Friday, July 23, 2004
Fw: An answer to Peters accusations. the bigger issue
From: "Richard Newman"
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: An answer to Peters accusations. the bigger issue
> Okay, so now that we are all saved, let's attack the issues.
> And certainly homosexual acts are very far down the list of things to get
worried about, which was Pete's point: why should christians (those that are
saved and have eternal life and all of that), why should YOU concern
yourself with such a trivial matter as homosexual marriages?
> If you feel that you have time/energy or spiritual oneness enough to
tackle such a low-priority issue, why not go after BIGGER fish.
> And Pete's second point: why attack potential allies?
> Would you want to attack Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, too?
>
> In Truth, Brotherhood, Scholarship, and Service,
> R. Newman
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: rich newman
> To: Richard Newman
> Subject: Re: An answer to Peters accusations. the bigger issue
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
> My point . Sin should not be tolerated on any level. It is dealt with by
the cross of Jesus Christ. After we receive a new heart(consciousness) and
spirit, then we can talk about conduct and making the world a better place
etc etc etc. BUT foremost is your eternal destiny and allegiance . If a man
should gain the world, but lose his soul? Therefore we believers care first
for the true and complete conversion of the sinful and their allegiance to
the SAVIOR, then and only after this can we or should politics, conduct and
all other conversations have there place.
> Richard Newman wrote:
> I think you missed Pete's point.
>
> He says WE (you, me, everyone) should probably "attack" the bigger
problems
> first. The gay marriage stuff is a smoke screen, only there to distract us
> from much larger issues, issues that affect far more people.
>
> Think about it, how many people will gay marriages affect?
> Certainly, Rush Limbaugh has recently divorced for the third time and he
> preaches that same party line about "family values" and anti-gay rhetoric
> (so maybe the gay marriage DOES affect straight people) My marriage will
> not be affected by gay marriages, nor will my children's. In fact I do not
> care at all about other people's personal relationships. I care about what
> will affect my family.
>
> This is interesting because Pete and I dealt with this issue our whole
> lives. We felt the gay was wrong and against the bible and we addressed it
> with the people that we needed to address it to.
> However, after living in the environment, we see that there are MUCH
bigger
> problems to address.
> And the gay marriage amendment will not do anything to prevent sin. Do you
> know that we used to have a constitutional amendment outlawing ALCOHOL? We
> all know how bad drugs and alcohol are, probably worse than gay sex,
should
> we get a constitutional amendment for every sin?
>
> AND, Pete's main point was...why should we alienate gay people? Why not
> alienate those that are fundamentally opposed to our way of life. Go after
> those that want to enslave us, go after the slavemasters, not your fellow
> slaves who happen to not be perfect.
>
> Give us FREE!
>
> And please whatever you do...don't watch Fahrenheit 911!
> Don't do it! You better not!
>
> One last thing, I want to start including mom in these emails, what do you
> guys think?
>
> In Truth, Brotherhood, Scholarship, and Service,
> R. Newman
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: rich newman
> To: RICH NEWMAN
> Subject: Re: An answer to Peters accusations.
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> You allege that I(or we) attack people -- What people do I(we) attack? Do
> I attack them verbally, morally, physically. Also you alleged that I
> persecute! If you mean us believers(you), I can answer that Jesus and his
> redeemed are called to be compassionate to sinners, but that does not mean
> we are to condone their actions! If you believe that because we don't
> condone someone's else's actions that we also will not be compassionate
> towards them, YOUR WAY OFF! I and many other believers should not
persecute
> or attack or participate this way toward others, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE
> SHOULDNT VOICE DISSAGREEMENT! Hopefully we can voice our opinions and
still
> show compassion. BUT in showing compassion we should be careful not to
> condone. NOT SO EASY> BUT THIS I BELIEVE SHOULD BE OUR stand.Be not
> conformed to this world but be renovated in your mind. Change the way you
> think- please for your sake! Love you
> truly POPS an answer to PETES last message.
