A well thought out thesis on Christianity/Homosexuality....

[Rob]

I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper exploring
the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.

It's a good read!

Check it out at:

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/mine/homosexuality.txt

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob
I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper exploring
the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.
It's a good read!

A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to make it not a good
read at all.

But the real irony of your labeling it a "good read" is that despite the
fence-sitting style, our moderator is not really supporting your position at
all. It seems you misread him, _thinking_ that he supports your position.

But in truth, he does not. He is simply outlining the 'evidence' and 'arguments'
according to his own understanding of them, without actually endorsing any of
it.
The only times he makes an actual endorsement of a position is when he says
things like "the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one", or "no one
completely
rejects the concept of cultural relativism."

Not an endorsement of your position at all.

[Anonymouse]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper exploring
the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.
It's a good read!

A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to make it not a good
read at all.
But the real irony of your labeling it a "good read" is that despite the
fence-sitting style, our moderator is not really supporting your position at
all. It seems you misread him, _thinking_ that he supports your position.

You assume too much Matthew (as is par for the course).

It was a "good read" because he explores both sides of the issue in an
intelligent and thoughtful manner.

Something you should take note of.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper
exploring the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.

A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to make it not a
good read at all.
But the real irony of your labeling it a "good read" is that despite the
fence-sitting style, our moderator is not really supporting your position
at all. It seems you misread him, _thinking_ that he supports your position.

You assume too much Matthew (as is par for the course).
It was a "good read" because he explores both sides of the issue in an
intelligent and thoughtful manner.

You didn't even understand it didi you? Did you even read it to the end? By no
means does he "explore both sides of the issue". He made it clear at teh very
outset of the article that he did not even _try_ to do this.

Yet here you are singing it praises, claiming he did the very thing he made no
claim to do!

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to make it not a good
read at all.

It actually_was_a good read and, as stated by another poster, explored
both sides of the issue in a reasonably accurate manner and debunked
the common held thinking that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. The
word that evolved from Sodom, 'sodomy,' is a misnomer.

Our last MCC 'Homosexuality and the Bible' class was on Sodom and
Gamorrah (I found it interesting that's there's little in the Bible on
Gamorrah) and provided incontrovertible evidence that the sin of Sodom
was not homosexuality. Indeed, the word for "homosexual" wasn't even
in existence back then. The common contraction of the words usually
associated with homosexuality in the Bible is just a generic word for
'sex.'

The class also verified that homosexual rape, as a means of
humiliation (to 'make a man into a woman'), and homosexual
prostitution, were in common practice.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Rob]

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/mine/homosexuality.txt

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper
exploring the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.

A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to
make it not a
good read at all.

It was a "good read" because he explores both sides of the issue in an
intelligent and thoughtful manner.

You didn't even understand it didi you? Did you even read it to the end?
By no
means does he "explore both sides of the issue".

Matthew...

...first you accuse the author of his "usually fence-sitting, pseudo
"fair and balanced" style."


THEN.....you claim he does no such thing.

You are making no sense....






He made it clear at teh very

Post by Matthew Johnson
outset of the article that he did not even _try_ to do this.
Yet here you are singing it praises, claiming he did the very thing he
made no
claim to do!
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper
exploring the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.

A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to
make it not a
good read at all.
But the real irony of your labeling it a "good read" is that despite the
fence-sitting style, our moderator is not really supporting your
position
at all. It seems you misread him, _thinking_ that he supports your
position.

You assume too much Matthew (as is par for the course).
It was a "good read" because he explores both sides of the issue in an
intelligent and thoughtful manner.

Did you even read it to the end?

I did...and if you have issues with it...take it up with the moderator.

I think he did a good job with it.

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/mine/homosexuality.txt

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob
http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/mine/homosexuality.txt

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
I just realized that our esteemed moderator has a wonderful paper
exploring the combination of Christianity and Homosexuality.

A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to
make it not a
good read at all.

It was a "good read" because he explores both sides of the issue in an
intelligent and thoughtful manner.

You didn't even understand it didi you? Did you even read it to the end?
By no
means does he "explore both sides of the issue".

Matthew...
...first you accuse the author of his "usually fence-sitting, pseudo
"fair and balanced" style."
THEN.....you claim he does no such thing.

What? How on earth did you get this out of what I wrote?

Post by Rob
You are making no sense....

No, I am making sense. It is you and A Brown who are not making sense. The
Moderator, in that paper, as I said, made no attempt to cover all sides. Rather,
he only covered arguments that are not often enough (in his opinion) covered.
But he covered them in that fence-istting, pseudo "fair and balanced style".

In order to cover them in that style it is NOT necessary to cover both sides.
Perhaps you assumed that it is necessary, and that is why you think I am not
making sense.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is
enough to make it not a good read at all.

It actually_was_a good read and, as stated by another poster,
explored both sides of the issue in a reasonably accurate manner and
debunked the common held thinking that the sin of Sodom was
homosexuality.

You didn't pay attention as you read! It debunked no such
thing. Rather, it said that it was a specific kind of homosexuality
that was condemned, homosexual rape. And that argument was not
water-tight either. Certainly not water-tight enough to earn your
appelation 'debunking'.

So, for example, he _claims_ there is a Jewish tradition that the
offense was against hospitality, but he gives no reference. And he
admits that there are "a few" Scripture passages that imply that their
sin _was_ homosexuality.

But "a few" is already more than we need; all we need is one that
implies their sin was homosexuality, and the proof is done.

So no, it is not 'debunked' there at all.

Post by shegeek72
The word that evolved from Sodom, 'sodomy,' is a misnomer.
Our last MCC 'Homosexuality and the Bible' class was on Sodom and
Gamorrah (I found it interesting that's there's little in the Bible on
Gamorrah)

If the class couldn't even teach you to spell the name of the town
right, I doubt it could teach you the real significance of what
happened their either.

Post by shegeek72
and provided incontrovertible evidence that the sin of Sodom was not
homosexuality.

Nonsense. No "incontrovertible evidence" is possible for what is
false.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, the word for "homosexual" wasn't even in existence back then.

Obviously not. But this does not support you.

Post by shegeek72
The common contraction of the words usually associated with
homosexuality in the Bible is just a generic word for 'sex.'

This is obvious nonsense.

Post by shegeek72
The class also verified that homosexual rape, as a means of
humiliation (to 'make a man into a woman'), and homosexual
prostitution, were in common practice.

Which 'verification' was a complete waste of time, since that is just
an irrelevant distraction. Not to mention you are _still_ confusing
different time periods and practices.

So in singing your ill-considered praises of your "Bible class" you
have only succeeded in providing us _abundant_ evidence that your
'class' was a propaganda class, not a "Bible class".

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is
enough to make it not a good read at all.

It actually_was_a good read and, as stated by another poster,
explored both sides of the issue in a reasonably accurate manner and
debunked the common held thinking that the sin of Sodom was
homosexuality.

It debunked no such
thing.

Well....THREE people here read it and saw merit in what was written.

ONE person (you) have all sorts of problems with it.

Says something.....

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is
enough to make it not a good read at all.

It actually_was_a good read and, as stated by another poster,
explored both sides of the issue in a reasonably accurate manner and
debunked the common held thinking that the sin of Sodom was
homosexuality.

It debunked no such
thing.

Well....THREE people here read it and saw merit in what was written.

No, they did _not_ read it.

Post by A Brown
ONE person (you) have all sorts of problems with it.
Says something.....

Guess what, Rob. It does not say what you think it says. Not even close. What is
really says is that the three people who said they read it, did not read it
carefully enough. All three of them saw what they wanted to see instead of
seeing what the Moderator actually wrote.

Now _you_ might think that three against one is a valid argument, but those of
us who actually learned a little about logical and critical thinking do not. We
know better.

What will it take for you to learn that three against one is not a valid
argument?

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is
enough to make it not a good read at all.

Well....THREE people here read it and saw merit in what was written.

No, they did _not_ read it.

So, you are the ONLY one who read it.....the ONLY one who read it
correctly....and the ONLY one to fully understand it?

That says something too. ;-)

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
ONE person (you) have all sorts of problems with it.
Says something.....

Guess what, Rob. It does not say what you think it says.

Again, you are the only one that has problems with the author, his style and
the the 3 people who enjoyed reading it.

Maybe you are reading into it what you want to read.

Post by Matthew Johnson
those of
us who actually learned a little about logical and critical thinking do
not. We
know better.

You can either discuss the subject matter...or you can use the excuse that
you are better than everyone (knowing logical and critical thinking'?) which
you are doing now.

Claiming understanding but failing to produce it does not garner you
anything.

Post by Matthew Johnson
What will it take for you to learn that three against one is not a valid
argument?

Well, we could use your line of defense.

"I'm not the one who did it...you did it first!"

Boy, that argument got you far didn't it?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually
fence-sitting, pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is
enough to make it not a good read at all.

Well....THREE people here read it and saw merit in what was written.

No, they did _not_ read it.

So, you are the ONLY one who read it.....the ONLY one who read it
correctly....and the ONLY one to fully understand it?

No, of course not. But among those who are participating in this thread, yes, I
am the only one to fully understand it.

Post by A Brown
That says something too. ;-)

And yet again, it does not say what you dream it says.

[snip]

[shegeek72]

On Sep 26, 7:08 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Guess what, Rob. It does not say what you think it says. Not even close. What is
really says is that the three people who said they read it, did not read it
carefully enough. All three of them saw what they wanted to see instead of
seeing what the Moderator actually wrote.

I most certain did_not_read it with expectations, but with an open
mind. Rather it's you who refuses to see it for what it was, simply
because it goes against your misinterpretations of homosexuality in
the Bible. If you were the biblical scholar you portray yourself as
then you'd admit that, for one, the sin of Sodom was not
homosexuality, as the moderator has said.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
On Sep 26, 7:08 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Guess what, Rob. It does not say what you think it says. Not even close. What is
really says is that the three people who said they read it, did not read it
carefully enough. All three of them saw what they wanted to see instead of
seeing what the Moderator actually wrote.

I most certain did_not_read it with expectations, but with an open
mind.

You? An 'open mind'? I am amazed you expect anyone to believe
this. After all, anyone _else_ who reads more than about three of your
posts can quickly enough figure it out: you have a very lclosed mind,
one that insists on twisting all of Scripture to support your
depravity.

Post by shegeek72
Rather it's you who refuses to see it for what it was, simply
because it goes against your misinterpretations of homosexuality in
the Bible. If you were the biblical scholar you portray yourself as
then you'd admit that, for one, the sin of Sodom was not
homosexuality, as the moderator has said.

But the moderator did _not_ say this. You show how closed minded you
really are by persisting in misquoting him in this way.

What he _really_ said was:

Begin quote------------
There's a Jewish interpretive tradition that the major sin was
abuse of guests.
End quote-------------

Can't you see the difference? Anyone else can. The moderator did _not_
say that his own opinion was the same as this "interpretive
tradition".
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

-----

[Perhaps I should say something. It seems that abuse of guests was a major
offense. It is certainly not the only one. Lot said:

I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two
daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and
do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have
come under the shelter of my roof.

The end of vs 8 seems a clear implication that Lot is concerned about
his obligation to his guests. However the offense was rape. If you
assume the angels were male, it would have been homosexual rape. My
reading is that Sodom was a cesspit of sin and corruption. That is not
the result of any single sin, but of every type of sin.

--clh]

[Ron]

I am the only one to fully understand it. <<

when you set yourself up as God....how can you have a real conversation or
discussion with the premise that ur interps are the correct one...and
everyone else falls short.

Y r u even in a newsgroup? simply her to bless us all?

[Anonymouse]

I see Matt that you are falling into one of your old standby methods of
degerating this thread into personal assaults.

Whop said "When you don't have the facts on your side...."?

Post by Matthew Johnson
You? An 'open mind'? I am amazed you expect anyone to believe
this.
you have a very lclosed mind,
twisting all of Scripture to support your
depravity.

...

[Anonymouse]

Post by Matthew Johnson
yes, I
am the only one to fully understand it.

Well, I am glad to see we have set that straight.

Yet I don't see a load of people here supporting you.

Every conversation will degerate into name calling since you are "the only
one who fully understands".

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
That says something too. ;-)

And yet again, it does not say what you dream it says.

