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

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, 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