I was listening to Robert Barron, a man who has more goodwill than knowledge and wisdom in my opinion.
I came across some anti-Catholic hate speech. I came into a debate with Robert Honan, after AJ Earthbend had given up or got tired.
- Robert Honan
- I was raised Roman Catholic, educated by Jesuits, and read Merton extensively. As an adult, I was very active in my parish, and a member of the Knights of Columbus. Then the Church decided that the root of it's child rape crisis was not pedophile priests, or Bishops more concerned with power and wealth then protecting children. No, the Church blamed the gays, and joined the right-wing war on LGBT rights. I saw an organization that should have been canonizing Father Mychal Judge instead elect a Pope who helped hide pedophile priests. The Roman Catholic Church is still protecting pedophile priests, so if that is proclaiming the glory of God, I want no part of that insanity. That is why I am now an ordained minister in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least we know men of good character do not associate with child rapists, and the people who protect them.
- AJ Earthbend
- So, rather than think, "Gee, this church is pretty messed up, I should probably leave it and pursue God in my own way" (regardless of whether that would be through another denomination or independently), your response was, "Gee, these human beings who believe in God do and institutionalize pretty terrible things, I guess I'd better abandon God"? I'm sorry to hear that you counted the sins of the created against the Creator, who grieves over those sins more than you or I ever could.
- Robert Honan
- No, it forced me to re-examine my beliefs, and recognize that they made no sense. I realized that I when I was praying to god, I was just talking to myself. I have not seen good people do evil things because they did not believe in fairies, but a saw throughout history where otherwise good people did evil in the name of their god(s). Most especially, I recognized the central stupidity of Christian doctrine. While there are many good people who are Christians, and they do good in his name, salvation is based on believing in a ridiculous idea, not being a good person. That ridiculous idea is that an all-powerful god created a creature that can not avoid sin, so god chose to be born as a human, so that he could offer himself to hisself, so that he could then forgive humans for being how he created them. The catch being you have to believe this silly idea to be saved. I can rape, pillage, slaughter whole villages, and torture little kittens, and as long as I genuinely accept Jesus as my savior, I go to heaven. Yet if I simply try to live my life as a decent person who helps others, and laughs at iron age myths, I suffer for eternity.
- AJ Earthbend
- That's a gross simplification, since "faith without works is dead". That quote is from James 2, where it is said twice and where the idea is further expounded upon. The passage sheds a good deal of light on the idea that faith is not some standalone concept, but rather something that manifests as a continuous life journey and through our actions. On the flip side, faith is so important (indeed, necessary) because what we are being compared to in our day-to-day actions is perfection, which is God. You can try to be as "decent" as you want, but under that comparison, "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Actions alone cannot suffice.
To address other points:- People of all kinds do evil for myriad reasons, including and excluding religion depending on the individual; the actions of people do not determine the morality of what they get their beliefs from. If I somehow interpret the Bill of Rights as permitting or even commanding me to kill everyone in the U.S. who wasn't born here, does that mean that I am, or the Bill of Rights is, to blame?
- "created a creature that cannot avoid sin" This is patently false. God "will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it". (1 Corinthians 10:13) Every sin is a choice that we make; we are able to resist. This has been true from the first sin man ever committed (whether one believes that to be Adam and Eve or someone else).
- "so that he could offer himself to hisself" I'm splitting hairs here, I guess, but it wasn't just about offering Himself to Himself. It was more about Jesus taking on and offering all the sins of His children to Himself as God. Jesus was but the voluntary, loving vessel through which all that sin was being offered up and purged.
Regardless, I am likely not going to convince you of much of anything (not that that was necessarily my intent anyway), and so I leave the above simply as my thoughts and responses to your points. I can only pray that others don't let flawed humanity color their view of God. - Robert Honan
- +AJ Earthbend I find it very telling that you can't justify or support your delusions regarding a deity without turning to that delusion itself. I feel sorry for people who think the blood-thirsty deity depicted in the Old Testament, or the asshole that Paul envisions in the New Testament who is just fine with slavery, is worthy of anything but contempt. See, ultimately that is why I could never again suffer from the religious delusion, the god depicted in scripture is nothing but the sort of petty tyrant I'd have complete contempt for were he a human I met in real life. I'm an average schmuck, and while I think I'm a decent fellow, I know a lot of people that are more compassionate than I am. Still, when I read the Bible the one thing that is quite clear is that my moral compass is quite superior to the one god is depicted as having. I simply can not respect my moral inferiors. Sadly, people of faith are not able to see that is exactly what they are doing, which is why it is so easy for religious people to do evil. For example, the church's persecution of the LGBT community, and its role in the fight against LGBT civil rights.
- AJ Earthbend
- (If you'd rather be done with me, at least read the last paragraph)
"I find it very telling that you can't justify or support your delusions regarding a deity without turning to that delusion itself."
Okay, so, flipped around, "I find it very telling that you can't justify or support science without turning to science itself." I'm not saying that I DON'T believe in science (because I do), but it just seems silly to me to pretend that it does NOT use itself to justify itself (as opposed to Christianity in your statement). Trying to hold a discussion on Christianity without involving the Bible would be like trying to hold a discussion on scientific discovery without involving the scientific method.
What I also find interesting is the interpretation of God's character as blood-thirsty (particularly considering that He specifically speaks in scripture about how, really, sacrifices are not what He wants, but rather faith and fidelity from His people) and as being okay with slaves in the New Testament. The passages I can think of in the New Testament that relate to slaves don't support taking slaves, nor do they preclude someone from seeking release. They simply give guidelines to operate under so that one may remain faithful to God and to the ideal of loving even your enemies.
"the church's persecution of the LGBT community" This goes back to the point I made in my original comment. The church (still referring, I assume, to the Roman Catholic Church) is an institution and can be as fallible as the humans who run it. Just because it does or supports something does not make that thing officially endorsed by God. I, too, detest the way so many people treat the LGBT community (or blacks, or women, or Latin American immigrants, etc.), and I believe it to be against the way God would have me/us treat them. Thus, since I am my own person, I can make decisions separate from whatever church body I am or am not a part of (and so could you or anyone else).
But there I go again! I didn't really come here to evangelize or argue or any such thing; in fact, I don't really generally evangelize. I tend to prefer to let my actions speak for who I am and for what I believe in. I mean no one any harm, and I shall be on my way. Regardless of your feelings toward me, toward what I believe, or what I have said here, I wish to sincerely bid you a good day (or night or whatever it is if and when you read this). - A Escoto
- +Robert Honan I fail to believe that you were ever a devout catholic as you claim...interesting shortsightedness and hypocrisy are ripe in your statements. Am wondering if you are as intellectually stunted as your argument painfully demonstrates.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- +Robert Honan "I can rape, pillage, slaughter whole villages, and torture little kittens, and as long as I genuinely accept Jesus as my savior, I go to heaven. ... I was raised Roman Catholic, educated by Jesuits, and read Merton extensively."
The thesis you criticise is not the thesis of the Catholic Church.
How come you claim to have been raised a Catholic and then criticise your former religion as involving one logical consequence of ... Sola Fide, which the Catholic Church formally condemned as a Heresy?
Either you let yourself be brainwashed by Atheists who were unaware of what your real past religion really taught or who did not care, OR you are a fraud.
I do not know which it is, but you have spoken a lie, whether you lie to yourself or only from. - Robert Honan
- Sorry, I forgot the proper Catholic step of the Sacrament of Confession. I Catholic Priest can molest kids, and as long as he confesses his sin to his Bishop, the Church will cover his sick ass.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- A Catholic priest who hears confession from boys in the confessional, who sits in one side of it while boys (or girls) walk in the other side, and they line up for it so if either went to the wrong side of the confessional it would show and so on does NOT have very much possibilities to molest children or teens (hate the word "kids" btw, though not as much as I should, but your comment does help).
A Catholic priest who confesses to having committed a sin of sodomitic nature will according to a decree of Pope St Pius V in 1568 be told he cannot be given absolution until he has officially notified his bishop who according to same decree has to defrock him.
A defrocked priest has very little possibilities - traditionally - to molest the Catholic population. A defrocked priest, traditionally, is a man without honour.
What went wrong was not Catholicism being applied. What went wrong was Catholicism being no longer applied, since priests wishing to marry were GRANTED to be defrocked so it was no longer a dishonouring punishment, while superiors like bishops, abbots, order generals were no longer applying 1568 either, but sending offenders to counselling and then recycling them after counselling when told they were cured. Since those days in the 70's counsellers have swung around quite a lot.