Well now that you have convinved yourself and set yourself up as the only
one who *really* understands things....Can anyone be surprised at your
responses?

[shegeek72]

On Oct 2, 5:33 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
You? An 'open mind'? I am amazed you expect anyone to believe
this. After all, anyone _else_ who reads more than about three of your
posts can quickly enough figure it out: you have a very lclosed mind,
one that insists on twisting all of Scripture to support your
depravity.

Be amazed, as it's more correct than you think. You do not speak for
the other posters here, so don't pretend you do so.

Further, I'm trying to find the_correct_interpretations of biblical
passages. It's you who's adamant in your interpretations, speaking in
locked-step with anyone else who interprets the homosexuality in the
Bible referring to the loving, monogamous, longterm relationships
today and constantly insisting that you're right and anyone who
disagrees with you is wrong. Indeed, you frequently claim this without
any supporting data. And you accuse me of being close-minded? People
who live in glass houses . . .

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the moderator did _not_ say this. You show how closed minded you
really are by persisting in misquoting him in this way.

Here is the post I'm referring to:

"it is certainly revisionism to say that the Bible nowhere
condemns homosexuality. But the Sodom story is not a good example.
There are a number of things wrong with what the inhabitants were
trying to do. It was rape of a guest of the same sex (at least in
appearance -- it's less clear to me that angels actually have sex, but
presumably the inhabitants thought they were dealing with a man).

The fact that Lot offered his daughter has been taken to mean that he
prefers heterosexual to homosexual rape. However it may also indicate
that he is carrying out his obligation to protect his guests. That
implication seems fairly explicit in Gen 19:8. He doesn't say "don't
do anything to these men because that would be homosexuality", but
"don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the
protection of my roof." So Lot, at least, seemed to be concerned first
with the violation of his responsibility to a guest.

I believe everyone agrees that homosexual rape is wrong. How can
this be used to condemn consensual homosexual actions?

I just looked through a concordance. There are a number of mentions
of Sodom, but generally as a city that God destroyed for sin.
No specific sins are mentioned, except in a few passages:

Deut 29:20. they appear in a list of cities that are evil. No specific
evil for Sodom, but the one in Deut seems to be serving other gods.

Jer 23:14. The people who are compared to Sodom are guilty of adultery
and
"walking in lies".

Ez 16: 47ff. Sodom had pride and ease, and did not aid the poor, did
abominable things.

3 Mac 2:5. acted arrogantly and were notorious for their vices

2 Pet 2:6. ungodly, licentious in lawlessness

Jude 1:6 sexual immorality and unnatural lust. However from the
context, the term translated unnatural lust more likely refers
to lust for someone from another species. See
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=7
for a detailed discussion.

I wouldn't say that "the sin of Sodom is inhospitality". First, rape
of guests goes beyond what one normally means by inhospitality. I'd
call it abuse of guests. But this is clearly not their only sin or
even the primary one. After all, God had already heard of their
notorious sins before the angels went to investigate. Sodom was a
cesspool of just about every possible vice.

But neither is it accurate to say that the sin of Sodom was
homosexuality."

Anyone who reads this cannot come away with any conclusion other than
the sin of Sodom referred to all manner of debauchery and not
homosexuality as it's practiced today.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ron

I am the only one to fully understand it. <<

when you set yourself up as God.

What arrant nonsense is this? Since when is claiming to be the only one _in the
thread_ to understand an issue the same as "setting o.s up as God"?

Go back to a high school text on "critical reasoning" to learn the basics before
you try to participate in a NG thread again. Otherwise you too, just like George
or 'Anonymouse', will be quickly branded TROLL. And you will deserve it, too.
For you too quoted me only _snipping_ key words, completely changing the
significance of the quote. When Wall Street reporters do that, they get FIRED.
When you do it, you get spotted for a troll.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
yes, I
am the only one to fully understand it.

Well, I am glad to see we have set that straight.

Well, I had it set straight. But true to your foul habits, you quoted me out of
context, completely changing the meaning.

How typical for the troll that you are.

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to make it not a good
read at all.

Instead of offering anything on the topic...you attack the moderators
"writing style"?

Good one!

[B.G. Kent]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style. That alone is enough to make it not a good
read at all.

Instead of offering anything on the topic...you attack the moderators
"writing style"?
Good one!

B - what if there are no fences but just an illusion of one?

Bren
ps. the moderator is excellent.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
On Oct 2, 5:33 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Even this completely unjustifiable epithet is proof of how
closed-minded you really are. But as if this were not enough, you gave
much more proof below.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
You? An 'open mind'? I am amazed you expect anyone to believe
this. After all, anyone _else_ who reads more than about three of
your posts can quickly enough figure it out: you have a very
lclosed mind, one that insists on twisting all of Scripture to
support your depravity.

Be amazed, as it's more correct than you think.

No, it is not.

Post by shegeek72
You do not speak for the other posters here, so don't pretend you do
so.

Practice what you preach. You seized this right for yourself often
enough, yet you whine when I do it? Have you forgotten the Biblical
name for that Bad Behavior? It is 'hypocrisy'.

Post by shegeek72
Further, I'm trying to find the_correct_interpretations of biblical
passages.

No, you are not. You are trying to find a _forced_ interpretation that
gives you permission for the abominations you have practiced and
encourage in others.

Post by shegeek72
It's you who's adamant in your interpretations,

There is nothing wrong with adamancy per se -- if it is backed by
sound reasoning. My adamancy is. Yours is not.

Post by shegeek72
speaking in locked-step with anyone else who interprets the
homosexuality in the Bible referring to the loving, monogamous,
longterm relationships today

I most certainly do not "speak in locked-step" with these others. Why,
I do very much the opposite. So it sounds like you do not even know
the meanings of the words you use.

Either that, or you are showing yet _another_ proof of your
closed-mindedness, treating me as if I were Jerry Falwell or the
like. But those in this NG who avoid your dishonesty know that I am
very far from your "anyone else".

Post by shegeek72
and constantly insisting that you're right and anyone who
disagrees with you is wrong.

But this is not what I do. It is _you_ and those who similarly pervert
the Scriptures to support your depravity who I constantly insist are
wrong. I most certainly do not do this with _anyone_.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, you frequently claim this without any supporting data.

This is patently false. I have given much supporting data. You
deliberately ignore it, and respond with yoru mantra about "loving
relationships of today". You -never- addressed the copious supporting
data I gave.

Post by shegeek72
And you accuse me of being close-minded?

You are. You illustrate it yet again in this post. Several times, even.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the moderator did _not_ say this. You show how closed minded
you really are by persisting in misquoting him in this way.

And this is yet another example of how you trip yourself up in your
own words! For the words below were never _in_ a post in this thread!
They are from the article, a _link_ to which was in this thread.

It is simply wrong to call this "the post I'm referring to".

Post by shegeek72
"it is certainly revisionism to say that the Bible nowhere
condemns homosexuality.

I notice you passed over this comment in silence. Why? Is it too
painful for you? After all, you _are_ the revisionist insisting that
the Bible condemns only "homosexual rape" and not your so-called
'loving' relationships.


Pay attention to what the Moderator really wrote instead of using your
perversions of his words as an excuse to fling mud at me.

I also notice that you snipped what 'this' I referred to when I
pointed out that the Moderator did _not_ say 'this'. This dishonest
practice of snipping without marking where you snip it yet _another_
sign of your closed mindnedness: you have to hide under dishonesty, as
the closed-minded so often do.

Now what I was _really_ referring to under the word 'this' is shown by

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
then you'd admit that, for one, the sin of Sodom was not
homosexuality, as the moderator has said.

But the moderator did _not_ say this. You show how closed minded you
really are by persisting in misquoting him in this way.

And this really is true, nothing you have posted overturns this.

Post by shegeek72
But the Sodom story is not a good example.

This is the closest he got to saying it. But it is not very close.

Post by shegeek72
There are a number of things wrong with what the inhabitants were
trying to do.

This is true, and all the rest of what you included from the article
is merely elaboration of this basic idea. But to claim that this means
he said "the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality" misses the point:
nobody _ever_ claimed that the _sole_ sin of Sodom was
homosexuality. The claim was rather that homosexuality was typical of
the sin of Sodom, so much so that the city gave its name to the sin.

The Moderator himself tried to explain this to you in one of his
parenthetical comments, saying, "It seems that abuse of guests was a
major offense. It is certainly not the only one."

But of course, since you are so closed minded, you missed his point
entirely, or deliberately ignored how he corrects you.

[snip]

Post by shegeek72
I believe everyone agrees that homosexual rape is wrong. How can
this be used to condemn consensual homosexual actions?

You miss the point. You have subtly changed the topic from "was the
sin of Sodom homosexuality" to "can the Sodom story be used to condemn
consensual homosexual actions". But these are two different topics.

Post by shegeek72
I just looked through a concordance.

So what? Lots of bad reasoning has been 'supported' by looking through
a concordance.

Post by shegeek72
There are a number of mentions
of Sodom, but generally as a city that God destroyed for sin.

You miss the point in two ways: 1) all it takes is "a few passages"
and 2) no specifice sin _needs_ to be mentioned, since the name of the
city itself had _already_ become the name for its most infamous sin.

Post by shegeek72
Deut 29:20. they appear in a list of cities that are evil. No specific
evil for Sodom, but the one in Deut seems to be serving other gods.

Another example of how you do not know what you are talking about!
There is no list of cities in Deut 29:20. Rather, it reads:

The LORD would not pardon him, but rather the anger of the LORD and
his jealousy would smoke against that man, and the curses written in
this book would settle upon him, and the LORD would blot out his name
from under heaven. (Deu 29:20 RSVA)

Post by shegeek72
Jer 23:14. The people who are compared to Sodom are guilty of adultery
and
"walking in lies".
Ez 16: 47ff. Sodom had pride and ease, and did not aid the poor, did
abominable things.

And one of those "abominable things" is the depravity you are
supporting. It could even be the _main_ "abominable thing" Ezekiel had
in mind, since Sodom was not subject to the dietary laws.

Post by shegeek72
3 Mac 2:5. acted arrogantly and were notorious for their vices

And one of the vices they were so notorious for was the one named
after them.

Post by shegeek72
2 Pet 2:6. ungodly, licentious in lawlessness
Jude 1:6 sexual immorality and unnatural lust. However from the
context, the term translated unnatural lust more likely refers
to lust for someone from another species.

No, it is NOT "more likely". It is not even possible. Why, the only
reason you call it "more likely" is because you _are_ so
closed-minded. For yet again, as you _so_ often do, you have chosen it
as "more likely" only because it supports you. NOT because it really
is "more likely".

Post by shegeek72
See
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=7
for a detailed discussion.

I saw that "detailed discussion". Just as I said above, it does not
support you. There is absolutely _nothing_ in that "detailed
discussion" to say that your conclusion is "more likely". For it lists
possibilities, and says NOTHING about which is "more likely".

Post by shegeek72
I wouldn't say that "the sin of Sodom is inhospitality". First, rape
of guests goes beyond what one normally means by inhospitality. I'd
call it abuse of guests. But this is clearly not their only sin or
even the primary one. After all, God had already heard of their
notorious sins before the angels went to investigate. Sodom was a
cesspool of just about every possible vice.
But neither is it accurate to say that the sin of Sodom was
homosexuality."
Anyone who reads this cannot come away with any conclusion other than
the sin of Sodom referred to all manner of debauchery and not
homosexuality as it's practiced today.

Not true. Rather, this is a perfect example of you doing exactly what
you criticize me for doing: pretending to speak for everyone else. I,
for example, did _not_ come away with this conclusion.

And why did you come away with this conclusion, while I did not?
Because I really read what was there and understood it. You did
not. What is worse, you _twisted_ what you read into 'evidence' to
support the conclusion you already reached years ago, as has long been
your practice, as I have already shown many times now.

[ronald]

Post by Ron

I am the only one to fully understand it. <<

when you set yourself up as God....how can you have a real conversation or
discussion with the premise that ur interps are the correct one...and
everyone else falls short.
Y r u even in a newsgroup? simply her to bless us all?

Matthew tries to impress people with his claim to Biblical insight....

But all the debating skills and mastery of trivia won't get him into heaven
without being Christ-like.

Matthew could use a good dose of humility...but then again, maybe he'll
claim to be the _ONLY ONE_ who really understands what humility means....!

We are so blessed to have him here!

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
yes, I
am the only one to fully understand it.

Well, I am glad to see we have set that straight.

Well, I had it set straight. But true to your foul habits, you quoted me
out of
context, completely changing the meaning.

This is usenet...the context is is all there for anyone to see.

First excuse....you are taken out of context....second....you are the only
one wh fully understands it.

And lastly...

Post by Matthew Johnson
How typical for the troll that you are.

A personal slam at the person who took you to task.

Again, do you want to shed any light on the subject at hand...or do you just
want to attack people and call names?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
yes, I
am the only one to fully understand it.

Well, I am glad to see we have set that straight.

Well, I had it set straight. But true to your foul habits, you quoted me
out of
context, completely changing the meaning.

This is usenet...the context is is all there for anyone to see.

Then why do you miss it every single time?

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by ronald

Post by Ron

I am the only one to fully understand it. <<

when you set yourself up as God....how can you have a real conversation or
discussion with the premise that ur interps are the correct one...and
everyone else falls short.
Y r u even in a newsgroup? simply her to bless us all?

Matthew tries to impress people with his claim to Biblical insight....

No, that is not what I am trying to do. Why are you playing at being a
Menschenkenner?

Post by ronald
But all the debating skills and mastery of trivia won't get him into heaven
without being Christ-like.

Obviously not. But no one will ever achieve being Christ-like while believing in
the dangerous false dogmas and doctrines I argue against. NO ONE. Especially not
when, as in _this_ thread, they speak in defense of one of the most dangerous
soul-destroying depravities ever invented by man or demon.

[Dan the man....]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Well....THREE people here read it and saw merit in what was written.
ONE person (you) have all sorts of problems with it.
Says something.....

Guess what, Rob. It does not say what you think it says. Not even close.

it says what it says....you can argue about it...but it's there for
eveeryone to see.

instead of claiming superior understanding.....let the peice speak for
itself.

Post by Matthew Johnson
but those of
us who actually learned a little about logical and critical thinking do
not. We
know better.

i always liked when matthew would speak for everyone...i.e.."those of
us"...and.."we know better".

matthew will never admit that someone else may have a point...instead he
creates imaginary alliances...

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Well....THREE people here read it and saw merit in what was written.
ONE person (you) have all sorts of problems with it.
Says something.....

Guess what, Rob. It does not say what you think it says. Not even close.

it says what it says....

That is a pretty useless contribution to the thread. Look up the word
'tautology'.

Besides: if Rob were right and I were wrong, then why did you snip
what he said it says? What are you trying to hide? Perhaps that you
have no point either? That you can only make peevish criticism?

Post by Dan the man....
ou can argue about it...but it's there for eveeryone to see.

And guess what, 'Dan'. Everyone does _not_ see the same thing. In this
thread, the usual reason has been that the propagandists of perversion
do not read what is there, they read what they _want_ to see there.

So, for example, the misleadingly named Tara claims the Moderator
proved something the Moderator himself had to say he did not prove.

Post by Dan the man....
instead of claiming superior understanding.....let the peice speak
for itself.

That is what the Moderator did. And if you had been paying attention
to the thread, you would have seen what a lousy result this had. the
lousy result was that the propagandists of perversion thought the
Moderator was supporting them. He was not. He was only reporting and
recording their arguments, _without_ endorsement.

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson
but those of us who actually learned a little about logical and
critical thinking do not. We know better.

i always liked when matthew would speak for everyone...i.e.."those of
us"...and.."we know better".
matthew will never admit that someone else may have a point...

This is patently false. I have done so often in the past. You were not
paying attention when it happened, but your inattention did not keep
you from opening your mouth when you have _no_ idea what you are
talking about.

You haven't seen it in _this_ thread because not one of these
dissemblers ever _had_ a valid point. All they offered was
dissembling, really childish misreadings of the text and even more
childish rejoinders. All of this did _nothing_ to address the
issues. Yet they howl and whine at me for "not addressing the issues".

Post by Dan the man....
instead he creates imaginary alliances...

I am not the one "creating imaginary alliance". It is the dissemblers
in this thread, who introduce blatant fallacies like "three against
one" who are inventing "imaginary alliances".

The dissemblers in this thread, the very same people who accuse me of
not making any points, have made only one point: they have illustrated
with their own bad example, why the Moderator was doing the right
thing back in the days when he rejected all posts on the topic of
homosexuality.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald

Post by Ron

I am the only one to fully understand it. <<

when you set yourself up as God....how can you have a real conversation
or
discussion with the premise that ur interps are the correct one...and
everyone else falls short.
Y r u even in a newsgroup? simply her to bless us all?

Matthew tries to impress people with his claim to Biblical insight....
But all the debating skills and mastery of trivia won't get him into
heaven
without being Christ-like.

Obviously not. But no one will ever achieve being Christ-like while
believing in
the dangerous false dogmas and doctrines I argue against. NO ONE.

Let's see if we understand this....

Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

For some reason your sins are better than others?

It's always about someone else isn't it?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Especially not
when, as in _this_ thread, they speak in defense of one of the most
dangerous
soul-destroying depravities ever invented by man or demon.

In think there are more references in the Bible to love and humility than
there are to homosexuality.

Yet it's always about someone else's sins, right?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ron

I am the only one to fully understand it. <<

when you set yourself up as God.

What arrant nonsense is this? Since when is claiming to be the only one
_in the
thread_ to understand an issue the same as "setting o.s up as God"?

Well, every discussion here will degenerate into you claiming your
understanding is superior to everyone else.

So far you haven't shown anyone why your understanding is superior. Do you
have adnvanced degrees? Having you been given an office or other stature in
the Church? So far all we have seen are your claims of superior
understanding.

(And very little demonstration of it.)

Post by Matthew Johnson
....before
you try to participate in a NG thread again.

I didn't realize usenet was set aside for the "gifted" like you Matthew.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Otherwise you too, just like George
or 'Anonymouse', will be quickly branded TROLL.

So far you are the only one calling people names.

And that doesn't say much for your ability to deal with abstract thought or
discuss issues.

[Dan the man....]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style.

B - what if there are no fences but just an illusion of one?

......but if matt sees one....there HAS TO BE ONE! ;-)

one thing that always interested me was people that claim to want to
discuss, learn, and udnerstand more aspects of their faith usually cant seem
to accept anyone else's viewpoint except their own.

again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's first
premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style.

B - what if there are no fences but just an illusion of one?

......but if matt sees one....there HAS TO BE ONE! ;-)

Glad to see you finally recognized this basic truth;)

Post by Dan the man....
one thing that always interested me was people that claim to want to
discuss, learn, and udnerstand more aspects of their faith usually cant seem
to accept anyone else's viewpoint except their own.

Well, I'm not suprised it interests you since you are one of these. When have
you _ever_ shown any evidence of accepting someone else's view yourself, Dan?
Certainly not in this NG.

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's first
premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered to read the FAQ
and Charter for this NG?

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
it says what it says....

That is a pretty useless contribution to the thread.

Well, you keep telling people about a special hidden meaning that only you
can decipher.

The person above was saying it plain and simple...it says what it says!

Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: if Rob were right and I were wrong, then why did you snip
what he said it says?

Matthew in a newsgroup someone can always go back and look at the original
post if necessary...it's all there in the record....don't feel bad if
someone disregarded one of your thoughts as irrelevant.

According to newsgroup netiquette he was only quoting the comment he was
responding too.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
ou can argue about it...but it's there for eveeryone to see.

And guess what, 'Dan'. Everyone does _not_ see the same thing.

But it's there! And if different people come to different conclusions!
People can read and decide for themselves.

However, you appear to only allow for your point of view.

Post by Matthew Johnson
In this
thread, the usual reason has been that the propagandists of perversion...

In this thread your attitude and obstinacy have been the real skunk at the
picnic.

Post by Matthew Johnson
So, for example, the misleadingly named Tara claims the Moderator
proved something

Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
instead of claiming superior understanding.....let the peice speak
for itself.

That is what the Moderator did.

Then just deal with it...and stop your whining about how misunderstood you
are.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson
but those of us who actually learned a little about logical and
critical thinking do not. We know better.

i always liked when matthew would speak for everyone...i.e.."those of
us"...and.."we know better".
matthew will never admit that someone else may have a point...

This is patently false. I have done so often in the past.

I haven't seen it. Maybe those imaginary alliances have seen it?

Post by Matthew Johnson
your inattention did not keep
you from opening your mouth when you have _no_ idea what you are
talking about.

Yes, we get it Matthew, you are the _only one_ who knows what he is talking
about.

I think they are going to rename this newsgroup:
soc.religion.christian.matthew.johnson.knows.everything.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
instead he creates imaginary alliances...

I am not the one "creating imaginary alliance". It is the dissemblers
in this thread...
The dissemblers in this thread...

Think about this the next time you claim authority to "brand someone a
TROLL", or use "we" when discussing your own opinion.

Matthew, can you possibly discsuss the topic without attacking or name
calling?

We are here to gather insight from each other. (If it were
otherwise, you'd just be spending quiet time in the chapel!) But if you are
in a discussion group about Christianity, you have to make room for the fact
that some people come to different conclusions than you. Either that or we
are just one big debating society...discussing how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin!

Listen, reflect, pray.....discuss.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <lIfPi.9833$***@trnddc01>, A Brown says...
[snip]

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will. For you who whine 'arrogance' and 'lack of humility' are
yourself far more guilty. You proved this yourself by speaking in favor of
depravity, which is such a serious sin. But as Augustine proved, pride lies
behind _all_ sin. And the worse the sin, the greater the pride.

So it is you who is the arrogant hypocrite, not me.

[snip]
And perhaps if you knew the difference between 'relative' and 'relevant', you
would realize that no, it was not relevant, despite the poster's attempt to make
it sound like it.

On the contrary: it was an attempt to disguise name-calling under the disguise
of a Scripture quote.

[snip]

[ronald]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Matthew Johnson
A "good read"? Hardly. It is written in our moderator's usually fence-sitting,
pseudo "fair and balanced" style.

B - what if there are no fences but just an illusion of one?

......but if matt sees one....there HAS TO BE ONE! ;-)

Glad to see you finally recognized this basic truth;)

well i think we've identified the root of the problem....

[R***@giganews.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's first
premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered to read
the FAQ
and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to
it."

Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will.

LOL, HOUSTON, I THINK WE'VE UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM! ;-)

btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they were more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

Yet, Jesus was far from them...instead he went and spent time with the poor
and needy....tax collectors and prostitutes.

Post by Matthew Johnson
For you who whine 'arrogance' and 'lack of humility' are
yourself far more guilty.

Is this a scripture reference? "You who whine...." (Johnson 1:1)?

Or is this once again just your own ego masquerading as Divine
understanding?

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson
And perhaps if you knew the difference between 'relative' and
'relevant'...

attack the grammar.....and discount the scripture. Good one!

try it the other way around...discount the grammar....and take the Scripture
to heart...and into prayer.


----

[Note to self: remember to enforce the rule against grammatical and
spelling criticisms. Nothing else generates so much heat and so little
light. --clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's first
premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered to read
the FAQ
and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up? Can you find even a _single_ dictionary that includes
"give/take of ideas and information" as a necessary attribute of 'discussion'?

dictionary.com, for example, gives the following definition:

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument,
comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

Read it carefully: just as I described, it does _not_ insite on including
"give/take of ideas and information."

So once more, as so often in this thread, the totally ignorant have falsely
criticized the one who actually knows what he is talking about.

BTW: bad as though it is, what you have done, it is not nearly as bad as
pretending that support for depravity is "give/take of ideas and information".

It is not.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
And perhaps if you knew the difference between 'relative' and
'relevant'...

attack the grammar.....and discount the scripture. Good one!
try it the other way around...discount the grammar....and take the Scripture
to heart...and into prayer.

If you did this yourself, you would not be supporting depravity with your posts,
not even indirectly. But you are supporting it, so you have not taken Scripture
to heart, nor into prayer.

Take _this_ into your heart and into your prayer:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual
perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers
will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1Co 6:9-10 RSVA)

So where is your inheritance?

Post by Rob
----
[Note to self: remember to enforce the rule against grammatical and
spelling criticisms. Nothing else generates so much heat and so little
light. --clh]

There are bigger rules you have failed to enforce, that have resulted in much
more heat with little or no light.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will.

LOL, HOUSTON, I THINK WE'VE UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM! ;-)
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they were more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

No, it isn't.

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will.

LOL, HOUSTON, I THINK WE'VE UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM! ;-)
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they were
more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

No, it isn't.

No explanataion? Just "No, it isn't?"

I think the common thinking within the Church is that this is true of the
Pharissees.

Is this another thing you don't see because it's hits too close to home?

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's first
premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered to read
the FAQ
and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up?

Again, deflect and make it about somebody else....

Post by Matthew Johnson
Can you find even a _single_ dictionary that includes
"give/take of ideas and information" as a necessary attribute of
'discussion'?

from Dictionary.com:

2. an exchange of views on some topic;

That sounds like give and take to me.....

Post by Matthew Johnson
So once more, as so often in this thread, the totally ignorant have...

Once more, as so often in this NG, you have hijacked the thread and turned
it into a way of your showing egocentric disdain for all others. You have
used the thread in an attempt to showcase some kind of seniority without
anything to back it up.

i.e..."I am the only one who understands" and "everyone who disagrees with
me is 'depraved'".

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
And perhaps if you knew the difference between 'relative' and
'relevant'...

attack the grammar.....and discount the scripture. Good one!
try it the other way around...discount the grammar....and take the
Scripture
to heart...and into prayer.

If you did this yourself, you would not be supporting depravity with your
posts

Funny, because I don't see anyone else correcting grammar and 'snip'
etiquette.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not
be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
sexual
perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
robbers
will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1Co 6:9-10 RSVA)
So where is your inheritance?

It's always about somebody else, isn't it.

And....for some reason I don't think you'd recognize what the kingdom of God
looks like.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
And perhaps if you knew the difference between 'relative' and
'relevant'...

attack the grammar.....and discount the scripture. Good one!
try it the other way around...discount the grammar....and take the
Scripture to heart...and into prayer.

If you did this yourself, you would not be supporting depravity with your
posts

Funny, because I don't see anyone else correcting grammar and 'snip'
etiquette.

Funny that you don't see it. Funnier that you think it is even
relevant. Why, did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason you
don't see it is because you didn't look hard enough? Or didn't
recognize what you saw?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom
of God.
(1Co 6:9-10 RSVA)
So where is your inheritance?

It's always about somebody else, isn't it.

Making it about somebody else was your idea, not mine. Have you
forgotten already how you did this? I haven't. You did this with your
childish and useless retort counting three against one -- as if that
proved anything.

Post by A Brown
And....for some reason I don't think you'd recognize what the kingdom of God
looks like.

And for some reason, I don't care what you think I would recognize or
not. Perhaps that "some reason" is because you _have_ been decieved,
because you have _ignored_ Paul's warning above.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's
first premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered
to read the FAQ and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up?

Again, deflect and make it about somebody else....

Is no petty lie too low for you, Brown? This was not "deflecting and
making it about someone else". Or do you really think you have the
right to accuse others of not knowing the meanings of words, of not
using a dictionary when needed, when it is you who do not know it?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Can you find even a _single_ dictionary that includes "give/take of
ideas and information" as a necessary attribute of 'discussion'?

2. an exchange of views on some topic;
That sounds like give and take to me.....

True. But that is a _separate entry_. So you have missed the point. In
order to be a -necessary- attribute, it would have to be in _every_
entry. It is not.

Once more, you show your ignorance, this time showing you do not even
know how to use a dictionary. Great job, Brown!

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
So once more, as so often in this thread, the totally ignorant have...

Once more, as so often in this NG, you have hijacked the thread and
turned it into a way of your showing egocentric disdain for all
others.

No one in this thread has shown more egocentric disdain for all others
than you have.

Post by A Brown
You have used the thread in an attempt to showcase some kind of
seniority without anything to back it up.

This isn't true. I _have_ backed it up. You snipped it without comment
and then whined when caught with your dirty hand in the cookie jar.

THAT is "egocentric disdain".

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will.

LOL, HOUSTON, I THINK WE'VE UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM! ;-)
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they were
more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

No, it isn't.

No explanataion? Just "No, it isn't?"

Well, what right do _you_ have to expect an explanation? You didn't give one for
why you believe you have the right to slander me, accusing me of "doing what the
parissee's[sic] used to do"?

Besides: when I _do_ give you explanations, you snip without comment, and then
reply with snide comments from the peanut gallery, or outright slanders like
this one.

So no, you have no right to expect explanations.

[snip]

[Ray Dio]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's
first premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered
to read the FAQ and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up?

Again, deflect and make it about somebody else....

Is no petty lie too low for you, Brown? This was not "deflecting and
making it about someone else".

He was countering your comment that it's not the first premise when it is
the first line in the charter.
You did not respond to his comment...instead andwered it with a question
about the poster.
You are turing around the subject...and making it about someone else.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
2. an exchange of views on some topic;
That sounds like give and take to me.....

True. But that is a _separate entry_. So you have missed the point. In
order to be a -necessary- attribute, it would have to be in _every_
entry. It is not.

Huh? who made up this rule?

the 2nd definition says an "exchange"....i.,e...give and take.

when you are proven wrong you simplky change the rules? LOL
I.E...."it would have to be in _every_ entry."

You just CAN't ADMIT when your wrong, huh!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
You have used the thread in an attempt to showcase some kind of
seniority without anything to back it up.

This isn't true. I _have_ backed it up.

I haven't seen any point where you have backed up your claim to seniority.

Did someone appoint you? Have you been given senior privileges in the
newsgroup....or the Church?

I didn't think so.

[Ray Dio]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

I think one of the original posters showed a relative scripture for

And perhaps if you knew the difference between 'relative' and
'relevant'...

attack the grammar.....and discount the scripture. Good one!
try it the other way around...discount the grammar....and take the
Scripture to heart...and into prayer.

If you did this yourself, you would not be supporting depravity with
your
posts

Funny, because I don't see anyone else correcting grammar and 'snip'
etiquette.

Funny that you don't see it. Funnier that you think it is even
relevant.

i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's arguing.

u made it relevant when you brought up a grammatical error.

when someone responds....you say it isn't relevant.

this is almost funny.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
So where is your inheritance?

It's always about somebody else, isn't it.

Making it about somebody else was your idea, not mine.

who started calling people depraved and trolls? i think it was you matt.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
And....for some reason I don't think you'd recognize what the kingdom of
God
looks like.

And for some reason, I don't care what you think I would recognize or
not.

you must care...or you wouldn't keep coming back to this thread bud!

Post by Matthew Johnson
Perhaps that "some reason" is because you _have_ been decieved,
because you have _ignored_ Paul's warning above.

lets see....am I immoral...NOPE...and idolaters...NOPE.....an
adulterers...NOPE....sexual perverts...NOPE...a
thief...NOPE....greedy...NOPE....drunkards....NOPE A TEA
TOTALER....reviler...Not that one either.....robber...Not since I stole
penny candy when I was a child.

which warning am I ignoring?

do you know everyone's sins matty? is that another god given talent you';ve
been given?
or are you peering into people's bedrooms?

[Dan the man....]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will.

I think jesus chose to hang out with the so-called "low-lifes" and
sinners....people you would try to keep away from him.

he did not choose to be with the pompous or so-called educated....or the
chief priests in the temple.

if we want to be christlike, we have to be ready to accept those on the
edges of society.

You might have to take a second look at the people you have disdain for
matt.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they were
more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

No, it isn't.

No explanataion? Just "No, it isn't?"

Well, what right do _you_ have to expect an explanation?

Ummm..because this is a discussion group?

Post by Matthew Johnson
So no, you have no right to expect explanations.

It appears you think we have a right to your pronouncements and calims of
enlightenment with nothing to back them up?

This is just an excercise in ego for you?

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <HGURi.4824$***@trnddc07>, Ray Dio says...

[snip]

Post by Ray Dio
i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's arguing.

I do no such thing. You simply never understood either the rules or the
premises. NO surprise.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they were
more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

No, it isn't.

No explanataion? Just "No, it isn't?"

Well, what right do _you_ have to expect an explanation?

Ummm..because this is a discussion group?

So why are _you_ obstructing discussion like this?

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Let's see if we understand this....
Gay men and women will *never be considered Christlike.

Finally! You understand it!

Post by A Brown
However, you with your arrogance and lack of humility WILL?

Long before you will.

I think jesus chose to hang out with the so-called "low-lifes" and
sinners....people you would try to keep away from him.
he did not choose to be with the pompous or so-called educated....or the
chief priests in the temple.

But this just shows how poorly you understand the Gospels. He went to dinner at
a Pharisee's house, and he met Nicodemus. Both highly educated, only one of whom
was 'pompous'.

Post by Dan the man....
if we want to be christlike, we have to be ready to accept those on the
edges of society.

No. That is not what Christ Himself did. How much time did he spend with the
Gentiles? Almost none. He even ordered his disciples _not_ to go to the Gentiles
or into Samaria until _after_ the Resurrection.

Post by Dan the man....
You might have to take a second look at the people you have disdain for
matt.

Guess what: I already have. But you, of course, did not notice.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ray Dio

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's
first premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered
to read the FAQ and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up?

Again, deflect and make it about somebody else....

Is no petty lie too low for you, Brown? This was not "deflecting and
making it about someone else".

He was countering your comment that it's not the first premise when it is
the first line in the charter.

What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says _nothing_ about
his claim that its "first premise is give/take". No, it says 'discussion'. But
as I already showed, 'discussion' does not imply "give/take".

Pay attention.

[snip]

[Dan]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that they
were
more
Christlike because of their higher understanding?

No, it isn't.

No explanataion? Just "No, it isn't?"

Well, what right do _you_ have to expect an explanation?

Ummm..because this is a discussion group?

So why are _you_ obstructing discussion like this?

matt.....why are you being so obstinate? its very hard to have a
conversation or discussion with someone who is always claiming they are
right.....the article is there for everyone to read why don't we let people
make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions. why are you
attacking everyone ---including the moderator----for simply expressing there
opinions.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ray Dio

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's
first premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered
to read the FAQ and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related
to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up?

Again, deflect and make it about somebody else....

Is no petty lie too low for you, Brown? This was not "deflecting and
making it about someone else".

He was countering your comment that it's not the first premise when it is
the first line in the charter.

What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says _nothing_
about
his claim that its "first premise is give/take".

The first line is: Discussion.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it says 'discussion'. But
as I already showed, 'discussion' does not imply "give/take".

Yes, your premise that a discussion is not give/take was not valid...as you
just made it up.

A 'discussion' is an exchange of ideas.....exchange means each gives
something to the other. (Each side give/takes.)

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
I think jesus chose to hang out with the so-called "low-lifes" and
sinners....people you would try to keep away from him.
he did not choose to be with the pompous or so-called educated....or the
chief priests in the temple.

But this just shows how poorly you understand the Gospels.

The point is Jesus chose to hang out with the so-called sinners.

Prostitutes and tax collectors.

People that Matt J would probably refer to as 'depraved'...and people who
'don't understand'.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
if we want to be christlike, we have to be ready to accept those on the
edges of society.

No. That is not what Christ Himself did. How much time did he spend with
the
Gentiles?

We are not talking about Gentiles...we are talking about the so-called
sinners.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
You might have to take a second look at the people you have disdain for
matt.

Guess what: I already have.

Maybe a third look then.

[ronald]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Ray Dio
i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's arguing.

I do no such thing.

YOU ARGUE A POINT...THEN WHEN SOMEONE PROVES YOU WRONG YOU CHANGE THE POINT
OF DISCUSSION.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You simply never understood either the rules or the
premises. NO surprise.

I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by ronald

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Ray Dio
i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's arguing.

I do no such thing.

YOU ARGUE A POINT...THEN WHEN SOMEONE PROVES YOU WRONG YOU CHANGE THE POINT
OF DISCUSSION.

Nonsense. No one has "proved me wrong". In this thread, no one has got even
close.

This may surprise you, you may think it is a bold rash and even arrogant claim,
but so what? People who think they can make their point better by typing in all
caps are simply too ignorant of the Net to make such a judgment.

