"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:P2aQj.15010$Zk5.7079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <LYSPj.6070$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.
Are we back to the "I know you are but what am I" defense?
>And I _did_ give the evidence before, but you ignored it. You
> should read more in a thread before you but in.
Was this evidence the website in Russian? Or was this evidence this
"someone you know"?
>>...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"?
Well, it's hardly an aknowledgement that another brother or sister,
following Christ came to a different conclusion than you.
It an attempt to discredit with some sort of
indignation....i.e...name-calling.
> If you are, then the right course of action for you is really simple:
> stop posting gross fallacies in sup****t of grosser perversion.
I do not sup****t gross perversion. I advocate Christian love and
acceptance,
responsibility and monogamy.
This is a free an open newsgroup....with lots of different people with
lots
of different views.
This may come as a shock, but you are not the arbiter in the newsgroup of
what is a fallacy. You keep tryingt to build yourself up as some
authority
on something.
>>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'.
No I'm trying to make the point that the scripture is to be read in
context.
> 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.
No...sorry. People who were dirty, not washed, etc....were allowed in the
temple.
(And what kind of ritual would not let someone who was physically dirty
not
enter a temple?)
Women who were menstarting were not. It had nothing to do with phycical
cleanliness.
>>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?
>
> No, of course He _never_ "just closes his eyes in
> indifference".
There ya go.... Bingo...We have a winner! Thats the answer!
>
>>> 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.
To who? Who did you convince? Yourself?
>>It only proves *you* feel strongly about something...nothing else.
>
> The proof is too easy, so I leave it to the readers.
Another cop out....
If you would like to discuss this like an adult...with civility and
respect...that would be refre****ngly change.
|
