Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chaos!aurenz
From: aurenz@chaos.DEC
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Sex and Christianity
Message-ID: <3127@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 00:48:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3127
Posted: Fri Aug 10 00:48:35 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Aug-84 05:45:30 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 100







	** WARNING! **
	Those who have allergic reactions to religious-type
	material should read no further. 


[Previous discussion:]
>> Jeff, I thought the drift of your comment was on target, but ...
>> 
>>> ... this idea that sex is good is supported by the Bible ...
>>
>> [COMMENT 1]
>> Not the way I read it.  MARRIAGE is RELUCTANTLY supported.  Remember
>> Paul's "It's better to remain single but, well, if you must, it's
>> better to marry than to burn".
>
> [From pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr:]
>
>I've always thought it rather ironic that the sexuality of the western world
>was defined by someone who apparently chose asexuality.  If Paul had chosen
>a different sexual path in life, how different the western world might have
>been...

	First I want to address [COMMENT 1] above. You're right to a 
	certain	extent about this quote, but I think you've drawn 
	the wrong conclusions from it.

	The whole chapter (1 Corinthians 7) really needs to be read to
	see what points Paul is trying to make. First, he makes it clear
	that he is stating his *own opinion* here, and not scripture or
	gospel "policy", as such. The point he's trying to get across to 
	the Corinthians is not so much that marriage is to be discouraged,
	but that there are "advantages" (for want of a better word) 
	to remaining celibate. 
	
	Discipline and self-denial are important values in the evdeavor to
	lead a God-centered life. Paul offers celibacy as a means
	by which these values may be brought into one's life. 
	So he's not saying "I don't want you to marry", but rather
	"I want you lead God-centered lives".  
	
	He also realised it's not for everybody, and says so
	(...according to the gifts that God has given you...).
	And yes, i'm sure he realised that the race would die out if 
	everyone took his advice literally.

	
	And as to rlr's comments:

	Paul's not just a "bachelor marriage counselor".
	Although he states personal views from time to time (as above),
	The *goal* of of Paul's writings is to teach his readers about
	the Will of God, what God wants for them, etc. (even in the example
	above). In doing this he reveals many good and valid principles
	(morals, etc.).

	Paul chose not to marry so he could devote himself more fully
	to God. I think this makes him a better, not worse,
	spokesman for revealing God's thoughts on the matter. 

	And so (ta da!) I doubt that the "sexuality of the western world" 
	would have been much affected, since the goals of Paul's letters 
	would have been the same.
	
	As to my comments: sorry to lay so much of my personal doctrines
	on you, but it is the best way I know to explain why I disagree with 
	your statement.


							Scot Aurenz

		     pur-ee!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dizzy!aurenz



	And now, for something completely different, a silly analogy:

	p.s. There is historical precedent for "non-players"
	     making perfectly good rules for the "players". 
	     In the Sunday paper's "Ripley's Believe it or Not",
	     they claimed that the guy who devised many of our 
	     fundamental traffic rules (the stop sign, keep right, 
	     yield, and such) *never drove a car in his life*.
	
	     Not impressed? We have *drivers* to thank for legislating
	     the rotary (here in New England), the right-turn-on-red-
	     except-where-posted, and other ridiculous constructs...