[CS-FSLUG] Glorifying having a baby out of wedlock
Aaron Patrick Lehmann
lehmanap at cs.purdue.edu
Tue Oct 26 07:59:55 CDT 2004
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 07:23:46AM -0500, Stephen J. McCracken wrote:
> Aaron Patrick Lehmann wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:16:46PM -0500, Stephen J. McCracken wrote:
> >
> >>This is the typical HUMAN viewpoint. To God, sin is sin. A little lie,
> >>a little disobediance, a murderer, an adulteror. It is all sin in the
> >>eyes of God. If you are a Christian, ALL sin is covered by the blood of
> >>Jesus (but read Romans 6 here). If you are not a Christian, does it
> >>really matter? Even the little sins will keep you out of heaven (not
> >>mentioning the inherated original sin). "Compounding sin"... don't
> >>think it matters here (maybe "compounding consequences", but would have
> >>to think about that one).
> [snip]
> >single in evil, from the eyes of those wrronged. In a situation like
> >this, God
> >is not the only injured party, just the only divine injured party. In one
> >of
> >the hypotheticals, the baby is dead, and in the other it is not.
> >
> I agree with what you say, but when we are talking about "sin" I think
> we are referring to God rathen than people for the most part. That's
> why I added "compounding consequences" at the end for the results of the
> sin. You will see that I also tried to avert your accusation below by
> putting in "**but** read Romans 6 here" in the middle. What does Romans
> 6 say?
I see. It had never occurred to me that one could only sin against God. I
thought sin simply meant, "to injure" or "to do evil to."
Aaron Lehmann
--
Why do the Democrats complain about Nader losing them Presidential elections?
Republicans don't complain about Libertarians.
More information about the Christiansource
mailing list