Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:27:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?
              27 Jul 1992 09:01:47 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

       KAT yowls:

> It is in the nature of the unregenerate to sin.  However, we are admonished
> to separate the sinner from the sin in passing human judgment.  Only God
> is permitted to determine that a sinner is forever lost.  Thus, as human
> beings we love the *person* that sins, despite the fact that it is part of
> their constitution to do so.  You admonish a sinner and condemn a sin, in
> the same way that you disagree with but do not hate a racist, while hating
> that for which he/she stands. If you fall to the level of hating the *person*
> that sins, rather than the sin itself, your hatred is equivalent to--and no
> more honorable than--theirs.

Well, I am not yet desperate enough to go and dig out your direct
quote.  However, I am at a loss.  How does one separate the "sin nature"
of the person from the person?  (Interesting that you are not using
the phrase "sin nature" anymore.)

       Again, this is theology, and I have responded to it before.
       "Nature" and "person" are not the same.  If you don't get it,
       I really don't see how I can make it any clearer, but let me
       try one more time.  Human beings are constituted sinners;
       their sin is a result of their nature.  Their nature can
       be changed.  Their *identity* can not.  You are KAT, no matter
       what you do; this is your *identity*.  We love you as you,
       not as what you do, or what you are naturally constituted to
       be.

What I want to know now is if "only God could determine that a sinner is
forever lost", then how do you explain supporting capital punishment?
(Jay's virtual body is turning over in his virtual grave.  :-)
Or maybe you have other justifications for capital punishment, or maybe
you are simply against capital punishment?

        I believe I have said this before, but I am *opposed* to
        capital punishment.

> This is how Quayle can make such a statement.  Of course, this is an easy
> one, since we are talking about his own daughter.  I would have liked to
> have seen the same question posed regarding a total stranger, since that
> is where true conviction becomes visible.

I already answered that question for you in of my earlier posts.
If it was someone else's daughter he would have called her a lost
soul and a murderer.  Then he would try to block her way to the
clinic and maybe even try to shove an aborted fetus in her face.
And after the abortion, he would find her address and phone number,
put embarrassing graffiti on her house, embarrass her at the working
place.  After all the more she suffers, the more innocent babies
will be saved.  And THAT is a very worthy cause.

         On what basis do you make these accusations?  Dan Quayle
         is not Randall Terry.  And I am unaware of any public
         statement by any prolife group supporting the defacing
         of property.  In addition, prolife activists that protest
         at private homes picket *abortionists*, not people who have
         had abortions.  Women who abort are considered to be
         *victims* and are offered love, healing, and understanding.

                                                --MJ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU