Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Re: 91.424

>I think that the church *should* be much quicker to judge sexual
>aberrations.

Collis,

	Why do you think this?

	I've always wondered why this is such as high priority to
so many Christians.  According to the Gospels, Jesus placed his
emphases elsewhere.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  91.426

  >Soloman had 150 concubines and God didn't have a problem with that portion 
  >of his life.   

God certainly did.  He explicitly forbid the union of an Israelite with
foreign women (who worshipped other gods) which is exactly what Solomon
did and was a factor in bringing him out of fellowship with God.

  >Yes, the Church must deal with aberrations in a persons sex life but I 
  >don't see it as a "larger" sin that anything else.  Sin is sin and for 
  >a Church to take one of them and be "quicker" to judge it is,IMHO, wrong.  
  >I also see it as a symptom rather than a problem.  It, again IMHO, is a 
  >life not totally committed to Christ.  

Yes and no.  All sins are equal abhorrant to God.  All sin is a result
(to some extent) of our desire for our own way (which is the problem)
and are, in that sense, a symptom rather than the problem.

However (and this goes to the heart of your question as well, Richard),
sexual purity is viewed as critically important in a number of places
in the Bible.  I wish I had more time, because this subject is certainly
worth the time (and I have spent time on this in the past).  For now,
let's just look at one passage of Scripture.

I Timothy lists some of the qualifications for an overseer or a
deacon.  The first specific qualification is that he be the husband
of one wife.  Our pastor did a study on this passage for his doctoral
thesis and believes that the best understanding of this passage is that
the candidate be one who is sexually controlled.  That is, the person
should not be one who runs around after women (whether he himself is
married or not).

This is a subject I would like to pursue in the next few weeks as I
have a little more time.
    
  >I also don't "like" that word "judge".  God tells us not to do that.  
  >By not judging, it makes it easier to love everyone.

This has been discussed before.  There's judging and then there's
judging.  Individuals on their own are not to judge in the sense of 
instituting justice (or judgment).  Individuals are, however, to judge
in the sense of being discerning.  There are well-defined institutions
which are responsible for judgment in usually (but not always) well-defined
areas.  These institutions include the church, the government and the family.

Re:  229.1

  >According to the Gospels, Jesus placed his emphasis elsewhere.

Jesus in the Gospels was not dealing with the discipline of believers
in the church.  Jesus was generally dealing with hostile unbelievers
when He is dealing with discipline and condemnation.  Because of this,
His focus was on the matter of unbelief and perversion of the [inerrant :-)]
Word of God for their own purposes.

Collis

    Yes, but no comment about the 150 concubines? Or Abraham with his
    mistress? Or... how many more did god overlook, and how many did he pay
    special attention to?

    How about David (Bathsheba etc all).
    
    Bon

    Need we mention Abraham and his sister Sarah?  Lot and his daughters?
    
    Richard

    RE: .2 Collis,
    
    >God ceretainly did. He explicitly forbid the union of an Israelite with
    >foreign women (who worshipped other gods) which is exactly what Soloman
    
    
        I believe that God was against the union because they did worship
    other gods....not because of the sex.
    
    
    Dave................more later...

|I think that the church *should* be much quicker to judge sexual
|aberrations.  I think that this position comes from the Bible's emphasis
|on the need of a pure sex life.  I think that this emphasis is due to
|God's recognition that sexual desire is such an incredibly powerful
|force in our life which needs to be tightly controlled - or else.

	But Collis, what about the other sins in this world? They don't need to
be controlled?

>Yes, the Church must deal with aberrations in a persons sex life but I 
>don't see it as a "larger" sin that anything else.  Sin is sin and for 
>a Church to take one of them and be "quicker" to judge it is,IMHO, wrong.  
>I also see it as a symptom rather than a problem.  It, again IMHO, is a 
>life not totally committed to Christ.  

>Yes and no.  All sins are equal abhorrant to God.  All sin is a result
>(to some extent) of our desire for our own way (which is the problem)
>and are, in that sense, a symptom rather than the problem.

	Collis, if all sins are equal to God, and no sin is any greater than
another to God, then one would have to come to believe that it's the humans of
this planet that have made sexual sin worse than the others, not God.

>I also don't "like" that word "judge".  God tells us not to do that.  
>By not judging, it makes it easier to love everyone.

>This has been discussed before.  There's judging and then there's
>judging.  Individuals on their own are not to judge in the sense of 
>instituting justice (or judgment).  

	I couldn't agree with you more! :-)

>Individuals are, however, to judge
>in the sense of being discerning.  There are well-defined institutions
>which are responsible for judgment in usually (but not always) well-defined
>areas.  These institutions include the church, the government and the family.

	I agree with you again. To discern is one thing, to pass judgement is
another. If discerning leads to passing judgement (ie staying away from or
fearing a group [white, black, gay, straight, Christians]) then that's where
the problem will arise.

Glen

Re:  229.7

  >But Collis, what about the other sins in this world? They don't need to
  >be controlled?

Certainly they do.  Let's take an analogy of a lion and a mouse.  Both
may need to be controlled, but the cage of the lion as going to have
to be a lot stronger than the cage of the mouse, because the potential
force is a lot stronger.  The mouse, because of his power, is not able
to do nearly as much (obvious, physical) destruction as the lion.

The sexual drive is one of the most powerful drives that humans have
and, when used improperly, wreaks havoc with lives.

  >Collis, if all sins are equal to God, and no sin is any greater than
  >another to God, then one would have to come to believe that it's the 
  >humans of this planet that have made sexual sin worse than the others, 
  >not God.

Let me say this ago - yes and no.  Yes, all sins are "equal" to God in
one sense - the sense that it is a sin.  This does not mean (and has
never meant) that the consequences of one sin contrasted to another sin
is exactly the same.  Some sins tend to have much more serious
consequences.  Abuse of sex is one of these sins.  Hopefully, this is
clear.

Collis

    
    
    IMHO, human sexuality is used improperly because it has been
    deemed for so long as something 'bad' and has been so repressed.
    It would take a *very* long time to undo the damage that has been
    done to this part of us.
    
    Carole

    I couldn't agree with you more, Carole.
    
    -- Mike

| >But Collis, what about the other sins in this world? They don't need to
| >be controlled?

| Certainly they do.  Let's take an analogy of a lion and a mouse.  Both
| may need to be controlled, but the cage of the lion as going to have
| to be a lot stronger than the cage of the mouse, because the potential
| force is a lot stronger.  The mouse, because of his power, is not able
| to do nearly as much (obvious, physical) destruction as the lion.

	But who deemed that this sin is greater than the others?

| >Collis, if all sins are equal to God, and no sin is any greater than
| >another to God, then one would have to come to believe that it's the
| >humans of this planet that have made sexual sin worse than the others,
| >not God.

| Let me say this ago - yes and no.  Yes, all sins are "equal" to God in
| one sense - the sense that it is a sin.  This does not mean (and has
| never meant) that the consequences of one sin contrasted to another sin
| is exactly the same.  

	One, can you point out where in Scripture that it states this and two,
shouldn't we leave the punishment to God and get it out of the hands of us
humans? When we put a label on someone (lesbigays), don't we give that group a
bad rap, make others want to stay away from them, in other words, judge the
whole group without ever knowing the people as individuals? To not like what
they are doing because you feel it is a sin is one thing, but to make it so
others ignore or push them aside is wrong, wouldn't you agree? I guess that's
why it is important to remember that God is to do the punishment, not us. I'm
not saying that you yourself do any punishing, but some people do tend to do
this. Can you see my point? Can you see any realistic solutions to solving this
problem?

| Some sins tend to have much more serious
| consequences.  Abuse of sex is one of these sins.  

	Can you state where in scripture it says this?


Glen

    If you look at the Ten Commandments, as I mentioned once before
    in this file, adultery is the 7th, just before stealing,
    false evidence, and coveting. And tho, while I do not attempt
    to make a case that the commandments are ranked from most 
    worst, to least worst, I do find this interesting.

    God did not single out sexual sin as being 'lion' sized. If 
    anything He must have meant the first two commandments as
    being 'lion' sized. Have only one God, and keep the Sabbath
    Holy.

    Yet the vast majority of Christians today keep the Sabbath holy
    only by going to church that day, or the night before. They
    work, shop, etc etc.... and few or no Christians get upset.

    People dishonor their parents, they swear falsely, they worship
    idols, and people do not foam at the mouth as they do over sexual
    sins.


    I think that the undue emphasis on sexual sin is a product of
    humanity, an effort on the part of priests, and ministers, and
    others in authority, to control other people, esp women (perhaps?).

    The song of Solomon extols sexuality, just for a btw at the end
    of this.

    Bonnie

Re:  229.11

  >But who deemed that this sin is greater than the others?

Good question.  I've already answered it, (God did in the Bible) but
have not yet given details.  Details will be forthcoming.

  >One, can you point out where in Scripture that it states this...

Coming soon.

  >...and two, shouldn't we leave the punishment to God and get it out of 
  >the hands of us humans? 

What does the Bible say about the responsibility of the church, the
government and the family in terms of dealing with sin?

Collis

    
    	RE. -?
    
    	The question has been brought up,  What is the difference between
    sexual sin and other sin.  I think it is explained fairly well in 
    1 Corinthians 6:13-20.  It is talking about how we were once sinners
    but now we belong to the Lord (if we are christians).  It is talking
    about holiness.  In verse 18 it says:
    
    18.	Flee fornication.  EVERY sin that a man doeth is without (outside)
    the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own
    body.
    
    19. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
    which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are NOT your own?
    
    	
    	Collis is right, God does make distinction.  Is there anywhere else
    in scripture that one sin is contrasted to 'all other sin'?
    
    
    							_ed-

    
    	It seems that this note has not followed the original stated 
    purpose.  Maybe I'm missing something but the discussion (I thought)
    was supposed to focus on Christianity and Sexuality.  It is evident
    that Sexuality has been perverted thus this discussion.  If we are
    to discuss Sexuality in a christian reference there is NOTHING
    perverted about it at all.
    
    	The world has PERVERTED sexuality (satan actually).  Human
    sexuality (imho) is one of the greatest temporal pleasures that God
    gave man.
    
    							_ed-

    I have never quite understood why the various Christian sects have
    been, and continue to be, so obsessed with human sexuality.  Could it
    be this is something of a legacy from St. Paul, who did seem to be a
    little overly concerned with the subject?

    In my opinion, one of the reasons why we see so much deviant and
    neurotic sexual behavior here in the USA is because our culture (whose
    roots are Judeo/Christian, after all) attaches so much mystique and
    shame to human sexual behavior.  Other cultures don't seem to have
    nearly the same preoccupation with the subject, and they also don't
    seem to have nearly the same levels of deviant behavior, either.

