then because if you take a look at any one of your posts you will find all three characteristics present. Add to all this the fact that you’re a pedophile and my overall feelings for you are contempt and an intense dislike. Enough of the silly semantics, Ron – you have contempt for and an intense dislike for me. In other words, you hate me. And why is it that you feel this way? Do you think I woke up one morning and decided ‘I think I’ll be a pedophile today’? I couldn’t waste that much energy on a weakling like yourself who, because you’re such a moral cripple, needs a crutch like religion to lean upon. You obviously know nothing of my morality and furthermore, your comments are simply a hateful rant against Christians in general. As far as being a weakling, it takes a great deal of strength and courage to put up with people like you and attempt to engage in some kind of reasonable dialogue. Only a coward pops onto a board, flames its participants and refuses to answer the questions that have punched holes in their worldview. How sad… that you apparently never have been able to experience mature love, but can love and desire sex only with the innocent. And what exactly does ‘experience mature love’ entail? Or what does ‘innocent’ entail? Your arguments are so sloppily formulated I can’t even begin refuting them because I’m too busy laughing at their absurdity. Your analysis and understanding of the Gospel is as twisted and perverted as your sexual proclivity for little boys. I’m suppose to believe that you, a self-professed non-believer, has a sound understanding of the Gospel in order to tell me what it is or what it is not? Get real… Since Lot was unable to find even 10 righteous men in the whole city… Um, try reading it again, Lot wasn’t looking for anybody – the angels were… Lot was willing to sacrifice his daughters rather than have the angel messengers who were guests under his roof be raped by the Sodomites. As I inferred before, Lot is a pathetic excuse for a human being and your apparent defense of his actions simply prove how twisted your morality is. …the Sodomites demanded Lot bring out his male house guests …so that they may rape them! Yup, so that they could rape them. So exactly how does that relate to your sweeping condemnations of homosexuality in general, which are predicated on love and mutual consent? The fact that you seemed to miss all this… tells me you’re not too bright. אנכי הדבר עברי לך ואתה המסכיל Get back to me when you figure out what I just said to you… if you’re nice perhaps someone else on the board familiar with Hebrew could help you in translating it. As far as missing the point, I’m afraid that’s your department. The Gospel is that God saves sinners. A person’s righteousness is not his or her own but is credited to them through faith (see Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3-8, 23-25). Throughout the Genesis narrative, Lot is portrayed as a sinner – when he and Abram part company, he chooses the well-watered plain of the Jordan even though its inhabitants were wicked and sinning greatly against Yahweh (see Genesis 13:10-13). His deplorable offer concerning his two daughters proves him to be far from righteous in his own right, yet he and his household were saved from the coming judgment because he believed the angelic messengers when they warned him to flee the city – this was credited to him as righteousness. If you want me to pat you on the back for posting a public prayer for Jeffrey Curley and his family, you’ve got a long wait… I think it’s the height… [of] hypocrisy and perhaps morally insane to post a prayer for victims of malignant, homicidal pedophiles and NAMBLA members, then promote and advance the NAMBLA agenda to legitimize pedophilia… Your continued fallacious reasoning that equates people who are sexually attracted to children to the perpetrators in the Jeffrey Curley case is growing old. His murder brings me to tears and I wish I could’ve been there to pump a couple bullets in the heads of those monsters that killed him before they laid a hand on him. Perhaps I should begin campaigning against heterosexuality, after all, you heterosexuals are no better than Ted Bundy, and support of heterosexuality is equivalent to supporting the rape and murder of women… Check your fallacious arguments at the door; they’re not fooling anybody here. You want proof? You’ve got it… Your citations simply prove your overall ignorance and inability to objectively analyze facts. Without taking into consideration that your statistics do not account for unreported incidents of sexual interaction between adults and children, you are correct in stating that approximately 1/3 of victims are boys. You are also correct that Kinsey’s 10% is grossly exaggerated and that homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population. You are incorrect, however, in deducing from these facts that homosexuals are over-represented in child molestation cases because you falsely equate homosexuality and sexual interaction by a man with male children. The vast majority (95+%) of those perpetrators are counted among the heterosexual population – that is, they are either married or have or have had girlfriends. Only a very small percentage (less than 5%) are counted among the homosexual population, and only a handful of these are attracted to both adult men and prepubertal boys. These numbers are directly in line with the 1-3% stat you provided and demonstrates that there is no higher proclivity among homosexuals to sexual abuse children. If I thought you could answer calmly or rationally to any of this, I’d be the first to protest Forgiven banning you but since you’ve given no indication you are able or willing, have a nice life. If for some reason, he hasn’t banned you again, why don’t you give rational discussion a chance… J Come away, O human child, to the waters of the wild, with a fairy hand in hand, for the world’s more full of weeping than you can understand. |
Follow ups: