betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (09/10/84)
> I'm saying that Christians recognize sex within marriage as the
*only* proper sphere of sex, *and* the sex otherwise is, gasp, wrong,
*and* that to recognize something as wrong is not identical with to
being inhibited.
(Paul Dubuc)
I resent that statement. Some of us Christians don't believe as Mr. Dubuc
does. Mr Dubuc and his fellow-believers do not represent all of Christianity,
whether they claim to do so or not.
--
Betsy Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy "What is Truth?" said
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth jesting Pilate; and would
ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay not stay for an answer.brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/12/84)
[] >> I'm saying that Christians recognize sex within marriage as the >>*only* proper sphere of sex, *and* the sex otherwise is, gasp, wrong, >>*and* that to recognize something as wrong is not identical with to >>being inhibited. >> (Paul Dubuc) > >I resent that statement. Some of us Christians don't believe as Mr. Dubuc >does. Mr Dubuc and his fellow-believers do not represent all of Christianity, >whether they claim to do so or not. >-- >Betsy Perry This is why I sometimes prefer the term "Bible Believer" to Christian. Unfortunately, "Christian" seems to include all sorts of folks who ate too much cabbage one night and had a particularly romantic wet dream that launched them into all sorts of unscriptural foolishness. Why is homosexuality so rampant at seminaries? How is it possible for people "living together" to claim to be "Born Again"? Or to talk about "being led of the Spirit"? Why are such persons *allowed* to attend church? If you don't agree that fornication and discipleship are incompatible, then you have been eating too much cabbage. Period. -- "My God has sent his angel and has shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was innocent before Him." [Daniel] From the lions' den, David Brunson
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/12/84)
}> I'm saying that Christians recognize sex within marriage as the }*only* proper sphere of sex, *and* the sex otherwise is, gasp, wrong, }*and* that to recognize something as wrong is not identical with to }being inhibited. } (Paul Dubuc) }I resent that statement. Some of us Christians don't believe as Mr. Dubuc }does. Mr Dubuc and his fellow-believers do not represent all of Christianity, }whether they claim to do so or not. Betsy, The quote you attribute to me was apparently made by Paul DuBois, and is definitely not mine. Please try to keep us straight. I wouldn't wan't someone blaming him for something that I said. :-) Other than that, I agree with Paul's statement. I don't think anyone pretends to speak for all who call themselves Christians. Paul has been all little imprecise, maybe. Perhaps he should have replaced the phrase "Christians recognize" with "biblical Christianity recognizes". In our culture you really have to qualify the term "Christian". Anyway, your objection seems irrelevant to the point Paul was trying to make here. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (09/13/84)
> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) > Why is homosexuality so rampant at seminaries? I wasn't aware that it was, and don't know the answer, but ... > How is it possible for people "living together" to claim to be "Born Again"? > Or to talk about "being led of the Spirit"? Why are such persons *allowed* > to attend church? For the same reason that you, I and everyone else is *allowed* to attend church -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him, should not perish, but they shall have everlasting life" (John 3:16, perhaps slightly paraphrased). I sincerely hope you just forgot to put a :-) after that! Remember, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (I don't remember where that comes from.) I hate it when Christians engage in policing other Christians. God will deal with these people in the same way he will deal with yours, mine, and everyone else's faults, so who are you, I or anyone else to question (or comment on) what someone else is doing? > If you don't agree that fornication and discipleship are incompatible, > then you have been eating too much cabbage. Period. Let me say, for the record, that fornication without marriage is not Biblical meaning nowhere in the Bible is this condoned (except, didn't Lot's daughters sleep with him? I always wondered about that. Incest!). However, disciple- ship involves coming closer to God, and if along someone's path lies some sex without marriage, then it's that person's responsibility to examine his relationship with God, not ours. -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (09/18/84)
>> ...[material not relevant to the discussion I'm about to start, but > interesting nontheless]... >Paul has been >all little imprecise, maybe. Perhaps he should have replaced the phrase >"Christians recognize" with "biblical Christianity recognizes". In our >culture you really have to qualify the term "Christian". And how are you going to distinguish between biblical and non-biblical Christians? Jehovah's Witnesses believe the bible is literal. Their interpretation of some of it may differ from yours. Along the same line, how about the Catholic theologists in Central America who believe in actively helping the struggles of the peasants against oppression, with some Marxist theory thrown in? Are they biblical Christians? While we're in the Catholic Church, there is the organization "Catholics for Free Choice" who support abortion rights, at least for others, and some of whom argue against the Church's teaching about abortion. The latter point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say (in so many words) "a fetus is a human being". So, it seems, one can believe in both the Bible and abortion if one is a "biblical Christian". (It seems pointless to add that by this argument it is also quite possible to believe in the Bible and believe that abortion is murder, but if I don't say it, someone out there will think I mean to exclude the possibility). What I'm trying to point out is that "biblical Christian" is essentially as broad a term as "Christian". I know of no person who calls him/herself a Christian who does not believe in the Bible. But they have different interpretations both of its literalness and its meaning. My grandparents (Congregationalists) believe the Bible is essentially a series of parables and moral tales, often woven around historical truth. I know people who stopped speaking with me when they found out my views differed from theirs because that made me "darkness" and therefore to be avoided. And in the broad (inclusive) spectrum in between these people, I doubt anyone would accept the label "non- biblical Christian". So what is this dichotomy you propose? I fear you haven't solved any definition problems accept to state that there is a subgroup of religious people you are willing to call "Christians", but not "biblical Christians". How is this different from someone who says "They call themselves Christians, but they aren't really because they don't follow the Word of God"? Ken Arnold
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/18/84)
[] > = Jeff Sargeant >> How is it possible for people "living together" to claim to be "Born Again"? >> Or to talk about "being led of the Spirit"? Why are such persons *allowed* >> to attend church? [David Brunson] > >As C.S. Lewis remarked in "The Screwtape Letters", a Christian might well >ask himself, "If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a >Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew >prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?" This provides an excellent opportunity to correctly divide an interesting scriptural question: that of *judgement*. The point you are making misses mine. I have no interest in sitting across an aisle from a fornicator and dreaming up all kinds of useless and hateful condemnation against him. The problem I am addressing is the same one Shaul (Paul to the greeks) addresses in Corinthians: that of a known fornicator being accepted as a brother by the church. The judgement of Shaul: "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or covetous, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler". Note that this is not talking about those who do not make a pretense of being believers. And of course, the person so shamed is to be welcomed back with open arms when he demonstrates repentance. I suspect that many of the comments on my posting are the result of *bumper-sticker Christianity*. To wit, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven", etc. My good friend Michael Edward Sentz (the funniest visual comic I have ever seen) suggests an alternative bumper sticker: "Christians aren't perfect, they're just a bunch of stupid jerks like everybody else". Actually, if you aren't perfect, you *ain't* living in the Kingdom. "Read the Bible, and see what you've been missing." Another common problem involves the veneer of banality which passes for *niceness*. To wit: Yeshua said that if your brother offends you, you are to *REBUKE* him. This is the correct approach and saves all kinds of misunderstanding. Instead, because they are unwilling to violate the tenets of banality, many Christians will forgo the rebuke and resort to a very unhealthy and peculiarly venomous kind of martyrdom -- actually waiting for an opportunity to *nicely* slander the offender. I'm just throwing this in for free -- it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about or any other articles or reading between the lines or anything else. >> Remember, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (I don't >> remember where that comes from.) [Greg Skinner] "don't remember where that comes from." -- doesn't this demonstrate the real problem? >From John 8 -- the incident where the Jewish authorities haul a woman caught >in adultery in front of Jesus and say that the Law says she ought to die (I >wonder why they didn't bring the man, too? But that's another topic); Jesus >says that quote and starts writing on the ground; gradually all the woman's >accusers slink off, beginning with the oldest. When Jesus and the woman are >left alone, he says, "Where are they all? Has no one condemned you?" She >replies, "No one, Lord." Jesus says, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and >do not sin again." What about the *command* of Yeshua here? Do you suppose it was obeyed? More importantly, do you suppose it was important for her to obey it? >> >> ...discipleship involves coming closer to God, and if along someone's >> path lies some sex without marriage, then it's that person's responsibility >> to examine his relationship with God, not ours. [Skinner] > >Definite agreement from this corner. Remember that God works ALL things >together for good for those who love Him, who are called according to His >purpose (note that phrase "HIS purpose", and remember the famous saying >"My ways are not your ways, nor are your thoughts my thoughts" -- even if >you are the most faithful Christian you're nowhere near God's level). >I believe that God can bring His grace into any situation -- even, and >particularly, those involving intimate relationships. For instance, since >sex (if the participants have any humanity about them) involves nakedness of >soul as well as body, a sexual experience might afford one an invaluable view >of oneself that one might not be able to get so quickly any other way -- e.g. >it might bring to the surface some great fears of and/or bad attitudes toward >the opposite sex, which it is much better to discover and get rid of while >one is still single, rather than having them poison the wedding night. This is complete confusion. First of all, fornication is evil. Period. Fornication destroys personality, weakens the conscience. It is *inhuman* and totally unbecoming for one made in the image of God and much more so for one who lays claim to the Family. I'm at a complete loss of words or ideas on how to approach the misuse of scripture here. I don't know what else to say. This is the first time I have been really upset with an article. Is Yiri Ben-David right? Is "Christianity" just a thinly veiled excuse for pagans to sin? -- David Brunson Too astonished to think up anything cute to say here.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/19/84)
> I have no interest in sitting across an aisle from a fornicator > and dreaming up all kinds of useless and hateful condemnation against him. > The problem I am addressing is the same one Shaul (Paul to the greeks) > addresses in Corinthians: that of a known fornicator being accepted as > a brother by the church. > > The judgement of Shaul: "you must not associate with anyone who calls > himself a brother but is sexually immoral or covetous, an idolater or > a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler". Note that this is not talking > about those who do not make a pretense of being believers. And of > course, the person so shamed is to be welcomed back with open arms > when he demonstrates repentance. It would seem that this Paul character is the antichrist that Christians have been speculating about for thousands of years. He takes all of Jesus' teachings of love, tolerance, and justice, and subverts them into "thou shalt not"s and intolerance and the same "letter of the law vs. spirit of the law" that Jesus was supposedly trying to eradicate. Hmmm... -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/19/84)
From Rich Kulawiec (pucc-h:rsk): > You know, Jeff, you have a marvelous flair for condemning entire > classes of people with a casual backhand swipe. Do you really think that > folks who have casual sex have no "humanity" about them?... As a former > lover put it, "There's a difference between making love and fucking; you > need to know how to handle both, and most people don't." I think your former lover answered the question, and I agree that there are different flavors of sex. The thing is, as I understand it, the second of these ignores the fact that sex is intended as a total union between two people, not just as the stimulation of two bodies. It is this second approach to sex which dehumanizes it. But thanks for telling me that I do SOMETHING well (that "marvelous flair"). > Besides, the focus during sex is usually not on oneself, but on one's > partner--sure, you may learn something from the experience, but if you > spend the entire time waiting for some great insight, you're most likely > going to forget just what it is you're doing. Actually, I meant that even as one approaches or considers sex, one can learn a lot about oneself from one's emotional reactions. One need not go so far as to actually consummate the act. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (it couldn't stand it there any longer).
rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (09/19/84)
>> From Rich Kulawiec (rsk@pucc-h) >> You know, Jeff, you have a marvelous flair for condemning entire >> classes of people with a casual backhand swipe. Do you really think that >> folks who have casual sex have no "humanity" about them?... As a former >> lover put it, "There's a difference between making love and fucking; you >> need to know how to handle both, and most people don't." > >From Jeff Sargant (aeq@pucc-h) >I think your former lover answered the question, and I agree that there are >different flavors of sex. The thing is, as I understand it, the second of >these ignores the fact that sex is intended as a total union between two >people, not just as the stimulation of two bodies. It is this second >approach to sex which dehumanizes it. "...sex is intended as a total union..." Sez who? or what? I don't recall any instructions printed on the label... As far as the #2 approach being dehumanizing in nature, I don't feel that it necessarily must be; certainly the above-mentioned partner and I don't feel dehumanized by this...although we can't prove it, I suppose. -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk Not fade away...
rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/23/84)
Re: 'Biblical Christians' I am interested in sharing experiences/insights with other non-biblical christians. I propose that net.religion.non-biblical-christian be created. any takers?
rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/23/84)
RE: 'There is a difference bettween making love and fucking' Jeff Sargent, in his reply on this subject assumes an implicit value judgement between the two. This is a value judgement that I often hear people make, but my personal experience finds that judgement quite bogus. Making love is obviously a wonderful thing, and I'd be the first to laud it as a fullfilling, deep experience. I'd even go so far as to say that it is in some way 'better' than just fucking. BUT that does not mean that fucking is bad. Fucking can be extremely pleasurable for all parties involved, and there's nothing wrong with that. Tuna isn't as good as Lobster, but there's no reason you can't enjoy both!
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/23/84)
From Jerry Nowlin: > I guess my feeling is if you want to get on a church discipline kick why >not start kicking out the bigots and hypocrites that masquerade as christians >instead of the "sinners" that are trying to find out what christianity is >about. "kicking out bigots and hypocrites that masquerade as christians" is precisely what I've been advocating. Somehow many people seem to have misread the relevant postings. At no time have I suggested that sinners seeking to learn about Yeshua should be shunned. > Even if you judge people to be sinners, which the bible says you >shouldn't ... Where does the Bible say that? >"No longer seeking" If the experiences you mentioned (cigarette-smoking deacons, racist church members) halted your search for the truth, you must not have wanted it *too* much. And I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that believers should feel shamed because you've given up! From Rich Rosen: >It would seem that this Paul character is the antichrist that Christians >have been speculating about for thousands of years. He takes all of >Jesus' teachings of love, tolerance, and justice, and subverts them >into "thou shalt not"s and intolerance and the same "letter of the law >vs. spirit of the law" that Jesus was supposedly trying to eradicate. > >Hmmm... It's hard to understand what causes your misunderstanding, but I suspect it is ignorance of the true character and mission of Yeshua (who is returning to "rule with a rod of iron"). I recommend daily intensive Bible study (the whole Bible, of course). -- David Brunson "May I help you?" "Please." "Thank-you!" "You're welcome."
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/24/84)
> RE: 'There is a difference bettween making love and fucking' > Jeff Sargent, in his reply on this subject assumes an implicit value > judgement between the two. This is a value judgement that I often hear > people make, but my personal experience finds that judgement quite bogus. > Making love is obviously a wonderful thing, and I'd be the first to laud > it as a fullfilling, deep experience. I'd even go so far as to say that > it is in some way 'better' than just fucking. BUT that does not mean > that fucking is bad. Fucking can be extremely pleasurable for all parties > involved, and there's nothing wrong with that. Tuna isn't as good as > Lobster, but there's no reason you can't enjoy both! The problem is that in Christianity, the difference between the two is more akin to the difference between a cup of tea for breakfast and a shot of heroin after lunch. C. Wingate
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/24/84)
>>It would seem that this Paul character is the antichrist that Christians >>have been speculating about for thousands of years. He takes all of >>Jesus' teachings of love, tolerance, and justice, and subverts them >>into "thou shalt not"s and intolerance and the same "letter of the law >>vs. spirit of the law" that Jesus was supposedly trying to eradicate. >>Hmmm... [ROSEN] > It's hard to understand what causes your misunderstanding, but I suspect > it is ignorance of the true character and mission of Yeshua (who is > returning to "rule with a rod of iron"). I recommend daily intensive > Bible study (the whole Bible, of course). [BRUNSON] Or (perhaps more likely) it's due to YOUR ignorance and presumptions about a book of mythology. I recommend that you re-take that LOGIC DESIGN class, or perhaps read a book on thinking for one's self. -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (09/25/84)
If we get a net.religion.non-biblical-christian, can we also
have a net.religion.unitarian, and a net.religion.atheist, and a
net.religion.islam and a net.religion.hindi? I could go on, but
I hope that you all get the point from this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ignorance is bliss, but its revelation is not."