    Of course, I'm not trying to blame Christ for deviant sexual behavior,
    either.  Just wondering if there is a connection between how it is
    taught and what the results are, that's all. 
    
    Mike                                        

Mike,

I'm surprised that you believe that other cultures are not obsessed with
sex (whatever it means to be obsessed).

Many say that the Puritans were obsessed with sex because of the strict
limitations that they put on it.  Many Moslem countries are similar -
are they too obsessed with sex?

I think we'll discover that regardless of the amount of sexual promiscuity
in a given culture, that there is much time and energy spent on sex
(whether it is promoting sex in various ways or the promotion of avoiding
sex in various ways).

Collis

    RE: .16 Define deviant sexual behavior. Thank you.
    
    			Alfred

    re: .17 (Collis)

    I do believe that some other cultures are not obsessed with sex.  To
    them sex is enjoyed in a matter of fact sort of way and is considered a
    good part of life but is not featured all about them the way it is in
    western culture, especially here in the USA.  

    I don't know much about Moslem countries, but I suspect that their
    culture is one that tends to keep such things intensely private.

    Promiscuity is pretty much part of the human condition.  How a given
    culture chooses to deal with that is sort of what we are talking about
    here.  Some tend to ignore it, or provide safe outlets for it, and
    others try to beat it out of existence through fear and shame, such as
    the way traditional Christian based cultures do.

    Mike

Mike,

I believe that people are obsessed with sex and that since cultures
are made up of people, that cultures too are obseesed with sex.  It
is such a powerful drive that obsessed seems to me to be a reasonable
word.  (Yes, I am obsessed with sex.  I firmly believe that I am
relatively normal in this regard.)

Collis

    re: .18 (Alfred) 

    Happy to comply, Alfred.  

    My definition of deviant sexual behavior is sexual behavior that is in
    variance with societal norms.  Some obvious examples might be
    necrophilia, pedophilia, pederasty, bestiality, coprophagy, urolagnia,
    and so on.  In general, one might say that it is behavior that either
    inflicts physical or emotional harm on oneself or on others, or has the
    strong potential to do so.  In other words, there is a victim involved.

    There are other types of human sexual behavior that Christian tradition
    might name as deviant but might not be considered as such in some other
    cultures.  Certain forms of incest, masturbation, and homosexuality are
    just a few examples that I can think of. 

    Mike
                                                       f

    re: .20 (Collis)
    
    As I said in my last reply to you, promiscuity (or obsession with sex,
    if you prefer) is pretty much part of the human condition.  In that
    regard, people are pretty much the same.  We are in complete agreement
    here.   But, to say that all cultures treat human sexuality the same
    isn't really true, any more than it is true that all cultures deal with
    human diseases the same, or treat the human desire for music in the
    same way, to give two examples.  Other cultures allow for freer
    expression of human sexuality than ours does, and some are more
    restrictive than ours is.
    
    Indeed, that is what culture is all about.  Different groups of humans
    have found different ways to deal with similar human needs.
    
    Mike

>    My definition of deviant sexual behavior is sexual behavior that is in
>    variance with societal norms.  

    This is a sociologists definition. As my BS is in Sociology this is
    also the definition I would use. We could then go on to a discussion
    of what societal norms are and what breath of geography we were
    including in the society. We would probably have to include
    homosexuality as deviant if we were talking about NH but perhaps not
    in California for example. For the US as a whole it would be debatable.

>In general, one might say that it is behavior that either
>    inflicts physical or emotional harm on oneself or on others, or has the
>    strong potential to do so.  In other words, there is a victim involved.

    This is a completely second definition from the first. Several of your
    obvious examples for the first definition may not fit here. Several
    obvious examples that do fit this one (indiscriminate sex such as from
    "pick up" bars) do not fit the first in many areas. 
    
    			Alfred

Mike,

We're somewhat in agreement.  I am definately NOT saying that all
cultures treat human sexuality the same.  What I am saying is that
all cultures spend a lot of time and energy on sexual issues because
individual members of society are so driven by sexual urges as to be
called obsessed with sex.  The form of sexual expression may be very
free or very restricted, but it is definately NOT a take it or leave
it kind of attitude in the society.

Re: .23 Alfred

>    We would probably have to include
>    homosexuality as deviant if we were talking about NH but perhaps not
>    in California for example. For the US as a whole it would be debatable.

Perhaps, but then the next question is: Is it wrong to deviate from the norm?

				-- Bob

    re: .23 (Alfred)

    I included those additional words on defining deviant sexual behavior
    because I made an assumption that a society classifies behaviors as
    either good (normal), or not good (abnormal or deviant), based on
    whether or not society members have judged that it harms the interests
    of society.  Those examples I gave are ones that I felt that not only
    our society, but most societies, would consider deviant because they
    are essentially harmful to individuals, and therefore harmful to the
    interests of society.  I do think that all of those examples I gave are
    harmful to someone, even if that someone is the perpetrator.  In other
    words, there is a victim.  Of course this is all based on the
    assumption that society has some legitimate interest in protecting its
    members from all harm, even if that harm is self inflicted.  Which is
    another subject altogether. 

    I don't see where indiscriminate sex, as in one night stands
    originating in a "pick up" bar, is necessarily deviant behavior, if
    only because there is no victim.  If carried to neurotic excess, like
    in nymphomania or Don Juanism, maybe society has something to get
    concerned about, otherwise, forget it.

    Anyway, I don't see defining deviant behavior in terms of victimization
    as necessarily a second definition, but rather an expansion of the
    original one, for the reasons I gave above.

    To tie this back into a Christian perspective, Christianity has always
    tried to impose its values on sexual behavior in whatever society in
    which it inserts itself.  It's just that it seems to me, sometimes,
    that Christianity seems to be a little overly concerned that its sexual
    values are the only true ones.

    Mike                        

    RE: .25 & .26 In Sociological terms deviant is neither inherently good or 
    bad. Just different. Normal and abnormal do not equate to good and bad.
    For example, a belief in Christ is deviant behavior in the Soviet
    Union, Japan, China, and a whole lot of other places. But not in the
    US (although it's getting that way.)

    RE: .26

>    I don't see where indiscriminate sex, as in one night stands
>    originating in a "pick up" bar, is necessarily deviant behavior, if
>    only because there is no victim.  

    	I agree that it is not deviant behavior by your first definition. It 
    is quite well accepted in our society. As to there not being a victim I 
    disagree. Because it is  at least as "essentially harmful to individuals, 
    and therefore harmful to the interests of society." as other examples
    you gave. Thus I see a difference between the definitions.

>    Anyway, I don't see defining deviant behavior in terms of victimization
>    as necessarily a second definition, but rather an expansion of the
>    original one, for the reasons I gave above.

    I'm sorry I still fail to make the connection. Perhaps that's because
    I don't see abnormal and bad as being the same thing. I don't think
    things are abnormal because society doesn't approve of them, though
    there are a lot of things that society doesn't approve up that are not
    "normal", things are abnormal because they are not common. I think that
    sometimes a society decides that something is harmful and therefor
    it becomes abnormal. On the other hand I believe that sometimes society
    sees that something is abnormal (not often done) and then decides that
    it is harmful. Racism has similar roots. Some ethnic group is a
    minority and is different so must therefore (in some peoples minds)
    be bad.

>    To tie this back into a Christian perspective, Christianity has always
>    tried to impose its values on sexual behavior in whatever society in
>    which it inserts itself.  It's just that it seems to me, sometimes,
>    that Christianity seems to be a little overly concerned that its sexual
>    values are the only true ones.

    All religions try to impose their values on whatever society it exists
    in. I would have serious doubts of the sincerity of a religion that did
    not. If a religion is not convinced that it's values and beliefs are
    correct for everyone then it's foundations are shaky. I believe that
    a religion that believes that others are as valid is itself, by
    definition, less then completely "true."

    			Alfred

    re: .27 (Alfred)
    
    
    Well, you accepted this definition that I gave earlier:
    
    "My definition of deviant sexual behavior is sexual behavior that is in
    variance with societal norms."
    
    But yet you say that you reject a definition for deviant that implies
    values.  It is impossible to decide what is normal and what is not
    normal, unless one can answer the question "as compared to what?"  In
    other words, one must make a value judgement.  

    There is more I want to say, but I gotta go.  Later.
    
    Mike
                                                        

Re:  229.26

Mike,

  >It's just that it seems to me, sometimes, that Christianity seems to be 
  >a little overly concerned that its sexual values are the only true ones.

It's actually much worse than this, Mike.  "Christianity" believes
that all of its values (sexual or otherwise) are the only true ones.

Collis

    
    C.S. Lewis on Sexual Morality:
    
    Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues.  There is no
    getting away from it:  the old Christian rule is, Either marriage,
    with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.
    Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that
    obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it
    now is, has gone wrong.  One or the other.  Of course, being a
    Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.
    .
    .
    .
    You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act --
    that is, to watch a girl undress on stage.  Now suppose you came to a
    country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered
    plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let
    everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a
    mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country
    something had gone wrong with the appetitie for food?  And would not
    anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something
    equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?
    .
    .
    .
    There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to
    make money out of us.  Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a
    man who has very little sales-resistance.  God knows our situation;
    He will not judge us as if we had no difficulties to overcome.
    What matters is the sincerity and perseverance of our will to overcome
    them.
    .
    .
    .
    If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, 
    he is quite wrong.  The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the
    least bad of all sins.  All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual:
    the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and
    patronising and spoiling sport, and backstabbing; the pleasure of power
    and hatred.  For there are two things inside me, competing with the
    human self which I must try to become.  They are the Animal self,
    and the Diabolical self.  The Diabolical self is the worse of the two.
    That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church
    may be for nearer to hell than a prostitute.  But, of course, it is
    better to be neither.
    
    
    -Mark
     

>    But yet you say that you reject a definition for deviant that implies
>    values.  It is impossible to decide what is normal and what is not
>    normal, unless one can answer the question "as compared to what?"  In
>    other words, one must make a value judgement.  
    
    When you get a chance please elaborate on this. Value implies better or
    worse. Deviant just means different. Not better not worse just
    different.
    
    			Alfred

    Another quick reply.
    
    When the word "deviant" is used in the phrase "deviant sexual
    behavior", the author of that phrase is usually connoting something
    bad.  I think that is how it is commonly understood here in the USA, at
    least.  I've never heard or read anyone who used that phrase, and who
    expected a neutral response, or used it in a neutral context.  Perhaps
    I should have made that more clear in the outset.
    
    The ball is back in your court.
    
    Mike
                                                     

Re: .27 Alfred

>    RE: .25 & .26 In Sociological terms deviant is neither inherently good or 
>    bad. Just different. Normal and abnormal do not equate to good and bad.
>    For example, a belief in Christ is deviant behavior in the Soviet
>    Union, Japan, China, and a whole lot of other places. But not in the
>    US (although it's getting that way.)

