So, you made up the bit about Augustine being a "sex maniac"?

>>"Sex maniac"..... is a bit of artistic licence to create a 'tag' easily recognizable and grab some attention<<

Does it not occur to you that it is precisely this "look at me" behaviour that I find objectionable? You may call my responses "playing the man" - I notice that on another thread I am one of those people who apparently makes personal attacks on you:

>>.. even when ceaselessly picked on and abused as I am by Pericles, CJ Morgan, Ginx, Bugsy, West,Alanpoi and a few hundred others :)<<

...but you invite such observation by being so casually mendacious in practically every post you write.

The reason it appears that I am "picking on you" (I don't believe I have been abusive, please correct me here if I am wrong) is that you regularly overstep the mark in comparing your religion with that of Islam, inevitably unfavourably to the latter, and most frequently adorned with the most egregious slurs, all in the name of "education", as you describe it.

As a result, your every utterance becomes a reason for me to draw your attention to their underlying theme, which is fear and hatred of Islam. And when you post inaccuracies and inventions on other topics - this being just one of many examples - I feel morally obligated to point out their flimsy basis in reality.

Once again you did not disappoint, this time by inventing a headline on the grounds of its potential to titillate. Shame.

>>Attacking other posters is never productive<<

So, don't take this as another "attack", Boaz, but as a piece of "education".

>>I'm putting him forward as a great thinker who has influenced Western thought<<

Which is why I pointed out that one of his "influences" was to conclude that innocent children must go to hell.

And just out of interest, I can still recite the Nicene creed after all these years. Some things just stick, don't they.

Pericleeeees.....

I did not 'invent' the 'sex maniac' thing.. when you know more about Augustine you will see where it comes from.

The term is not inaccurate... when examination of his own confessions is made. The pointttttt is... (follow that finger) I used that way of describing a man who 'had a great struggle with lust and sex'... which is.. not an 'invention'... unless you wish to define 'sex maniac' in some very narrow way.

Artistic licence.. Journalistic licence.. HEADLINE.. 'connect'... 'confront'.... its how journalism works.. once you have peoples attention you can then discuss issues better.

as I said.. I'm glad I'm not one of your kids.. I can imagine you interrogating them "Now.. did the teacher REALLY say that or are you 'adding' to his words" ? etc...

How in the WORLD did we get back on the 'Islam bashing' theme HERE ?

Perhaps you are the one with the 'obsession' :)

Does it occur to you that I may be juxtaposing the 'Priest abuses children' of 'now' with an example of a life which went the other way ? (though Augustine did not abuse children)

Some people will find an Islam basher in a garden gnome.. like you just did.

Another classic piece of "I didn't really mean it that way" sidestepping, Boaz. There's no doubt you improve each time, with no limits yet in sight.

>>The term is not inaccurate... when examination of his own confessions is made. The pointttttt is... (follow that finger) I used that way of describing a man who 'had a great struggle with lust and sex'... which is.. not an 'invention'... unless you wish to define 'sex maniac' in some very narrow way.<<

Right. So, your definition of a sex maniac includes anyone who has "a great struggle with lust and sex". My definition is, in contrast, "very narrow".

Phew! I will grant you that your definition cannot be accused of being narrow. The world, it may surprise you to know, is chock-a-block with people who struggle with lust and sex, but very few of them would welcome being called sex maniacs. In common parlance, the term is usually linked with behaviours such as promiscuity, perversion, deviancy, immoral profligacy or other visible excesses. It is desperately unfair to categorize someone's inner struggles with the nature of their sexuality as a mania.

>>Artistic licence.. Journalistic licence.. HEADLINE.. 'connect'... 'confront'.... its how journalism works.. once you have peoples attention you can then discuss issues better.<<

Or alternatively, you can ensure that they do not believe a word of what you are saying, thanks to the mendacity that so obviously forms a pivotal role in your approach to the topic.

>>as I said.. I'm glad I'm not one of your kids.. <<

That makes two of us, Boaz. I'd hate to think that I had brought up a child with such scant regard for the truth.

But then again, I have never visited physical violence on any of my kids, so you would at least be free of the shadow of that particular perversion.

>>How in the WORLD did we get back on the 'Islam bashing' theme HERE?<<

Easy. You post on a religious topic. I spot the fibs and the stretched logic. I then point out how this is the common theme in all your posts.

And while I'm on the subject...

>>Does it occur to you that I may be juxtaposing the 'Priest abuses children' of 'now' with an example of a life which went the other way ? (though Augustine did not abuse children)<<

Yes, that did occur to me. Which is another reason why it was important to wring out of you the logical path you took... if he wasn't a sex maniac to start with, then the "journey" you describe for him is patently meaningless, and therefore is not an example of "a life which went the other way". This is what I mean when I say "spot the fibs and the stretched logic". You do it all the time, probably without even realizing it.

As for Augustine "not abusing children", I can certainly buy that in a physical sense, he didn't take advantage of them as child-abusing priests have done in the more recent past. But he clearly didn't hold them in great regard, since he happily consigned the unbaptized ones to the fiery pits of hell, despite the fact that they were entirely innocent of anything remotely sinful.

Does this last fact not connect with anything, Boaz? Am I the only one who considers this attitude, this approach, this concept of innocents burning for all eternity, to be hovering on the edge of evil?

Even if it is only in his imagination.

Pericles: "Or alternatively, you can ensure that they do not believe a word of what you are saying, thanks to the mendacity that so obviously forms a pivotal role in your approach to the topic."

I've now reached the point that I assume that everything that Boazy posts is bulldust, unless he provides verifiable evidence from a reliable source - which is almost never the case.

Boazy thinks that some of us pick on him, but his pattern of mendacity has been pointed out to him far too often for it to be innocent carelessness. His dishonesty is quite deliberate, which is why he deserves for it to be brought to the forum's attention.

Interesting, I googled nicene creed and discovered that anglicans DO know it. Despite not being a regular church-goer these days (having developed a healthy mistrust of all institutions, including the religious), I can still rattle it off, as with most of the chants and verses.

Boazy, your heading got its bite, and surely you must have had some idea of the effect that you were going to generate. Stop complaining about being "attacked" by the likes of Pericles and Cj Morgan, given that they are mostly the only people that are willing to engage you in discussion, I'd have thought you a little grateful for it...