[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Debbil made me do it!
> What I am objecting to is the automatic grouping of lgb
> people in the same category as adulterers, alcoholics,
> liars, thieves, recidivists, criminals, child molesters,
> sheep-shaggers, etc., etc., etc..
Sin is sin is sin is sin. And to the traditional Christian, homosexual
activity is sin. Like it or lump it. You don't have to agree, but you can't
very well expect someone to change their definition of sin simply because
you don't agree with it.
> What I have said all along is that there is no evidence
> beyond prejudice on which to make this grouping.
On the contrary, there is plenty of (yes, disputed) "evidence" that
homosexual activity is sinful. Of course, you have to presuppose that "sin"
is any failure on the the part of humanity to live up to God's standard of
holiness.
> Rather than show me better evidence than a few disputed
> proof texts, you continue wildly to made yet more associations
> with no basis.
Oh, come on, Derek. There is nothing "wild" or "baseless" about Kelvin's
associations. You simply don't agree with how they're arrived at. That's
your prerogative (and I don't quite agree with Kelvin either), but to say
that there is no basis for his argument is really grasping at straws.
> Please can we take the argument forward from this, either
> here or offline, or if you will not listen to me, discontinue it?
I'm wondering what constitutes "listening to you".
paul christian glenn | pcg at runbox_com
"between you and me
it's hard to ever really know who to trust
how to think
what to believe
between me and you
it's hard to ever really know who to choose
how to feel
what to do..."
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: