Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut you did ~ about seven days ago ~ here in this forum. You called promiscuous women "whores".
I certainly wouldn't call even someone with whom I have no relational bonds (family/friend or etc.) any pejorative name, no matter what descriptor I give their activities.
Originally posted by FMFThat was speaking generally, not specifically toward anyone in particular.
But you did ~ about seven days ago ~ here in this forum. You called promiscuous women "whores".
I'm certain you can tell the difference.
Now, if your daughter came to me and asked me if I thought she was acting like a whore, I'd tell her the truth--- something you're unwilling to tell her, for whatever reason.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, sometimes people just discredit themselves with little or no help. You may be worried about things you have said in the past on this forum and worried about them being mentioned, but I am not worried in the slightest. I stand by everything I have ever said, and will retract anything that embarrasses me if necessary, and if and when raised in discussion. I won't be using the "retrospective trolling" defence. You may find you need it though. So go for it.
It is what it is FMF an attempt to draw matters up from the past to elicit some kind of emotive response or to embarrass or discredit an individual.
Originally posted by sonshipA bill is the demand of a person who must actually work to cull a small bit of useful energy from the earth.
There are too many things. That is why it is good to thank God for His [b]mercy.
Suppose God sent to earth the energy bill for the amount of hydrogen consumed by the sun last month ?[/b]
Not very becoming for a God. All he has to do is say "Let there be light."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI would not generally call sexually active young women "whores". And I would not generally call women with multiple partners "whores".
That was speaking generally, not specifically toward anyone in particular.
I'm certain you can tell the difference.
Originally posted by FMFOh FMF I am not worried in the slightest but I thank you for your concern never the less.
Well, sometimes people just discredit themselves with little or no help. You may be worried about things you have said in the past on this forum and worried about them being mentioned, but I am not worried in the slightest. I stand by everything I have ever said, and will retract anything that embarrasses me if necessary, and if and when raised in discussion. I ...[text shortened]... 't be using the "retrospective trolling" defence. You may find you need it though. So go for it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, if God says 'go rape someone' and another man says, 'don't do that! It's an atrocity!', we all know who you'll be listening to, right?
You simply don't get it, do you?
If God has said one thing, but something/someone appears as God saying something else entirely--- something in complete contrast to what He has already said--- who, in their right mind, would listen to the second one?
Please point out, yet again, that this is a ridiculous question. Yes, it is. It's ridiculous to put yourself in the position of following another's commands without using your own moral barometer to gauge their worth.
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo.
I see the theists have redefined 'troll' to mean 'person who questions me until I say something regrettable'.
A troll (in this case) is a person who continually harps on an issue, constantly turning the phrase every which way, yet not as a means to get a better understanding, but rather as a way to then use that exact phrasing in a legalistic manner to support a charge of supposed moral inferiority.
It's been used by small minds for centuries.