Post by ronald

Post by Matthew Johnson
You simply never understood either the rules or the
premises. NO surprise.

I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

Ah, but the Charter and FAQ do _not_ demand "polite civil discourse". If they
did, many more posts than just mine would be rejected. Certainly this last post
of yours would have been rejected, since typing in all caps is pretty rude as
well as amateurish.

Sure, the FAQ and Charter try to _encourage_ "polite civil discourse", but that
has been a total failure for years now.

So if you want to have een just a small chance of being taken seriously when you
write about "rules of polite civil discourse", do not type in call caps. Also,
don't but into a thread without reading at least 5 or 6 of the preceeding posts.
This will save you from making embarrasing mistakes of fact that render your
contribution useless and rude. You did not follow this rule.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

----

[Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are
violating the rules of discourse. --clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
btw...isn't this what the pharissee's used to do? Claim that
they were more Christlike because of their higher
understanding?

No, it isn't.

No explanataion? Just "No, it isn't?"

Well, what right do _you_ have to expect an explanation?

Ummm..because this is a discussion group?

So why are _you_ obstructing discussion like this?

matt.....why are you being so obstinate?

Wrong question: the right question would be, why are _you_ being both
obtuse and obstinate?

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I recommend
you give up.

But more importantly, you miss the point. If two people are discussing
whether or not 2+2=4, and you butt in insisting that 2+2=0, you have
no right to complain about others being 'obstinate' for refusing to
believe you, or for "claiming they are right". But that is such a good
analogy for what you have done, though you will deny it.

Post by Dan
...the article is there for everyone to read why don't we let people
make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.

What am I doing to stop them? You attribute to me some kind of power I
do not have, a power to reach into the minds of every reader on the
Net and interfere with their minds.

Now if I had such a power, I would certainly use it on you, and then
you would never have written this post;) But I do not. What a pity;)

Post by Dan
why are you attacking everyone ---including the moderator----for
simply expressing there opinions.

You really are paying no attention at all to what is going on here,
aren't you? I am not atacking _anyone_ "for simply expressing
there[sic] opinions". I am attacking only certain highly irresponsible
responses, not all of which are even expressions of opinions. All of
your responses have baan among these highly irresponsible
responses. From your latest response, I see you are going for a
perfect record;)

So why are _you_ attacking by making false accusations about
"imaginary alliances" and asking loaded questions? Why can't you ask a
question that makes a _real_ contribution to the thread, such as a
question that is to the point? Do you even remember what the topic of
this thread is? Or have you been so focused on venting your spleen
that you forgot?

Then again, perhaps this is not why you forgot. Perhaps you forgot
because you are too busy thinking up more fallacious ways for you to
accuse others of what you are yourself guilty of. For you whine about
people who "cant [sic] seem to accept anyone else's viewpoint except their
own", yet you have refused to do this yourself!

When will you accept the obvious, that you were simply wrong when you
claimed the first premise of a discussion group is "give/take of ideas
and information"? When will you admit that you were wrong when you
tried to impose an attribute of one definition in a lemma (entry word)
on the whole lemma (I refer, of course, to your mis-reading of the
dictionary definition for 'discussion').

Until you do these things, Dan, you are in no position to complain
about others not accepting viewpoints. Instead, you are only in a
position to expose yourself as a hypocrite.

So your hypocrisy is in front of all of us, just as you yourself said,
"it's there for eveeryone[sic] to see."

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
I think jesus chose to hang out with the so-called "low-lifes" and
sinners....people you would try to keep away from him.
he did not choose to be with the pompous or so-called educated....or the
chief priests in the temple.

But this just shows how poorly you understand the Gospels.

The point is Jesus chose to hang out with the so-called sinners.

It is? I thought the point was to show off how poorly you understand
the Gospels. After all, that _is_ what you really achieved.

Post by A Brown
Prostitutes and tax collectors.

What 'prostitutes'? Are you suffering from the delusion that Saint
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Without this false assumption, you
have no evidence that He "hung out with prostitutes".

He did not "hang out" with prostitutes. Rather, a prostitute sought
Him out, while he was at the house of a Pharisee, and she came
to hear Him forgive her (Lk 7:36-48).

Does that _really_ sound like "hanging out" to you? Or are you
mindlessly repeating the false accusations of the Pharisees?

Post by A Brown
People that Matt J would probably refer to as 'depraved'...and people
who 'don't understand'.

This is not only innuendo, it is circumstantial ad hominem. As such,
it proves nothing but your love for fallacious arguments and slander.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
if we want to be christlike, we have to be ready to accept those on the
edges of society.

No. That is not what Christ Himself did. How much time did he spend
with the Gentiles?

We are not talking about Gentiles...we are talking about the
so-called sinners.

And what do you think the Gentiles were? Sinners, of course. And why
did Jesus meet with sinners? Not to approve of their sinful way of
life, as you do, but to call them to repentance (Mt 9:13).

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
You might have to take a second look at the people you have disdain
for matt.

Guess what: I already have.

Maybe a third look then.

Nope. It is you who need to learn how to "take a look". After all, if
when you took your first look, you went about it all wrong, then taking
a second look does no better. Not until you learn where you went
wrong.

You haven't learned this yet. When you do, perhaps you will learn how
important it is for your own spiritual health to give up your sick
love of fallacies, of defending depravity and posting slanderous
innuendo. Like the prostitute who met Jesus, you need to repent first.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <vKRSi.825$***@trnddc03>, A Brown says...

[snip]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says
_nothing_ about his claim that its "first premise is give/take".

The first line is: Discussion.

I knew that. Your repetition of what everyone knows establishes
nothing: unless it establishes your own stubborn refusal to engage in
'discussion' yourself. But you already established that days ago!

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it says 'discussion'. But as I already showed, 'discussion'
does not imply "give/take".

Yes, your premise that a discussion is not give/take was not
valid...as you just made it up.

Both false. I did not "make it up". I even gave you the dictionary
definition that supports me. Do you think I "just made up" the
dictionary definition, too? Is that how low you have to sink to
support your outrageous false accusations?

Or have you still refused to learn how to use a dictionary? Do you
still persist under the delusion that you can insist that a condition
of _one_ entry in a dictionary lemma applies to _all_ the entries in
the lemma?

Either way, you are showing off your deep ignorance by pretending you
are not already soundly refuted.

Post by A Brown
A 'discussion' is an exchange of ideas.....

No, it is not. Only _some_ discussions are "exchanges of ideas". And
you are not doing "an exchange of ideas" yourself, either. Repeating
an incorrect definition, is NOT "an exchange of ideas". Especially not
when you have already been refuted. And again, even more especially
not when you snip the clear evidence that you have already been
refuted.

Post by A Brown
exchange means each gives something to the other. (Each side
give/takes.)

And I _am_ giving you something. I am giving you sorely needed
correction of a few of your many, deep errors. What are you giving me
in exchange? Little but repetition of the same errors. Some 'exchange'
you offer!

Besides: you have no excuse for your obsession with falsely accusing
me of refusal to 'discuss'. For the real problem in this thread is NOT
some hypothetical failure to exchange ideas: it is that several people
are determined to preach wickedness, taking advantage of the tragedy
in the Roman Church, and only one is determined to oppose them.

What you are doing is just a slightly modified form of "poisoning the
well". That is not "exchange of ideas", nor is it a good kind of
'discussion'. Knock it off, and you just might learn something.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ray Dio
i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's
arguing.

I do no such thing.

YOU ARGUE A POINT...THEN WHEN SOMEONE PROVES YOU WRONG YOU CHANGE THE
POINT
OF DISCUSSION.

Nonsense. No one has "proved me wrong". In this thread, no one has got
even
close.

Would you know it if it hit you in the face...?

---Because no one has EVER proven you wrong, have they?

No one has ever caused you to rethink your position, have they?

It's your realm to call others ignorant...but it never applies to you,
right?

See, it's all so easy one you know the rules.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This may surprise you, you may think it is a bold rash and even arrogant
claim,
but so what?

Yeah, I know, you could care less about being, bold, arrogant and proud.

Post by Matthew Johnson
People who think they can make their point better by typing in all
caps are simply too ignorant of the Net to make such a judgment.

I guess you got him there Matt!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

Ah, but the Charter and FAQ do _not_ demand "polite civil discourse".

No, but being a follower of Christ does....

Post by Matthew Johnson
[Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are
violating the rules of discourse. --clh]

You are right, but discourse can be raw and vulgar too....hopefully we aim
for more than simply "discourse". But civility and humnility as well.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
matt.....why are you being so obstinate?

Wrong question: the right question would be, why are _you_ being both
obtuse and obstinate?

So, in other words, no answer...just turning someone's question around, like
it couldn't possibly apply?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I recommend
you give up.

So, in other words, no answer...just turning someone's question around, like
it couldn't possibly apply?

Post by Matthew Johnson
But more importantly, you miss the point. If two people are discussing
whether or not 2+2=4, and you butt in insisting that 2+2=0

As Matt would say: "you miss the point...."

If someone is arguing that 2+2=0 over and over again...and refusing to allow
for any other interpretation that might say different.....then the
discsussion is doomed.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
...the article is there for everyone to read why don't we let people
make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.

What am I doing to stop them?

You keep calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant and depraved....and
telling them they (in your humble opinion) will never enter the kingdom.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
why are you attacking everyone ---including the moderator----for
simply expressing there opinions.

You really are paying no attention at all to what is going on here,
aren't you? I am not atacking _anyone_ "for simply expressing
there[sic] opinions".

You could've fooled us!

Post by Matthew Johnson
When will you accept the obvious, that you were simply wrong when you
claimed the first premise of a discussion group is "give/take of ideas
and information"?

I think anyone who reads the charter/FAQ will come to a different conclusion
Matt.

When will you come to the conclusion that you are in the minority on
this...and insisting you are right does nothing to change others minds?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Until you do these things, Dan, you are in no position to complain
about others not accepting viewpoints.

You are certainly welcome to your own opinion.

I accept that you come to your own conclusions..and attack anyone who might
have a different opinion.

[Dan]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I recommend
you give up.

I think we have discovered why all of Matt's threads turn into this kind of
exchange.

Once he pulls the "I'm always right" trump card...the best he can do is
insult....and never looking at himself.

[Dan]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

So if you want to have een just a small chance of being taken seriously
when you
write about "rules of polite civil discourse", do not type in call caps.

Yes, if a newbie types in CAPS...it means they couldn't possibly have
something to say?

Is this just another way you discount someone who disagrees with you...?
Because they type in CAPS?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Also,
don't but into a thread without reading at least 5 or 6 of the preceeding
posts.
This will save you from making embarrasing mistakes of fact that render
your
contribution useless and rude. You did not follow this rule.

A.) How do you know they haven't been reading everything you've been
postin.

B.) Who made this a rule? You?

[Dan]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says
_nothing_ about his claim that its "first premise is give/take".

The first line is: Discussion.

I knew that. Your repetition of what everyone knows establishes

Well it repeated because you said it wasn't the first premise of the group.
WHile you weasel your way out of a mis-statement.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it says 'discussion'. But as I already showed, 'discussion'
does not imply "give/take".

Yes, your premise that a discussion is not give/take was not
valid...as you just made it up.

Both false. I did not "make it up".

Yeah, you did.....It does not have to appear in every definition.

Again, you criticize the criticism...and lose the point.

Discussion is considered by most every one to be "give and take"...and
exhange (exchange=give and take) of ideas.

If you have trouble realizing this, you have exposed why you have trouble
discussing Christianity...becuase for you it's a one way street. Either
agree with me...or your wicked, ignorant and depraved.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
A 'discussion' is an exchange of ideas.....

No, it is not. Only _some_ discussions are "exchanges of ideas".

Yeah, any discussion that is NOT one-sided. ;-)

Post by Matthew Johnson
it is that several people
are determined to preach wickedness,

No one is preaching wickedness. What you call wickedness is already
accepted in many (if not most)Christian Churches today. I guess most
CHurches are wicked?

Post by Matthew Johnson
taking advantage of the tragedy
in the Roman Church,

No one is taking advantage of anything....just more of your paranoid
mentality.

Post by Matthew Johnson
What you are doing is just a slightly modified form of "poisoning the
well". That is not "exchange of ideas", nor is it a good kind of
'discussion'. Knock it off, and you just might learn something.
From you? You're kidding right?

