Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist? (off list)

From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 18:38:53 EDT

  • Next message: Iain Strachan: "Re: Prosperity"

    In a message dated 6/29/03 8:56:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu writes:

    > Physical and emotional health are benefits of sexual morality, and they
    > may sometimes be used to dissuade people from sexual sins, but I don't
    > think they are the primary reasons for the Lord's commands in this area.
    > The principles Jesus mentioned in His teaching on the subject were
    > different. If we assumed that health was the issue, then what would we say
    > to someone who claimed to be able to practice safe sex?
    >
    >

    We'd say they were kidding themselves.

    "Safe" is an absolute. It does not mean "relatively" safe. The condoms being
    distributed in many schools are only relatively (%wise effective) safe.

    Monogamous couples practice safe sex.

    rich faussette



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 18:39:11 EDT