Re: Bush nominates homophobe for surgeon general
- From: Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:04:31 GMT
In article <HVgki.11880$g44.17@trnddc02>, shegeek72 says...
On Jul 4, 5:33 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now let's go back to the original context, no matter how much it pains
you. And yes, I already know that it does pain you, since you
specifically asked the Moderator to allow the 'X-no-archive' header in
your posts so that you can run away from facing your own words.
Uh, no. I didn't ask the mod to use the 'no archive' in the header.
You're caught in one lie already. If you don't believe me, ask him.
No, I am not "caught in one lie". You are. You really did ask the
Moderator to allow 'X-No-Archive' (which his moderation software
normally strips out). He even told you how to get Google to honor it.
But of course, since you were successful for at least a brief time,
the posts where you discussed this are not _in_ Google. You have
hidden your tracks well.
But there is one such set of tracks you have failed to hide: you have
failed to hide your use of mock indignation as a cover for your
refusal to return to the original context and admit your error or
deception.
If you had returned to it, you would have answered the point I made:
So now reading your words, "You imply I read the Bible with
preconceived notions", we see the _point_ is whether or not you read
it with preconceived notions.
That this is the point is immediately confirmed by my reply to your
shameless words, which _also_ has the same point: "What? Do you really
expect anyone to take your word for this? Why should we?"
Now let's compare this with what you _later_ say is the point: "not
everyone is going to accept what I say".
Now _think_ this time: how _do_ these compare? Are they identical? No,
they are not. So how can you claim that whether people _accept_ what
you say has anything to do with the point?
You cannot, except by turning to subterfuge. So of course, after
seeing this, I will assume that your motive for claiming the point is
'acceptance' is subterfuge. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I
will be alone in making this assumption. For your posts _reek_ of
dishonest simulations of reasoning.
Now try answering it this time. THINK.
A lot of people 'benefit' from graft, corruption and protection
rackets, also not mentioned by such names in the Bible; that doesn't
make them right. Nor does it mean that the Bible teaches them.
Perhaps if you attended a yoga class, or tried meditation, you'd
understand there's nothing harmful in either. They are both found in
Eastern spiritualities.
Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps I would see the harm you still do not
yet see done to yourself. After all: you failed to see the harm you do
to your own credibility by refusing to face the original context.
Despite what Merton thought, "Eastern Spiritualities" and Christianity
do NOT mix.
The _real_ Semitic "cultural practice at the time" was to kill
people who engaged in homosexual activity, whether prostitution or
not. Face up to that fact.
There was homosexual prostitution and homosexual rape used as a means
of humiliation. These account for the prohibitions on homosexuality in
the Bible.
No, they do not account for it. This is one of the lies you keep on
repeating. They do not even get close to accounting for it.
Your elective surgery does. It makes you look female, when in
truth you are male.
Debatable.
So why do you keep on dodging genuine debate? Why do you hide your
attempt to run away from facing teh original context under mock
indignation?
Research indicates MTF transsexuals are born with female brains and
vice-versa for FTMs.
No, that is not what the research indicates. Rather, that is a
_highly_ questionable _interpretation_ of the already-biased
research. That 'research' is no more reliable than the company-funded
research the tobacco companies cited to claim that tobacco smoking
does not cause cancer.
You miss the point. You yourself admit you never had the genetic
testing done, so you do NOT have any grounds to think that you are
one of them.
And YOU do not have any proof for claiming I was born XY either.
But as I already explained, that is quite beside the point. Stop
dodging the issue. You yourself give proof on your website that SRY
expression did take place. That makes you biologically MALE. No amount
of surgery and hormone 'therapy' can change that.
You miss the point yet again. It doesn't _have_ to, since the fraud
of 'transgender' procedures was beyond their technology.
There still must have been transgender people back then.
Nonsense. YOU want to believe this fiction since it gives you a handy
excuse for your depravity. But is is fiction.
Typically, when people have issues with homosexuality or
transexuality, it's because they have their own suppressed sexuality
and gender issues.
This too, is 'debatable'. But yet again, you studiously avoid true
debate, instead resorting to responding with sound-bites based on
total nonsense.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Homosexuality: an imaginary interview with Jesus
- Next by Date: Criteria for success
- Previous by thread: Re: Bush nominates homophobe for surgeon general
- Next by thread: Proof that gay people can change
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
