Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownFirst, I have seen your screeds about homosexuality.
It isn't 'screed'.
Call it what you will....I'll call it what I will...
And what did you hope to establish with _this_ non-rebuttal?
The point that your postings are indeed, by the technical definition,
a "screed".
But only in sense 1b. Yet you are obviously trying to use 'screed' as
a perjorative term, which would be correct only for 1c. And you didn't
establish 1b by saying "I'llc all it what I will".
I have noticed that this is a common problem of yours. You make some
stupid statement, and then to 'establish' it, you make an even worse
statement, one that establishes nothing. Then you dance your victory
dance around your imaginary victory.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownYou certainly have established nothing else.
I've establishged that you apparently don't know the definition of a
'screed'.
You have established nothing of the kind. See above.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A Brown..which certainly affects more people than homosexuality.
So? There are many principles other than "how many people it
affects" that determine my choice of what to write about.
Thats the point.
It is? It isn't the point _you_ made.
The point is that your pet peeve is homosexuality...for some reason.
You want to write and comment upon it, and leave many other more vile
sins alone.
Not at all even true! You are once more resorting to the fallacy of
the "false generalization". I write and comment about many other
things, even in this same NG. It is _you_ who is writing peevishly all
the time in response. So who's the one with a "pet peeve"? Not me.
Post by R PThe point made is that you pick and choose whcih sins you think are
important.
No, it is not _I_ who do the "picking and choosing". Rather, it is
Canon Law. There are very few other sins that Canon Law punishes so
harshly.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownYou can tell a lot about someone by which sins they choose to speak out
against.... phobias, bias, lack of enlightenment? Whatever the reason.
I can, but you cannot.
People are free to make their own assumptions based on that which you
leave in your wake.,
Then don't be so surprised when others do it to you too.
Not suprised at all.
Then you have even less excuse for your puerile responses.
Post by R PAfter all, it's a discussion group...with people and opinions.
And your opinions are always the worst, since they are the true
'screed', screed based on ignorance and petulance.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonEven more important, don't be surprised when people who (like you)
revel in such assumptions are usually WRONG. You certainly are
wrong.
"Certainly"? In your mind maybe...but who knows what is going on there....
I do know. It is 'certainly'. It is just as certaintly NOT just "in my
mind".
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonYou have already demonstrated this with your repeated failures.
As the commercial states: "People judge you by the words you use".
If only you would apply this same principle to yourself and your
words! Then you would have known better to brand my writing 'screed'.
But you do not know better. Instead, after quoting Scripture out of
context, after quoting me out of context, now you are even quoting the
commercial out of context.
It's not out of context, it's the context necessary to makes the point.
No, it is not the context. and your quotes are very much out of
context. But this is only to be expected when you snip without
responding on point or marking where you snip.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownSecond, we would assume that "homosexual behavior" is less severe
than say....keeping slaves.
And why are you so sure we should assume this?
Why do you assume it is more severe?
This is a perfect example of "answering a question with a question" as
pure obstructionism. You should have answered the question first.
No, because it is you that is trying to prove me wrong.
Well, of course I am proving you wrong. Because _you_ are trying to
prove _me_ wrong -- or engaging in pure obstructionism. Or is it both?
Post by R PThe oweness is on you.
The word is 'onus', and it is on you, since it was you who said, 'we
would assume that "homosexual behavior" is less severe than
say....keeping slaves.' With this, you are trying to distract from the
real point, by offering a 'proof' that is no proof at all. Since it is
none, the onus is on you.
Post by R PIf you can't, my statement stands.
No, it does not. Stop "shifting the burden".
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonYour false assumption here tells a lot about _your_ bias and lack
of enlightenment.
So, keeping slaves is a much _less_ severe sin than homosexuality?
Please enlighten us!
You resist enlightnment...
You always have your opportunity with every posting....however, you
decide to derail the discussion with attacks on others.
It is you, not I, who is "derailing the discussion". You do this with
your peevish accusations of 'screed', you do this by not marking where
you snip etc.
Post by R PHowever, just like the above, you walk away from the opportunity.
It is you, not I, who is "walking away from the opportunity". You do
this with your peevish accusations of 'screed', you do this by not
marking where you snip. You do this with non-rebuttals like your
incredibly puerile "donkey dung".
Who do you think you can fool by repeatedly accusing others of what
you are clearly guilty?
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownBut the Bible is silent on that topic.
No, it isn't silent on that topic. It has numerous rules concerning
how master and slave should relate to one another.
Where is the scripture that tells Masters to FREE their slaves?
Rom 13:1-2. For _all_ civil authorities in the modern world have
banned slavery. Christians are bound by these verses to obey that ban.
Thats nice today...but what about the slaves of that time?
You miss the point: predictably. There was NO moral imperative to free
them.
Post by R PPreviously, with the Priest scandal, you poo-poo-ed civil laws and
justice...now you value them?
You did not understand what I was doing then, and you still do not
understand what I am doing now.
Post by R PAgain, you pick and choose.
You did not understand what I was doing then, and you still do not
understand what I am doing now.
Post by R PBTW...Where in Canon Law does it say to free all slaves?
Again: that is the wrong question. It even has the same answer as your
previous question, but you ignored that one too.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonBut you still miss the point: this ban became possibly _only_
because of the development of the modern market economy, with the
(relatively) free movement of labor, trade and capital. Since the
ban was _not_ possible in Bible times, it could _not_ be a moral
commandment to free their slaves.
Give me a break! That makes as much sense as donkey dung!
No, it makes perfect sense. Even Isaac Asimov gave the same
reasoning. And he was an awowed atheist.
So you are in effect calling even Asimov's reasoning "donkey dung". If
you don't realize what a fool you make of yourself doing this, don't
worry: everyone else in the NG will notice.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by A BrownPost by Matthew JohnsonThe rules are far more humane than anything you could find in
non-biblical rules of that time.
I think the non-biblical rules written by the slaves themselves would
have been more humane.
Oh, would you? But you haven't even ever READ any.
Well, there were many slaves that could not read/write. Never mind
have the ability to save writings for the future.
But this is IRRELEVANT, since there was one who did.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonYou will find his 'rules' much closer to mine than to
yours.
What are "my" rules? Free all slaves?
Apparently, since you keep on condemning the Bible for not making that
rule.
Post by R PWhat are yours? Keep them slaves?
It is puerile to ask what has already been answered. It is even worse
than puerile to do as you have done, to ask this after _snipping_ the
answer.
Post by R PPost by Matthew JohnsonYour standard of morality is a fiction of your own imagination.
My standard of morality is Jesus Christ himself.
No, it is not. Jesus Christ never commanded freeing all slaves through
all time. Nor did He ever command the defense of depravity -- which
you do in every post. Yet you are insisting on the one and always
doing the other.
Your real standard of morality is the devil himself.
Post by R PI hope you are not saying Jesus is a figment of one's imagination.....
Of course not. But the 'Jesus' YOU follow IS. That 'Jesus' is a
figment of your perverse imagination, having no relation at all with
the real Jesus.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)