Post by shegeek72On Dec 30, 5:54 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew JohnsonNo, it is not. Do you even know what "non sequitur" means?
Obviously I do. Otherwise I wouldn't have used it.
Oh, now _this_ is rich! Your own response _is_ a non sequitur!
Post by shegeek72Just to enlighten you,
This is worse than a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it is
the pot calling the whiteboard black;) You want to enlighten me? Guess
what: you have to get some enlightement yourself before you can
enlighten anyone.
Post by shegeek72here's a definition from thefreedictionary.com: 'a conclusion does
not logically follow from the facts or law, stated'
You couldn't even get the citation from the freedictionary right! You
left out the word 'that', leaving a non-sentence.
A _good_ definition is from The Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy at
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Non%20Sequitur, which has:
When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by
irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a non
sequitur. However, we usually apply the term only when we cannot think
of how to label the argument with a more specific fallacy name.
End quote-------------------
But NONE of my reasons are "extremely weak", nor 'irrelevant'. But
what _you_ just said certainly was. How could "Otherwise I wouldn't
have used it" have even been relevant? It is not. You have misused the
term "non sequitur". Lots of people, unfortunately, use words they
don't understand. You have done this before, too.
Thus, your worthless retort meets the _good_ definition of "non
sequitur" exactly.
Post by shegeek72In case you hadn't noticed, that's what you did.
No, I did no such thing. Again: NONE of my reasons are "extremely
weak", nor 'irrelevant'.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonAh, but there are many similarities. You just can't bring yourself
all these sinners are warned in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that they will NOT
inherit the Kingdom.
Only if one considers homosexuality a sin, which many Christians do
not.
You just don't get it, do you? No one who rejects Scripture so
blatantly has the right to call him/herself 'Christian'. But Scripture
is quite clear: it _is_ a sin, and a deadly one. You _lose_ your
opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by this sin.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonNot so. I already know that they are not "good people".
You do not.
Yes, I do.
Post by shegeek72You_assume_you do from your misguided interpretations of the Bible.
Nothing 'misguided' about it.
Post by shegeek72Until Jesus returns in the physical no one (not even you) can claim,
for certainty, what was meant in various passages in the Bible.
Utter nonsense. This is simple-minded solipsism, not even a
rebuttal. There are many passages where we can be absolutely sure: 1
Cor 6:9-10 is one of these. But you strive to hide the certainty
behind reams and reams of fallacies.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonIf they confused 'nurture' with 'environment' as you do, then their
research is worthless. And why have you pulled this bait-and-switch
on us? The topic was _not_ "is nurture the strongest factor in
s.o. and g.i.". It was "is it nature or not". The two are not the
same, except perhaps in the minds of the very people I mentioned,
those who have closed their minds against evidence against their
view"
How much longer can you_twist_things before your posts follow no
logical progression? (Not very long, I'd imagine) I'll try to wrench
some sense from your convoluted paragraph.
If you can't see the sense & progression that was clear to everyone
else, then you will just have to try harder than that. Why, you may
even have to give up doing the 'twisting' yourself.
Post by shegeek72'Nurture' can be considered part of the 'environment,' i.e. the
family one was raised in.
True, but you are missing the point.
Post by shegeek72However, I did_not_say they were one in the same.
Actually, you did imply it. Nor is this the first time you implied
something hopelessly wrong and then tried to wriggle out.
Post by shegeek72This was implicated by you in an attempt to hide your ignorance of
the subject.
Now you show you don't know what 'implicated' means! No wonder you are
having so much trouble following the logic.
No, it was _implied_ by your own use of the term. For unless you meant
'environment' when you said 'nurture', that entire paragraph would
have been just another non sequitur.
So you have a dilemma: either admit that you really did imply
"nurture=environment", or admit that it was another non
sequitur. Which will it be, I wonder?
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonNot even close. It is _you_ who is afraid to find out that you have
abused your free will, losing your freedom, so that now you are
free only to do evil.
I have a loving partner in a loving relationship, who care for each
other. Yep. Evil indeed.
Since what you call 'love', Christ does _not_ call love, yes, it is
indeed evil.
Post by shegeek72However, there_is_evil in this world as a result of misguided
Christians' views on homosexuality; i.e. harassment, discrimination,
taunting, violence, even murders caused by those who think as you.
How ironic, you who were _so_ sure no one could be sure of the
passage, are now so sure that the rest of us are 'evil'.
Post by shegeek72Religious study is not science.
Sure, it is -- in the original sense of the
word,'science'. Unfortunately, modernists turn their backs on this
sense, as if the modern, _far_ more restrictive sense were the only
one.
Post by shegeek72Religious pertains to faith and the spiritual;
And on what grounds do you claim that that is _all_ it pertains to?
Haven't you heard of 'philosophy'? Haven't you heard of 'theodicy'?
Post by shegeek72psychology is the science or study of the thought processes and
behavior of humans in their interaction with the environment.
And "behavior of humans" includes religiously influenced behavior. In
fact, despite the fiction of many wordly-minded 'psychologists', the
behavior of humans can be fully understood _only_ in a religious
context.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonWhen will you recognize the fallacy of _this_ procedure? So _what_
if it is a "first hand account"? It _still_ suffers from the biased
sampling I already pointed out, as any argument based primarily on
"first-hand accounts" must do.
