Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Achilles who wrote (56457)	7/15/1999 1:23:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I actually quite enjoy differing views, though I may vigourously reject them. Nevertheless I do not tolerate liars. >I'm not sure how you know what [my] views they hold, however, until you have a civil conversation with them.< Well I am sure. Some views are simply unworthy of civil treatment. When a guy begins to play tricks and then lies about doing so, there is no room for civility. This is dang repulsive. >On a quick perusal of your post, it seems to me that you've misunderstood me; this may be in part because I have not expressed myself with sufficient clarity.< Sure. I understood you perfectly, and you dang well know it. >You, however, seem to have been unwilling (or unable) to read my posts within the context that they are offered in: it seems that you are most upset by 'subtle claims', etc., which involve you reading what you seem determined to read.< Well, when you virtually come right out and say the thing, such as in this: Yes, [Jesus] tells [the adulteress] to sin no more. Though I think if you reread the story you will find no hint of a request for forgiveness on her part (John 8). But the episode also surely shows that Jesus rejects inflicting the Old Testament penalty for adultery. Truedog seems to imply that the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality is still valid. And this: Yes, you are taking at least this one OT law as still important. I only want to point out that you are being selective in doing so (note that Lev. 20:19 has the same penalty for sex with a menstruating woman as for homosexual sex). But why so much interest in denouncing this particular sin? Jesus did not pay much attention to it. You dang well are abusing the texts to dismiss perversion while insinuating truedog should do the same (since Christ supposedly did). This is ridiculous, and you know it. Christ did not mention homosexuality by word, but neither did he mention bestiality. It is so dang unreasonable then to assume these abominations simply were not great issues to Him when the Law He loved, the Jewish people to whom He preached, and the Apostles who led the Church that He founded all condemned them. You may act all misunderstood until you croak. You know what you were trying to do. Btw. Plato is definitely germane to my thrust because he supports the existence of a love for sodomy that existed in Greco-Roman culture (just as the Sodomite Boswell wrote in his bastardisation of history just before he died) and that did not exist in Jewish culture ** though Suetonius was apparently not terribly careful with his sources, he apparently had no axe to grind, unlike others, and likely gave to us sufficient flavour of the perversity extant in Roman leadership. The Romans were no dang Puritans, contrary to your dang claims. And you need to read the LXX and Paul closely—thinking next time, and without trying to protect your pet perversion. >Anyway, I'd like to hang around and talk some more about it, but I have a flight leaving in a couple hours and will be away for the weekend. Have a nice one.< I will. When I think you honourable, then I will be open to a discussion with you.