Gay Mass Murder Trend

[Rusha]

There are a lot of sins in this world, bigot. People don't need to be saved from just of one or two, but all of them. Your prejudice is showing.

Nah, those *other sins* are too boring to actually be saved from ...

:chuckle:

 

[asrpcp.org]

I agree that people need saved from ALL sins; sadly, most who go left down "Sodomy Ln." never return... :devil:

 

[Rusha]

I agree that people need saved from ALL sins; sadly, most who go left down "Sodomy Ln." never return... :devil:

And yet it isn't *ALL sins* that you obsess over ...

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Nah, those *other sins* are too boring to actually be saved from ...

:chuckle:

The salaciousness of sin and the xenophobia of the ultra-conformist- gays are just too tempting a target for some people to leave alone. Sad, really.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I agree that people need saved from ALL sins; sadly, most who go left down "Sodomy Ln." never return... :devil:

You have no idea what you are talking about. It is not given unto you to know the spiritual state of anyone but yourself so your smug denunciation of who is headed where in the eternal scheme of thing is reaching just a little beyond your station. And if you think that killing homosexuals and forcing external conformity will ever lead anyone to Christ you are nothing but a Pharisee of the most ignorant type, a Mrs. Grundy who revels in the forms of righteousness in themselves and others, but unconcerned with actual spiritual progress repentance.

 

[Rusha]

The salaciousness of sin and the xenophobia of the ultra-conformist- gays are just too tempting a target for some people to leave alone. Sad, really.

Very true ... what has been confirmed by these threads regarding homosexuality is that the *determination of sin* is based on the eye of the beholder ...

 

[asrpcp.org]

The salaciousness of sin and the xenophobia of the ultra-conformist- gays are just too tempting a target for some people to leave alone. Sad, really.

No, it's just that those devil possessed weirdos seem to be showing their ugly heads more often than the others...:dunce:

 

[Rusha]

No, it's just that those devil possessed weirdos seem to be showing their ugly heads more often than the others...:dunce:

So quit it already!

:chuckle:

 

[asrpcp.org]

That was a good response.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

No, it's just that those devil possessed weirdos seem to be showing their ugly heads more often than the others...:dunce:

I doubt that. If you look hard enough, however, I'm sure you can find all the evidence of their presence you need to satisfy your perverse desire to be outraged at others instead of having to deal with your own sinful nature.

 

[asrpcp.org]

I am Holy.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I am Holy.

No. You are a sinner. Don't confuse accounted righteousness in the eyes of God with the real McCoy, chump. You'll start having delusions of grandeur and begin judging others in a way that you are most definitely not entitled to.

 

[Rusha]

I am Holy.

Nah, you are just another one that views salvation as a "get of out of hell free" card. Feeling you are no longer accountable for your *sin* is certainly not holy.

 

[asrpcp.org]

You're just jealous.

 

[Rusha]

:think:

Of what?

 

[asrpcp.org]

My Holiness. :beanboy:

 

[Rusha]

:squint:






:crackup:

Good one!

 

[lightbringer]

My Holiness. :beanboy:

? Can some one say "Delusional" ?

 

[BootkinMan]

Simply put, statistical evidence is a piece of information taken from, say, a study or a survey. For example, if I wanted to substantiate a point that smoking is linked to lung cancer, I'd provide a stat that might say something like "30% of smokers contract lung cancer during their lives, compared to a mere 5% of non-smokers". While this wouldn't prove my argument beyond dispute, it'd certainly help to back up my claim.

Anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, would be more along the lines of "My friend Bill used to smoke, and got lung cancer." Anecdotal evidence is seldom seen as sufficient to justify an argument. It can be used as an illustration of a point, but I could list all the individual cases of lung cancer in smokers that I wanted and it would do very little to further my point, largely because it can be countered in two very simple ways:

1. "Really? Well my friend Jim had been smoking since the age of 12 and was fit as a fiddle until the age of 86, when that bus ran him over."
2. "Prove that Bill wouldn't have got lung cancer anyway."

In this case, Bob's listed a dozen or so gay serial killers and seems to be under the impression that it proves his theory that homosexuality is linked to criminality. In actual fact it gives a very skewed picture, because of the hundreds of heterosexual serial killers, and the millions of non-murderous homosexuals. If he actually wanted to make a point that anyone but his own little cadre-cult-congregation would have even a modicum of respect for, he would have to produce a statistic from a reputable source that actually showed a trend for mass murder in homosexuals.

Thanks very much for sharing this.

BM

 

[MrRadish]

-