Fair enough, although I'm not sure that your use of the word "deviant"
corresponds to the dictionary definition of the word (see below).

>    All religions try to impose their values on whatever society it exists
>    in. I would have serious doubts of the sincerity of a religion that did
>    not. If a religion is not convinced that it's values and beliefs are
>    correct for everyone then it's foundations are shaky. I believe that
>    a religion that believes that others are as valid is itself, by
>    definition, less then completely "true."

This uncompromising approach reminds me of something in an article I posted
in 48.4:

>	Dwight D. Eisehower
>	made perhaps the clearest statements in modern times of this
>	position -- clear, that is, in its very muddledness:  "Our
>	government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt
>	religious faith -- and I don't care what it is."  His marvellous
>	combination of reverence and contempt for the integrity of
>	religious belief is a long way from the more internally consistent
>	opinion of the first American Protestants, who were sure that
>	anyone "willing to tolerate any Religion... besides his own...
>	either doubts of his own, or is not sincere in it." 

Re: .28 Mike

>    Well, you accepted this definition that I gave earlier:
>    
>    "My definition of deviant sexual behavior is sexual behavior that is in
>    variance with societal norms."
>    
>    But yet you say that you reject a definition for deviant that implies
>    values.  It is impossible to decide what is normal and what is not
>    normal, unless one can answer the question "as compared to what?"  In
>    other words, one must make a value judgement.  

I don't think you have to make a value judgment when you say what is normal
and what not normal.  For example, it is not normal to have an IQ of 180.  That
doesn't mean that someone with an IQ of 180 would be called "deviant".  I think
that the word "deviant" *does* imply a value judgement.  The American Heritage
Dictionary definition brings out this shade of meaning:

	deviant n. One whose behavior differs from accepted social or moral
	standards.

This implies that some people, i.e. those who accept a given standard, are
making a value judgement against people whose behavior differs from that
standard.  I used the word "against" on purpose, because I think that "deviant"
is always a negative term.  Someone with an IQ of 180 is not deviant.  Someone
who rapes little girls is.

As for gays in New Hampshire, a majority of people in the state may accept a
moral standard in which homosexuality is considered "deviant" behavior.  This
doesn't mean that everyone in New Hampshire accepts that standard.  I, for
example, do not.

				-- Bob

    in re .30
    
    Thanks Mark, I think Lewis is where I got my understanding
    of the 'seriousness' of sins.
    
    He said elegantly, what I was trying to say earlier.
    
    Bonnie

    But why are victimless sexual behaviors sinful at all?

Define "victimless sexual behavior".

As a Bible believing Christian, I would say that victimless sexual
behavior can only happen in a one man one woman marriage relationship.
Wouldn't you agree?  :-)

Collis

| Define "victimless sexual behavior".

| As a Bible believing Christian, I would say that victimless sexual
| behavior can only happen in a one man one woman marriage relationship.
| Wouldn't you agree?  :-)

	Collis, I agree. With a Bible believing Christian that you are, I do
believe that this is your definition of a victimless sexual behavior. Me,
believing in God and not so much into a book that humans could have added their
own thoughts and values feel it's victimless if the two people are in love.


Glen

    Define victimless sexual behavior?  Well, I thought it was self
    evident, but what the heck, I'll give it a shot.  To me, that is
    behavior of a sexual nature wherein no one is hurt physically or
    emotionally, and wherein all parties concerned engage in such behavior
    of their own free will.  
    
    I agree that as a Bible believing Christian, you would believe that. 
    
    Mike

Note 229.36

>As a Bible believing Christian, I would say that victimless sexual
>behavior can only happen in a one man one woman marriage relationship.
>Wouldn't you agree?  :-)

Collis,

	I suspect there a lots and lots of victims even within one-man-
one-woman marriage relationships.  I doubt that you would deny this.
Or do you?

Richard

    
    	OH NO!
    
    	I'm agreeing with Richard again...  8@)
    
    
    	Unfortunately, he's right.  (Not unfortunate that he is right,
    but unfortunate that what he said is correct)  
    
    
    	VICTEMLESS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
    
    	What a concept!  
    
    	It is VERY RARE outside of a COMMITED LOVE-FILLED relationship.
    Although the actual act or behavior may not cause any immediate harm,
    anyone who thinks that sexual behavior only effects an individual for
    the duration of the act is BLATENTLY NAIVE.
    
    Just (mho)
    _ed-

    re: .40 (Ed)
    
    I disagree with your assertion that it is rare that victimless sex
    occurs outside of a "committed love-filled relationship.  What is the
    basis for this idea, Ed?
    
    Mike

You are quite right, Richard.  Indeed, a one man, one woman marriage is
no guarantee at all of "victimless sexual behavior".  Sinning against
one another and God occurs in many circumstances.  It always occurs
when we disobey His express will, however.

Collis

| You are quite right, Richard.  Indeed, a one man, one woman marriage is
| no guarantee at all of "victimless sexual behavior".  Sinning against
| one another and God occurs in many circumstances.  It always occurs
| when we disobey His express will, however.

	If the Bible were ever to be proven to be ONLY the word of God, then
you have a point. But with humans being involved, how could it be?


Glen

    and many of us do not believe that every word of the Bible is
    Gods express will.
    
    I believe that much of what Paul wrote about sexuality was colored
    by his own personal problems, for example. Especially since it is
    largely or even exclusively in his letters rather than in the
    words of Jesus or the rest of the Bible that the emphasis is so
    pronounced.
    
    Bonnie

    
    	Aw the disadvantages of a 3 day work week (and they are few).
    
    
    	|sorry it takes so long to reply|
    
    	
    I guess I should have added an (imo).  
    
    	I did not say that victimless sex (I still hate that phrase) is
    not possible outside of a committed love-filled relationship, I said
    that it is rare.  Victimless (to me) implies that no one gets hurt
    or "used".  When love and commitment is not the center of a physical
    relationship then most of the time somebody is being used.  If the
    physical relationship is purely 'recreational' (another phrase I hate)
    then 'maybe' doubtful but maybe there are no victims.  But I doubt 
    that a woman can 'honestly' say that there are no emotions beyond the
    physical sensations involved in the sexual act.  Men are not as much
    the emotional beings as women and can usually separate out the physical
    and emotional feelings.  Women on the other hand will almost always
    connect the physical act with an emotiona bond.  If there is no
    commitment or 'love' then somebody usually gets the short end of the
    deal.
    
    	mo
    	ed

    re: .45 (Ed)
    
    Well, I disagree with your thesis, but I guess it isn't worth arguing
    about, except to say that people of both genders engage in sex for all
    sorts of reasons, and most of the time, they do it willingly.  To me
    that means there is no victim in that is no one was coerced into
    participating.  I include in that categroy people who do it for neurotic
    reasons, or stupid reasons, or even just because they were carried away
    by the moment. 
    
    Mike  

Who defines what a "victim" is?  Is it possible to have a "victimless"
suicide if the person was doing it willingly (and was happy with the choice
for whatever reason)?  What is someone in society was adversely affected
by the suicide.  Does the suicide now have a victim?

If so, then sex outside of the marriage relationship has many victims
who see that as an acceptable form of sexual expression and thereby
engage in such sex themselves creating "victims" that we all agree are
victims.  So, even if you can claim (incorrectly, in my opinion) that
there are no direct victims, that still leaves us with many indirect
victims.

Collis

    Let me try to show an example of victimless sex.  
    
    A young man gets himself all duded up for a Saturday night on the town. 
    He meets a young lady at a bar, or a dance, or some such social event,
    and they discover they like each other.  One thing leads to another,
    and the young man and young lady go off somewhere and have a sexual
    liaison, maybe that night, or maybe after a few dates.  No matter.  In
    the light of a new day, they decide that maybe they don't really like
    each other all that much after all, and go their separate ways.

    This is hardly a very unique scenario, and in fact is acted out
    innumerable times each and every night all over the world.

    Anyway, assuming we are talking about consenting adults, I fail to see
    where there are any victims.  And don't tell me society, because it
    isn't any one else's business what consenting adults do in privacy of
    their bedrooms, or why.
    
    Mike
                  

Re:  .48

When David committed adultery with Bathsheeba, he acknowledged that it
was against God and God only that he had sinned.

You present a scenario where two people willfully commit fornication
(a very clear sin against God) and expect us to approve of it?  Because
you do not see an obvious victim?

There are many reasons why God has told us not to engage in sexual
activity outside of marriage.

Did you know, Mike, that people who engaged in sexual activity before
marriage are much more likely to engage in adultery than those who did
not?

Did you know, Mike that people who live together before marriage have a
higher divorce rate than people who had no sexual experience before
marriage?

You are right, Mike that society isn't a person - however it is people.
And people *are* effected by what other people do - whether you like it
or not.  And we *are* to be aware of this and adjust our actions
accordingly (Romans 14).

Sexual disease, pregnancies, emotions out of control and changed sexual
expectation are all part of the answer of who is the victim.  But
ultimately, each of us who chooses our own way to God's perfect way is
indeed a victim - whether it be in ignorance or in knowledge.  We choose
our sinful pleasures instead of the restraint that allows for us to grow
as God would have willed.  Have mercy on us, Lord Jesus.

Collis

    Well Collis, I don't expect you, or anyone, to approve of something as
    terrible as fornication.  I'm just trying to understand why it is
    considered sinful, since no one is being hurt, and words to the effect
    that "because the Bible says so" just aren't very helpful.  

    But, I guess I'll just let this one rest for now.  

    Mike

    
    	Well Mike,
    		I'm sorry but 'Because the Bible says so' should be
    sufficient.  I guess it all comes down to how you 'determine' what sin 
    is.  Is sin only what hurts someone?  Is sin only what is made public?
    What determines 'in your mine' what sin is.  The Bible word for sin 
    means 'to miss the mark'.  What is that mark?  If sin is relative then
    I say there is no sin.  Because I'm have no such relatives 8*).  
    There has to a determinant.
    
    _ed-
    
    
    
    	p.s.  The REAL VICTIM in fornication (or any other sin for that 
    		matter) is Jesus.  Because it is for that sin that he
    		became the most innocent of all victims at Calvary.
    

    Ed,
    
    I know what you are saying, but to a non-Christian, that isn't very
    meaningful, that's all.  I'm just trying to discover if there is any
    compelling moral reason to abstain from victimless sex, other than
    health reasons, of course.
    
    Mike

    
    	Moral reasons:
    
    	To a non-christian what does it matter?  (I think that is what you
    are saying.)  I have heard many claim that extra-marital sex DOES
    absolutely impact the physical relationship once someone gets married.  
    I haven't seen any studies or surveys but I have a gut feeling that it
    is true.
    
