Kent Wills wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:28:38 -0600,
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:11:25 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There is no "substantive" discussion possible with someone who
excuses the killing of unborn babies. There is NO common ground
here. Abortion is nothing less than murder, and that is one
point that I will NEVER compromise on.
That's why we keep telling you to stick it in your *****.
Unless you're honest enough to be against murder by the state
(capital punishment), then what you're doing is selectively being
"outraged" as
a sham moralist.
Explain what crime the unborn fetus was convicted of to
warrant death.
Explain what crime the 100,000+ unarmed Iraqi civilian
men women and children were convicted of to warrant
death from the U$ invaders.
Humans kill other humans when it is convenient or
advantageous to do so, have done that since
the dawn of mankind, and even under direct orders
from your perverted grotesque god.
Either killing (all killing) is immoral, or it is not.
Trying to claim that some killing is "okay", but attaching emotional
crap to a private matter is outright hypocrisy.
There is NO provision that allows you to assume the role of judge in
religious matters. It is solely between individual and god. To
ascribe some authority to yourself is utter idiocy.
But Ted has the authority to speak for Jesus. Ted says so
himself.
How do you know he doesn't speak for gaaawd?
What is the definitive test to disprove such claims?
Was G aWol Bu$h lying when he said god told
him to attack and invade Afghanistan and Iraq?
The fight is that "some" believe their religion gives them the right
to force it upon others.
Ted is of that opinion, which ends up turning people away.
The more that are turned away from obscene perverted superstitions
the better, eh Kent?
.
