[CS-FSLUG] Glorifying having a baby out of wedlock

[Aaron Patrick Lehmann]

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).

So then if a non-Christian woman has sex out of wedlock, becomes pregnant, and
haas an abortion, she has ddone no more wrong than if she had carried the child
to term and raised it, or given it up for adoption?  Get real!  Just because
the end result of a multitude of sins is the same for the sinner as the end
result of  single sin does not mean that the multitude is equal to the the
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.

What you are saying seems to be a twisted version of "Let me sin more, so that
grace may abound."  "Let me sin more, since I'm hellbound anyway."

As an afterthought, is there any way for us to know that Hell is equally bad for
all sufferers?

Aaron Lehmann
-- 
Why do the Democrats complain about Nader losing them Presidential elections?
Republicans don't complain about Libertarians.