Re: *** in public is a fine thing which doesn't bother anyone

On May 2, 1:10 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Dan MacKay" <cal1f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:150a2546-f632-4308-9e7e-90294b52b44d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 1, 7:24 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dan MacKay wrote:
> > > On May 1, 4:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > >>> *** is not immoral if two forms of birth control are used, as the
risk
> > >>> of pregnancy falls to nearly zero.
> > >> *** is immoral unless it is between a husband and wife, legally and
> > >> lawfully married.
>
> > > Where does it say that?
>
> > > Come on, let's have solid quotes and references.
>
> > Ex. 20: 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
>
> > 1 Cor. 6: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> > kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor
> > adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...
>
> And which translation is that from??
>
> You do realize that each of the different translations were altered to
> sup****t the personal beliefs of the group doing the translation.
> If the passage sounded "wrong" to them they just "re-translated" some
> of the words.
>
> <JS>
> The part about the translation sup****ting specific beliefs is not
entirely
> true. It is certainly true in some instances, but the vast majority of
> translation errors are precisely that, translation errors.
>
> *** outside of marriage is universally wrong,


It's not "universally wrong" and it's not wrong in my opinion at all.
Lying about it is wrong, but open marriages and *** outside of
marriage are fine and good.


> which explains why so many
> marriages end when one of the participants is found to be having ***
outside
> of the bond of marriage.


Not everyone wants this restriction, and not everyone has it.  The
choice is yours, and you always have freedom to change it.


> The trouble is with the definition of "universally," which you will
construe
> to mean each and every person that ever lived, then set about to show
the
> exception.


Because your argument of universally is  totally off.  Even if you
could argue that such notions have been held by many people through
the entire course of human history it would not prove anything
universal at all.