    	I don't believe (mo) that it is possible to have a physical
    relationship without emotional impact.  The phrase 'the two become
    one flesh' illudes to the physical union as part of the overall
    spiritual & emotional union.  I don't think that it is possible to 
    completely separate the 3.
    
    	
    
    
    
    	Just an aside; before I was saved I had very little regard for 
    Morals.  As long as there were no social repercussions and it 'felt
    good', I did it.  As far as I am concerned 'victimless sex' hasn't 
    been proven yet.
    
    	_ed-

    Re.51

    Ed:
        "There has to be a determinate"

        Since you have stated this as an imperative, perhaps you could
      provide an explanation as to why you believe this to be true.


                                                               Mike

    Whether or not "Because the Bible says so" is sufficient depends on
    whether you subscribe to biblical literalism.  Not only is "Because the
    Bible says so" unconvincing for non-Christians, it is not necessarily
    convincing for all Christians either.

    -- Mike

Actually, Mike, many people accept what the Bible says without "subscribing
to Biblical literalism".  Even the Southern Baptists who just broke away
accept what the Bible says and definately do not believe in inerrancy.

Collis

(By the way, I do not subscribe to Biblical literalism, just inerrancy.)

Re:  .50

Mike,

I gave you 4 (perhaps 5, depending on how you count) reasons other than 
"the Bible tells me so" for why this may not be victimless sex.  Did you not
feel that any of them were worth commenting on?  

Or are you so turned off by people who believe the Bible that it becomes 
an immediate stumbling block to whatever else is said?  (Some people are.)

Collis

    re: .57

    Collis,

    You did indeed present several opinions concerning how people are
    likely to act if they do such and so.  (We are talking about reply .49,
    aren't we?)  The problem was, in terms of what we are discussing,
    (sex/victims/sinfulness) those unsubstantiated assertions just somehow
    seemed irrelevant to me.  For instance, whether or not it is true that 
    a significant portion of people who live together before marriage, end
    up divorcing, seemed to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
    Mostly because one does not necessarily have anything to do with the
    other.  I felt the same about your other examples.  That is why I
    didn't comment on them.  

    In any case, I am not turned off by people just because they believe
    in the Bible.  Although, I recognize that some folks are, as it
    also sometimes happens that Bible believers are turned off by people
    like myself.  I don't think that either case applies to either of us.

    Now, I know much is made about the emotional aspects of sex, and
    rightfully so.  It is possible to enjoy mutually satisfying sex without
    any particular emotional commitment, especially since people have sex
    for all sorts of reasons, both physical and psychological.  But, as an
    old married person, I understand how much a mutually committed
    emotional bond can enhance the experience.  But still, I don't
    understand what the connection between emotional feelings and sex in
    terms of victimization, again assuming always we are talking about
    mutually consensual acts between adults.

    Re: morals

    It is quite possible to not believe in the Bible and/or be a
    non-Christian, and yet still have moral integrity, sexual and
    otherwise, although the moral values held by such people may be
    somewhat different from what Christianity and/or the Bible describe. 
    Something that I'm sure we are all aware of, but perhaps we don't
    always remember.  I mean, that's true, isn't it?  Or are we saying
    that a person cannot be moral unless they are Bible believing
    Christians?

    Mike

    The point is, Collis, that "accepting what the Bible says",
    unquestioningly, is not inherently part of the theology of all
    Christians.
    
    -- Mike

    RE .56  Collis
    
    
                      What is this "even Southern Baptists"?  ;^)
    
    
    Dave...who *IS* Southern Baptist.

    Now you've done it, Collis!  8;)
    
    Mike

Re:  .258

Mike,

I understand that you choose not to believe that what I said was relevant.

I also understand that you gave no reasons why it was not relevant.

Collis

Dave,

A little off the subject but...

I'm sure you're aware of the recent "split" (if it is that) in the
Southern Baptist denomination over the inerrancy of the Bible.

The point I was making was that even those who dispute inerrancy to
the point of creating a new denomination (if, indeed, that is what has
happened) still consider themselves Bible believing (and following)
Christians.  (Since this is the point I was discussing at the time.)

Collis

    RE:  .63   Collis,
    
                        Just trying to lighten things up a bit.  Your
    right, there is a faction that wants to split.  fortunatly it is
    *NOT* over the inerrancy of the bible.  That is what the press and
    the current powers in the Southern Baptist Convention would have you
    believe.  It has been over questioning some of the interpretations that
    some of the "powerful" preachers are trying to "shove" down their
    congragations throat.  Be aware, that this is a *VERY* sensitive subject
    among the entire Southern Baptists.  But the inerrancy of the bible
    has, to my knowledge, never been questioned.
    
    
    Dave

    re: .62 and .49

    Collis,

    You want reasons why they aren't relevant?  Hmmm. 

    Well, for one thing, the assertions you gave are not substantiated in
    any way.  In order to believe that they are relevant, I have to take
    them at face value.  I don't have enough information to be able to do
    that.  

    For another, the way those examples were given, they were logically
    flawed.  For instance, you said that people who live together and were
    later married were more likely to get divorced later.  To me, one does
    not necessarily follow the other.            

    You also said that people who have premarital sex were more likely to
    commit adultery later.  Again, one does not necessarily, and
    organically, flow from the other.  

    As adults, we are all aware of those factors and people that affect our
    lives.  As adults, whenever we do something, we decide on the basis of
    how it will affect ourselves, and if we feel strongly enough about
    outside influences, we will factor those into our decision.  Sometimes
    we get it right, and sometimes we don't.  Point is, as thinking adults,
    we have the right and responsibility to think about our behavior and
    decide on how to act accordingly.  You see, ultimately, we have to live
    our lives for ourselves.  We can't live them for other people.  We can
    take other people's feelings into consideration, but that's the extent
    of it.  Conversely, of course, no one can live our lives for us,
    either.
           
    In any case, these examples have nothing to do with the question I have
    been discussing all along, which is, why is sex between consenting
    adults wherein no one is hurt, considered sinful?  The two examples
    noted above do not address that in any way.  At least none that I can
    see. 
    
    As far as the rest is concerned, pregnancies, and venereal disease, can
    all be handled by education, prophylaxis, and easily available birth
    control methods, interestingly enough, all of which are not looked on
    favorably by many/most Christian organizations.  

    Emotions going out of control are a fact of life, living in this "vale
    of tears", as we do.  Rigid control of sexual practices are not going
    to change that fact one single iota, nor will it reduce the amount of
    unhappiness in this world, in my opinion. 

    I have no idea what you meant by the phrase "changed sexual
    expectation".                    

    Finally, I was struck by your reference to "...choosing sinful
    pleasures...".  That is quite in line with traditional Christian
    teachings, and that is pleasure is to be avoided, and sacrifice is the
    higher goal.  I have never understood why that is so.  It seems to me
    that a more balanced approach without the shame and guilt over honest
    human pleasures would win more converts.

    Mike
                       

    can I again echo what I've asked before, why don't Christians
    carry on in here about people who work on Sunday, or dishonor
    their parents, or steal, or .......

    adultery is *one* commandment.... except for Paul, who I regard
    as having adding his human bias to letters he wrote that I think
    he would be *appalled* to have been given scriptural authority
    with the old testament, the Bible has recounted sexual sins  like
    any other, people did them and they repented, they were no
    exaggerated so totally out of proportion to the other commandments.

    You all do realize that the Bible condones sex between engaged
    couples. cf. Mary and Joseph.

    Bonnie

	I have a sixteen-year-old daughter who is ready, willing and
eager to lose her virginity.  Her boyfriend of 8 or so months is the
one who is postponing the event, from what her mother tells me.  (Times
have changed a bit since I was in high school. ;-})

	Regardless, I consider it an impropriety for unwed teenagers to
have sexual relations while under my roof.  The same goes for smoking,
consuming alcoholic beverages and a few other house rules.  Of course, I
would prefer that she abstain at least until her emotional maturity catches
up with her body.  (Which I figure, at the current rate, should occur when
she is about 37 years old. 8-})

	Now, there are some parents who openly consent to their teenager and
chosen partner(s) to use their home bedrooms to engage in sexual activity.
Some might consider this a case of "victimless sex."  I don't know whether
it is or not.  This much I do know - I'm not going to make it easy for it to
happen in my home.

	Doubtlessly, some are asking, "Well, is your daughter a Christian?"
As far as she is concerned - the answer is yes.  Don't blame her attitude on
her "liberal upbringing."  She's really much more of a fundamentalist than
I ever was.  Her thought process is being governed by peer pressure and raging
hormones.  She says, "Of all my friends, I'm the only one who is still a
virgin!"

Richard

    
    RE. 54
    
    	>> There has to be a determinate.
    
    	If there is NO plumline, if there is no standard then there is
    no sin.  If we say there are no absolutes then we cannot say there
    is morality.  Morality discribes an absolute.  If you say that 'x'
    is wrong and there are not standards (determinates) then I can say
    no it's not and you can't prove otherwise.  If you try to say 'x' is
    wrong because somebody gets hurt, then you are setting a determinate.
    The fact that somebody gets hurt becomes the determinate.  But that
    will be relative also if we don't agree that there is a standard or
    a single line of morality.  
    
    						_ed-

    
    	Richard brought up an interesting thought.
    
    	If the sexual act is ok in 'victimless' situations...
    
    	Would you allow your son or daughter to participate?
    	How would you encourage/discourage it?
    	If not how do you justify not allowing it in their circumstances
    	while allowing it in others?
    
    	

Re: .69 Ed

>    If we say there are no absolutes then we cannot say there
>    is morality.

If we say there are no absolutes then we cannot say that there is *absolute*
morality.  We can say that there is individual morality, i.e. I know what's
moral for me and you know what's moral for you.

>  If you say that 'x'
>    is wrong and there are not standards (determinates) then I can say
>    no it's not and you can't prove otherwise.

You're right that I can't prove it's wrong for you, but I can "prove" it's
wrong for me - it's wrong because I say it is.  You may or may not agree
with me.

>  If you try to say 'x' is
>    wrong because somebody gets hurt, then you are setting a determinate.

I'm setting a determinate for whether it's wrong *for me*.

>    The fact that somebody gets hurt becomes the determinate.  But that
>    will be relative also if we don't agree that there is a standard or
>    a single line of morality.  
    
We can't because there isn't.

				-- Bob

Re: .70 Ed

Presumably Richard thinks that if his daughter had sex at this time in her
life it would not be victimless - she's not ready for it (in his judgement).

				-- Bob

    Richard,

    When my 21 year old son, Michael, and his daughter Canaan, and
    her mother Holly, who is 22 come to visit, should I make them
    sleep in separate bedrooms? Who does Canaan sleep with?

    Both of them are intending to spend their lives together, and
    are committed to parenting their daughter together. Holly has
    told me many times that she loves me. Both of them are planning
    on going to Divinity school  in the fall of '92.