Anyone with any journalism experience (as I have),
Aha! So _that_ explains your addiction to half-truths, lies and
distortions! Your "journalism experience" must have been on the same
level of those journalists President Adams blasted in that famous
line:
Outrage at journalists is hardly new. ... John Quincy Adams said they
sit at street corners with loaded blunderbusses, prepared to fire them
off for sport or hire at any selected individual.
[fm http://www.newsombudsmen.org/sauter.html]
You have just demonstrated why that outrage justifiably continues
today.
You haven't shown much evidence of that in your posts.
Post by shegeek72understands that firsthand accounts are often the most accurate.
Wrong again. Anyone who has any experience in criminal law or law
enforcement knows how _unreliable_ firsthand accounts really are. In
fact, even that much expereince with it is not necessary: all you need
is to have read the right issue of "Psychology Today" which went into
this in great deal.
For that matter, you don't even have to rely on that magazine: you
only need to visit
http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2006/05/embellishments-of-memory-unreliable.html
to see the words:
Human memory is fallible. I had a biology professor that said once,
"everyone has a photographic memory; it's just that most people are
out of film." It is this "film" that is the problem, because the film
that is our memory isn't the best quality for the majority of the
human population. A recent article in Science News (4/19/2003)
discusses how researchers have concluded that people recall more of
what they hear if the speaker communicates with relevant hand
gestures, suggesting that a single source of information input is
insufficient for aiding in recall.
Seeing is believing
.. it just isn't necessarily what happened. Scientists researching
the fields of criminalistics and cogitative abilities have determined
in recent years (Wells & Olson, 2003; Wells, Olson, & Charman, 2003)
that EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ARE FAR LESS RELIABLE THAN MANY PEOPLE MAY
THINK. They also believe that major changes need to be instituted in
how law enforcement and criminal investigators do things such as
conduct line-ups and obtain testimony. They've discovered that even
the most innocuous questions can be leading and influence the
witness's memory of the events.
End quote [capitalization mine]-------------------
Admit your gross error. Your "firsthand accounts" rely heavily on this
unreliable human memory.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonAh, but just by combining these two criteria, he (sic) introduced a bias
that renders his statistic useless. So _what_ if one of them "still
had fantasies of gay sex"?
There are many, indeed most, who still have fantasies of gay sex.
You still haven't answered the "so what" question.
Post by shegeek72The problem with your 'thinking' is that you equate loving, gay
relationships with things like alcoholism,' the former being
harmless, the latter harmful. Get it?
No, I don't 'equate' them. I realize that alcoholism is not nearly as
bad.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonBecause I am not an idiot, and only an idiot would believe that that
is the way "to find out if they are really 'pseudo'". I don't even
think that you really believe it.
The proof is in the pudding.
That kind of retort is convincing only to people who live by
superficial slogans. No, the proof is NOT in the pudding. Why, you
couldn't even get the proverb right; it is not "the proof is in the
pudding", it is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
See http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm
Post by shegeek72As for being an idiot: you are not, just grossly misinformed.
No, it is you who are grossly misinformed, since you still believe in
total fiction concerning the key words in 1 Cor 6:9-10. Not to mention
you can't even quote a common proverb right.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonNo, it is you who is "too afraid to face reality", the reality that
the Scriptures condemn homosexual activity in the harshest of
terms, as a particularly abominable sin.
'Abomination' in the Bible means 'contrary to a local custom.'
No, it means more than that. Why are you so quick to lie to the whole NG?
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonI saw it. You have not even begun to refute me. You are making noises
to distract from your inability to face the truth.
Anyone who claims to know the 'truth' when it comes to the Bible
certainly does not.
That is the same childish solipsism you have been ruining this thread
with from the beginning. No, that is not true. There are some truths
we know very well about the Bible. The meaning of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is one
of them.
Post by shegeek72Any half-decent pastor will tell you this.
No, half-decent pastors do not indulge in solipsism as you do.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonNo, it is not "just the opinion of one man". BTW: how many more do
I need to list before you admit that it is _not_ "just the opinion
of one man"? Three, six, two hundred? I can at least give you three
_more_ right away: Arnobius, Tertullian and Aristides all expressed
much the same opinion.
And I could list just as many sources that contradict what they say,
including the pastors at my church.
So what? All my sources are native speakers of Koine Greek. Your
sources contradict native speakers based on their own ignorance -- or
audacious mendacity.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonYou miss the point. His claim was not like yours -- groundless. He
had very good reason to claim that Jesus condemned it. You have not
addressed _any_ of those reasons. Instead, you are still hiding
your head in the sand.
Not at all.
Yes, "at all". You _are_ hiding your head in the sand. When will you
admit the truth? You don't know what MALAKOS and ARSENOKOITHS
mean. You don't even know how to discuss such issues. You only know
how to resort to one tired fallacy after another. That is why you will
never admit that 1 Cor 6:9-10 contradicts you so surely.
Post by shegeek72I've done much study on the subject;
No, what _you_ call 'study' is not even close to genuine 'study'. It
is as worthless as your support for astrology.
Post by shegeek72we just don't agree.
And the reason we don't agree is that you are relying on unreliable
sources, preferring to believe them because they give you permission
to continue your extremely sinful way of life.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)