Quote from: quadz on November 18, 2009, 05:40:50 PMand the sunday sermons that don't stray too far from the themes covered in the traditional storybooks. False. LOL?What church did you attend? (I'm not seriously asking that because you've said it 12 million times)
and the sunday sermons that don't stray too far from the themes covered in the traditional storybooks.
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. 27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. 29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.
The author is the one that chose to define his view points based on a gimmick. It's becoming very tortured logic for you to take some of these viewpoints that don't overlap. You are ignoring the fact that the pen-and-ink drawings were obviously used to make a reference to the kids versions of the same stories. You're contradicting yourself by trying to continue the notion that that is an unfair conclusion and then pointing out that that is half of the purpose of the book.
You consciously seek out this kind of material and your subjective opinion that it is not provocative for provocative sake is pretty obvious.
There is a difference between disagreement and provocative attacks. This book is obviously a non-constructive attack rather than a logical argument; which seems to me that his arguments are based more in reactive emotion rather than logic. Either way, would this not be the equivalent of idiots like the 700 club that describe "athiests" like they are a cult trying to steal your soul?
I know from previous statements that you already agreed with everything in the book before buying it. So picking up something that is already the norm for yourself places you on a list of people that I would not ask to find out how controversial this book is.
...
Jesus wept.