From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 13:37:57 EDT
Hi Sondra,
Thanks for the clarification. Your intuition is correct, I had interpreted
the <sigh> as indicative of frustration that something was not being
understood. This is a typical demonstration of the difficulty of
communicating in this forum. But it is also because I generally understand
that "statements" are presented here in the hope of evoking a discussion or
in answer to a point under discussion. This is the intent of this forum: to
present and discuss statements, assertions, reasoned opinions, logical
arguments, etc.. having to do with Science and Religion.
This is discussed in Rule #2 for this list, which suggests that we shy away
from "chat room" style exchanges
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200206/0350.html):
2. Quips, one-liners, thank you's, messages that say nothing more
than "I agree" or "I disagree", and other "chat room" type exchanges are
discouraged. Ordinarily, these messages will not be posted and no
explanation will be given.
Please don't take this as a rebuke. I'm not the moderator of this forum. I
just wanted to help you see what kind of posts are expected here to
facilitate your interaction with other members of the list.
In service of Christ the King,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sondra Brasile" <sbrasile@hotmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Sin? Reply to Richard
> Richard,
>
> It wasn't a question and I wasn't making a "statement". The sigh at the
end
> was to denote nostalgia, I was waxing sentimental. Sorry, I couldn't
contain
> it; I'm a mother 4 times over, I routinely marvel at them, the older they
> get the more wonderful they are.
>
> I'm not very good with my indicators I guess, I have to be more specific,
> but thanks for the response anyway ;).
>
> Sondra
>
>
> >From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> >To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Sin?
> >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:20:23 -0700
> >
> >Hi Sondra, In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0547.html you
> >wrote
> >
> > >But what a representation of that verse "the two shall become one" in
the
> > >forming of offspring, the mingling of two persons (in every sense) to
> >become
> > >a totally new, unique and seperate being. <sigh>
> >
> >I answered that in this post
> >http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0528.html. I quote:
> >
> > >Going back to the origin of sex in Genesis 2 we read:
> >
> > >Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
> >unto
> > >his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
> > >Procreation is prominent here only because of its *absence* - unless
you
> > >want the "one flesh" to mean the child that results from the union, but
> >that
> > >can't be correct because the Bible says that the two become "one flesh"
> > >after sex, whether or not a child is produced (cf. 1 Cor 6.16).
> >
> >
> >Elaborating, we read I Cor 6.16, which states:
> >
> >What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for
> >two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
> >
> >It seems clear that Scripture presents heterosexual intercourse as
> >identitical to becoming one flesh, regardless of whether a child results
or
> >not.
> >
> >But this doesn't mean that God didn't intend a beautiful and illustrative
> >double entendre, so characteristic of His excellent Word.
> >
> >Richard Amiel McGough.
> >Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
> >http://www.BibleWheel.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 13:34:34 EDT