How do you like the latest child porn news?
No Catholic priests involved, but a policeman was and a rabbi was.
It involved children as young as two years old. I am pretty certain no Catholic priest so far went that way. - Robert Honan
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, child rape is committed by men of all religions, professions, and social classes. The issue with the Roman Catholic Church was official toleration and protection of child rapists. The last Pope, when he was in charge of the modern descendent of the Inquisition actively worked to suppress criminal investigations of rapist priests, to the point of instructing Bishops to threaten the families of victims with excommunication if they informed the civil authorities. The day that bastard was elevated to the office of Pope, the Church reduced itself to nothing more than an international criminal conspiracy to rape children. The church should be dissolved, and any employee of the church who knew a child had been raped by a priest, but did not report the crime to civil authorities should get 5 years hard labor. Any official who covered up even one indiscretion on the part of a subordinate should spend the rest of their life rotting in prison.
The fact that your solution to a problem that has it's roots in superstition is to turn to an even older version of that same superstition is telling. Do not bother trying to argue your stupidity with me, I'm not the jackass whisperer, and I can't cure you of your delusions. - A Escoto
- +Robert Honan You premise is false and dishonest, but folks of your ilk are not interested in justice rather, prevarications. The abuse occurred primarily in the late 60s, 70s and early 80s the church acted like other institutions that incurred similar problems. They counseled and treated and moved the abuser, which was in line with school districts and police departments of that time period.
To suggest other wise is dishonest you contentious half-wit.
A higher education is still valuable and worthy of attaining, despite a few bad teachers. - Robert Honan
- +A Escoto
Dude, you're the one that is starting from a false premise. You believe that the God of the Catholic church exists, even though you have no evidence that he exists. There is no God. Life, the universe, and everything, are the result of impersonal random chance. All the evils of religious superstition revolve around the idea that right and wrong come from an imaginary higher power, and humans have used that for ages to justify the worst evils humanity has faced. The only moral standard that should apply is "am I hurting someone without their consent?" Give me repeatedly verifiable peer reviewed scientific evidence of you deity's existence that I can not refute with a simpler scientific explanation, and we can talk. As long as "faith" is involved, you are the loser.
So, put up, or shut up! - A Escoto
- +Robert Honan Dude? Peer reviewed? sure, we exist, the universe exist you dolt. Something cannot come from nothing. The odds of it coming from random happening are so small its laughable. How small? the odds are greater of you beating up mike Tyson in his and your prime, if you could fight a million billion times in a row. That's why learned scientists had to come up with the multiverse theory. just as highly unlikely. If you are right, lets assume, why should your morality prevail? the hurting others benchmark? (sounds awfully Christian, that's ok we know it is) but why should those ethics prevail? why not Stalinist ethics, Maos? Kim Jon Un? BTW the worst evils of mankind within the last 85 years and in human history were perpetuated by secular humanistic regimes, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim il Sung, Tojo: 200 million killed, and according to you, whats the big deal? because.....
You cannot justify your morality without God. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- "The issue with the Roman Catholic Church was official toleration and protection of child rapists."
My answer was that this is in Catholicism VERY recent. Post Vatican II.
"The last Pope, when he was in charge of the modern descendent of the Inquisition actively worked to suppress criminal investigations of rapist priests, to the point of instructing Bishops to threaten the families of victims with excommunication if they informed the civil authorities."
Normally offending priests, usually not raping except in [merely legal] statutory sense (unlike those raping 2 year old children for porn), are to be dealt with by CHURCH authorities.
It is just that since Vatican II this has malfunctioned.
"The church should be dissolved,"
Will not happen.
Bergoglio can try to please Claudio what's his German or Jewish name again (a prosecutor) by doing so.
BUT faithful Catholics will not accept that.
Neither will we accept being targetted as child rapists because of infiltrators and because of men less bad than they but broken down by their infiltration.
For that matter, if a priest becomes lover of a fourteen year old girl in a State where statutory rape is counted up to fifteen, I will not accept his being targetted as a rapist either. Nor compared to the rabbi or policeman, or both, whichever it is, who made child porn with two year olds.
"The fact that your solution to a problem that has it's roots in superstition is to turn to an even older version of that same superstition is telling."
You have missed the point that it is only the UPDATED version that has been found guilty.
"They counseled and treated and moved the abuser, which was in line with school districts and police departments of that time period."
Exactly, A Escoto. They should NOT have taken a cue from contemporaries, but continued on the lines of 1568.
"There is no God. Life, the universe, and everything, are the result of impersonal random chance."
If that were so, you [to Robert Honan, again] and any offender here mentioned would also be so, and your indignation at another result of impersonal random chance would be also a result of impersonal random chance.
"The only moral standard that should apply is 'am I hurting someone without their consent?'"
So hurting WITH consent is OK to you?
A thirteen year old girl who DIRECTLY consents to being lover of a priest, would in that case definately exonerate the priest.
But what about men who have been for years targetted and hurty by conspiracies of masonic nature and who have repeatedly stated thei non-consent? Is their consent to be presumed because of indirect indications going the way in interpretation of those hurting, that they really are consenting?
Because that kind of position resumes my situation pretty well.
"We saw him shake hands with the shrink, so we must assume he accepted analysis and treatment."
Even if the shrink never for a moment told me he was a shrink, or told it in such a manner as to make it assumable it was a bad joke?
But of course, if I were just a result of random and impersonal chance happenings, what were I except mud to be trod on? Or you? Or anybody else, including the victims you are apparently so upset about?
"Give me repeatedly verifiable peer reviewed scientific evidence of you deity's existence that I can not refute with a simpler scientific explanation, and we can talk."
In other words, scientists are your priesthood.
You are treating God before the Scientists as Catholics are treating Medjogurje apparitions before Episcopacy of the Catholic Church.
I happen to treat Catholic Bishops* as Catholic Bishops, and NOT Scientists as Catholic Bishops.
And the question of proving God is not a matter of expertise. It is a matter of common sense, a million times MORE peer reviewed than the kind of discoveries YOU would call peer reviewed.
Before I forget, the news story:
CNN : Cop, rabbi, scoutmaster among arrests in child porn bust
By Evan Perez, Pamela Brown and Ray Sanchez, CNN
May 21, 2014 -- Updated 1949 GMT (0349 HKT)
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/21/justice/new-york-child-porn-bust/
____
* Pre-Vatican II, at least! - Robert Honan
- If you are talking about Masonic conspiracies, I suggest you seek counseling. Perhaps therapy and heavy medication will help?
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- That sounds like a Masonic threat.
Have you heard of Sysslebäck / Likenäs, 5 of February 1998?
Check that out before you try any funny stuff on those kinds of level, will you? - Robert Honan
- +A Escoto Dude, Hitler was a Roman Catholic in full communion with the Church. His most Antisemitic speeches heavily quoted Martin Luther.* Look at how many people the Holy Church tortured and killed because someone denounced them as a heretic, and their confession under torture confirmed it? Look at the enslavement of entire peoples justified as going God's work. Hell, that persisted into modern times with the Church in Ireland using captive women as slave labor for profit. The Catholic Church is morally bankrupt, and incapable of providing any valid or rational guidance towards peoples morality.
I'm done with you. You are too blind and ignorant for me to waste my time on, and I would rather spend my limited time on hedonistic pleasure, than playing Jackass whisperer to morons like you.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl As I said, you need mental help. You are delusional, and need to be treated before you hurt someone.
____
* Reminds me of how a probably Seventh Day Adventist site cited Reichsbischoff Müller as proof of Nazi ties with the Vatican. Müller was of the Evangelische confession and not of the RC one! And Landesbischoff Coch was a clearly Lutheran clergyman, indeed a kind of successor of Luther as his position was with the Duke or King of Saxony. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It was trying those games that put me in a position to hurt a policeman with his own pistol.
One decimeter in he flesh of his hip. I got 3 and a 1/2 years and did 2/3 in the end.
So, don't try it. - A Escoto
- +Robert Honan "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity" Hitler 1941
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." Hitler 1941
Moron? lmao from an illiterate neophyte. Dude, these are but 2 quotes, you are uninformed and allow lies and falsehoods to distort your thinking, you are the lost one.
