Deal with April?
April adorsey@NETUSA1.NET
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:06:49 -0600 (00874372009, 199709151728.NAA08851@gatem02.netusa1.net)
> > >
> > > LENNY
> >
> > Way to go, Lenny. You DID take us out of context, so by requiring that
I
> > must lie and declare that you didn't (which I'm not going to do) you
> think
> > you're off the hook regarding the other issues. I certainly can't make
> you
> > support all of your ridiculous assertions, but think how you look to
the
> 70
> > or so lurkers - they can see your yellow stripe from here!
> >
> > April
>
> LENNY
>
> April, dear, I grow tired of your little game. You refuse to answer my
> question which will prove I didn't take you out of context. "Do you
> believe that in *certain circumstances it is okay to rape a small child?"
> If you answer *yes* (Which BTW you have said before) you prove I did not
> take you out of context. If you answer *no* well you make yourself a
liar.
> Now I wonder what the lurkers on the list think of you! I am sure you
> don't care.
>
> The deal stands until the end of the week. Think it over, if you are
*man*
> enough to admit your mistakes we can go on.
It's already been explained to you several times by several people how you
took my and Farrell's statements out of context. I've posted them at the
bottom. As I have already said - I believe a raped kid is better than a
dead one. But, as is pointed out below, the scenerio we were talking about
bears NO relationship to the one with Lot's daughters. By implying they
are the same, you took our statements out of context to try and make us
look as if we were as scuzzy as Lot, and god. I'm sure this won't be good
enough for you, because you don't WANT to have to respond and defend your
innane statements, so you will continue to find excuse after excuse to
avoid doing so.
Why is it, that only the inerrantists EVER list conditions before answering
a question, but atheists never do? Is it because we can defend our
positions whereas the christians, who know their positions are
indefensible, cannot?
Hmmmm.....
April
(My rabid feminist days are over, Lenny, but I'd like to see you give birth
twice with NO drugs! You're not woman enough to argue with me!!)
>LENNY
>
>Before Farrell and April got themselves kicked off Jerry's list they said
>that under some circumstances this would be the morally right thing to do.
>In fact April was going to offer her daughter and Till was going to rape
>her. Maybe they do believe in the Bible?
>
TILL
Yes, but as everyone knows, the scenario that April and I were posting
about
was significantly different from the one in which Lot offered his daughters
to the mob. April and I were going to save the lives of 10 million people,
including even April's daughter. Lot was simply offering two women to be
raped in order to save two men from being raped. I suspect that even Lenny
can see the difference. At any rate, he is the absolute moralist on the
list, so he needs to explain to us how that a man who would offer his two
daughters to a mob with rape on its mind could have afterwards been
considered "righteous" enough to save from the destruction of Sodom. We
must
keep in mind too that even though Lot's incest with his daughters happened
after Sodom was destroyed, the God who destroyed Sodom and considered Lot
so
righteous that he should be spared was presumably an omniscient deity. As
such, he would have known what Lot was going to do right after he was saved
from the destruction of Sodom. If Lenny could somehow know that next week
one of the elders of his church, who would presumably be a man "without
reproach" (1 Tim. 3:1), would have an incestuous relationship with his two
daughters, would Lenny still consider him a righteous man, who should be
spared death if total destruction was going to rain down on Louisville?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
NANCY
This post from Lenny followed a serious of posts that discussed Lot's
righteousness in the face of him offering his virgin daughters to be raped
in place of a couple of men and him subsequently having sex with his
daughters. Matt Bell asked if we would intervene if our child was being
raped or just stand and watch.
>> > LENNY
>> >
>> > Before Farrell and April got themselves kicked off Jerry's list they
>said
>> > that under some circumstances this would be the morally right thing to
>do.
NANCY
So far so good.
LENNY
>> > In fact April was going to offer her daughter and Till was going to
>rape
>> > her. Maybe they do believe in the Bible?
NANCY
Yes, Lenny definitely is taking things out of context. The story of Lot
offering his virgin daughters in order to spare a couple of men from being
sodomized is quite different from the scenario April and Till had
discussed,
where millions of lives, including the girl's, hung in the balance.
>> IAN
>>
>> As usual Lenny, you have taken what they have said completely out of
>> context.
>
>LENNY
>
>Put up or shut up Ian! How is what I said taking them out of context.
>*under some circumstances*
>Lenny
>
>
NANCY
Lenny ignores the last part of his post where he implies that the
circumstances in the Lot story are similar to the circumstances in April
and
Till's scenario.
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net
Lenny Santee wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 04:02:14AM +0100, Matt Bell wrote:
> > > What would you do if your son/daughter was being raped by a group of
> men.
> > > Intervene or stand back and watch?
> >
> > Genesis 19:5-8 (NIV)
> > 5
> > They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to
> > you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can
have
> > sex with them."
> > 6
> > Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door
> > behind him
> > 7
> > and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked
> > thing.
> > 8
> > Look, I have two daughters who have never slept
with
> > a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do
> > what you like with them. But don't do anything to
> > these men, for they have come under the protection
of
> > my roof."
> >
> > 2 Peter 2:7-8 (NIV)
> > 7
> > and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was
> > distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
> > 8
> > (for that righteous man, living among them day
after
> > day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the
> > lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
> >
> > (The KJV is not substantially different except being more difficult to
> > read)
> >
> > Apparently, I can offer my son or daughter to be raped and still be
> > righteous. Moments after offering his daughers to be raped, he was
> > still "righteous" enough to be rescued from Sodom. So, anyhow,
> > biblically I think it is the parent who is supposed to offer the
> > daughters up for rape, but I don't know if he has to watch.
> > Intervening is not in the picture.
> >
> > That's the scriptural answer.
> >
> > Why, what answer did you hope for?
> >
> > Jeff
>
> LENNY
>
> Before Farrell and April got themselves kicked off Jerry's list they said
> that under some circumstances this would be the morally right thing to
do.
> In fact April was going to offer her daughter and Till was going to rape
> her. Maybe they do believe in the Bible?
>
> TYPE @ U LATER
> Lenny
> lennys@iglou.com
> <http://www.angelfire.com/ky/wattersonchurch>
IAN
As usual Lenny, you have taken what they have said completely out of
context.
LENNY
>
> Put up or shut up Ian! How is what I said taking them out of context.
> *under some circumstances*
> Lenny
IAN
I think April and Till can best answer this question but as I recall the
situation, an entire city was to be put in jeopardy if this rape was not
done. How do you equate that with two of God's angels being placed in
jeopardy when an Almighty God wouldn't lift a finger to help them and
then saves Lot? And where did I say, "under some circumstances"?