Again you have appointed yourself into an office that no Church has given
you....and apparently have fed your ego enough where we all should feel
blessed to receive teaching from Matthew Johnson?

Your just another sinner on the bus Matt...apparently dealing with pride and
ego.

[Anonymouse]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
I think jesus chose to hang out with the so-called "low-lifes" and
sinners....people you would try to keep away from him.
he did not choose to be with the pompous or so-called educated....or the
chief priests in the temple.

But this just shows how poorly you understand the Gospels.

The point is Jesus chose to hang out with the so-called sinners.

It is? I thought the point was to show off how poorly you understand
the Gospels. After all, that _is_ what you really achieved.

cute...but he did not hang out with the high and mighty pharissees --who
btw---flung around judgements and condemnation similar to the way you do

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
if we want to be christlike, we have to be ready to accept those on the
edges of society.

No. That is not what Christ Himself did. How much time did he spend
with the Gentiles?

We are not talking about Gentiles...we are talking about the
so-called sinners.

And what do you think the Gentiles were?

a gentile is define by one's birth parents....not by behavior.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Sinners, of course. And why
did Jesus meet with sinners?

....not to condemn (as you do)....jesus never condemned people....he should
them love. jesus never told people to go away...

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
You might have to take a second look at the people you have disdain
for matt.

Guess what: I already have.

Maybe a third look then.

Nope.

of courser not! ;-) that would take introspection....too much work!

it's easier to just drop bombs and name call....

[Ray Dio]

Matt....give it up! your false christian bravado is tiring!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
I think jesus chose to hang out with the so-called "low-lifes" and
sinners....people you would try to keep away from him.
he did not choose to be with the pompous or so-called educated....or the
chief priests in the temple.

But this just shows how poorly you understand the Gospels.

The point is Jesus chose to hang out with the so-called sinners.

It is? I thought the point was to show off how poorly you understand
the Gospels. After all, that _is_ what you really achieved.

Post by A Brown
Prostitutes and tax collectors.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I recommend
you give up.

I think we have discovered why all of Matt's threads turn into this kind of
exchange.

You can't 'discover' what isn't even true, Dan. Who do you think you can fool
with this claim? You have most certainly not looked at "all of my threads".

Post by Dan
Once he pulls the "I'm always right" trump card...the best he can do is
insult....and never looking at himself.

Oh, so you are omniscient now? Is that how you know whether or not I look at
myself?

This kind of presumptuous claim to omniscience generally fools only the person
who makes the claim -- such as you.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <hWvTi.6668$***@trnddc03>, Anonymouse says...

[snip]

Post by Anonymouse
cute...but he did not hang out with the high and mighty pharissees

THis is a vacuous statement, since he did not "hang out" with
anyone. But he _did_ meet with Nicodemus, a Pharisee. Have you
forgotten this?

Post by Anonymouse
--who btw---flung around judgements and condemnation similar to the
way you do

No, they did not. You are just being obtuse again. There is a world of
a difference between what they did and what I do.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
if we want to be christlike, we have to be ready to accept those
on the edges of society.

No. That is not what Christ Himself did. How much time did he
spend with the Gentiles?

We are not talking about Gentiles...we are talking about the
so-called sinners.

And what do you think the Gentiles were?

a gentile is define by one's birth parents....not by behavior.

You miss the point. Gentiles are sinners, especially in that time
frame, when all Gentiles were polytheists. Furthermore, they were "on
the fringe fo society". So they are the _perfect_ counterexample to
prove your false claim.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
Sinners, of course. And why did Jesus meet with sinners?

....not to condemn (as you do)....jesus never condemned people....

Oh, really? Then how do you explain his use of the language of
condemnation, "child of hell", "blind fools", 'hypocrites' etc. in Mat
23:13-19? Recall it reads:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut
the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves,
nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single
proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much
a child of hell as yourselves. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If
any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by
the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools!
For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold
sacred? And you say, 'If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing;
but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by
his oath.' You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar
that makes the gift sacred? (Mat 23:13-19 RSVA)

To claim as you do, that He never condemned, is just WRONG. The
passage above shows it clearly. Yet you refuse to see.

Post by Anonymouse
he should them love. jesus never told people to go away...

He should them love? The only 3rd person in the context is
'Jesus'. Are you trying to tell us you know what Jesus should do?

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
You might have to take a second look at the people you have disdain
for matt.

Guess what: I already have.

Maybe a third look then.

Nope.

of courser not! ;-) that would take introspection....too much work!

Too much for you, evidently. If you would do real introspection, you
would know what evil you do to yourself by practicing depravity and
supporting it in these threads. You would be so horrified by it, you
would stop it.

But you are not horrified by it, you persist in this very great
evil. That proves you have not done real introspection.

Post by Anonymouse
it's easier to just drop bombs and name call....

Which is why you did it, calling me 'hypocrite', calling the bishops
accomplices in crime, calling Dr. Laura "self-righteous", ...

You who whine complaints about "drop bombs and name call", are yourself
the worst offender. Have you forgotten the Biblical term for people
who do this? It is 'HYPOCRITE'.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ray Dio
i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's
arguing.

I do no such thing.

YOU ARGUE A POINT...THEN WHEN SOMEONE PROVES YOU WRONG YOU CHANGE
THE POINT OF DISCUSSION.

Nonsense. No one has "proved me wrong". In this thread, no one has
got even close.

Would you know it if it hit you in the face...?

No answer would convince you, since you have already made up your mind
-- wrongly.

Post by A Brown
---Because no one has EVER proven you wrong, have they?

You are quoting me out of context. Let me put it another way, so that
even you cannot so easily misinterpret because of your failure or
refusal to take the context into consideration: no one in this NG has
ever proved me wrong on any substantial point: only on the nitpickey
details of Hebrew grammar.

There were a couple of posts where I realized I made a substantial
mistake, and was afraid someone would call me on it, but nobody did!
Of course, I'm not telling you which those were;)

Post by A Brown
No one has ever caused you to rethink your position, have they?

Again, this shows how perverted your love of perverting others words
is. LOTS have caused me to "rethink my position". But you have never
seen it, because you hang out with the wrong crowd and read the wrong
threads.

Post by A Brown
It's your realm to call others ignorant...but it never applies to you,
right?
See, it's all so easy one you know the rules.

So says the man who has never shown knowledge of the rules.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
This may surprise you, you may think it is a bold rash and even
arrogant claim, but so what?

Yeah, I know, you could care less about being, bold, arrogant and proud.

This misquote is another proof of your dishonesty. I neither said nor
implied not caring about _being_ "bold, arrogant and proud". I said
that your _opinion_ of wheter I am "bold, arrogant and proud" is what
I do not care about.

Is this really too hard for you to understand? Is it really so
surprising to you that I have NO faith in your judgment of such
matters?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
People who think they can make their point better by typing in all
caps are simply too ignorant of the Net to make such a judgment.

I guess you got him there Matt!

You already know what I think of your guesses;)

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

Ah, but the Charter and FAQ do _not_ demand "polite civil

discourse".

Post by A Brown
No, but being a follower of Christ does....

No, it does not. Was Paul doing "polite civil discourse" when he
cursed Elymas with blindness? I don't think so!

For that matter, do a search with your own favorite translation and
Bible program: you will almost certainly find that the word 'polite'
does not even _occur_ in the Bible. Ever wonder why?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
[Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are
violating the rules of discourse. --clh]

The Moderator is right, but he doesn't really say very much
here. After all, he never said _which_ "rules of discourse" he
considers important. Even the FAQ and Charter fail to do this.

Clearly this thread has established at least one thing: that there is
NOT widespread agreement concerning these "rules of discourse".

If the Moderator ever decides to address this deficiency, I hope he
will keep in mind the principles expressed in Proverbs concerning the
righteous use of the power of speech, and also the brilliant and
helpful summary of different kinds of 'discussion' in the Topics of
Aristotle (Book I). We do not need more what Aristotle called
_contentious_ discussions, but we certainly have a severe shortage of
dialectical discussions.

Post by A Brown
You are right, but discourse can be raw and vulgar too....hopefully we aim
for more than simply "discourse". But civility and humnility as well.

So you love to repeat, but you clearly are not aiming for this
yourself. If you were, you would not slander the bishops of the Roman
Church, you would not "poison the well", you would not practice
cicumstantial ad hominem, you would not say Jesus "hung out with
prostitutes",... the list goes on.

But most important is: you would never make excuses for ignoring the
_clear_ warning in Scripture against your chosen form of depravity, 1
Cor 6:9-10. Yet you have been doing that ever since your outright lie
in msg-id <bhjNi.6228$***@trnddc06>, if not for years before that.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
matt.....why are you being so obstinate?

Wrong question: the right question would be, why are _you_ being both
obtuse and obstinate?

So, in other words, no answer...just turning someone's question around, like
it couldn't possibly apply?

Why are you complaining about this? you have done it far more often than I.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I
recommend you give up.

So, in other words, no answer...just turning someone's question
around, like it couldn't possibly apply?

Yes. Just as I do with people who claim that 2+2=0, or 2+2=13, and the
like.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
But more importantly, you miss the point. If two people are
discussing whether or not 2+2=4, and you butt in insisting that
2+2=0

As Matt would say: "you miss the point...."

OK, so you have established your parroting skills. Are you happy now?

Post by A Brown
If someone is arguing that 2+2=0 over and over again...and refusing
to allow for any other interpretation that might say
different.....then the discsussion is doomed.

And yes, it is doomed. Glad you finally figured that much out. Why, it
even raises the hope you will soon even figure out that it is you who
doomed it.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
...the article is there for everyone to read why don't we let people
make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.

What am I doing to stop them?

You keep calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant and depraved....

You keep repeating this patent lie. And then you expect me to take you
seriously when you tell _me_ to be Christ-like? It is not Christ-like
to lie.

And yes, it is a patent lie. It is actually quite rare that I call
those who disagree with me "ignorant and depraved". But it is common
in _this_ thread because of the nature of the topic of this thread.

Read the Charter again: the Moderator _explicitly_ included the topic
of this thread as one of those "controversial issues, such as
homosexuality, which could dominate the group if allowed to do so."

Post by A Brown
and telling them they (in your humble opinion) will never enter the
kingdom.

And that hasn't stopped them, has it? I rest my case. Once more, you
have been easily refuted. Thanks for making it so easy this time;)

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
why are you attacking everyone ---including the moderator----for
simply expressing there opinions.

You really are paying no attention at all to what is going on here,
aren't you? I am not atacking _anyone_ "for simply expressing
there[sic] opinions".

You could've fooled us!

Well, you are not hard to fool. After all, you fooled yourelf into
denying the clear words of Scripture and ignoring the clear warning
against your depravity. That was _so_ much harder than what I did;)

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
When will you accept the obvious, that you were simply wrong when you
claimed the first premise of a discussion group is "give/take of ideas
and information"?

I think anyone who reads the charter/FAQ will come to a different conclusion
Matt.

Is that why you keep on relying on your own opinion?

Post by A Brown
When will you come to the conclusion that you are in the minority on
this...and insisting you are right does nothing to change others minds?

Again: the majority is NOT always right. In fact, the majority is
_often_ wrong. Remember when the majority re-elected the president
historians all agree will go down as the worst president in history?
Again: I rest my case.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Until you do these things, Dan, you are in no position to complain
about others not accepting viewpoints.

You are certainly welcome to your own opinion.
I accept that you come to your own conclusions..and attack anyone who
might have a different opinion.

What? You think I have time to attack _anyone_ who has a different
opinion? I have to conclude you are bad at time-management too, then;)

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says
_nothing_ about his claim that its "first premise is give/take".

The first line is: Discussion.

I knew that. Your repetition of what everyone knows establishes

Well it repeated because you said it wasn't the first premise of the group.

And I am right. Your repetition did nothing to disprove me.

Post by Dan
WHile you weasel your way out of a mis-statement.

What? You haven't noticed yet? It isn't _my_ mis-statement. It is
yours. For the _Charter_ says "discussion", but _you_ say
"give/take". They are not the same. Only _some_ discussions involve
"give/take".

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it says 'discussion'. But as I already showed, 'discussion'
does not imply "give/take".

Yes, your premise that a discussion is not give/take was not
valid...as you just made it up.

Both false. I did not "make it up".

Yeah, you did.....It does not have to appear in every definition.

Yes, it does. Otherwise it applies _only_ to those definitions where
it does occur. NOT to all. But for your argument to hold water, you
really do need it in all, since you claimed the mere occurrence of the
word 'discussion' implies "give/take". It doesn't.

Post by Dan
Again, you criticize the criticism...and lose the point.

No, it is you who is losing the point, even the whole argument.

Post by Dan
Discussion is considered by most every one to be "give and take"...and
exhange (exchange=give and take) of ideas.

Well, so _what_ if most consider it so? We were NOT talking about the
opinion of 'most'. We were talking about what the Charter says. So it
is the opinion of the author that is relevant. Yours is not. The
Moderator has said remarkably little about his opinion, so we have to
judge it by what posts he approves: and he approves a _great many_
posts that do NOT participate in "give and take".

Therefore the only possible conclusion is that no, the Moderator does
NOT mean only those kinds of discussions that involve "give and take".

Post by Dan
If you have trouble realizing this, you have exposed why you have trouble
discussing Christianity...becuase for you it's a one way street. Either
agree with me...or your wicked, ignorant and depraved.

Neither your premise nor your conclusions are true.

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
A 'discussion' is an exchange of ideas.....

No, it is not. Only _some_ discussions are "exchanges of ideas".

Yeah, any discussion that is NOT one-sided. ;-)

No, that is not right, either. You are getting warmer, though.

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson
it is that several people are determined to preach wickedness,

No one is preaching wickedness.

This is patently false.

Post by Dan
What you call wickedness is already accepted in many (if not
most)Christian Churches today.

No, it is not. It is only taught in fraudulent organizations, which
are not 'churches' at all.

Post by Dan
I guess most CHurches are wicked?

Why does this surprise you? Haven't you read Revelation? What did you
_think_ he was referring to when He said to so many of the Churches
things like "I am going to spit you out of my mouth (Rev 3:16)"? Or
even better, when He says:

But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jez'ebel, who
calls herself a prophetess and is TEACHING AND BEGUILING MY SERVANTS
TO PRACTICE IMMORALITY and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her
time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. Behold, I
will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I
will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings;
and I WILL STRIKE HER CHILDREN DEAD. And all the churches shall know
that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of
you as your works deserve. (Rev 2:20-23 RSVA)

You are determined to be among those struck dead.

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson
taking advantage of the tragedy in the Roman Church,

No one is taking advantage of anything....just more of your paranoid
mentality.

Yes, you are taking advantage of it. You and several other people in
this thread are doing what is called "poisoning the well".

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson
What you are doing is just a slightly modified form of "poisoning
the well". That is not "exchange of ideas", nor is it a good kind
of 'discussion'. Knock it off, and you just might learn something.
From you? You're kidding right?

Again you have appointed yourself into an office that no Church has
given you....

Again you are playing the omniscience game,when no one has given you
omniscience. You don't know what 'office' I have been appointed
to. This is just pretension on your part.

Post by Dan
and apparently have fed your ego enough where we all
should feel blessed to receive teaching from Matthew Johnson?
Your just another sinner on the bus Matt...

This is a common cop-out coming from a sinner who is desperate for
excuses to avoid criticism and rebuke.

Post by Dan
apparently dealing with pride and ego.

And dealing with it much better than you do.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

So if you want to have een just a small chance of being taken
seriously when you write about "rules of polite civil discourse",
do not type in call caps.

Yes, if a newbie types in CAPS...it means they couldn't possibly have
something to say?

Stop putting words in my mouth. It is disgusting and unsanitary;)

Post by Dan
Is this just another way you discount someone who disagrees with you...?
Because they type in CAPS?

No, because they shout their ignorant opinion instead of presenting a
dialectical reasoned discussion, which _this_ author emphasized by
writing in all caps.

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson
Also, don't but into a thread without reading at least 5 or 6 of
the preceeding posts. This will save you from making embarrasing
mistakes of fact that render your contribution useless and
rude. You did not follow this rule.

A.) How do you know they haven't been reading everything you've been
postin.

It is pretty obvious that he hasn't. He made too many errors of fact.

Post by Dan
B.) Who made this a rule? You?

No. Learn how to use Google, and look at _any_ guide to
netiquette. You will find this rule in most of them, even if not
stated quite so directly.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Anonymouse
cute...but he did not hang out with the high and mighty pharissees

THis is a vacuous statement, since he did not "hang out" with
anyone.

Hmmmm...I coulda sworn he "hung out" with 12 guys called Apostles.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse
--who btw---flung around judgements and condemnation similar to the
way you do

No, they did not. You are just being obtuse again. There is a world of
a difference between what they did and what I do.

The elders of the temple tried to trick even Jesus by asking him about
healing on the sabbath...and what happens if your ox falls in a hole on the
sabbath.

Judgements and condemnations.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
And what do you think the Gentiles were?

a gentile is define by one's birth parents....not by behavior.

You miss the point.

The question is "and what do you think the gentiles were?"

The answer: Anyone born to non-jewish parents.

Pretty simple point.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse
....not to condemn (as you do)....jesus never condemned people....

Oh, really? Then how do you explain his use of the language of
condemnation, "child of hell", "blind fools", 'hypocrites' etc.in Mat
23:13-19?
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut
the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor
will you let those enter who are trying to.[a] >15"Woe to you, teachers of
the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!

This was Jesus admonishment to the Pharisees. Those that are so caught up
in rules they miss the whole point of Jesus message (Sound familiar)

These are people who spent more time trying to keep people OUT of the
Kingdom, that welcoming people into it. (Sound Familiar?)

A lesson I hope we all should lean from....do not be obsessed with
laws...but with the heart.

[Ray Deo]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
---Because no one has EVER proven you wrong, have they?

You are quoting me out of context. Let me put it another way, so that
even you cannot so easily misinterpret because of your failure or
refusal to take the context into consideration: no one in this NG has
ever proved me wrong on any substantial point...

No one has EVER proven him wrong...We've identified the problem here.

Post by Matthew Johnson
There were a couple of posts where I realized I made a substantial
mistake, and was afraid someone would call me on it, but nobody did!
Of course, I'm not telling you which those were;)

Of couse not...that would be humbling yourself...and we wouldn't want that!

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it does not. Was Paul doing "polite civil discourse" when he
cursed Elymas with blindness? I don't think so!

Did Jesus ever curse anyone with blindness??

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, he never said _which_ "rules of discourse" he
considers important. Even the FAQ and Charter fail to do this.

Do you need a FAQ to tell you how to behave?

[Ray Deo]

Jesus saus: "I am meek and humble of hearts".

Matthew Johnson says: "I have to be sure to get in the last word."

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
matt.....why are you being so obstinate?

Wrong question: the right question would be, why are _you_ being both
obtuse and obstinate?

So, in other words, no answer...just turning someone's question around,
like
it couldn't possibly apply?

Why are you complaining about this? you have done it far more often than
I.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

[Dan]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

So if you want to have een just a small chance of being taken
seriously when you write about "rules of polite civil discourse",
do not type in call caps.

Yes, if a newbie types in CAPS...it means they couldn't possibly have
something to say?

No, because they shout their ignorant opinion instead of presenting a
dialectical reasoned discussion, which _this_ author emphasized by
writing in all caps.

just like the pharisees, you focus on grammar, netiquette, precise hebrew
translations....while jesus walks right by.

jesus views the heart....not grammar.

while you may concern yourself with the minutia of hewbrew translations you
show no signs of lliving by any of it.

it all goes out the window when your ego is challenged.....

[ron]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says
_nothing_ about his claim that its "first premise is give/take".

The first line is: Discussion.

I knew that. Your repetition of what everyone knows establishes

Well it repeated because you said it wasn't the first premise of the
group.

And I am right. Your repetition did nothing to disprove me.

Post by Dan
WHile you weasel your way out of a mis-statement.

What? You haven't noticed yet? It isn't _my_ mis-statement. It is
yours. For the _Charter_ says "discussion", but _you_ say
"give/take". They are not the same. Only _some_ discussions involve
"give/take".

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it says 'discussion'. But as I already showed, 'discussion'
does not imply "give/take".

Yes, your premise that a discussion is not give/take was not
valid...as you just made it up.

Yes, it does. ...since you claimed the mere occurrence of the
word 'discussion' implies "give/take".

if you need to understand that a discussion includes some give and
take....and find the need to argue that point, you should stop the
"comparitive translations" course...and start taking vocabulary and writing
101.

BTW...Are you American?

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone who
is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I recommend
you give up.

I think we have discovered why all of Matt's threads turn into this kind
of
exchange.

You can't 'discover' what isn't even true, Dan. Who do you think you can
fool
with this claim? You have most certainly not looked at "all of my
threads".

Matt, you've been posting here a long time and most know what you're all
about by now.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
Once he pulls the "I'm always right" trump card...the best he can do is
insult....and never looking at himself.

Oh, so you are omniscient now? Is that how you know whether or not I look
at
myself?

Can you show a posting of yours where you showed any self-examination?

Post by Matthew Johnson
This kind of presumptuous claim to omniscience generally fools only the
person
who makes the claim -- such as you.

Or anyone else who has seen your postings.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ray Dio
Matt....give it up! your false christian bravado is tiring!

It is neither false, nor bravado. Perhaps it is you who should "give it up".

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Anonymouse
cute...but he did not hang out with the high and mighty pharissees

THis is a vacuous statement, since he did not "hang out" with
anyone.

Hmmmm...I coulda sworn he "hung out" with 12 guys called Apostles.

That is your error. What He was doing was NOT "hanging out". "Hanging
out" is what bored teenagers do in the mall. What Christ did was
different. Perhaps the bore teenagers cannot understand the
difference. Are you one of them?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse
--who btw---flung around judgements and condemnation similar to the
way you do

No, they did not. You are just being obtuse again. There is a world of
a difference between what they did and what I do.

The elders of the temple tried to trick even Jesus by asking him
about healing on the sabbath...and what happens if your ox falls in a
hole on the sabbath.

You do not understand this passage (Lk 14:2-6) at all. Surely this is
because you are just being obtuse again. The whole point of it is that
the Pharisees _did_ have an answer (Talmud Tractate Yoma 8:6) for
exactly this case: you _do_ rescue your ox, it is _not_ a 'work' that
violates the Sabbath (unless the ox is already dead). That is why they
"could not answer (Lk 14:6)". They would have had to admit they were
dead wrong.

Yet you got the facts wrong, and thought that the Pharisees posed this
question to Christ. No! It was Christ who used this example to rebuke
the Pharisees.

You really love showing off your ignorance of the Gospels, don't you?
Try actually _reading_ the Gospel before you post it:

And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. And Jesus spoke
to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the
sabbath, or not?" But they were silent. Then he took him and healed
him, and let him go. And he said to them, "Which of you, having a son
or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him
out on a sabbath day?" And they could not reply to this. (Luk 14:2-6
RSVA)

So just as I said: you missed the point of the passage completely, you
got all the facts wrong: it is _Jesus_ who said, this NOT the
Pharisees.

You are pathetic.

Post by A Brown
Judgements and condemnations.

Which you are doing a lot of in this thread. The difference is, of
course, that you are judging wickedly.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
And what do you think the Gentiles were?

a gentile is define by one's birth parents....not by behavior.

You miss the point.

The question is "and what do you think the gentiles were?"
The answer: Anyone born to non-jewish parents.
Pretty simple point.

Yet you keep missing it. Anyone born to non-jewish parents is a
sinner, and in those days, was usually assumed an irredeemable sinner.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Anonymouse
....not to condemn (as you do)....jesus never condemned people....

Oh, really? Then how do you explain his use of the language of
condemnation, "child of hell", "blind fools", 'hypocrites' etc.in Mat
23:13-19?
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut
the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor
will you let those enter who are trying to.[a] >15"Woe to you, teachers of
the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!

This was Jesus admonishment to the Pharisees.

You miss the point. The very _presence of this 'admonishment' proves you are
wrong, since you said "jesus never condemned people".

