In article <IISOj.1682$pn4.115@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, RP says...
>>> And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
>>> refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relation****ps of today. We know
>>> this because it refers to _any_ homo***ual act.
>No, it refers to the only hom***uality that was known at the time.
Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
homo***ual behavior. See, for example, Proverbs, esp. chapters 5-7.
>Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the
>time.
No, not like that at all. This is another popular fallacy of the
pro-perversion crowd.
>Just like menstration was a taboo....limited by their understanding
>at the time.
Nonsense. Why, even your choice of word, 'taboo', already reveals
a mistaken view point that biases you against understanding what was
really going on. Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
>It was not thought that a homo***ual could live a responsible productive
>life of Christian service.
And they were right. It is still true that a "practicing homo***ual"
cannot live a responsible productive life of Christian service. Pro
5-7 referred to above does much to explain why.
Why, this is being _confirmed_ by the posts in these threads, since it
is precisly those who _think_ they are leading such a life who sink to
such irresponsible fallacies in their posts.
Such fallacies are not compatible with a responsible productive life
of Christian service. Especially not when people are being deceived
into avoiding repentance because of them.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
