I would like to use this as an example.
Probably because it is the only example you can find.
As I remember the exchange, you did the biblical reference and name calling in one post.
Just to point something out, there are 274 posts, between my first response to JST to the post where you say I'm 'name calling'.
All the question dodging, all the equivocating, the red herrings, the dismissals.. 274 posts.
And your criticism rests upon 'sicko', for pointing out that someone compared how they raised their children to biblical slavery as if it were perfectly ok ( and syonymous ).
This gave Jst no time to
There is no reason to make accomodations for someone who makes claims as if they've read the bible when they clearly have not. They clearly have never invested the time to read it, which invites the question of dishonesty.
What he remembers now is the name calling, not the lesson.
He's had hundreds of posts to respond prior to this, minus name calling, where he has consistently avoided supporting his own claims. Again, I am judged for a single post out of hundreds, and he is.. seemingly completely innocent of his actions in your eyes?
Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.
My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.
I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.
I agree with him on nothing. But we're still friends. And when we do talk religion, we keep it quite civil.
And you get no where, I've had him admit that he didn't know what he's talking about regarding evolution and then admit that he is afraid of confronting the validity of his own beliefs.
What do you know? That he can mindlessly tell you what he believes without telling you why rationally?
What is that going to do ?
Also, I have no expectations that he'll ever figure out why I disagree.
Neither do I, but it doesn't take much effort to respond and ask him a question. He obviously knows enough to selectively ignore the more damning challenges to his own claims, hence his resulting equivocating and constant denial of very specific issues.