John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 6 May 2008 00:59:53 -0400, wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(William December Starr)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <oIGdnQjgP5CKq4LVnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>>> [News re****t:]
>>>> A retired Coast Guard veteran was sentenced to 20 years in prison
>>>> Tuesday after pleading guilty to ***ually assaulting a
>>>> 12-year-old boy at a Juneau church camp last spring and then
>>>> paying $300 to keep the child from re****ting the crime.
>
>>> That means he cannot be a Christian.
>
>>Technically, doesn't it just mean that he could not have been a
>>Christian when he was committing the sins?
>
>Or possibly he could have been an imperfect Christian all along.
>Indeed, I was under the impression that Christians, as a class,
>believe that all Christians (and everybody else) are so imperfect
>as to rack up a tally of sins sufficient to justify damnation.
>
>So it's hard for me to see how any reasonably informed person,
>and especially a reasonably informed Christian, can point to
>someone and say, "He commits damnable sins, therefore he cannot
>be a Christian".
Haven't you noticed John that being anti-Christian is one of the last
acceptable forms of bigotry?
Not to mention a beautiful example of doublethink among some segments
of the population - the sins of one Muslim as the sins of one Muslim,
yet the sins of one Christian are an indictment of all Christians.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
|
