rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/14/84)
> 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. Yet that's what the "policy" has become. > 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.). The goal of Paul's writings was to teach his readers about HIS IMPRESSIONS of what the will of god was/is. You happen to agree with his conclusions, but that doesn't make it any closer to reality. I stand by my statements: Paul's biases regarding many things, including sex and marriage, have permeated western thought for thousands of years now. What I consider bias, you consider Paul's direct inspirations from god. Why? Because he said that they were??? > 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. See above. > 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. Assuming Paul's "inspirations" were not altered by a different life perspective. You believe that Paul's views on things, including sexuality, came from a deity. I believe that Paul's views of things INFLUENCED what he codified as his experiences with a deity. I think that's a bit more rational, but of course that's just my opinion. -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr