Discussion:
(~) SURELY I CAN'T LOOK THAT OLD
(too old to reply)
Ninure Saunders
2006-08-04 01:25:16 UTC
Permalink
(~) SURELY I CAN'T LOOK THAT OLD

Have you ever been guilty of looking at others your own age and
thinking, "Surely I can't look that old"? An elderly woman was sitting in
the waiting room for her first appointment with a new dentist. She
noticed his DDS diploma, which bore his full name.

Suddenly, she remembered that a tall, handsome, dark-haired boy with the
same name had been in her high school class some 40-odd years ago. Could
he be the same guy that she had a secret crush on, way back then?

Upon seeing him, however, she quickly discarded any such thought. This
balding, gray-haired man with the deeply lined face was way, way too old
to have been her classmate....or was he?

After he examined her teeth, she asked him if he had attended Morgan
Park High School.

"Yes. Yes. I did...I'm a Morgan Mustang," he gleamed with pride.

"When did you graduate?" she asked.

He answered, "In 1959. Why do you ask?"

"You were in my class!" she exclaimed.

He looked at her closely...and then he asked, "What did you teach?"

It's easy, isn't it, to look at others our age and see all the changes
they've gone through -- the wrinkles they added, the hair they've lost,
and not realize that we have changed in exactly the same way? "Surely I
can't look that old!"

It's easy to do the same thing spiritually. We see the spiritual
"wrinkles" in others. We see what's lacking in their lives that ought to
be there. "Surely I'm not that sinful!" And, all the while, they are
looking at us, unaware of those problems in their own lives, but they see
the same blemishes in our lives!

Jesus didn't use the imagery of wrinkles and hair loss. Rather, he used
the imagery of dust and planks to make the same point.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay
no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your
brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there
is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of
your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your
brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Let's be honest enough to look in the mirror and say, "You know, I
really do look that old!" And let's be honest enough to look into the
mirror of God's Word and say, "You know, I really do have these sins in
my life." Only when we use a mirror on ourselves rather than a magnifying
glass on others will we begin to see some development in our spiritual
lives.

Have a great day!

Alan Smith
. =====================
--
Pax Christi,
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian

Jesus is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org

To send e-mail, remove your hat
shegeek72
2006-08-07 02:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninure Saunders
Let's be honest enough to look in the mirror and say, "You know, I
really do look that old!"
Actually, I don't look that old. :)

But your point is well taken. I find more hypocricy in Christians than
any other group.

Tara
--
Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a
fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-08 01:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Ninure Saunders
Let's be honest enough to look in the mirror and say, "You know, I
really do look that old!"
Actually, I don't look that old. :)
But your point is well taken. I find more hypocricy in Christians than
any other group.
Then you are not looking very hard. What about the hypocrisy of those who call
themselves Buddhist but at meat, drink strong liquor and partiticpate in
killing? What about the atheists who believe in horoscopes?

I could go on, but that should be enough.

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2006-08-09 03:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Then you are not looking very hard.
I've looked all my life - from my family to churches to my friends.
Obviously, there are Christians who aren't, but I've found rampant
hypocricy among Christians. Especially fundamentalists, who take the
Bible literally yet cherry-pick which parts they choose to follow, for
example Leviticus.
Post by Matthew Johnson
What about the atheists who believe in horoscopes?
Atheists don't believe in the non-existance of God; they take the
neutral viewpoint, neither believing, nor disbelieving, but instead
want observable, definitive proof of God's exisitance. Astrology has
nothing to do with religion. It's a science based on positions and
alignments of planetary bodies and their effects on humans, especially
at birth.

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-10 03:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Then you are not looking very hard.
I've looked all my life
I hate to break the news to you, but that still does not mean you are
"looking very hard".

This is for two reasons: 1) even all your 'looking' is unworthy of
that name 2) you claimed that hypocrisy was more prevalent among
Christians than among others. But I gave you the Buddhist example. You
have NOT been looking among them all your life.
Post by shegeek72
- from my family to churches to my friends.
A poor example of "looking very hard", since that is far, far too
narrow a circle. Does it even _include_ any genuine Buddhists?

Remember: you were NOT talking exclusively about Christians, since you
were comparing them to non-Christians.
Post by shegeek72
Obviously, there are Christians who aren't, but I've found rampant
hypocricy among Christians.
So have many of us. Yet we do not jump to the evil conclusion you
jumped to.
Post by shegeek72
Especially fundamentalists, who take the Bible literally yet
cherry-pick which parts they choose to follow, for example Leviticus.
Post by Matthew Johnson
What about the atheists who believe in horoscopes?
Atheists don't believe in the non-existance of God;
Sure, they do. What did you think the difference is between 'atheist'
and 'agnostic'? What you describe below is agnostic.
Post by shegeek72
they take the neutral viewpoint, neither believing, nor disbelieving,
That is agnostic, not atheist. How much longer will you dig yourself
into a hole showing off your ignorance like this?
Post by shegeek72
but instead want observable, definitive proof of God's exisitance.
Yet they accept the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence in favor of horoscopes! Don't you see the hypocrisy here?
Post by shegeek72
Astrology has nothing to do with religion.
Nonsense. It is _deeply_ rooted in ancient Babylonian religion. Even
today, in its much changed form, it is not free of that influence. For
its idea of 'fate' is totally antithetical to all but the ancient
pagan religions.
Post by shegeek72
It's a science based on positions and alignments of planetary bodies
and their effects on humans, especially at birth.
It is no 'science' at all.

But since you call it a 'science', it is a fair assumption that you
yourself are one of these 'atheists' who hypocritically believes in
astrology.

Thanks for exposing yourself.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B.G. Kent
2006-08-10 03:26:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, shegeek72 wrote:

...
Post by shegeek72
Atheists don't believe in the non-existance of God; they take the
neutral viewpoint, neither believing, nor disbelieving, but instead
want observable, definitive proof of God's exisitance. Astrology has
nothing to do with religion. It's a science based on positions and
alignments of planetary bodies and their effects on humans, especially
at birth.
Tara
B - I believe that Atheists are non-recognizant of theos or theas....in
other words "God "so them believing in astrology ...or some believing in
astrology is not going against their beliefs. Agnostics are the ones that
are still open to perhaps and maybes.

I.M.O
Bren
shegeek72
2006-08-11 03:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is for two reasons: 1) even all your 'looking' is unworthy of
that name 2) you claimed that hypocrisy was more prevalent among
Christians than among others. But I gave you the Buddhist example. You
have NOT been looking among them all your life.
Non sequitar. We are discussing Christians - this isn't a Buddhist ng.
Besides, your argument is weak as you're using the bad apple analogy
again. Hypocritical Buddhists do not excuse hypocritical Christians. I
didn't say there was no religion free of hypocricy.
Post by Matthew Johnson
A poor example of "looking very hard", since that is far, far too
narrow a circle.
I have a large family (mostly Christian), attended a Lutheran church
regularly as a child, went to a Catholic school and have numerous
friends, some Christian, some not. I can also learn about Christians
and their behavior from various media.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Sure, they do. What did you think the difference is between 'atheist'
and 'agnostic'? What you describe below is agnostic.
I agree the literal translation of "atheist" is one who doesn't believe
in the existance of God. However, I know some who identify as atheist,
but aren't convinced in the nonexistance of God and want to see
concrete proof.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet they accept the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence in favor of horoscopes! Don't you see the hypocrisy here?
Nope.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Astrology has nothing to do with religion.
Nonsense. It is _deeply_ rooted in ancient Babylonian religion.
In this case, astrology is based on science. You may not beleive it is,
but that doesn't change how astrology works. It has given me many
insights into human nature and my own personality, goals, behavior,
etc.

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem
Chris Smith
2006-08-11 03:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Astrology has nothing to do with religion.
Nonsense. It is _deeply_ rooted in ancient Babylonian religion. Even
today, in its much changed form, it is not free of that influence. For
its idea of 'fate' is totally antithetical to all but the ancient
pagan religions.
When one goes back that far, it's worth pointing out the difficulty of
drawing a line between religion and science. That said, a claim that
astrology was science rather than religion has some merit.

Astrology as practiced in Egypt and Babylon was certainly as close to
science as, for example, much of the work of Aristotle, who was
convinced that heavenly bodies must travel in a circle because a circle
is the "perfect" shape. Indeed, astrology was closer to the modern
scientific process, in that it was based on experience and observations
collected over time. Much of it was certainly true. The stars did
predict a lot of events (seasons, flooding of the Nile, etc.), and even
time of birth predicted things about people (malnutrition in early
childhood can have permanent effects). Astrology was serious business,
and was taken seriously. Ptolemy, who invented Fourier analysis 1800
years before Jean Fourier, was an astrologer, and he applied this
mathematical tool to astrology.

In such a world, it would have been silly not to believe in astrology.
Yes, in the modern world, we've largely separated out the truly causal
relationships into more well-founded scientific fields, and what's
*remains* of astrology is basically silliness in tabloid magazines.
However, this is a statement about modern astrology, and is unrelated to
its possible origins in Babylonian religion. (Actually, I think it's
fair to say that astrology had separate origins in various different
cultures.)
--
Chris Smith
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-14 03:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is for two reasons: 1) even all your 'looking' is unworthy of
that name 2) you claimed that hypocrisy was more prevalent among
Christians than among others. But I gave you the Buddhist
example. You have NOT been looking among them all your life.
Non sequitar. We are discussing Christians - this isn't a Buddhist ng.
I know it is not a Buddhist NG. But you have lost track of your own
train of thought. Christians are no more given to hypocrisy than
non-christians are. And this is exactly why your complaint is
groundless.
Post by shegeek72
Besides, your argument is weak as you're using the bad apple analogy
again.
No, I am not. If anyone is sinking to the "bad apple analogy", it is
you, since by slurring us all as 'hypocrites' (regarding the
exceptions as insignificant) you are accusing us all of being "bad
apples". Perhaps you would find it easier to follow the argument if
you had not lost track of your own train of thought.
Post by shegeek72
Hypocritical Buddhists do not excuse hypocritical Christians.
I never said they did. They do, however, invalidate your outrageous
slur against Christians, claiming that Christians are more
hypocritical.

Get a clue, 'shegeek'. Your 'observation' that Christians are
hypocrites is completely worthless.
Post by shegeek72
I didn't say there was no religion free of hypocricy.
I never said that was what you said. What you implied was the
Christians were more hypocritical than non-Christians.

Really, 'shegeek', if our memory is that bad, you really should give
up posting in any NG at any time.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
A poor example of "looking very hard", since that is far, far too
narrow a circle.
I have a large family (mostly Christian),
Looking within one family is _always_ a non-representative sample, no
matter how big the family is. Just the fact that they are one family
makes them non_representative.

You keep bragging that your citations are of scientific sources, yet
here you show such deep ignorance of a _fudamental_ principle of
scientific research.

This alone is enough to deny you any right to claim to know what is
scientific and what is not. But you give us even better reason to deny
it below!
Post by shegeek72
attended a Lutheran church regularly as a child,
Aha! So that is your problem;)
Post by shegeek72
went to a Catholic
school
Can you say, "from bad to worse"?
Post by shegeek72
and have numerous friends, some Christian, some not. I can also learn
about Christians and their behavior from various media.
All very limited sources. Have you even ever met a Chaldean Christian,
for example? Or a Copt?

Besides: although I won't join the ignorant voices who howl about
_liberal_ media bias, I _will_ agree with them that the media is
biased. Much too biased to be at all reliable as a source for learning
"about Christians and their behavior".
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Sure, they do. What did you think the difference is between
'atheist' and 'agnostic'? What you describe below is agnostic.
I agree the literal translation of "atheist" is one who doesn't
believe in the existance of God.
And that is why you should never have said what you said. But you do
not admit this. Instead, you come up with one lame excuse after
another.
Post by shegeek72
However, I know some who identify as atheist, but aren't convinced in
the nonexistance of God and want to see concrete proof.
Then they, like you, simply do not know the meaning of the words they
toss about. So yes, that is a lame excuse.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet they accept the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence in favor of horoscopes! Don't you see the hypocrisy here?
Nope.
But it is there, whether you recognize it or not.

Of course, it should surprise no one that you fail to recognize your
own hypocrisy. Hypocrites usually don't recognize their own
hypocrisy. Instead, they raise the accusation against others,as you
did against Christians as a whole.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Astrology has nothing to do with religion.
Nonsense. It is _deeply_ rooted in ancient Babylonian religion.
In this case, astrology is based on science.
No, it is not. This is even better evidence that you do not know what
science is.
Post by shegeek72
You may not beleive it is,
You are right about that.
Post by shegeek72
but that doesn't change how astrology works.
Astrology does NOT work. Rather, astrologers rely on trickery to fool
their victims into _believing_ that it works. It is scary how _easy_
it is to do this. But this ease is _also_ predicted by Scripture;
those who _really_ have insights into human nature recognize this in
the Proverb:

Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water;
but a man of understanding will draw it out. (Pro 20:5 RV)

You are not that "man of understanding". But St. Augustine was. And it
was Augustine who exposed the secret forms of deception used by
astrologers. Little has changed since then.
Post by shegeek72
It has given me many insights into human nature
You? Insights? Into human nature at that? Now -that- is funny.
Post by shegeek72
and my own personality, goals, behavior, etc.
You don't have any insight into these either. If you did, you would
have recognized, for example, that your goal of hiding your genetic
gender and carving a lie into your own flesh is a purely evil goal.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2006-08-15 00:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
I never said that was what you said. What you implied was the
Christians were more hypocritical than non-Christians.
Correct. Do you follow all of the laws of Leviticus?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Really, 'shegeek', if our memory is that bad, you really should give
up posting in any NG at any time.
Not gonna happen anytime soon (especially if you continue to use my
nick in quotes).
Post by Matthew Johnson
Can you say, "from bad to worse"?
Exactly. From Lutheran church I discovered Christian hypocricy. From
Catholic school I discovered more hypocricy, repression of women and
the disregard of the science of evolution.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: although I won't join the ignorant voices who howl about
_liberal_ media bias, I _will_ agree with them that the media is
biased. Much too biased to be at all reliable as a source for learning
"about Christians and their behavior".
All you have to do is see what the Bush admin is up to, as well as
anti-gay groups like "Focus on the Family."
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet they accept the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence in favor of horoscopes!
Proof?
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not. This is even better evidence that you do not know what
science is.
I've studied astrology for years and know from direct observations that
it works.
Post by Matthew Johnson
You are not that "man of understanding".
Nope. Not a man at all. :)
Post by Matthew Johnson
You don't have any insight into these either. If you did, you would
have recognized, for example, that your goal of hiding your genetic
gender and carving a lie into your own flesh is a purely evil goal.
We've been around this block several times, Doris. Unless a gene test
is performed you, nor ANYONE, can say_definitively_that I'm XY. As I
stated numerous times - that you conveniently ignore - many
transsexuals have genetic abnormalities such as XXX, XXY, etc. and some
babies are born a phenotype male with XX genes and vice-versa. Perhaps
some study into genetics and gender is in order.

Tara
--
Beware of the God
http://www.bewareofthegod.com/
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-16 03:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
I never said that was what you said. What you implied was the
Christians were more hypocritical than non-Christians.
Correct. Do you follow all of the laws of Leviticus?
This stupid question shows you do not understand Christianity at
all. We are not now, nor have we ever been bound to follow ALL of
them.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Really, 'shegeek', if our memory is that bad, you really should give
up posting in any NG at any time.
Not gonna happen anytime soon (especially if you continue to use my
nick in quotes).
Then you will continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into a
hole. You are losing credibility fast with your foolish defence of
astrology.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Can you say, "from bad to worse"?
Exactly. From Lutheran church I discovered Christian hypocricy. From
Catholic school I discovered more hypocricy, repression of women and
the disregard of the science of evolution.
I know many people who went to Catholic school. I even went to one
myself for about 2 months. I _never_ found them showing "disregard for
the science of evolution". On the contrary: Papal encyclicals
encourage teaching it.

So once again, you are showing you have not a clue what you are
talking about. Catholic schools have been teaching evolution in
biology classes for over 40 years now.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: although I won't join the ignorant voices who howl about
_liberal_ media bias, I _will_ agree with them that the media is
biased. Much too biased to be at all reliable as a source for
learning "about Christians and their behavior".
All you have to do is see what the Bush admin is up to, as well as
anti-gay groups like "Focus on the Family."
No, that is NOt "all you have to do". Unless, of course, "all you want
to do" is cast slanderous aspersions.

Now why do I find it so easy to believe that is all you want to do?
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet they accept the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence in favor of horoscopes!
Proof?
You accept the fake 'proof' of astrology and you have the gall to ask
for proof? Why, your _own_ case is proof. All you have offered, all
you -can- offer is "the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence" in favor of horoscopes!

Saying "know from direct observations that it works" IS "the most
indefinitive, questionably 'observable' evidence" in favor of
horoscopes!

Your failure to recognize this is _more_ evidence that you know
NOTHING about science.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not. This is even better evidence that you do not know
what science is.
I've studied astrology for years and know from direct observations
that it works.
Augustine studied it for years too, and decided it was fraud. Guess
who I am going to believe.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
You are not that "man of understanding".
Nope. Not a man at all. :)
Post by Matthew Johnson
You don't have any insight into these either. If you did, you would
have recognized, for example, that your goal of hiding your genetic
gender and carving a lie into your own flesh is a purely evil goal.
We've been around this block several times, Doris.
And you botched it EVERY time.
Post by shegeek72
Unless a gene test is performed you, nor ANYONE, can
say_definitively_that I'm XY.
First of all, no, that is not true. More important, as I already
pointed out, it is not "XY" that makes one male, despite what they say
in high school biology; it is the SRY region. And your photographs
make it pretty clear you _had_ that, and it was being expressed.

That makes you male, no matter how much you dislike it.
Post by shegeek72
As I stated numerous times - that you conveniently ignore -
I have not _ignored_ it; I refuted your claim to its relevance and
accuracy.
Post by shegeek72
many transsexuals have genetic abnormalities such as XXX, XXY,
etc. and some babies are born a phenotype male with XX genes and
vice-versa. Perhaps some study into genetics and gender is in order.
Yes, it is in order. For you. But of course, as long as you are so
confused as to think that astrology is a science, you are _incapable_
of such study.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2006-08-17 03:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
This stupid question shows you do not understand Christianity at
all. We are not now, nor have we ever been bound to follow ALL of
them.
I'm referring mostly to fundamentalists who take the Bible literally.
If they're going to rely on Leviticus, specifically a "man shall not
lie with a man as a woman," then not following the other "abominations"
is hypocritical.
Post by Matthew Johnson
I know many people who went to Catholic school. I even went to one
myself for about 2 months. I _never_ found them showing "disregard for
the science of evolution".
Then we went to different schools as the Catholic school I went to
denounced evolution.
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, that is NOt "all you have to do". Unless, of course, "all you want
to do" is cast slanderous aspersions.
Let's see, Bush claims to be on a "mission from God," so we have an
admin that's ignoring the separation of church and state and imposing
its religious idealogy on Americans, i.e. reduced funding for stem cell
research, trying to write discrimination into the Constitution via the
DMA, prohibiting schools from teaching sex ed. unless they make
"abstinence only" education the major, or sometimes, only sex ed,
telling families when they can pull the plug on a terminally ill kin,
etc.
Post by Matthew Johnson
You accept the fake 'proof' of astrology and you have the gall to ask
for proof? Why, your _own_ case is proof. All you have offered, all
you -can- offer is "the most indefinitive, questionably 'observable'
evidence" in favor of horoscopes!
Nice jop of side-stepping providing a source for your claim.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
I've studied astrology for years and know from direct observations
that it works.
Augustine studied it for years too, and decided it was fraud. Guess
who I am going to believe.
I really don't care. :)
Post by Matthew Johnson
First of all, no, that is not true. More important, as I already
pointed out, it is not "XY" that makes one male, despite what they say
in high school biology; it is the SRY region.
Not exactly. Normally, XX produces a female and XY produces male. The
SRY is usually found in individuals with both male and female
characteristics; it is possible to have XY women and XX me and SRY is
responsible for testis formation in these people, though they're
usually under-developed.

However, that's only part of the picture. The prevailing thinking today
on the cause of transsexuality is due to a hormonal mix-up at critical
times in the fetus's development. Probably during the development and
sex differentiation of the brain to either female (default) or male,
substantiating that gender is hard-wired before birth and somehow the
wires got crossed in transsexuals. More research needs to be done.

Your emphasis on SRY is only part of the equation.
Post by Matthew Johnson
And your photographs
make it pretty clear you _had_ that, and it was being expressed.
Just what photos are those?
Post by Matthew Johnson
That makes you male, no matter how much you dislike it.
Nope. It makes me transsexual.

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-18 02:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
This stupid question shows you do not understand Christianity at
all. We are not now, nor have we ever been bound to follow ALL of
them.
I'm referring mostly to fundamentalists who take the Bible literally.
So you say now. But you are backpedaling. And it is NOT just those
'fundamentalists' who oppose your depravity. So you do not escape the
charge: you do not understand CHristianity at all.
Post by shegeek72
If they're going to rely on Leviticus, specifically a "man shall not
lie with a man as a woman," then not following the other
"abominations" is hypocritical.
No, it is not. There are good reasons to follow some but not all of
the Levitical Law. But you never listen to what the reasons are, since
you are here in this NG only to spread foul propaganda, not to do
anything good.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
I know many people who went to Catholic school. I even went to one
myself for about 2 months. I _never_ found them showing "disregard
for the science of evolution".
Then we went to different schools as the Catholic school I went to
denounced evolution.
You miss the point. Of _course_ I went to a different one. But YOU
made your rash generalization based on your own very limited personal
experience. I did not. This proves not only that you know nothing
about Christianity, but also that you know nothing about the
scientific method. Yet you keep claiming that science supports you.

This would be hilarious if it were not tragic.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, that is NOt "all you have to do". Unless, of course, "all you
want to do" is cast slanderous aspersions.
Let's see, Bush claims to be on a "mission from God," so we have an
admin that's ignoring the separation of church and state
You have no idea what it is like to live in a country that _really_
ignores the separation of church and state. If you did, you would know
better than to whine about GWB's rather minor transgressions.
Post by shegeek72
and imposing its religious idealogy on Americans,
But wait a minute: you are doing the same thing, when you insist that
the state regard marriage the way you do.
Post by shegeek72
i.e. reduced funding for stem cell research,
Of all your accusations against GWB, this is the only one that is even
close to accurate.
Post by shegeek72
trying to write discrimination into the Constitution via the DMA,
That is NOT 'discrimination'.
Post by shegeek72
prohibiting schools from teaching sex ed. unless they make
"abstinence only" education the major, or sometimes, only sex ed,
There is nothing a priori wrong with that.
Post by shegeek72
telling families when they can pull the plug on a terminally ill kin,
etc.
There is nothing a priori wrong with that either. Government _does_
have this right. To have some say in it is even a _duty_ of
government, since good governemnt, whether Christian or not, must
protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
You accept the fake 'proof' of astrology and you have the gall to
ask for proof? Why, your _own_ case is proof. All you have offered,
all you -can- offer is "the most indefinitive, questionably
'observable' evidence" in favor of horoscopes!
Nice jop of side-stepping providing a source for your claim.
I already gave you sources for these claims. You ignored them. So you
have no right to press demands for them now.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
I've studied astrology for years and know from direct observations
that it works.
Augustine studied it for years too, and decided it was fraud. Guess
who I am going to believe.
I really don't care. :)
Well, I -knew- you didn't care. For it has -long- been obvious that
you don't care a fig for the truth. You only care for rationalizations
that support your choice for depravity.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
First of all, no, that is not true. More important, as I already
pointed out, it is not "XY" that makes one male, despite what they
say in high school biology; it is the SRY region.
Not exactly. Normally, XX produces a female and XY produces male. The
SRY is usually found in individuals with both male and female
characteristics; it is possible to have XY women and XX me and SRY is
responsible for testis formation in these people, though they're
usually under-developed.
How are you going to get SRY expression in XX? You are not thinking
straight. No surprise, though.
Post by shegeek72
However, that's only part of the picture. The prevailing thinking today
on the cause of transsexuality is due to a hormonal mix-up at critical
times in the fetus's development.
Since you profess such a foolish faith in astrology as 'science', we
know we cannot take your word for what is "prevailing thinking" among
_scientists_.

[snip]
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
And your photographs make it pretty clear you _had_ that, and it
was being expressed.
Just what photos are those?
The photos I saw when I visited it long ago.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
That makes you male, no matter how much you dislike it.
Nope. It makes me transsexual.
No, it does not. You are living a lie.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2006-08-21 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
So you say now. But you are backpedaling. And it is NOT just those
'fundamentalists' who oppose your depravity. So you do not escape the
charge: you do not understand CHristianity at all.
I understand Christianity. It's core tenants of love, tolerance and the
tranformative power of God. Unfortunately, some don't follow those
precepts and would rather try to impose their beliefs on others; those
who are different, but still their brothers and sisters and try to
regulate their lives, tell them who they can marry, what gender they
have to be, when they can die, etc.
Post by Matthew Johnson
You miss the point. Of _course_ I went to a different one. But YOU
made your rash generalization based on your own very limited personal
experience.
Very limted personal experience? By your own admittance you only
attended Catholic school for two months. I did for two-and-a-half years
and I do remember evolution being denounced.
Post by Matthew Johnson
You have no idea what it is like to live in a country that _really_
ignores the separation of church and state. If you did, you would know
better than to whine about GWB's rather minor transgressions.
I don't consider denying civil rights to millions of Americans a minor
transgression.
Post by Matthew Johnson
But wait a minute: you are doing the same thing, when you insist that
the state regard marriage the way you do.
Not at all. Gay marriage will do nothing to effect Christians or hetero
marriage. It will merely allow another group of people to marry.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
prohibiting schools from teaching sex ed. unless they make
"abstinence only" education the major, or sometimes, only sex ed,
Abstinence only sex ed has been shown time and again not to prevent
teen pregnancy. Indeed, in areas where it's used teen pregnancy
has_increased_.
Post by Matthew Johnson
There is nothing a priori wrong with that either. Government _does_
have this right.
In your opinion. I don't want the govt. deciding when I can die if I'm
terminally ill. Government should resist meddling with people's private
lives whenever possible.
Post by Matthew Johnson
I already gave you sources for these claims.
No, you didn't. You refused to provide a source, but instead shifted
the subject to something else (astrology), which is your typical MO.
Post by Matthew Johnson
How are you going to get SRY expression in XX? You are not thinking
straight.
Uh, no.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=gnd.section.156

"Usually, a woman has two X chromosomes (XX) and a man one X and one Y
(XY). However, both male and female characteristics can sometimes be
found in one individual, and it is possible to have XY women and XX
men. Analysis of such individuals has revealed some of the molecules
involved in sex determination, including one called SRY, which is
important for testis formation."
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Just what photos are those?
The photos I saw when I visited it long ago.
LOL! How adept you are at not giving a straight answer. You should be a
tele-evangelist!
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it does not. You are living a lie.
Incorrect. I was living a lie before transition. I'm curious though -
how many transgender people do you know or have talked to. I'd bet next
to none.

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem
Chris Smith
2006-08-21 01:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
I know many people who went to Catholic school. I even went to one
myself for about 2 months. I _never_ found them showing "disregard for
the science of evolution". On the contrary: Papal encyclicals
encourage teaching it.
So once again, you are showing you have not a clue what you are
talking about. Catholic schools have been teaching evolution in
biology classes for over 40 years now.
Oh, if only things were that simple. I suspect Tara is writing from the
U.S. where Catholics often compete with fundamentalists in looking
silly. Try telling someone in charge at EWTN, a nominally Catholic
television network in Alabama, that there are encyclicals and
encouragements from the Vatican in support of evolution. You'll find
them twisting into all sorts of contortions and jumping through
interesting hoops to explain to you why they shouldn't have to pay
attention to the Vatican on this one. (This whole exercise will occur
during a rare pause from criticizing "cafeteria Catholics" for picking
and choosing what parts of Catholic teachings they want to believe.)

Of course I don't agree with Tara that this indicates any kind of
unusual degree of hypocrisy among Christians. It indicates far more
about human nature than Christianity.
--
Chris Smith
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-22 02:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Matthew Johnson
I know many people who went to Catholic school. I even went to one
myself for about 2 months. I _never_ found them showing "disregard for
the science of evolution". On the contrary: Papal encyclicals
encourage teaching it.
So once again, you are showing you have not a clue what you are
talking about. Catholic schools have been teaching evolution in
biology classes for over 40 years now.
Oh, if only things were that simple. I suspect Tara is writing from the
U.S.
And so am I. Yet the overwhelming majority of Catholic schools, scientists,
priests I have dealt with admit both to evolution and to the ~18 billion year
age of the universe.
Post by Chris Smith
where Catholics often compete with fundamentalists in looking
silly.
How often does this really happen?
Post by Chris Smith
Try telling someone in charge at EWTN, a nominally Catholic
television network in Alabama,
But in my experience, EWTN is very much the exception, not the rule.
Post by Chris Smith
that there are encyclicals and
encouragements from the Vatican in support of evolution. You'll find
them twisting into all sorts of contortions and jumping through
interesting hoops to explain to you why they shouldn't have to pay
attention to the Vatican on this one.
But as you rightly point out, they _do_ have to resort to contortions. And it is
painfully obvious that they are rationalizing.
Post by Chris Smith
(This whole exercise will occur
during a rare pause from criticizing "cafeteria Catholics" for picking
and choosing what parts of Catholic teachings they want to believe.)
Which of course, makes it all the more humourous -- and tragic at the same time,
since it means that that do what they themselves condemn.
Post by Chris Smith
Of course I don't agree with Tara that this indicates any kind of
unusual degree of hypocrisy among Christians. It indicates far more
about human nature than Christianity.
And this is _exactly_ what 'Tara' is hiding from. He does not want to admit this
fact, but wants to use the existence of such hypocrisy as a slur against
Christians and Christianity.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-23 03:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
So you say now. But you are backpedaling. And it is NOT just those
'fundamentalists' who oppose your depravity. So you do not escape the
charge: you do not understand CHristianity at all.
I understand Christianity.
No, you do not.
Post by shegeek72
It's core tenants of love, tolerance and the
tranformative power of God.
But you deny both the love and the trasformative[sic] power! For you
_deny_ His transformative power when you give excuse after excuse for
abiding in sin, claiming (whether explicitly or implicitly) that He
made you that way.
Post by shegeek72
Unfortunately, some don't follow those
precepts
Such as you.
Post by shegeek72
and would rather try to impose their beliefs on others; those who are
different, but still their brothers and sisters and try to regulate
their lives, tell them who they can marry, what gender they have to
be, when they can die, etc.
Making a series of false accusations like this shows that you do not
understand Christian love.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
You miss the point. Of _course_ I went to a different one. But YOU
made your rash generalization based on your own very limited
personal experience.
Very limted personal experience? By your own admittance you only
attended Catholic school for two months. I did for two-and-a-half
years and I do remember evolution being denounced.
You miss the point. I gave the counterexample to disprove your rash
generalization. Two months was more than enough for that.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
You have no idea what it is like to live in a country that _really_
ignores the separation of church and state. If you did, you would know
better than to whine about GWB's rather minor transgressions.
I don't consider denying civil rights to millions of Americans a minor
transgression.
Then why are you raising such a stink about something _else_ that GWB
did?
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
But wait a minute: you are doing the same thing, when you insist that
the state regard marriage the way you do.
Not at all. Gay marriage will do nothing to effect Christians or hetero
marriage. It will merely allow another group of people to marry.
So you love to repeat. But always without any evidence. And no wonder:
because it is false.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
prohibiting schools from teaching sex ed. unless they make
"abstinence only" education the major, or sometimes, only sex ed,
Abstinence only sex ed has been shown time and again not to prevent
teen pregnancy. Indeed, in areas where it's used teen pregnancy
has_increased_.
Which is not enough to disprove my statement. Don't you know what 'a
priori' means?
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
There is nothing a priori wrong with that either. Government _does_
have this right.
In your opinion. I don't want the govt. deciding when I can die if
I'm terminally ill.
Tough. That is not your option. If you were Christian, you would
subject yourselfr to government's authority as Rom 13:1-7 commands.
Post by shegeek72
Government should resist meddling with people's
private lives whenever possible.
Perhaps they should, but that is beside the point: Christians must
obey whether the government resists meddling or not.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
I already gave you sources for these claims.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did. Perhaps if you didn't snip so rashly, you would see
this. Why, you even snipped what "these claims" must refer to!
Post by shegeek72
You refused to provide a source, but instead shifted the subject to
something else (astrology), which is your typical MO.
There was a good reason for the 'switch'. Your endorsment of astrology
shows you have NO credibility when appealing to 'scientific' proof'.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
How are you going to get SRY expression in XX? You are not thinking
straight.
Uh, no.
Uh, yes. You really are not thinking straight. You show this by
snipping without marking where you snip, too.
Post by shegeek72
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=gnd.section.156
"Usually, a woman has two X chromosomes (XX) and a man one X and one
Y (XY). However, both male and female characteristics can sometimes
be found in one individual, and it is possible to have XY women and
XX men. Analysis of such individuals has revealed some of the
molecules involved in sex determination, including one called SRY,
which is important for testis formation."
Didn't you read this before you cited it? It says that maleness
_still_ results _exclusively_ from the expression of the SRY
region. But that IS what my point was. The so-called "XX men" do NOT
have a normal X chromosome. Rather, their X chromosome has an SRY
region on it. It is only secondary characteristics they are
missing. But you were not. So you were not one of these "XX men".
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Just what photos are those?
The photos I saw when I visited it long ago.
LOL! How adept you are at not giving a straight answer. You should be
a tele-evangelist!
That IS a straight answer. Do I have to give you the name of the GIF file?
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it does not. You are living a lie.
Incorrect.
So you keep telling yourself. But you can fool yourself more easily
than you can fool me.
Post by shegeek72
I was living a lie before transition.
That could be true, too. It does not contradict what I said. Why
shouldn't I believe that you simply changed which lie you live?
Post by shegeek72
I'm curious though - how many transgender people do you know or have
talked to. I'd bet next to none.
No doubt you would bet that. But this proves nothing -- except how
desperate you are to snatch at fallacies that appear to support you.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2006-08-25 05:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
because it is false.
Ok, Doris. Then tell us how gay marriage will negatively affect
Christians or hetero marriage.
Post by Matthew Johnson
That IS a straight answer. Do I have to give you the name of the GIF file?
That'd help as there are many photos on my website.
Post by Matthew Johnson
That could be true, too. It does not contradict what I said. Why
shouldn't I believe that you simply changed which lie you live?
That's a contradiction. Was I living a lie before or after transition
(in your opinion)? It can't be both.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
I'm curious though - how many transgender people do you know or have
talked to. I'd bet next to none.
No doubt you would bet that. But this proves nothing -- except how
desperate you are to snatch at fallacies that appear to support you.
How about giving a straight answer instead of avoiding it?

