🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Roberts" <jroberts@nosp.ionet.net> writes:
>Moonman Mike wrote in message <363A4635.1393@erols.com>...
>>John Roberts wrote:
>>> Moonman Mike wrote in message <3639142E.40BD@erols.com>...
>>> >Amazing how Right-Wing White Christian Republikans (or anyone)
>>> >can be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty!
>>> Not that amazing, really.  Unborn children haven't done anything to
>>> *deserve* the death penalty.
>>Isn't "all life sacred"?
>No - that's a fallacy commonly promoted by secular humanists in attempts to
>muddy the waters of what is actually a pretty clear issue.

Secular humanists like the Pope?

>>You mean a District Attorney has a higher moral standing than God?
>No, I mean that God's pretty specific about the death penalty in the
>ordinances that follow the "ten commandments":
>"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death" (Ex
>21:12)

Here we go again. John, do you also feel bound by all the dietary
prohibitions in Leviticus, or are you cherry picking?

...snip...

>Of course, I fully expect that someone will probably bring up the old "but
>that's the Old Testament" argument in response, but the fact is that the Old
>Testament law still applies, and the covenant of the New Testament only
>applies to those who honestly and sincerely choose to enter into that
>covenant relationship.  Even for them, it provides only forgiveness by God,
>which is not a blanket immunity to punishment.

Of course it's the Old Testament. The question is whether you take the
*whole* Old Testament that seriously or just the parts that support
your opinions.

 Mike Jones |  jonesm2@rpi.edu

The real question for 1988 is whether we're going to go forward to
tomorrow or past to the - to the back!
	- Vice President Dan Quayle