RE: Sin?

From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 09:02:13 EDT

  • Next message: Richard McGough: "RE: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis"

    One is identified with that which one quotes. You are constantly quoting
    those of other societies with other views and cultures and then dodging
    criticism by saying, "I did not say that, someone else did."

    Those who only want to introduce an alternate point of view generally
    provide a statement contrasting the opinion of their source with their own
    view or thesis. The fact that you do not do this, leads one to naturally
    assume that you subscribe to the views which you tout.

    Many of the things you state are highly inflammatory in today's society.
    When one plays with fire, one shouldn't complain when it gets hot.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of RFaussette@aol.com
      Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:37 AM
      To: michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk; jwburgeson@juno.com; gmurphy@raex.com
      Cc: RDehaan237@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: Re: Sin?

      In a message dated 7/24/03 12:30:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk writes:

        The married couples with children are the first class

        This statement by R Faussette in a recent post is sick and offensive,
    implying that single people and those without children are second class.
    This is a perversion of the Old Testament and has no basis in the NT.

        I suppose Jesus was not first class as he was not married and had no
    children!

        Can we have less of your peculiar ravings about procreation - and we
    could also do without the gay correspondence as well.

        Michael

      Do you know what I mean by first and second class? This is not a
    perversion of the OT. Orthodox Jewry still clings to this proposition from
    leviticus, no, they go further in that all non-Jews are "second class." why
    would an accurate rendering of Leviticus be sick and offensive? I would
    refer you to Maurice Lamm's Jewish way in Love and Marriage where Lamm
    writes that women are like temple utensils, only sacred when in temple
    service. I am repeating for you what the religious authorities of Judaism
    say about their own scriptures upon which yours are based. If they are are
    sick and offensive, it is to them you refer and not to me.

      Jesus was a completely different story. All of his behavior was for you to
    understand as an exercise and demonstration in self discipline. It was a
    very special thing that ordinary beings are incapable of. I would not lump
    Jesus in with the rest of us just to make an example of me.

      I am not raving - you are - I am responding to bad arguments for the
    liberalization and sexualization of Christianity, arguments which are touted
    publicly and tenaciously clung to here on this list.

      rich faussette



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 08:58:18 EDT