"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. 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.
You make a claim "No, not like that at all":....yet with nothing to back
it
up....except to resort to name calling (which I thought we were not going
to
do in this newsgroup anymore...)
BTW....I'd rather be called part of the "pro-love" crowd. ;-)
>>Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
It was considered unclean spiritually, as a menstrating women wasn't
welcome
to wor****p in the temple.
>>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.
So, if a monogamous gay Christian feed the hungry, shelters the homeless
and
helps the poor....I guess God just closes his eyes in indifference?
> 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.
Calling them irresponsible, fallacies and otherwise puffing around your
indignation, does nothing to prove your point.
It only proves *you* feel strongly about something...nothing else.
|