Post by A Brown
Those that are so caught up
in rules they miss the whole point of Jesus message (Sound familiar)

No, you have completely misunderstood. Not surprising, since you are
twisting the words of Scripture every which way to hide their true
meaning, which is to condmen YOU.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
---Because no one has EVER proven you wrong, have they?

You are quoting me out of context. Let me put it another way, so that
even you cannot so easily misinterpret because of your failure or
refusal to take the context into consideration: no one in this NG has
ever proved me wrong on any substantial point...

No one has EVER proven him wrong...We've identified the problem here.

No, you have not, since you are still failing to see that it is you
who is quoting out of context. But this is no surprise, since you are
even more bold at quoting Scripture out of context.

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson
There were a couple of posts where I realized I made a substantial
mistake, and was afraid someone would call me on it, but nobody did!
Of course, I'm not telling you which those were;)

Of couse not...that would be humbling yourself.

No, it would not be. The humbling myself already occured when I
noticed the mistake. It seems to you do not know the difference
between "to be humbled" and "to be criticized wrongly". They are not
the same.

Post by Ray Deo
and we wouldn't want that!

Your sarcasm is perfectly in character for the scoffer you have
established yourself to be.

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it does not. Was Paul doing "polite civil discourse" when he
cursed Elymas with blindness? I don't think so!

Did Jesus ever curse anyone with blindness??

Whose chosen vessel did you think Paul was?

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, he never said _which_ "rules of discourse" he
considers important. Even the FAQ and Charter fail to do this.

Do you need a FAQ to tell you how to behave?

No. But apparently you do, since you are continually ignoring it _and_
the basics of common sense, _and_ basic Christian ethics.

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by ron

Yes, it does. ...since you claimed the mere occurrence of the word
'discussion' implies "give/take".

if you need to understand that a discussion includes some give and
take....

It does not, as I have already proved several times now.

Post by ron
and find the need to argue that point, you should stop the
"comparitive translations" course...and start taking vocabulary and
writing 101.

So says the man who uses "..." where the rest of the world rightly
uses "." or ",".

It is you, not I, who needs the elementary writing course.

Post by ron
BTW...Are you American?

Why are you even asking this question? What relevance could it have to
the thread? Are you even aware of how you ironically set yourself up
for criticism by asking it? After all, it is you, not I, who keeps
making mistakes in spelling, grammar and punctuation typical of those
who never listened in 7th grade in an American school.

Likewish, it is you, not I, who keeps spurning the dictionary
definition of 'discussion' to insist instead on the mistaken and narrow
understanding popular among those Americans who thought the
"Presidential debates" were real examples of 'debates'.

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ray Dio
i like when matt changes the rules and the premise for which he's arguing.

I do no such thing. You simply never understood either the rules or the
premises. NO surprise.

Just another thing that _only_ you understand, I suppose.

[Ray Deo]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ray Dio
Matt....give it up! your false christian bravado is tiring!

It is neither false, nor bravado. Perhaps it is you who should "give it
up".

.....this guy is too much!

"I know you are but what am I".....must be part of his self-styled
orthodoxy.

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ray Dio

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by R***@giganews.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan the man....
again matt...why do you even come into a discussion group, who's
first premise is the give/take of ideas and information.

Because that is NOT the 'first premise'. Have you even bothered
to read the FAQ and Charter for this NG?

"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related
to
it."
Maybe Matt needs to look up the definition of "dicsussion".

Did _you_ look it up?

Again, deflect and make it about somebody else....

Is no petty lie too low for you, Brown? This was not "deflecting and
making it about someone else".

He was countering your comment that it's not the first premise when it is
the first line in the charter.

What? You can't read either? The first line in the charter says _nothing_
about
his claim that its "first premise is give/take". No, it says 'discussion'.
But
as I already showed, 'discussion' does not imply "give/take".

A Discussion is an *exchange* of ideas....In an exchange each sides GIVES
something and TAKES something.

It was so important that it is the first line of the charter/FAQ.

You might learn something if you stopped typing and feeding your own ego.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
its very hard to have a conversation or discussion with someone
who is always claiming they are right.

Why, yes. It is hard. Evidently it is too hard for you, so I
recommend you give up.

I think we have discovered why all of Matt's threads turn into this
kind of exchange.

You can't 'discover' what isn't even true, Dan. Who do you think
you can fool with this claim? You have most certainly not looked at
"all of my threads".

Matt, you've been posting here a long time and most know what you're all
about by now.

I have been posting here a long time, yes. But you have not. So you
have not been here nearly long enough to "know what I'm all
about". Few have.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan
Once he pulls the "I'm always right" trump card...the best he can
do is insult....and never looking at himself.

Oh, so you are omniscient now? Is that how you know whether or not
I look at myself?

Can you show a posting of yours where you showed any self-examination?

Wrong question, especially for someone who himself has never shown any
'self-examination' in any of his threads.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
This kind of presumptuous claim to omniscience generally fools only
the person who makes the claim -- such as you.

Or anyone else who has seen your postings.

Nonsense. This is just another of your many instances of the same
tired fallacy, the false generalization.

In fact, it is such a good example of it, it even offers a chance to
turn your own approach against you: for you have resorted to this
_same_ fallacy _so_ many times, in your _brief_ time in this NG, that
yes, we _do_ know "what you are all about". You are all about posting
outrageous falsehoods, perverting the Scriptures to teach depravity,
slandering those who oppose your wickedness, mostly relying on such
elementary logical errors as the fallacy of false generalization.

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by ron

Yes, it does. ...since you claimed the mere occurrence of the word
'discussion' implies "give/take".

if you need to understand that a discussion includes some give and
take....

It does not, as I have already proved several times now.

Post by ron
and find the need to argue that point, you should stop the
"comparitive translations" course...and start taking vocabulary and
writing 101.

So says the man who uses "..." where the rest of the world rightly
uses "." or ",".

It is you, not I, who needs the elementary writing course.

Post by ron
BTW...Are you American?

Why are you even asking this question? What relevance could it have to
the thread?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

So if you want to have een just a small chance of being taken
seriously when you write about "rules of polite civil discourse",
do not type in call caps.

Yes, if a newbie types in CAPS...it means they couldn't possibly have
something to say?

No, because they shout their ignorant opinion instead of presenting a
dialectical reasoned discussion, which _this_ author emphasized by
writing in all caps.

just like the pharisees, you focus on grammar, netiquette, precise hebrew
translations....while jesus walks right by.

Nonsense. Rather, just like the pathological liars, you repeat this
already discredit claim "just like the pharisees", when it is nothing
like the Pharisees.

Post by Dan
jesus views the heart....not grammar.

And when He views your heart, He sees much to condemn, He sees you
refusing to repent, instead plunging yourself deeper and deeper into
evil, so that on the day you are judged, you will hear His voice
saying:

And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me,
you evildoers.' (Mat 7:23 RSVA)

Post by Dan
while you may concern yourself with the minutia of hewbrew translations you
show no signs of lliving by any of it.

Another empty accusation, without even weak attempt to back it up.

Post by Dan
it all goes out the window when your ego is challenged.....

Another laughable attempt to play mind-reader. You do not have a clue
what you are talking about, yet that has never stopped you from
babbling forth your folly, just as does the fool described in the
Proverb you despise:

The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge, but the mouths of fools
pour out folly. (Pro 15:2 RSVA)

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ray Deo
Jesus saus: "I am meek and humble of hearts".

No, He says:

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Mat 11:29 RSVA)

If only your typo were the worst of your mistakes! But no, you have
quoted Him out of context. For you have _not_ learned from Him, and
are _refusing_ to do so. For if _you_ were "meek and humble of heart",
you would not be chafing so very childishly when you are
corrected. Instead, you would take up His yoke, which includes battle
against the very passions you are _defending_ in your posts.

Post by Ray Deo
Matthew Johnson says: "I have to be sure to get in the last word."

And supposing, just for a moment, just for argument's sake, that that
_were_ what I am doing, how would that differ from what _you_ are
doing? You are certainly trying to "get in the last word", and a very
poor last word it always is.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
---Because no one has EVER proven you wrong, have they?

You are quoting me out of context. Let me put it another way, so that
even you cannot so easily misinterpret because of your failure or
refusal to take the context into consideration: no one in this NG has
ever proved me wrong on any substantial point...

No one has EVER proven him wrong...We've identified the problem here.

No, you have not, since you are still failing to see that it is you
who is quoting out of context. But this is no surprise, since you are
even more bold at quoting Scripture out of context.

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson
There were a couple of posts where I realized I made a substantial
mistake, and was afraid someone would call me on it, but nobody did!
Of course, I'm not telling you which those were;)

Of couse not...that would be humbling yourself.

No, it would not be. The humbling myself already occured when I
noticed the mistake. It seems to you do not know the difference
between "to be humbled" and "to be criticized wrongly". They are not
the same.

Post by Ray Deo
and we wouldn't want that!

Your sarcasm is perfectly in character for the scoffer you have
established yourself to be.

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it does not. Was Paul doing "polite civil discourse" when he
cursed Elymas with blindness? I don't think so!

Did Jesus ever curse anyone with blindness??

Whose chosen vessel did you think Paul was?

Post by Ray Deo

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, he never said _which_ "rules of discourse" he
considers important. Even the FAQ and Charter fail to do this.

Do you need a FAQ to tell you how to behave?

No. But you do, since you are continually ignoring it.

[ron]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dan

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ronald
I WOULD THINK THE RULES OF POLITE CIVIL DISCOURSE WOULD BE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND...BUT WITH MATT IT ALWAYS TURNS INTO THIS....Y IS THAT?

So if you want to have een just a small chance of being taken
seriously when you write about "rules of polite civil discourse",
do not type in call caps.

Yes, if a newbie types in CAPS...it means they couldn't possibly have
something to say?

No, because they shout their ignorant opinion instead of presenting a
dialectical reasoned discussion, which _this_ author emphasized by
writing in all caps.

just like the pharisees, you focus on grammar, netiquette, precise hebrew
translations....while jesus walks right by.

Nonsense.

Oh, really?

Saint Luke 13,10-17.

He laid his hands on her, and she at once stood up straight and glorified
God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant that Jesus had cured on the
sabbath, said to the crowd in reply, "There are six days when work should be
done. Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day." The Lord said
to him in reply, "Hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the sabbath untie
his ox or his ass from the manger and lead it out for watering? This
daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now, ought she
not to have been set free on the sabbath day from this bondage?" When he
said this, all his adversaries were humiliated;

[ron]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by ron

Yes, it does. ...since you claimed the mere occurrence of the word
'discussion' implies "give/take".

if you need to understand that a discussion includes some give and
take....

It does not, as I have already proved several times now.

You haven't proven it ot anyone here. (Maybe to yourself?)

[Burkladies]

Nicely thought out, 'homosexual' as meaning a person engaging in
sexual acts with another of the same sex.
Even the Slippery slope of their holiness code did not cure sins of
the priests or other men. Their adultery is gravely disordered.
Some Jews have their religious tenents.
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18 ff)
prohibitions in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, 20:13)
Rom 1:26 ff
I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10
In addition Christ speaks of the sin inhospitality, not sexual
immorality in Matt. 10:15 "be more tolerable for Sodom".

Blessings

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Burkladies
Nicely thought out, 'homosexual' as meaning a person engaging in
sexual acts with another of the same sex.

"Nicely thought out"? What was that supposed to mean? A for the meaning of the
word, we just have to live with the fact that some people use it in the sense
you describe, some do not.

Post by Burkladies
Even the Slippery slope of their holiness code

The "Holiness Code" is NOT "slippery slope". Where did you get this wacky idea?

Post by Burkladies
did not cure sins of
the priests or other men.

Well, so what? It was never meant to. Paul clearly described this in Galatians,
where he describes the purpose of the Law as a _paedogogue_, NOT a cure for
sin(s).

Post by Burkladies
Their adultery is gravely disordered.

Pay attention to your own faults, not those of people long dead.

Post by Burkladies
Some Jews have their religious tenents.
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18 ff)
prohibitions in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, 20:13)
Rom 1:26 ff
I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10

What _about_ the prohibitions?

Post by Burkladies
In addition Christ speaks of the sin inhospitality, not sexual
immorality in Matt. 10:15 "be more tolerable for Sodom".

No, He says no such thing> Have you even read the verses you cite? There is
nothing there about "sin inhospitality". It is about refusing to repent.