From: gordon brown (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 19:04:42 EDT
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.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/29/03 8:56:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> email@example.com 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