    For what ever personal reasons they have, they both choose not
    to marry.

    We went to the Baptism of their daughter 3 weeks ago.....
    a ceremony they helped design and write.

    What would you do?

    I love them, and their daughter, they aren't real sure I'm a liberal.

    sigh

    and hugs

    Bonnie


    p.s. when each of my kids reached 16 I gave them the option of having
    one beer or wine cooler a day on the weekend. I felt they should  learn
    about drinking at home.

    the dr and I suspect that our 17  year old daughter may be close to
    having sex with her young man, who we both admire and would accept
    as a son in law. 

    He argues with her about faith, he's an active RC and she's a
    'lapsed' Episcopalian.

    and --Bob ---- *no* parent in the 'short term' is ready for the idea
    that their kid is having sex. I've heard of women who freaked when
    married daughters said they were pj. This because it meant that
    their child was having sex. 

    From what I've read, in the past, sex was regarded as something
    like an appetite, a thing to joke about, a minor sin.....

    I wonder why it has achieved so much prominence in this last few 
    generations.

    Bonnie

     Re.69

      Ed:

            For a thing to be absolute means that it cannot be violated.
           Morality then, could not absolute as it is possible act against
           what people consider moral.
            Absolutism removes the possibility of choice and thus voids
           the concept morality which by it's very nature requires the
           individual to decide upon a course of action.
             
                                                               Mike

    re: .68 

    I'm with you Richard, on this one.  As a parent, I am responsible for
    setting down guidelines on what I believe to be acceptable behavior.
    One of them is that, in my opinion, 16 years old is too young to engage
    in sex, and certainly too young to engage in it on a regular basis. 
    Not because it is necessarily physically harmful, but because I believe
    that in our culture, that is too young to handle the emotional aspects
    of it.  And since I don't consider that to be appropriate behavior at
    that age, I'm not about to condone it under my roof, out of fear that
    they are gonna do it anyway, so it might as well be in a safe place. I
    feel the same about drinking, smoking, and other adult activities.

    Of course, by the time a kid is 16, they very much have a mind of their
    own, and if that is something they really want to do, there is precious
    little I can do to prevent it, except to let them know how I feel and
    why, teach them what they need to know about the physical and emotional
    aspects of sexual expression, and try to set as good an example as I
    can, and hope they will see the light before they jump into something
    too heavy.  Ain't parenthood fun?

    As I have been stressing all along, sex among consenting adults is one
    thing.  What I haven't been stressing is that sex among teens is
    something else again.  In my opinion, teen sex isn't wrong in the
    sense that it is shameful and sinful, but should be avoided because it
    is dangerous, and teens don't always have the emotional capacity or
    the experience in dealing with people to see the danger signals.

    Mike

    re: .69

    Ed,

    If morality were absolute, then all things that you consider to be
    absolute would be held as absolute all over the world throughout
    history.  That is not the case at all, obviously.  Like it or not,
    morality is very much a human construct, designed by various cultures
    to encourage or discourage various forms of human behavior, by
    differing means, for differing reasons.

    For instance, the Christian concept of morality forbids suicide. 
    Clearly, expressly, and constantly.  Yet, in other cultures, suicide
    has not only sometimes been condoned, in some it has been considered a
    duty.  The most obvious example of that is Japan.  You can call it
    wrong, and you can call the Japanese wrong, but that doesn't make it
    so.  Undoubtedly I could come up with more examples of the flexibility
    of human morality among human cultures without too much trouble, but
    right now, I just ran out of time.

    Mike

re: Note 229.69 by _ed- "MARANATHA!" >>>

>                           -< Its NOT all relative. >-

True, but that doesn't mean that it is ALL absolute, either.  Actually, I'm
not sure with whom I'm in agreement, I guess it depends on how one interprets
such statements.  I can't know that, because there's no absolute standard for
such interpretation.   Arrrrugh, life gets so complicated when it turns self-
referential!
    
As the philosophers said in Douglas Adams' Hitch_Hiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
trilogy, (quoting from memory)

	"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and confusion!"

Confusedly yours in the Peace of God which transcends confusion,

Jim

Re:  229.65

  >You want reasons why they aren't relevant?  Hmmm. 

Thank you.

  >Point is, as thinking adults, we have the right and responsibility to 
  >think about our behavior and decide on how to act accordingly.  

Actually, we have a God-given privilege.  But, yes, this is often
viewed as a "right".

  >You see, ultimately, we have to live our lives for ourselves.

Truly, this is the difference.  No, we are not to live our lives for
ourselves.  We are to live them for God and for others.

  >In any case, these examples have nothing to do with the question I have
  >been discussing all along, which is, why is sex between consenting
  >adults wherein no one is hurt, considered sinful?  The two examples
  >noted above do not address that in any way.  At least none that I can
  >see. 

To which I must respond, there is none so blind as he who cannot (will not)
see.

I don't know why you believe that past sexual experience (or lack thereof)
does not affect future sexual experience.  It is well accepted that, in
general, past experiences have a profound impact on our future actions.
If you wish to make an exception for this in the area of sex, I'd like
to hear your reasons.

  >As far as the rest is concerned, pregnancies, and venereal disease, can
  >all be handled by education, prophylaxis, and easily available birth
  >control methods...

No they cannot.  Sometimes they can and are.  However, other times they
cannot and are not.  It is not as simple as you present it.

  >Emotions going out of control are a fact of life, living in this "vale
  >of tears", as we do.

And so we should encourage and accept activity which causes emotions to
sometimes go out of control?  Why don't we all go out and get bombed?
After all, sometimes we all lose it.  We might as well do it now.
This is your reasoning?  This is not God's intention for us.

  >Finally, I was struck by your reference to "...choosing sinful
  >pleasures...".  

Just to put that comment in perspective.  Very few choose sinful pain.  
Many choose sinless pleasure.  But we are all tempted by sinful pleasure
and it is this (IMO) that we are discussing.  I don't mean to ignore
the non-sinful pleasures at all.  There are many and they are meant
to be enjoyed.

Collis

Re:  229.67

  >can I again echo what I've asked before, why don't Christians
  >carry on in here about people who work on Sunday, or dishonor
  >their parents, or steal, or .......

Perhaps because there's more agreement on those issues?

I think that we could engage in a *very* long discussion on stealing,
for example, if a large number of people believed that stealing was
right.

  >You all do realize that the Bible condones sex between engaged
  >couples. cf. Mary and Joseph.

Bonnie, you amaze me.

Joesph learns that Mary is with child (when they are engaged), makes plans 
to divorce her (and does not because the Holy Spirit intercedes telling him
that this child is God's child, not the child of another man) and you say 
that the Bible *condones* sex between engaged couples?

Please explain how you interpret this as condoning sex during an engagement.
(You do know that sex during engagement is fornication which is strictly
prohibited in the Bible, don't you?)

Collis

RE: .78
    
     Collis,
     
 > >You see, ultimately, we have to live our lives for ourselves.

    >Truly, this is the difference.  No, we are not to live our lives for
    >ourselves.  We are to live them for God and for others.

    Christianity teaches total abnegation of self.  The more one denies
    oneself, the holier one is considered.  That is the single biggest
    reason why I will have nothing to do with Christianity.  It quite goes
    against human nature, which is that a well functioning sense of self
    esteem is necessary for an individual to function effectively in the
    world, and denial of that need is the single most harmful aspect of
    Christianity, in my opinion.
    
 > >In any case, these examples have nothing to do with the question I have
 > >been discussing all along, which is, why is sex between consenting
 > >adults wherein no one is hurt, considered sinful?  The two examples
  >>noted above do not address that in any way.  At least none that I can
  >>see. 

  >  To which I must respond, there is none so blind as he who cannot (will
  >  not) see.
   
    Well, that is a two edged sword, my friend.
    
    >I don't know why you believe that past sexual experience (or lack
    >thereof) does not affect future sexual experience.  It is well accepted
    >that, in general, past experiences have a profound impact on our future
    >actions. If you wish to make an exception for this in the area of sex,
    >I'd like to hear your reasons.

    I don't recall ever saying that past sexual experiences don't ever have
    anything to do with future sexual experiences.  What I said was that
    one specific activity does not necessarily lead to another specific
    activity.  You named the activities, I didn't.  As thinking creatures,
    we are not bound to do certain things in another five or ten years from
    now, just because we did something yesterday.
    
    Besides, this has nothing to do with victimization.  Unless you are
    trying to make a case that just because a person has premarital sex
    at age 18, and (assuming your assertion is correct) they might have an
    extra-marital sexual excursion 10 years later, that their future spouse
    is being victimized by the act committed at age 18?  Is that what you
    are trying to say?
                                                  
  >>As far as the rest is concerned, pregnancies, and venereal disease, can
  >>all be handled by education, prophylaxis, and easily available birth
  >>control methods...

    >No they cannot.  Sometimes they can and are.  However, other times they
    >cannot and are not.  It is not as simple as you present it.

    No, it isn't as simple as I presented it, but it could be one whole
    heck of a lot simpler than it currently is, and I couldn't help notice
    that you brushed past the point that Christian organizations don't want
    to even try.
    
  >>Emotions going out of control are a fact of life, living in this "vale
  >>of tears", as we do.

    >And so we should encourage and accept activity which causes emotions to
    >sometimes go out of control?  Why don't we all go out and get bombed?
    >After all, sometimes we all lose it.  We might as well do it now. This
    >is your reasoning?  This is not God's intention for us.

    Well, I'll tell you what.  I have never been as upset as I have been
    during arguments with my wife or with my kids.  Because they mean more
    to me than anyone ever has before, I suppose.  Anyway, are you saying
    that I should avoid all possible instances where I _might_ get upset,
    so I should leave my family?
                                                                     
  >>Finally, I was struck by your reference to "...choosing sinful
  >>pleasures...".  

    >Just to put that comment in perspective.  Very few choose sinful pain.  
    >Many choose sinless pleasure.  But we are all tempted by sinful
    >pleasure and it is this (IMO) that we are discussing.  I don't mean to
    >ignore the non-sinful pleasures at all.  There are many and they are
    >meant to be enjoyed.

    Okay, except you and I obviously disagree that sex is quintessentially
    wrong, if one doesn't have a certain piece of paper.  
    
    Mike 

Re:  229.80

  >Christianity teaches total abnegation of self.  The more one denies
  >oneself, the holier one is considered.  That is the single biggest
  >reason why I will have nothing to do with Christianity.  It quite goes
  >against human nature, which is that a well functioning sense of self
  >esteem is necessary for an individual to function effectively in the
  >world, and denial of that need is the single most harmful aspect of
  >Christianity, in my opinion.

Mike,

There are many beliefs in this area all called "Christian" and all quite
different.

