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

From: gordon brown (
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 19:04:42 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Prosperity"


    I'll try to clarify my previous unclear statement. I was responding to a
    message that seemed to imply that the purpose of God's commands
    regarding sexual behavior was just for our emotional and physical health.
    I don't see that rationale in Scripture. If people can somehow prevent the
    physical and emotional consequences of these sins, they will still be
    sins just the same. The principles involved are much deeper than the
    unpleasantness they cause. An analogy: Drunkenness would be a sin even if
    it didn't cause hangovers.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 wrote:

    > 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 - 19:04:48 EDT