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

[Aaron Patrick Lehmann]

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.