Huh?
Juxtaposition. Can the adherents of two competing faiths who believe Right is on their side remain peaceful?
Huh?
I wish for just a day I could change my nick to dumpdumpthemonarchy
Juxtaposition. Can the adherents of two competing faiths who believe Right is on their side remain peaceful?
No coherent argument. You get an F. Detention after school for three hours so you can read your Darwin.
Change it, who's topping you?
I haven't read the story for a long time so my memory of the details may be faulty, but it appears to be an accurate reference to a widely known story so it's a useful way to illustrate the longevity of that entrapment technique. It was known 5000 years or so ago and it still works. What's bogus about that?
That was Slick.
I don't see why, I think your point is bogus. Would you similarly object to citations of writers like Shakespeare and Milton in factual stories, or is it just biblical references you object to? That writer could have made a similar point about sexuality used for deception by referring to Othello, for instance, would that have similarly vexed you? The Bible is an important part of our literary heritage, whatever merits or demerits anyone thinks it might have, in fact you can't really know our literary heritage without knowing the Bible. Referring to its stories is a perfectly legitimate stylistic device in almost any context.Such "stories" ought to be kept out of factual news items.
Please tell me you aren't surprised by this myopic thinking?I find it repugnant that you would seek to push your beliefs so strongly as to end even innocuous references like this.
Your silence is what they want Karrie, don't give the useless shytes of the world the satisfaction of you throwing in the towel.Surprised, no. Frankly, I've been avoiding the forum as of late due to the anti-religion posts. Nothing is surprising anymore about the rudeness.
Mine to, to some extent. Life has a habit of getting in the way of bashing the mentally challenged online.My fight's run out these days Bear.
it used a well known story to make a point. That is all. The article did not state that the story that was used for illustration purposes was factual or not. It was only used to illustrate a point.
knock knock knock......anybody home?
Fact is, there are no facts here.
it used a well known story to make a point. That is all. The article did not state that the story that was used for illustration purposes was factual or not. It was only used to illustrate a point.
knock knock knock......anybody home?
I don't see why, I think your point is bogus. Would you similarly object to citations of writers like Shakespeare and Milton in factual stories, or is it just biblical references you object to? That writer could have made a similar point about sexuality used for deception by referring to Othello, for instance, would that have similarly vexed you? The Bible is an important part of our literary heritage, whatever merits or demerits anyone thinks it might have, in fact you can't really know our literary heritage without knowing the Bible. Referring to its stories is a perfectly legitimate stylistic device in almost any context.