X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:33:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Contraception == abortion? (was Re: re:pro-choice)

From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
"If you would swear allegience to another God, you would go to Hell."
     Indeed I would.  I believe I would ALSO go to hell for killing
     someone to "convert" them.  I have limited control over my
     own choice to damn myself, but it is preferable to damning
     myself AND killing or torturing someone else TOO!

"I would certainly _die_ rather than torture another to swear
allegience to my God, but I would _never_ deny the Lord that bought me out
of bondage.  For if I deny Him before men, then will He be forced to deny
me before the Father."
     It is very simple.  Either you WOULD torture someone to "convert"
     them rather than deny God, or you would rather deny God first.
     Which would you choose?  Many Christians have opted for
     torture first (GIVING, I mean, not receiving).  In my opinion,
     torturing or killing unbelievers is equivalent to denying God
     already, except you would be hurting others as well.  Most of
     us can say (with the knowledge that it is unlikely the situation
     will arise) that we would DIE before denying God.  The question
     isn't that at all, though.  Would you TORTURE an unbeliever
     before denying God?  Either you are saying that you WOULD, or
     you misunderstood my statement.

"Adhering to an absolute standard is not hatred; allowing others to stray
from that standard and risk damnation is cruel."
     More cruel than torture?  How much pain are you willing to
     inflict on others to ensure their salvation?  Do the ends
     justify the means?  Are you saying that an evil act that
     brings about a person's salvation is justified?
     Also, how can an unbeliever "stray" from a standard that he or
     she hasn't ever accepted?

     Let me restate my argument for anyone who missed it.  I want
     no misunderstandings here.  When your Truth is different from
     another's Truth, you have three choices:
     1) accept their Truth as being valid
     2) try to change their Truth, but (to be fair) giving them a
        chance to change YOUR Truth, and expecting high resistance
        from the nonbeliever
     3) kill them, either quickly, or slowly and horribly.

     As you can see, this discussion is about what is "legal" when
     going about choice#2 or 3.  Unless you can pick one of these
     three choices, or provide another valid choice that is unlike
     any of these three (I certainly might be missing one), you're
     not addressing the question.  Personally, I choose #1 about
     80% of the time, and #2 20% of the time.

/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
>   Darryl K. Johnson      (  "It is usurping life to do  <
>   Texas Christian         )  no more than simply avoid  <
>   University             (   doing harm; the dead do as <
>   Fort Worth, Texas       )  much, and exact nothing    <
>                          (   for it." - Prince de Ligne <
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
/ DJOHNSON@tcucvms.bitnet      DJOHNSON@gamma.is.tcu.edu  \
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU