"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy,
And the dogs that bark revolution.
Drunk with talk, liars and believers.
I believe in my tusks. Long live freedom and damn the ideologies!"
(Robinson Jeffers)
You're trap was poorly laid. My explanation of the relevant passage indicateds I did not fall into it, and your question is already answered.
In regards to context of the use of fornication or sexual immorality, my point is proven. Those speaking and listening at the time would have understood these terms to include homosexuality and premarital sex.
Disabling comments has the appearance of an attempt to save face in front of other readers. I would've been happy to agree to disagree.
Since you don't want your blatant misunderstanding of Scripture pointed out, I won't be back. It's your house.
In the usual case, I would delete your comment above as off-topic for the post against which you put it. However, I’ve decided to let it appear for the following reasons: -- Your “explanation of the relevant passage” explained nothing, as anyone who reads your comment and my refutation can see for himself. -- You’ve demonstrated a deficiency in rhetoric: asserting that a point is “proven” without actually proving it is one of the classic rhetorical fallacies. -- If you were happy to agree to disagree, you would not have commented as you have above. -- Your churlishness undermines any argument you might make; consider this a free lesson in “how to win friends and influence people,” if that’s of any importance to you.
I closed comments on this pieceprecisely because you strike me as the sort who cannot agree to disagree; you simply need to be right. I’ve known others like you, and because they must prevail in any disagreement over anything, I strive to avoid them.
2 comments:
You're trap was poorly laid. My explanation of the relevant passage indicateds I did not fall into it, and your question is already answered.
In regards to context of the use of fornication or sexual immorality, my point is proven. Those speaking and listening at the time would have understood these terms to include homosexuality and premarital sex.
Disabling comments has the appearance of an attempt to save face in front of other readers. I would've been happy to agree to disagree.
Since you don't want your blatant misunderstanding of Scripture pointed out, I won't be back. It's your house.
Dear Clyde,
In the usual case, I would delete your comment above as off-topic for the post against which you put it. However, I’ve decided to let it appear for the following reasons:
-- Your “explanation of the relevant passage” explained nothing, as anyone who reads your comment and my refutation can see for himself.
-- You’ve demonstrated a deficiency in rhetoric: asserting that a point is “proven” without actually proving it is one of the classic rhetorical fallacies.
-- If you were happy to agree to disagree, you would not have commented as you have above.
-- Your churlishness undermines any argument you might make; consider this a free lesson in “how to win friends and influence people,” if that’s of any importance to you.
I closed comments on this pieceprecisely because you strike me as the sort who cannot agree to disagree; you simply need to be right. I’ve known others like you, and because they must prevail in any disagreement over anything, I strive to avoid them.
Have a nice life.
Post a Comment