>Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
>...That's why I can easily provide a counter argument to
>your question about Deut 21.
>
>Which goes as follows: when Christ, after living a
>sinless life, died on the cross and rose from the dead
>on the third day, he became a second Adam,
>reestablishing the covenant between man and God broken
>by The Fall in the Garden.
>
>This new covenant superseded the harsh formulas of the
>Old Testament. So, Deut 21 can be safely ignored
>because it's not the sort of thing Christ would
>condone.
A slick way, indeed, to "distinguish" (as US judges would put it) the totally explicit words of Jesus: "I come not to alter a jot or a tittle of the Law." Yes, he said that--but that was when he still existed. We Paulines care nothing for the real Jesus--we worship the phantasm invented by that police agent, Saul, to escape the violent reception awaiting him from the Jewish followers of Jesus in Damascus. So we Xtians are fully authorized to decide what Jesus would condone (the Crusades) or would not condone (Lesbianism, unmentioned in the Law).
Shane Mage
"One can never agree, in any kind of war, with events that take the lives of innocent civilians. Nobody could justify the attacks of the German Air Force on British cities during World War II, nor the thousands of bombers that systematically destroyed German cities in the decisive moments of the war, nor the two atomic bombs which the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an act of pure terrorism against old people, women and children." (Fidel Castro)