|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: bob&carolebob&carole
Date: Jan 8, 2007 16:04
"I am a pedophile -- someone who is sexually attracted to children; I
won't quibble about pre-adolescent or post-adolescent because I like
them all. That does not make me a threat to children"--humiliated
pedophile 4s00th
"Yes, I've thought about giving little boys blow jobs, and the
fantasies have been very thrilling and exciting to me"--humiliated
pedophile 4s00th
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.boy-lovers/msg/d768e45a1077ee84?&hl=e...
"I have on occasion been known to humiliate myself -- but then, I'm one
of the few people with sufficient intelligence to humiliate me"
|
| |
|
18 Comments |
|
|
Author: LuciferLucifer
Date: Jan 8, 2007 15:53
XXX wrote:
> "Lucifer" hotmail.com> wrote:>> XXX wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You know NOTHING about science. You did, however, prove my point with
>>> each of your asinine rants: you can't prove disprove religion using
>>> science.
>>
>> You know A) nothing about brevity snippage and B) nothing about
>> constructing a good argument. If religion makes a claim, and science
>> disproves it, then the claim is disproved. Therefore science can
>> disprove the idea of any religion more serious than Russell's teapot.
>
> List ONE thing that religion claims that is disproven by science.
The entire world was flooded, and fairly recently.
That a guy came back from the dead.
That the world was created in six days.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: aversivenessaversiveness
Date: Jan 8, 2007 15:21
4s00th wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:36:11 -0800, Robert netportusa.com>
> wrote:>>
>> That's known as Deism and I can understand it as a belief.
>>Unfortunately expressing a belief in a God, cause you to be included
>>with the lowest life scum that claims to know the will of God and
>>works to have his belief become the law.
>> I deny the belief in any God, because I don't want to be lumped in
>>with the likes of many of the xian posters. If there is a God
>>he/she/it will understand.
>
> So, you hate God because there are some assholes who believe in him?
>
|
| Show full article (1.90Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: aversivenessaversiveness
Date: Jan 8, 2007 14:35
4s00th wrote:
> And yet, why would you bother to create something that you didn't
> love?
Excellent question! Here are some others that have been variously
asked of god:
Why bother to destroy what you love?
Does god love all creations equally? Mother Teresa versus Jeffrey
Daumer? An innocent child versus Pol Pot?
What does 'love' mean to a god? I know what it means to love my
significant other. I know what it means to love my children and family
and friends. I know what it means to love my dogs. What does it mean
for a god to love a human (or a dog)?
What does it mean for a human to love a god?
Do dogs love god?
If a god loves - does a god hate?
What does a god hate?
Why bother to create what you hate?
|
| Show full article (2.64Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: RobertRobert
Date: Jan 8, 2007 13:52
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:34:41 -0500, 4s00th <4s00th@ thetruth.com>
wrote:
>>> The true nature of science is that *everything* is a theory - until
>>> completely and unequivocally proven or disproven.
>>>
>>> And so far, AFAIK, nothing has ever been completely proven or
>>> disproven. That's why they're called "theories." Science has usually
>>> been rather wishy-washy - insisting that everything is a theory.
>>>
>>> LOL, even the theory of relativity is STILL considered a theory. : )
>>
>>Try a google search on the law_of_relativity or the law_of_gravity
>>
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: JessHCJessHC
Date: Jan 8, 2007 13:40
Max Grrl wrote:
> In article <3nf5q2ptvtn05jqrefa58ntd1ri14u5993@ 4ax.com>, Robert
> netportusa.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:50:18 -0600, duke cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>4. The Christian dogma of sin, with human beings having free choice
>>>>to obey or disobey, is untenable, as 'sin', killing, fighting, etc.,
>>>>already existed millions of years before human beings came about.
>>>
>>>But man is the only creature that does it for personal desire.
>>
>> And man is the only creature that has religion. No religion, no
>> killing for personal beliefs. No killing for God.
>
> Well, I have urges to kill for personal belief - the belief that people
> are fucking cattle. : )
>
> Does that mean I'm religious? LOL
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: JessHCJessHC
Date: Jan 8, 2007 13:38
Max Grrl wrote:
> In article 4ax.com>, Robert
> netportusa.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:10:22 -0500, 4s00th <4s00th@ thetruth.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:03:45 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
>>> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <10u2q2lj5ae4v7rjntrg928d9i72bl9ptn@ 4ax.com>,
>>>> duke cox.net> wrote:>>>>>
>>>>> God is real.
>>>>
>>>>repeatedly asserting something you believe neither makes it true nor
>>>>convinces anyone.
>>>
>>>I could accept that if you guys would stop doing it, too!
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.79Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: JessHCJessHC
Date: Jan 8, 2007 13:38
Max Grrl wrote:
>> XXX wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You know NOTHING about science. You did, however, prove my point with each
>>> of your asinine rants: you can't prove disprove religion using science.
>>
>> You know A) nothing about brevity snippage and B) nothing about
>> constructing a good argument. If religion makes a claim, and science
>> disproves it, then the claim is disproved. Therefore science can
>> disprove the idea of any religion more serious than Russell's teapot.
>
> His point was that science neither proves or disproves religion of ANY
> kind. That's not the fucking POINT to science.
No, it's just a happy side effect.
|
| Show full article (2.96Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: JessHCJessHC
Date: Jan 8, 2007 13:37
Max Grrl wrote:
>> Max Grrl wrote:
>>>> Jim07D7 wrote:
>>>>> Max Grrl gmail.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> Me: >> Did I say something showing disrespect?>>>>>>
>>>>>>NO, absolutely NOT. But I wanted YOU to see that *I* wasn't trying to
>>>>>>be disrespectful either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, a few of the posters from your group (I presume) WERE
>>>>>>disrespectful and THEY were the ones (and only they) that I was ...
|
| Show full article (2.38Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: WondererWonderer
Date: Jan 8, 2007 13:19
wrote in message news:45ab93cc.8175781@%%.UTB....
> On 8 Jan 2007 09:29:13 -0800, "Pr0r3p" yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>bob&carole wrote:
>>> Pr0r3p wrote:
>>>> bob&carole..humiliating faggot scotty cocksucker FLL and enjoying
>>>> every
>>>> minute... wrote:
>>>>> ScottyFLL effortlessly and relentlessly kicking Inadequate Blob's
>>>>> pedo
>>>>> ass multiple times daily :-) wrote:
>>>>> What a faggot liar...LOL
>>>>> And no proof..as usual
>>>>
>>>> Ahh, look at little hypocrite liar faggobob whining at someone about ...
|
| Show full article (2.34Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