Own it, that Secular Humanism is the worst thing to have happened to mankind, of which you and your ilk bear the load with your ideological cohorts, hitler, mao and stalin for the worst atrocities of all humankind. :)
+Robert Honan who do you think Hitler sounds like? A Catholic in union with the Church? or a Secular humanist, here are some more quotes from Hitler on Christianity for your edification:
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)* Hitler 1941.
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339) Hitler 1942
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie." Hitler 1942 (sounds like your drivel doesn't it?)
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278) Hitler 1942
____
* Will try to ask A Escoto what book he is quoting from. Done:
wiki : Hitler's Table Talk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk
He added there is also this:
Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Paperback– November 2, 1993
by
Alan Bullock(Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Stalin-Parallel-Alan-Bullock/dp/0679729941 - Hans Georg Lundahl
- He also regretted that helping Franco defeat Communism forced him to be involved in saving Catholicism in Spain.
He also had plans of kidnapping Pope Pius XII while occupying Rome.
He also preferred Hohenzollerns (Prots, and some were extremely liberal back in Hitler's time - at least German Prots in general) over habsburgs (notoriously Catholics, and in ages that had no problem with child molesting clergy).
He also allowed Lutherans of the Wehrmacht to forcefully implement his early version of Ecumenism by holding a Lutheran service in Notre Dame.
He also was enemies with the Catholic Austrian politicians Fr Ignaz Seipel and Engelbert Dollfuss, whom he had assassinated, and Kurt von Schuschnigg, whom he locked up in Dachau. - Robert Honan
- Right, still not the atheist you claim.* Besides, atheism is not a doctrine, it is simply the recognition that there is no God. The Marxist you mention replace a superstitious belief in a sky faerie with a superstitious belief in Marxism. They make a bloody religion of it, with all the abuses and tyranny that religion naturally evolves. In fact, Lenin very directly tapped into Russian Orthodox traditions as a way to get the little people to respond as the obedient sheep the church had trained them to be.
Nice try,
____
* A Escoto had used the word Secular Humanist. Certain Buddhists would be Atheists, but not Secular Humanists. Certain Secular Humanists are rather Pantheists (like Hitler) or some kind of New Age. Mao was at a time Christian of some sorts, but his regime was Secular HUmanist in that era too. - A Escoto
- +Robert Honan be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Lenin destroyed the orthodox church, thousands of priest were executed. The cathedral destroyed and rebuilt in 92
Never said they were all atheists, but those bubbas were ALL secular humanists. You hatred makes your nonsensical. Funny you wont say how you justify your morality. I know you cannot, but its amusing you wont admit it - Hans Georg Lundahl
- +Robert Honan , +A Escoto
Lenin was quarter Jewish. Trotski even more so. Stalin was however ex Seminarian and made a kind of temporal appeasement with Orthodox Clergy (or Heterodox Clergy) during the Great Patriotic War = WW-II.
Lenin and Stalin both owe lots of their outlook to Marx and Engels, and so does the new atheism, whether its proponents know so or not.
Wurmbrandt wrote an "Answer to the Bible of Moscow" (i e to a handbook of Atheism so nicknamed), in which he pointed out a logical contradiction in the criticism of Christianity: finidng it BOTH too gloomy and too recklessly rosy. Same contradiction resurfaces when Onfray is popularising Atheism in France. And Onfray is to France about as Dawkins to the English speaking world. - Robert Honan
- As I said, you need trained help with your delusions. I look forward to the day when medical science finds a cure of religious delusions that works consistently so we can take care of you poor deluded fools.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- That was a confession that psychiatry is not about medicine, but about anti-Catholic and anti-Christian fanaticism.
That was also a confession that you had no rational answer to my argument.
You were wrong.
And it was also a confession that there are other heinous cruelties going on than "pedophile priests", like in psychiatry, for instance. - Robert Honan
- Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Volkswagon was another good idea Hitler had. A world completely free of primitive superstition would be worth breaking a few eggs to accomplish.
- A Escoto
- Robert Honan, you should be comforted then, because that mindset you share enables those things to happen
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- How many infiltrators have been thinking along the lines of:
"A world completely free of primitive superstition would be worth breaking a few eggs to accomplish."
and how many of them have considered victims of pedophilia eggs worth breaking?