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-28 02:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
because it is false.
Ok, Doris.
This is a perfect example of how you forfeit all right to complain about others
being 'uncivil'.
Post by shegeek72
Then tell us how gay marriage will negatively affect
Christians or hetero marriage.
That has already been explained. You ignored large parts and retorted with many
fallacies of distraction.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
That IS a straight answer. Do I have to give you the name of the GIF file?
That'd help as there are many photos on my website.
Do your own homework. You put the photos there.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
That could be true, too. It does not contradict what I said. Why
shouldn't I believe that you simply changed which lie you live?
That's a contradiction.
No, it is not a contradiction. If you are going to speak this ignorantly, you
have no right to complain when your ignorance is exposed and criticized. Yet you
persist.
Post by shegeek72
Was I living a lie before or after transition
(in your opinion)?
This fallacy is called "a false dilemma". For it is not true that it has to be
either or. It can easily be both.
Post by shegeek72
It can't be both.
Sure, it can.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
I'm curious though - how many transgender people do you know or have
talked to. I'd bet next to none.
No doubt you would bet that. But this proves nothing -- except how
desperate you are to snatch at fallacies that appear to support you.
How about giving a straight answer instead of avoiding it?
It is you who has habitually aboided straight answers. And when you finally do
deliver a straight answer, it is based on a fallacy, as is your "it can't be
both". It can be and it is.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2006-08-29 03:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a perfect example of how you forfeit all right to complain about others
being 'uncivil'.
As is your using my nick in quotes and male pronouns.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Do your own homework. You put the photos there.
Obviously, I put the photos there. You're the one who's claimed one of
my photos demonstrates I didn't express SRY. I've looked them over and
can't see how one could come to that conclusion. Therefore, the
responsibility is upon you to back up your claim, though I doubt you
will as you frequently make claims without substantiation.
Post by Matthew Johnson
It is you who has habitually aboided straight answers. And when you finally do
deliver a straight answer, it is based on a fallacy, as is your "it can't be
both". It can be and it is.
Once again, a claim without veracity. I think you're losing the debate,
Doris. :P

Tara
--
Pro-life / pro-war: oxymoron
Loading...