What you are describing becoming popular in the 3rd and 4th centuries
but is not in vogue today.  This is when monasteries started.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are the Christian teachings of
Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale.  They revel in finding self-
fulfillment for the individual.

Most Christian denominations are between the two.  Self is not bad, self
is good.  Putting oneself first is, in general, wrong.  This does not
mean that we are not to meet the needs of self, what it means is that
we are not to be self-absorved.

Perhaps if you understood Christianity better, you would appreciate
it more.  But really, Christianity isn't a religion about self (either
positive or negative), it is a relationship with Jesus Christ.  If you
don't want to be a Christian, just admit up fron that you don't want
(for whatever reason) a personal relationship with the Living God.

  >Well, that is a two edged sword, my friend.

I hear you.  :-)
    
  >What I said was that one specific activity does not necessarily lead to 
  >another specific activity.  You named the activities, I didn't.  As 
  >thinking creatures, we are not bound to do certain things in another five 
  >or ten years from now, just because we did something yesterday.

Likewise, I never said this.  I pointed out that there is a connection
(not a specific one to one relationship, just a connection) between past
and future activities.  You denied this.
    
  >...I couldn't help notice that you brushed past the point that Christian 
  >organizations don't want to even try.

Sorry to brush past it.  Would you prefer that I deny it?  (I don't
remember exactly what your point was about this.  But I get the feeling
that it's something I should deny...  :-)  )
    
  >Anyway, are you saying that I should avoid all possible instances where 
  >I _might_ get upset, so I should leave my family?

No, but I think it would be wise of you to avoid getting into situations
where you get emotionally upset if they can be avoided.  I certainly do
this and this is one of the reasons that wonderful Robyn and I get along
so well.  I never yell at her and avoid getting into situations where
she feels a need to yell at me.  We manage to work through our differences
with love, understanding and compassion instead of fighting, kicking and
insults.  I know that this isn't what the best pop psychology says to do,
but it works well for us.  :-)

  >Okay, except you and I obviously disagree that sex is quintessentially
  >wrong, if one doesn't have a certain piece of paper.

'tis not a piece of paper that is required, 'tis a lifelong commitment
to your spouse which is something no piece of paper can give.

Collis

Note 229.73

Bonnie,

	The circumstances, and (I'm guessing here) the maturity level, and
certainly the ages of the persons you've described are too different from
my household situation for me to comment on at all.

	However, I can tell you that I have come to respect your judgment.

Peace,
Richard

P.S.  We will allow a little wine during meals on special occassions.  So,
maybe I'm not as hardnosed as I sounded at first. ;-)

    in re .79
    
    but Collis!!!!
    
    people work on Sunday and dishonor their parents and steal
    *all the time*...... and *noone* makes a fuss.... expect
    if you steal at the point of a gun or by b&e....cf, taking
    a pen or some paper home from work...
    
    so why don't people get as exercised over those sins???
    
    and Collis! it was okay for enagage couples to have intercourse
    in Biblical times, the problem with Joseph and Mary was that
    he knew *he* wasn't the father, not that she was pregnant, that
    was so common, and so usual as to not even be commented on.
    
    Bonnie

    I dunno, Richard, if Michael and Holly were more mature, they'd
    probably marry...
    
    sigh
    and hugs
    
    Bonnie

>    and Collis! it was okay for enagage couples to have intercourse
>    in Biblical times, the problem with Joseph and Mary was that
>    he knew *he* wasn't the father, not that she was pregnant, that
>    was so common, and so usual as to not even be commented on.

    I don't know. You could be right but that's not an interpretation I've
    heard before. Re-reading Matthew chapter 1 I always assumed that it
    was the pregnancy not the father that worried Joseph. That's what I've
    heard from a number of pulpits as well. In fact it was so usual as not
    to be commented on why would Matthew, who was writing to the Jews
    primarily, comment on it?

    			Alfred

Re:  229.83
    
  >people work on Sunday and dishonor their parents and steal
  >*all the time*...... and *noone* makes a fuss.... 

In my house we do.  I continue to observe the Blue Laws which are
no longer in force.  Stealing is dealt with very severely.

Have you heard of the "Lord's Day League" active in Massachusetts?
Have you heard the talk about prisons and crime and read the newspaper
articles?  It seems to me that this activity gets *quite* a lot of
attention.  But, again, there is agreement on that stealing is wrong
and so this explains why there is not much discussion on legalizing
stealing.  :-)

  >and Collis! it was okay for enagage couples to have intercourse
  >in Biblical times, the problem with Joseph and Mary was that
  >he knew *he* wasn't the father, not that she was pregnant, that
  >was so common, and so usual as to not even be commented on.
    
From what source did you reach this conclusion?  And since when did
society start deciding what was moral (and not God)?

Collis

I am hoping this weekend to do the research needed to respond to
several of the questions asked.  Until then...

Have a godly weekend!

Collis

    Re: Last few
    
    Luke 2:5 & part of 6 (TEV)
    
    He (Joseph) went to register Mary, who was promised in marriage to
    him.  She was pregnant, and while they were in Bethlehem,....
    
    It is likely Mary and Joseph were mere teenagers at the time.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    in Luke, it says that Mary was his 'betroved wife' i.e. they 
    had been engaged but not married....I've seen this so often 
    about Mary and Joseph, plus, 'he knew her not until the child
    was born' that I've sort of assumed that *everyone* knew this...

    I've had it preached from pulpits, read it in books and articles,
    so often, that I was totally amazed that Collis didn't *know*
    that. As far as I understand it, Mary and Joseph, were engaged,
    not married, when Christ was born. But it was okay because they
    had been through the 'betrothal ceremony' and the Jewish
    society of the time accepted pregnancy then.

    Bonnie

    inre .88
    
    again, tradition, I'd thought and have been taught, that
    Mary was a teenager, but according to the traditional, marriages
    of the time, Joseph was established as a carpenter, and thus
    in his early 30s..... he was apparently dead by the time
    Jesus was crucified.... which would have made him in his 60s,
    and makes sense in context.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .73

>    When my 21 year old son, Michael, and his daughter Canaan, and
>    her mother Holly, who is 22 come to visit, should I make them
>    sleep in separate bedrooms? 

    Been thinking about this a bit today. I guess it depends on the
    message you want to send to your other kids. If you want them to
    know that sex outside of marriage is OK as long as you love each other
    then let them share a room. If that is *not* what you want them to
    believe then it's separate room time. "Do what I tell you not what I
    let your brother get away with" probably will not cut it if your kids
    are half sharp as they probably are.

    BTW, a number of my unmarried relatives have come to my house with
    lady friends. Regardless of what they did other places they had
    separate rooms in my home. None of them gave me any flack over it
    even though their feelings in the matter are different from mine.
    They love and respect me and my beliefs. They also understand that
    teaching my son is my responsibility and it is not their right to
    interfere in that by pressuring me to allow shared rooms.

    		Alfred

    Re: .90
    
    	Thanks.  I've always wondered what happened to Joseph.  Nothing
    is mentioned of Joseph after the chapters which concern Jesus'
    childhood.
    
    	I'm not certain that Joseph was that much older than Mary, but
    I can certainly see how that might be so.  It was my understanding
    that the social convention of the times demanded that a young man be
    married earlier than his thirties.  But, it wouldn't be the first time
    that I've been mistaken, if I am.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Joseph as an old man? Perhaps if Mary was a second wife. I believe
    that Jewish tradition has long held that a man wasn't really a man
    until he had a wife. Even today many conservative synagogues will
    not hire an unmarried Rabbi. This is not condusive to a man staying
    single a long time. And as a good carpenter, and one sort of assumes
    that Jesus would have a family that was at least successful, Joseph
    would probably have been concidered "a good catch."

    		Alfred

Bonnie,

At the time of the 1st century, a man and a woman who were to be "fully"
married became "engaged", often for a long period of time (a year).
This does not correspond either to what we now call a marriage or what
we now call an engagement.  It is not as firm as the first, but it is
more serious than the second.

Because of the nature of the commitment, it was necessary to get a
"divorce" if you were not going to be "fully" married.  (Unfortunately,
we do not have the words in the English language to properly express
the relationship, but I think you get the idea.)

This was *NOT* a time when sexual relations were permitted.

Collis

    "Today theologians say the main obstruction to faith is not so much
    Jesus' humanity as his divinity.  That may be so, but closer
    examination reveals that Docetism is very much alive and well in
    Christian circles.  The churches say the right things about his being
    fully human, but they refuse to follow the logic of their contentions:
    the Jesus they preach is an unearthly figure very far removed from what
    most of us think of as human.  He remains a God-in-disguise, one who
    during his days on earth was the embodiment of intellectual and moral
    perfection, knowing none of the limitations that beset normal mortals. 
    His humanity has been sacrificed on the altar of deity.

    "The churches' real attitude can easily be discovered by asking some
    questions about Jesus' sexuality.  The Roman Catholic Church and those
    Anglicans opposed to women's ordination make much of the fact that
    Jesus was male.  But that is where they drop the matter.  Embarrassed
    dismay is the first reaction from clergy and laity alike when anyone
    dares to discuss the possibility that Jesus was married.  Most probably
    he was not, but the idea ought not to offend as it does.  One or two
    theologians have had the temerity to point out that if Jesus' humanity
    is to be taken with any seriousness one must be prepared to say that he
    knew sexual desire, that as a male he probably experienced nocturnal
    erections, and that the moment when Mary Magdalene dried his feet with
    her hair could well have been erotically charged.  These suggestions
    have occasioned deep shock among the faithful.  Why should they?  Here,
    as in the traditional view of his mother Mary as "perpetual virgin,"
    the true depths of human sexuality have been stripped away, leaving
    only a shadow of any real, flesh-and-blood humanity.  It is one thing
    to argue that since the Bible gives no evidence of any sexual activity
    on the part of Jesus, he was "without sin" in this area of life; it is
    something quite different to deny that he experienced the normal sexual
    stirrings and feelings that are a rudimentary part of what it is to be
    human....  ("For Christ's Sake", by Tom Harpur, pp. 32-33).

    -- Mike

re Note 229.95 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     He remains a God-in-disguise, one who
>     during his days on earth was the embodiment of intellectual and moral
>     perfection, knowing none of the limitations that beset normal mortals. 
>     His humanity has been sacrificed on the altar of deity.

        I must admit that that same thought has occurred to me quite
        often.

        The hardest thing that a human must cope with is the
        knowledge of failure, which is the knowledge of personal sin. 
        Scripture tells us that Jesus was like us in all ways but
        that one.  (A possible exception exists for that dying moment
        on the cross when Jesus "became sin" on our behalf.)

        Bob

    re. .95
    
    	We have to realize that Jesus 'was' completely human.  If we think 
    that he did not have similar feelings & temptations then we are missing
    the significance of Hebrews 4:15.  He definately felt what we felt but 
    didn't sin.  Temptation is NOT sin, Neither is it an EXCUSE for sin.
    
    	mo
    	ed

    Re.97
    
     Ed:
        
          I would guess that would depend on how temptation is
         defined. Doesn't the Bible say that thinking of doing
         something is just as much a sin as actually doing it ?
          I would tend to think that temptation may well include
         thinking about doing something. 
          Also, if one is to accept the Christian argument that sin
         is an essential part of the basic nature of humans than it
         seems impossible to claim that Christ was fully human, but
         at the same time sinless. 

                                                               Mike

Mike,

I would not say simply thinking about something, but rather either
dwelling on something or approving of something in the mind.  Do
you see the difference?

Collis

Note 91.732  

>Right, if you define lust as sexual desire that doesn't please God as
>opposed to sexual desire that does please him. 8-) I would define lust as
>sexual desire that isn't in accordance with God's will.  Which leads us
>back to the question of God's will. 8-)  I believe you can have sexual
>desire which is in accordance with God's will.

Paul,

	Would you care to elaborate?  Could you describe the sexual desire
that pleases God and that is in accordance with God's will?  Please be as
specific as possible.  Could you explain why God might have a thing against
certain sexual desires like lust?

Peace,
Richard

In article <229.100-911223-180307@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Peace: the Final Frontier) writes:
|>X-Note-Id: 229.100 (100 replies)
|>X-Reply-Subject: (none)
|>
|>Title: Christianity and Sexuality
|>Reply Title: (none)
|>
|>Note 91.732  
|>
|>>Right, if you define lust as sexual desire that doesn't please God as
|>>opposed to sexual desire that does please him. 8-) I would define lust as
|>>sexual desire that isn't in accordance with God's will.  Which leads us
|>>back to the question of God's will. 8-)  I believe you can have sexual
|>>desire which is in accordance with God's will.
|>
|>Paul,
|>
|>	Would you care to elaborate?  Could you describe the sexual desire
|>that pleases God and that is in accordance with God's will?  Please be as
|>specific as possible.  Could you explain why God might have a thing against
|>certain sexual desires like lust?
|>
|>Peace,
|>Richard
|>
--

Well, a sexual desire that pleases God would be one which is carried
out in accordance with his revealed word and which therefore will
glorify him. This is deliberately broad. This means that not only can
the motivations of the partners affect the sinfulness or blessing of
the act, but the God's perspective of the act also affects the
sinfulness or blessing of the act.  As an example, a man might have
sex with another man's wife and both partners may be 100% convinced
that they love each other and that they are celebrating what is good.
I would argue that since God has forbidden adultery, their motivations
or feelings are irrelevant to the fact that they're sinning.  But it
also means that a husband and wife can have sex in a way which doesn't
glorify God because of their hearts (eg one partner is selfish, etc.)

God's word talks about specific acts which are sinful no matter what the
motivation and also talks about motivations which are sinful no matter what
the act.  



---
Paul		loptsn::ferwerda
Gordon			or
Loptson		[email protected]        
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Note 91.2233
    
> Can heterosexual couples do anything, like sodomy once
> they are married? 

  Hebrews 13:4  Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed �undefiled:�
  but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The above seems to suggest that anal sex is permissible among married couples.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  229.102

  >Hebrews 13:4  Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed �undefiled:�
  >but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

A better translation I think is,

  "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed
  be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."  [NASB]

  "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed be kept
  pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."
  [NIV]

The comment has nothing to do with how sexual expression may occur
within a marriage, but rather says to keep all sexual expression within
marriage with no sexual expression outside of marriage.

In fact, the marriage bed is to be kept "pure".  If anything, I would
suggest that this verse would argue against anal intercourse.

Collis

re Note 229.103 by CLT::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> In fact, the marriage bed is to be kept "pure".  If anything, I would
> suggest that this verse would argue against anal intercourse.
  
        I think this simply begs the question.

        Bob

     I remember having the UCMJ explained to me when I was in boot camp
    and we we informed that that for the purposes of the military anything
    other than the missionary position could be considered sodomy. We all
    laughed, but the officer giving the lecture was quite serious.
     
     In some states any sex act other than vaginal intercourse is against
    the law. It was not too long ago that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
    the constitutionality of Georgia's sodomy law.

     I am not sure that adhering to the precept to keep the marriage bed
    pure would argue against anal intercourse. Form my point of view as
    long as it was something that both wished to participate in, derived
    pleasure from and was an expression of their love for each other than
    one could consider the act to be "pure". 

     I would see the purity of the marriage bed as being violated if the act
    were forced upon an unwilling partner or was done to humiliate and
    degrade them.   

     Now if one held to the view that sex is for the purpose of procreation
    alone then I can see why one would believe that any act that could not
    result in conception would violate the purity of the marriage bed.

                            
                                                               Mike

The hard teaching of the Church, which many Christians have not been able
to agree with, is that all sexual expression must be open to the possibility
of the transmission of life, if it be God's will.

It is God's will that we take part in the process of creation.  For this
purpose he made us male and female, and for this purpose he made the sex
act pleasurable.

/john

>The hard teaching of the Church, which many Christians have not been able
    
    Which church are you referring to?  Are you saying that all Christian
    denominations teach this?  Or do you refer specifically to your own
    denomination when you mention "the Church"?
    
    -- Mike

I'm referring to traditional Christianity.

My denomination (which only became a denomination a few weeks ago -- before
that it was just a part of the Church) doesn't teach anything much at all.

| <<< Note 229.103 by CLT::COLLIS::JACKSON "Jesus is the reason for the season" >>>




| In fact, the marriage bed is to be kept "pure".  If anything, I would
| suggest that this verse would argue against anal intercourse.



	Collis, could you or anyone please show where in the Bible it gives the
definition of pure when dealing with sex?




Glen

    As long as we recognize that many Christian churches do not teach that
    there is anything wrong with, for example, birth control, then we can
    realize that a phrase like "the Church teaches" doesn't mean that this
    is what all of Christianity teaches.

    In an ecumenical dialogue it can be a little confusing as to what
    constitutes the meaning of the word "Church" (capitalized.)  It often
    refers to the body of Christ as a whole, irrespective of denominations. 
    So saying that "the Church teaches..." comes across rather strangely in
    that context, because, from a Protestant perspective, the Church is not
    an institution that "teaches"; a Protestant might, on the other hand,
    say that "the Bible teaches."  Perhaps the word "Church" (capitalized),
    when followed by the word "teaches", doesn't mean the body of Christ,
    but something else.

    I know of one church that happens to teach that birth control is wrong
    (the Roman Catholic Church.)  If one were to equate what it teaches
    with what "the Church" teaches, particularly on an issue of
    disagreement among Christians, would be quite insulting to Protestants,
    I would think, if the implication is that those Protestants are somehow
    defying an authority that they don't even recognize.

    -- Mike

    RE: .102
    
    Remember, the definition of sodomy covers more than anal sex.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .106
    
    So john\ , does that mean that all sex has to be open to that
    possibility, and that no other sexual "techniques" are proper?
    
    Not trying to bait you....just a dialog.
    
    Marc H.

re .112

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that all sex must be open to the possibility
of the transmission of life, but that spouses should regulate the number of
children they bring into the world by observing periods of chastity to avoid
the monthly fertile periods.  Scientific methods (NFP) may be used to enhance
knowledge of when the wife is fertile.

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church teach that marriage
is for the procreation of children, if it be God's will.  (A rare instance
of teaching in a Catholic Church which is rapidly losing its claim to be
Catholic).  Anglicans, like Roman Catholics, were forbidden the use of
artificial birth control until sometime around 1930.

I would call all Christians, even those who choose to use artificial birth
control, to keep their minds open to the possibility that life may be
transmitted by any sexual act, due to the less than 100% reliability of
birth control.  Every time you engage in sex, remember that it may be
God's will that a child result from your union, and that you have the
responsibility to care for that child or give it up for adoption, if you
are unable to care for it.

/john

    RE: .113
    
    But John, that still begs the question. Does that mean that all sexual
    activity should be focused *only* on the transmission of life? If so,
    then many sexual "techniques" used by married couples are, by your
    reply, sinful.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .113  Mr. Covert,
    
    				For you and other Roman Catholic's that may
    be very well and serves the people of your faith.  However I think its
    important to remember that other denominations do not subscribe to that
    concept.  Mine for instance (Southern Baptist) teaches that it is a sin
    to bring children into this world if you cannot care for them.  The
    actual act of sex (with your wife) is not a sin even if it is not
    specifically for the transmission of life.  
    
    				This question is a difficult one because of
    the pleasure aspect of the act.  I wondered why God would make it feel
    so good if he didn't want us to practice it.  If love (sex) is more
    than a "transmission of life", then what is its purpose?  I believe it
    is to bring two people to an intimate understanding of each other and
    deepen a love which two people have dedicated themselves to.  When God
    said that "two shall become one" I feel that was the intimate side of
    love and again it was to bring two people closer together.
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .115
    
    Help!!!!!!
    
    I'm agreeing with a Southern Baptist!!!
    
    
    just kidding.......but I do agree.
    
    Marc H.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches both the unitive and procreative aspects
of human sexuality, but also teaches that we may not separate them.

I, as an Anglican, find that teaching very difficult, but I see the tragedy
of not following it in the world around me, which is why I call Christians
to never forget that every conjugal act has the potential for creating
life, and to not engage in sex unless they are willing to care for or give
up for adoption any resulting child.

As I pointed out, just as Baptists are, Roman Catholics are also taught that
they have a responsibility to regulate the frequency of their births.

/john

| <<< Note 229.113 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>




| Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church teach that marriage
| is for the procreation of children, if it be God's will.  (A rare instance
| of teaching in a Catholic Church which is rapidly losing its claim to be
| Catholic).  Anglicans, like Roman Catholics, were forbidden the use of
| artificial birth control until sometime around 1930.

	John, I could be wrong, but I had thought you believed the Bible to be
the over riding factor in determining what one should follow or not. I know the
Roman Catholic Church says sex is for the procreation of children, but does it
say anywhere in the Bible that this is the only time one is to have sex? Does
it say that only sexual acts that could bring about children are allowed? I
don't ever recall seeing this in the Bible, but if it's there, please give a
pointer to where it is. Thanks in advance.




Glen

   I think the question has not been addressed yet.

   I believe the teachings that all sex must be open to children is from
   the OT possibly Levidicus regarding not partaking in acts that would
   spill(waste) semen.  That paraphrasing to my understanding rules out
   a list of sex related acts that would not otherwise direct semen to
   the ova.  This is the source of the christian disallowing of barrier 
   methods of birth control.  I am sure others could quote the Biblical
   text.

   Allison

    .115
    
    Dave,
    
    Where does the Southern Baptist church specifically state that it is a
    sin to have children if you cannot care for them.  I was a Southern
    Baptist most of my life and have never heard such a thing.  I still
    listen to some Southern Baptist preachers and do not hear such a thing. 
    I believe you are wrong on this.
    
    jeff

>   I think the question has not been addressed yet.
>
>   I believe the teachings that all sex must be open to children is from
>   the OT possibly Levidicus regarding not partaking in acts that would
>   spill(waste) semen. 

I pointed that out a number of replies ago, and believe I've mentioned it
in the past elsewhere (or maybe even in this reply) in this conference.

The Onan reference is Genesis 38:9.

It seems perfectly reasonable to _me_ that as long as a couple plan to have
children at some time in their marriage (and especially if they already have)
-- and as long as they keep their minds open to the possibility of birth
control failing -- that the Onan reference shouldn't apply.  But many others
disagree, and based on the number of unwanted children, it's clear to me that
people aren't keeping their minds open to the possibility of pregnancy being
the result of intercourse.  For this reason I am beginning to see the truth
of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

/john

>The Onan reference is Genesis 38:9.

   John,

   Please post the text or paraphrase it as I cannot remember it and do
   not have a reference at my desk.  I suspect we are still refering
   to different things.

   Allison

	Allison, John, is there anything in the NT that talks about this?
Gentiles don't have to follow the OT laws (with the exception of the 10
Commandments +2)





Glen

   Glen,

   It was my belief that Levidical laws were considered binding but not
   the penalties as the were written.  That is the only reference I can
   find in my memory, then again I am not a biblical scholar.

   Allison

     <<< Note 229.124 by VIDSYS::PARENT "unusually casted; a character" >>>



	Hi Allison! I'm pretty sure that it was God who told the Jews that the
Gentiles don't need to follow the laws laid out for the Jews with the exception
of the 10 Commandments and Love God with all yyour heart along with love your
neighbor as you would yourself. Anybody have the actual Scripture?



Glen

    RE: .121
    
    I now understand your thinking...john/....however, it seems that you
    are walking a very fine line.
    
    I quess that with 5 children.....I have to agree with you, but, it is
    somewhat abstract.
    
    Marc H.

Genesis 38:9 is not a Levitical law (obviously), but a moral teaching.

Acts 15 is the reference for non-Jewish Christians being exempt from
the ritual purity laws but still bound by the moral laws.

Genesis 38:9-10 is "But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his,
he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife,
so that he would not give offspring to his brother.  What he did was
displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."

Acts 15:19-20 is "Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not
trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them
to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality
and from whatever has been strangled and from blood."

/john

    RE: .120  Jeff,
    
    			It is a "traditional" value preached but since most
    Christian Churches are a bit....er....uh...shy about teaching about
    sex, it doesn't come up very often.  I would suggest that you go back
    to the Southern Baptist preachers and ask them.  I am licensed by them
    and this is one of the things that I was taught and have taught for the
    last 15 years of my preaching and teaching.  I do dislike the direct
    "you are wrong" approach you seem to take when ever you come across
    something you are not comfortable with.
    
    
    Dave

    
    Sorry Dave.  I'm a direct person usually and I sincerely believed you
    to be wrong - so I said so.  I'll try to remember your displeasure in 
    future replies.
    
    Again, for the record, I've never heard it from any Baptist pulpit.  I
    also think it is a wrong value.  We do not live on our abilities but on
    God's provision.  Children are a gift from God.  He will provide for
    our needs, those of us who depend upon Him for them.
    
    Reminds me of the fallacious traditional values, "God helps those who 
    help themselves" and "cleanliness is next to godliness".
    
    jeff

    
    
    John
    
    > Genesis 38:9-10  he spilled his semen on the ground...displeasing
      to God...
    
      I always saw this as God being angry at this man for having
    disobeyed God, not a moral statement about wasted seed???  If God
    orders to me to share my Big Mac with the hungry and starving persons
    of the world, and instead I toss my extra into the trash and
    subsequently God slays me,it seems hard to imagine that the throwing
    away of food was the reason for my death..
    
    Sincerely,
    
    David_Raised_on_Dr_Dobsons
    

Of course -- the disobedience is the failure to keep the sex act open to
the transmission of life.

/john

    
    -1
    
      > the disobedience is the failure to keep the sex act open
    
     No. The disobedience was not doing what he was told. If God ordered me
    to (pray) and I go mountain biking instead, would the
    disobedience( sin) have been mountain biking( as if mountain biking
    displeases him) or would it be not having done what I was to do. I have
    a six year old son who does similiar things. I tell Corey to clean his
    room, later on I go to check on him and discover he is playing with the
    toys he was supposed to put away. I tell him that he was supposed to be
    cleaning his room, not playing with his toys, and as usual he asks"
    Well whats wrong with playing with toys."... :-)
    
    
    David

I've noticed that Acts 15.19-20, Luke (the author of Acts) attibutes what is
said there to James.

Peace,
Richard

re .133

And then the council unanimously agrees to it.

Acts 15 is the record of the Council of Jerusalem, the first ecumenical
council of the Church.

/john

    .134  Hardly from the mouth of the Almighty though.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

        As often happens, my problem is with the derivation of
        universal moral principles from texts which are written as
        histories, describing a sequence of events, rather than
        texts written as one would write if the objective were
        general moral teaching.

        In Genesis 38, we are shown that Onan does (or fails to do) a
        very particular act out of a very particular obligation.  We
        generalize the act (using very human logic about "open to the
        transmission of life") yet don't generalize or even apply the
        familial obligation in any way.

        Yet there is a lot more in Genesis 38:10 -- God slays Onan. 
        Part and parcel of this verse which supposedly teaches
        universal, eternal moral law is the summary execution of the
        law breaker by the God (who never changes).

        I can speak with HIGH degree of certainty that God does not
        summarily execute, as a general principle, those who commit
        the acts against which Genesis 38 is used as the source of
        condemnation.

        I believe that this is an example of how 20 centuries of
        tradition may contain gross mis-uses of Scripture.

        Bob

re Note 229.127 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Acts 15 is the reference for non-Jewish Christians being exempt from
> the ritual purity laws but still bound by the moral laws.
  
        No. No. Acts 15 ONLY dealt with the ritual purity laws.  It
        specifically said that Gentiles are to keep a certain few
        elements of the Mosaic law but are exempt from the rest,
        i.e.:

        15:20  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
        pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from]
        things strangled, and [from] blood.

        Nothing is said one way or another about non-Mosaic moral
        law.

        (Note that the "fornication" mentioned above is in the
        context of Mosaic law, not general moral law.)

        (How many of us gentiles are particular about, for example,
        refraining "from blood" or "things strangled"?)

        Bob

Bob,

I agree completely with you (as do many Protestant denominations)
that God gave a specific command to a specific person for a specific
reason and that the violation of this command in Genesis 38 should
not be construed to be because of an overriding principle but
rather because of disobedience to God.

I disagree with you, however, with your belief that God does not
summarily execute those who commit acts of disobedience (which is
not quite what you wrote but I do think I am capturing the essence
of what you believe).  We should not take God's patience as a sign
that He will not judge us for our actions.  (Of course, this
judgment is not limited to any specific category of sin but will
be effected for any and all sin).

Collis

>I agree completely with you (as do many Protestant denominations)
>that God gave a specific command to a specific person for a specific
>reason and that the violation of this command in Genesis 38 should
>not be construed to be because of an overriding principle but
>rather because of disobedience to God.

Collis is correct about Genesis 38:9.  I was misled by an entry in some
other notesfile or newsgroup.  I can find no basis in the literature
of the Church for using Genesis 38:9 to establish the moral teachings
regarding sexual relations being open to the transmission of life.  In
fact, Genesis 38:9 is not referenced at all in the catechism.

The primary scriptural references used in the teaching on sexuality
are Genesis 1:27-28, 2:24, and 5:1-2, which have also been mentioned
before in this conference.

/john

As far as defining being "open to procreation"...

Let's say a married heterosexual couple performs non-vaginal intercourse while 
at the same time they are open to procreation (miracles DO happen).  Does 
anyone see a problem with this?

After all, Sarah bore a child when she was well beyond the age of 
childbearing, Mary bore a child via immaculate conception.  

No, I'm not trying to equate the two, (in case anyone gets upset by my 
perspective) rather I'm trying to see how such acts are different...

Peace,

Jim

Note 229.140

>Let's say a married heterosexual couple performs non-vaginal intercourse while 
>at the same time they are open to procreation (miracles DO happen).  Does 
>anyone see a problem with this?

(Voice of DeForrest Kelly): "Dammit Jim!  I'm a doctor, not some sexual
ethicist!" ;-)

As I understand it from our own John Covert, the traditional teachings of
the church frown upon such activity.

Live long and prosper,
Richard

    It seems fitting that the traditional teaching regarding the
    transmission of human life in marriage remains a object of laughter
    here.

    One function of a religion is to assist in the formation of conscience
    so that one can learn God's will as it applies to them and their
    situation in their own time.  Roman Catholics accept their Church as
    Mother and Teacher.  When one rejects the Church in these roles one
    stops being a Catholic.

    The dignity for the human life and the covenant of marriage that God
    himself established in Genesis is the foundation for what the Roman
    Catholic Church teaches as obedience to natural law in making the
    physical union of a husband and wife inseparable from the possibility
    of starting a new human life.

	"The disability-rights movement has certainly not put sexual rights
at the forefront of its agenda.  Sexuality is often the source of our deepest
oppression.  The message for disabled kids is that their sexuality will be
realized through their sexual victimization.  For disabled people, there are
virtually no expectations that they will become sexual beings."

					- Anne Finger
					  New Internationalist, July 1992

    .144
    
    Power is encompassed in all three that I mentioned... 
    
    Nancy

Nancy 9.862,
    
>    Richard, I believe that our sexuality and spirituality are deeply
>    connected.

So do I.  And I've said as much here before.  I'm not saying, nor have I
ever said, that there's no such thing as sexual immorality.  I've just
remarked on the intensity of concentration bestowed upon the pubic region
by so many.
    
>    What is the strongest human drive?
    
>    D E S I R E
    
>    1.  SEX is usually the one on top for most people
     1a. POWER - can take many forms, including sexual, material, military.
>    2.  MONEY - greed
>    3.  LOVE - Agape [unconditional]

There's also such a thing as thirsting and hungering after righteousness,
is there not?  There's also such a thing as God-hunger, is there not?
   
>    And typically the order in which I have listed desires is the order in
>    which *most* people live there lives.
    
Have I said anything to the contrary?  (I just added 1a, which is sometimes
a stronger drive than sex)

Peace,
Richard

    http://www.best.com/~dolphin/asstbib.shtml#anchor288283