>
¶ 12:14 AM
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: An answer to Peters accusations. the bigger issue
> Okay, so now that we are all saved, let's attack the issues.
> And certainly homosexual acts are very far down the list of things to get
worried about, which was Pete's point: why should christians (those that are
saved and have eternal life and all of that), why should YOU concern
yourself with such a trivial matter as homosexual marriages?
> If you feel that you have time/energy or spiritual oneness enough to
tackle such a low-priority issue, why not go after BIGGER fish.
> And Pete's second point: why attack potential allies?
> Would you want to attack Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, too?
>
> In Truth, Brotherhood, Scholarship, and Service,
> R. Newman
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: rich newman
> To: Richard Newman
> Subject: Re: An answer to Peters accusations. the bigger issue
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
> My point . Sin should not be tolerated on any level. It is dealt with by
the cross of Jesus Christ. After we receive a new heart(consciousness) and
spirit, then we can talk about conduct and making the world a better place
etc etc etc. BUT foremost is your eternal destiny and allegiance . If a man
should gain the world, but lose his soul? Therefore we believers care first
for the true and complete conversion of the sinful and their allegiance to
the SAVIOR, then and only after this can we or should politics, conduct and
all other conversations have there place.
> Richard Newman
> I think you missed Pete's point.
>
> He says WE (you, me, everyone) should probably "attack" the bigger
problems
> first. The gay marriage stuff is a smoke screen, only there to distract us
> from much larger issues, issues that affect far more people.
>
> Think about it, how many people will gay marriages affect?
> Certainly, Rush Limbaugh has recently divorced for the third time and he
> preaches that same party line about "family values" and anti-gay rhetoric
> (so maybe the gay marriage DOES affect straight people) My marriage will
> not be affected by gay marriages, nor will my children's. In fact I do not
> care at all about other people's personal relationships. I care about what
> will affect my family.
>
> This is interesting because Pete and I dealt with this issue our whole
> lives. We felt the gay was wrong and against the bible and we addressed it
> with the people that we needed to address it to.
> However, after living in the environment, we see that there are MUCH
bigger
> problems to address.
> And the gay marriage amendment will not do anything to prevent sin. Do you
> know that we used to have a constitutional amendment outlawing ALCOHOL? We
> all know how bad drugs and alcohol are, probably worse than gay sex,
should
> we get a constitutional amendment for every sin?
>
> AND, Pete's main point was...why should we alienate gay people? Why not
> alienate those that are fundamentally opposed to our way of life. Go after
> those that want to enslave us, go after the slavemasters, not your fellow
> slaves who happen to not be perfect.
>
> Give us FREE!
>
> And please whatever you do...don't watch Fahrenheit 911!
> Don't do it! You better not!
>
> One last thing, I want to start including mom in these emails, what do you
> guys think?
>
> In Truth, Brotherhood, Scholarship, and Service,
> R. Newman
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: rich newman
> To: RICH NEWMAN
> Subject: Re: An answer to Peters accusations.
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> You allege that I(or we) attack people -- What people do I(we) attack? Do
> I attack them verbally, morally, physically. Also you alleged that I
> persecute! If you mean us believers(you), I can answer that Jesus and his
> redeemed are called to be compassionate to sinners, but that does not mean
> we are to condone their actions! If you believe that because we don't
> condone someone's else's actions that we also will not be compassionate
> towards them, YOUR WAY OFF! I and many other believers should not
persecute
> or attack or participate this way toward others, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE
> SHOULDNT VOICE DISSAGREEMENT! Hopefully we can voice our opinions and
still
> show compassion. BUT in showing compassion we should be careful not to
> condone. NOT SO EASY> BUT THIS I BELIEVE SHOULD BE OUR stand.Be not
> conformed to this world but be renovated in your mind. Change the way you
> think- please for your sake! Love you
> truly POPS an answer to PETES last message.
>
¶ 12:14 AM