And here I am not speaking of girls having relationships because evil lews do not permit them to marry before 18, here I am speaking of pederasty, of boys destroyed in the purity of their manhood.
Even though probably much rarer than the other scenario, it did happen, as in Gerge Gheoghan. The ex-priest who was killed in prison.
BTW, it was psychological expertise that twice over cleared him for recycling in parishes. His superiors were gravely culpable, but not by following tradition, rather by following the word of modern expertise. - Robert Honan
- You knowingly and willingly support an International criminal conspiracy to promote child rape, and dare to talk to me about morality? Who the fuck do you think you are? Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history. Please, do humanity a favor and kill yourself.
- A Escoto
- +Robert Honan there is no conspiracy, you would have known that had bothered to look a little. but seedy intellectually dishonest little men with small minds love to propagandize , it bears no wait on truth, because the truth always wins out. Your ideas about life will always be rejected by the mainstream and will never gain mass adherence, they fail because they lack substance and are empty. Yet you will go one searching, rudderless. All you have is mindless invective to mock and deride, not terribly original or fulfilling.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- +Robert Honan "Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy."
Thank you for the candour.
You are definitely involved in things as dirty as or dirtier than child rape, at least by indirect participation. - After the debate
- Two observations which are definitely less shocking than Robert Honan's ideals. You might need it to recover.
- On broken clock
- It used to be true that "a clock that has stopped" - not quite same thing as a "broken clock" - is right twice a day. In the case of modern clocks that flip numbers around it would be only once. If the show is digital, it may show nothing at all, and so not be right even once a day.
It is however true also that a clock of the old sort that has not just stopped but really been broken is not even right once a day. If both dials hang limp downwards, the long dial on the six indicates the short dial should be between two hours. But the short dial would then also hang limp exactly on the hour of six. So when both dials are broken and hang onto the six, the broken clock is not even right once a day. - This was under the video
- The Flying Spaghetti Monster and God by Robert Barron
Resource777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak-riGdz-UM - Sent above to codebators.
- From A Escoto I got bibliographic info. From Robert Honan this:
- Robert Honan
- I see nothing dirty with removing bigots motivated by primitive superstition from the gene pool. I'm also ethical enough to not repost other people's comments in a discussion out of context. If you want to link to my comments here and respond on your silly little blog, go right ahead. Too bad you're the typical forum bully who can't help but refight the debate in a forum where you can edit my comments to your pleasure. Either post my comments word-for-word with everyone else's comments quoted word-for-word, or don't post them at all! Perhaps I should repost this discussion to my blog, and correct your posts to openly reflect your support for child rape?
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- I see something extremely dirty and bigotted about removing any group from the gene pool.
All of your comments have been posted word for word.
I have added footnotes, both to yours, to A Escoto's and to my own.
You are obviously as free as I to do the same.
Have you changed any of your comments since I reposted them to suit your accusations?
[Next Day:]
- Robert Honan
- Oh, you are promising that I can freely add footnotes and additional commentary to the discussion you have on your site? Great! First, make sure you include every single comment from this site as it was originally posted, without any of what you call insults removed.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Why don't YOU do it like I did: going up this thread and copy pasting every comment?*
I excluded ONE comment which was not on the debate and hardly comprehensible. And by a person who was not either before nor afterwards in this thread.
In this particular one, I excluded no insults.
I specifically included your insults to my sanity and my answers to them.
You seem to have an attitude about the work I did on this thread based on illfounded rumours as to other threads on same blog. And the work I did on them. And possibly to predecessors like my site Antimodernism (which went down with other MSN sites in 2009).
And the fact you have had access to such rumours tells me something about some community you are part of. NOT deciding whether it is limited to New Atheism or includes things like Psychiatry or things like Freemasonry. But certainly a kind of community capable of inaccurate rumour mongering.
Or did you edited your comments with added insults to pseudo-substantiate your accusation? Something tells me you did not. After asking a similar question yesterday, I looked and you had not deleted any material in your comments as far as I saw.
By the way, I am stating you can do this about the thread or possibly later threads you were involved in, I cannot speak for all other participants in all other threads, though I have tried to contact them all (and I have no longer access to AOL boards, so no possibility of asking certain someones).
____
*If he distrusts my rendering so much, that is about what he should do.
No comments:
Post a Comment