In article <LYSPj.6070$kt1.3398@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, RP says...
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:EvwPj.3839$wO1.2152@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <IISOj.1682$pn4.115@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, RP says...
>>>>> And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
>>>>> refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relation****ps of today. We know
>>>>> this because it refers to _any_ homo***ual act.
>>>No, it refers to the only hom***uality that was known at the time.
>> Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
>> understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
>> homo***ual behavior. See, for example, Proverbs, esp. chapters 5-7.
>>>Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the
>>>time.
>> No, not like that at all. This is another popular fallacy of the
>> pro-perversion crowd.
>You make a claim "No, not like that at all":....yet with nothing to back
it
>up.
Newflash: you had nothing to back up your claim that they were similar
issues. And I _did_ give the evidence before, but you ignored it. You
should read more in a thread before you but in.
>...except to resort to name calling (which I thought we were not going to
>do in this newsgroup anymore...)
What name calling? Do you mean to tell us that you don't even know
what 'name-calling' really is? Or are you referring to my use of the
term "pro-perversion crowd"?
If you are, then the right course of action for you is really simple:
stop posting gross fallacies in sup****t of grosser perversion. Pay
attention instead to the Moderator's latest post on the topic, msg-id
<KYSPj.6063$kt1.2407@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, where he too outlines how unreliable
certain of those fallacies are.
Or are you going to complain about his use of "not credible" or
'disingenuous' and call that "name-calling" too?
>BTW....I'd rather be called part of the "pro-love" crowd. ;-)
No doubt you would. But don't hold your breath. Those of us who
_respect_ the word 'love' will not call you that.
>>>Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
>It was considered unclean spiritually, as a menstrating women wasn't
welcome
>to wor****p in the temple.
And why haven't you noticed yet? This does not sup****t your point at
all, nor is it correct to call that 'taboo'. You are trying to rely
on labeling to make your point.
What is worse, you have made a major error here: it was considered
_physically_ unclean, not _spiritually_ unclean. Why you confuse the
two is a mystery to me.
>>>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?
If you knew anything about leading a Christian life, you would not
ever dare to express such blasphemous words, not even
hypothetically. No, of course He _never_ "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.
My point was proved long ago. You are simply continuing to shut your
eyes to that proof, responding instead with exactly that kind of
irresponsible fallacies.
>It only proves *you* feel strongly about something...nothing else.
It doesn't _prove_ it, it _states_ it; it states that you and your
allies are responding with exactly that kind of irresponsible
fallacies. The proof is too easy, so I leave it to the readers. Most
will find it easy, since you never prove what you state, you simply
repeat fallacious claims.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
