re: Fathers of daughters

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”

“Oh, I don’t know,” said the atheist. “How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?” as he smiled smugly.

“Okay,” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”

To which the little girl replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don’t know crap?”

And then she went back to reading her book.

quote:

---

Azkiger

---

that's what i thought would happen. when pressed for you to actually justify your crap views, you turn to the ad hominem. way to perpetuate the stereotype. oh, but i'm the "annoying apologist." here's a question, have you ever thought that "apologists" wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for geniuses like you who intentionally misrepresent things?

quote:

---

that's what i thought would happen. when pressed for you to actually justify your crap views, you turn to the ad hominem. way to perpetuate the stereotype. oh, but i'm the "annoying apologist." here's a question, have you ever thought that "apologists" wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for geniuses like you who intentionally misrepresent things?

---

No, that's not it at all. For whatever reason (be it willful or just plain ignorant) you seem unable to follow simple conversation. You keep asserting that I'm ignoring context. I've addressed the context you pretend I haven't considered and have already told you that I value a woman's life more than whether or not she is a virgin on her wedding night. You can keep crying about the importance sexual purity all you want, in order to agree with the Old Testament prescription of stoning non-virgins on their wedding nights you have to value a woman's virginity more than her own life. I asked you point blank that question and its answer was noticeable vacant from your response to me.

Why didn't you include an answer to my point black question? To make room for other mindless bullshite... Of course... Cutting out a "I cannot understand" and replying with "THERE WE GO. finally we're getting somewhere. next time, lead with this instead of your bullcrap, smug, condescending attitude like you know something you don't know and treat people like crap. what do you say champ?" isn't pressing me to justify my views, it serves zero purpose outside of being an antagonizing distraction.

I'm not going to even get into how you're making up logical fallacies. Seriously, how the frick do you come to the conclusion that someone simply stating that they put more value into a woman's life than her virginity isn't only a logical fallacy, but three logical fallacies. Yes, all you deserve is a "God damn you're dumb".

Honestly at this point I suspect you're not a Christian at all, but an atheist acting retarded on purpose to smear Christians. That or a troll. Either way I'm not responding to you anymore.

You are giving your daughter a don't frick book from someone whose whole appeal is that lots of sports fans want to frick her.

Sure that will work out

quote:

---

I value a woman's life more than whether or not she is a virgin on her wedding night.

---

and this is of course a stupid comment because it's a horrible characterization of the passage you are citing. not surprising given your lack of interpretation skills. all you're doing is repeating your assertion that i've already addressed. you are acting like you have the moral authority to judge that prohibition as wrong without substantiating your authority.

you say you understand the purpose of the prohibition but then act like it doesn't matter because the prohibition isn't to your liking. if you understand the purpose, then you don't have a problem with the prohibition.

you say you "value" a woman but then ignore the context that much of the chapter is devoted to establishing the value of God's creation. also, you're acting like this one command is the only command that establishes their value on a woman, which is not the case as has been pointed out to you multiple times.

but why don't you just repeat your tired, refuted assertion again with more insults because that's really moving the conversation along

quote:

---

Why didn't you include an answer to my point black question?

---

because i was trying to point out that you don't know crap about the Bible and you need to start acting like it

quote:

---

To make room for other mindless bullshite

---

yeah, this coming from the person who is lecturing others from ignorance. good job sport

quote:

---

how the frick do you come to the conclusion that someone simply stating that they put more value into a woman's life than her virginity isn't only a logical fallacy, but three logical fallacies

---

i explained it. now tell me how it was wrong without just repeating your original stupid, trolling assertion.

quote:

---

you're making up logical fallacies

---

you would say that given that you are committing them and haven't found a way to insult out of them. yeah, saying context matters, asking you to morally justify your view and exegetical analysis of the passage/chapter are "making up" a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

I'm not responding to you anymore.

---

probably for the best. suggestion: i can suggest to you some commentaries on deuteronomy. it would be a way for you to dip your toes into the shallow end of biblical interpretation. if you're a jackass troll, you'll refuse. if you're actually interested in admitting you're ignorant and want to learn, you'll accept.