Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72The point is (as I said) not everyone is going to accept what I say,
nor what_you_say.
No, that is NOT the point. That you think it is shows you _missed_ the
point.
Then what is the point? I'll be interested to see how you squirm out
of this one.
No squirming necessary, at least not for me. Now you, on the other
hand, will have to squirm. For if you didn't know the point, what
_did_ you think you were doing?
Now let's go back to the original context, no matter how much it pains
you. And yes, I already know that it does pain you, since you
specifically asked the Moderator to allow the 'X-no-archive' header in
your posts so that you can run away from facing your own words.
The original context, from msg-id Lzlgi.11351$***@trnddc06 is:
Begin quote---------------------
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonYou imply I read the Bible with preconceived notions. This is not
true.
What? Do you really expect anyone to take your word for this? Why should we?
Why, every single one of your posts reveals which disastrous "preconceived
notions" you insist on following as you pervert the Biblical text to fit your
preconcieved notions.
It's "preconceived." ;)
I don't expect everyone who reads this ng to take my word. Likewise,
you can't expect any different.
End quote------------
So now reading your words, "You imply I read the Bible with
preconceived notions", we see the _point_ is whether or not you read
it with preconceived notions.
That this is the point is immediately confirmed by my reply to your
shameless words, which _also_ has the same point: What? Do you really
expect anyone to take your word for this? Why should we?"
Now let's compare this with what you _later_ say is the point: "not
everyone is going to accept what I say".
Now _think_ this time: how _do_ these compare? Are they identical? No,
they are not. So how can you claim that whether people _accept_ what
you say has anything to do with the point?
You cannot, except by turning to subterfuge. So of course, after
seeing this, I will assume that your motive for claiming the point is
'acceptance' is subterfuge. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I
will be alone in making this assumption. For your posts _reek_ of
dishonest simulations of reasoning.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72Obviously, some free-thinkers here do agree with me, as has been
stated in the past in this forum and in emails.
So what? If I post a post claiming that the Bible teaches
reincarnation, some 'free-thinkers' will agree. Does that make them
right? NO!
Just because the Bible, according to you, doesn't refer to
reincarnation doesn't make it false.
Yet again, you demonstrate your inability to read, and even your
absolute hatred for logical reasoning.
I _never_ said that it is false because the Bible does not refer to
it. In fact, I did not explain at all why it is false. I merely stated
that it is false.
It is all too well known, both among believing Bible scholars and even
among unbelieving, that the Bible does _not_ teach reincarnation, that
reincarnation is from a religious tradition quite incompatible with
both Judaism and Christianity.
Why, it is so well known, I should not have to even go into this much
detail. It is certainly not the topic for this thread.
Post by shegeek72The Bible doesn't mention a lot of things, like meditation or yoga,
yet millions of people have benefited from them.
A lot of people 'benefit' from graft, corruption and protection
rackets, also not mentioned by such names in the Bible; that doesn't
make them right. Nor does it mean that the Bible teaches them.
Do you _really_ have this much trouble staying on topic? Do you
_really_ have this much trouble following a logical argument and
responding to it?
Post by shegeek72But the salient point is you, nor anyone, has lock, stock and barrel
on what exactly the Bible says.
You call it the 'salient' point, yet you are missing a word. Some
salient that is!
Again: I never said that it did. But you are falling into a
particularly childish fallacy by even _mentioning_ this point
here. The word of someone who knows what he is talking about carries
more weight than the word of someone who does not.
Since you prate about the Bible teaching reincarnation, and people
benefiting from yoga etc., you make it pretty clear that you fall into
the latter category.
But even that isn't low enough for you. You have to sink even lower by
taking the word of people who know even less, or even deliberately lie
about what they know, such as John Boswell.
Post by shegeek72Especially when you, and some others, do and don't take into context
and cultural practices at the time.
It is you, not I, who is guilty of this fault. It is you who regularly
ignore the context, and resort to a _fictitious_ version of the
"cultural practices at the time".
The _real_ Semitic "cultural practice at the time" was to kill people
who engaged in homosexual activity, whether prostitution or not. Face
up to that fact.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonThere is _nothing_ honest about your claim to read the Bible
without preconceived notions. It is blatantly false, and even
you would admit this, if your heart was not so deeply committed
to lies
Baloney. The proof is in people's hearts,
Here you conveniently snip the rest of my post in a vain attempt to
substantiate your weak point.
Ah, I see you are imitating my style of attack now, but only
superficially -- predictably superficially.
I do not _have_ a "weak point". Nor did I snip to 'substantiate'
it. Unlike you, I _do_ understand logical reasoning, so I know it is
not possible to substantiate a point by snipping.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonYou ask as if that were relevant. It is not. None of these surgeries
make the subject look like what they are not.
Baloney.
You really should learn another word to start your attempted rebuttals
with.
Post by shegeek72A face-lift can make a person look quite different.
So what? You miss the point. It still leaves the human face looking
like a human face, albeit artificially younger. It even leaves a
female face looking female. 'SRS' does not do this; it is quite
different.
Post by shegeek72Breast implants, using your logic, are also a lie as they
artificially inflate the breasts.
No, that is not using _my_ logic. That is using your illogic to make a
straw-man argument.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonYour elective surgery does. It makes you look female, when in truth
you are male.
These sentences contain two falsehoods.
No, they are not 'falsehoods'.
Post by shegeek72First, SRS is NOT elective.
Sure, it is.
Post by shegeek72Ask any surgeon who performs the surgery, or any therapist experienced
in gender dysphoria, though I doubt you will.
You miss the point. They are not the most reliable sources of this
information because of their monetary motive and poor training in
ethics.
Post by shegeek72Indeed, a trans woman in Minnesota successfully sued Medica insurance
when they denied her SRS, by basing her case on the medical
neccessity of the surgery.
This is no proof of your point. So _what_ if a single person sued and
won? All that means is that one jury was convinced. And even if they
were right in her case, by _no_ means would it prove that _all_ 'SRS'
is elective.
Post by shegeek72Secondly, unless you know my chromosomal makeup you cannot state
unequivocally that I was born male.
This isn't true either. But you find it convenient to insist on this
fiction as a prop for your propaganda.
Post by shegeek72Some babies are born a phenotype male with XY configuration. Is that
baby male or female? Many transsexuals have chromosomal
abnormalities, such as XXY, XXYY, etc. Were they born male or
female?
You miss the point. You yourself admit you never had the genetic
testing done, so you do NOT have any grounds to think that you are one
of them.
Not to mention we have been over this before: the high-school bio
definition is inadequate: it is the _expression_ of the SRY region of
the chromosome, NOT the mere presence of X and Y, that determine the
sex of the individual.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonThis _is_ a preconceived notion. Scripture NEVER says there is no harm
there. But you cling so VERY tightly to this preconceived notion.
Then provide the sections were the harm is described.
You miss the point yet again. I already explained that it does not
describe the harm, nor does it need to.
Post by shegeek72No where in Bible does it address transgender.
You miss the point yet again. It doesn't _have_ to, since the fraud of
'transgender' procedures was beyond their technology.
Post by shegeek72The closest are eunuchs who were castrated males that took care of
harems. Jesus said_nothing_about transgender, nor homosexuality.
This is blatantly false. If you really did follow the context and
culture as you _claim_ to do, you would realize he condemned it in:
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery,
fornication, theft, false witness, slander. (Mat 15:19 RSVA)
Now don't forget that the word translated 'fornication' is MUCH wider
than the modern English term: it covers _any_ form of sexual
immorality.
Finally, notice that 'fornication' is here listed among many
abominable practices; the desire to do the things you endorse are evil
thoughts coming out of the heart's treasure house of evil things (Mat
12:35)
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)