Re: Learning things first hand

"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:EvwPj.3839$wO1.2152@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <IISOj.1682$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.

So the references to menstrating women being unclean are "statements of 
general principles that allow us to understand why the prohibition applies

to _all_ conceivable form of menstration"?

> See, for example, Proverbs, esp.

Yes, please see ALL the OT references to something so natural as
menstration 
making a woman "unclean"...and unfit to appear in the temple.

Puh-leese.

And when we call eating shellfish an abomination, I suppose those are 
"statements of general principles that allow us to understand why the 
prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of eating shellfish?

Pick and choose.