lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (08/18/83)
Some conversations here are getting uncomfortably warm even to read (was
that a drop of water from the roof?). Ergo, wait until they cool.
Steve den Beste raised the temperature of our discussion (sex,
overpopulation, etc.) a little. Let's try some ice...
* "The issue that causes such marriages to break up is not too much emphasis
* on sex, it is simply that sex is a major portion of anyone's life.
* Marriage is supposed to provide to each person involved those things
* necessary to satisfy basic needs - loving, support in crises, a friend with
* who to talk, AND... sexual satisfaction."
A "MAJOR" portion? That's a high presumption; I'm fairly confident that more
time is spent in eating than in having sex. And this is also sure: if you're
looking for marriage to provide sexual satisfaction, you're in for a big
letdown. The physical joy creates the splendid environment to communicate
intimate love in; the communication process should already be established.
* "If ANY of these are missing, the marriage is sick; maybe the people stay
* together anyway, but they are not as happy as they could be."
Your implication is that without premarital sex, the marriage isn't what it
could be. You've gotta be kidding. I know too many counter-examples.
* "First off, some people stay married because they think they should even
* though they are intensely miserable in such a position; second, when they
* do get divorced, they often do not publicize the REAL reason that they
* broke up."
Two no's from the people I know. Their attitude toward sex is obviously
different from yours, and they're not missing out on anything. Allow me to
throw your statement back: "sexual incompatibility" is probably a smoke
screen for other problems.
* "My cousin (severely inflicted with Down syndrome), at least, is not
* capable of understanding the ministry of God."
Wrong again. Shepherd's (a home and ministry for the mentally handicapped)
does a very good job of getting the residents to understand God. Maybe it's
easier for them - with the blessing of child-like faith. They are hardly
"preserved in their misery." If those who are taking care of your cousin
want more info, mail me their address (or you can hardcopy e-mail).
* "WHY HAVEN'T YOU ADOPTED ONE [mentally handicapped child]?"
Does this beg the question that I have adopted any other kind? I am not yet
in a position to support any child, born in my house or otherwise.
* "WE ARE NOW OVERPOPULATED and we better do something about it or it will
* result in war and the destruction of our planet."
Bad news, Steve - this planet is doomed anyway. The only question is whether
it's sooner or later. (Either running out of energy or solar nova.)
Lew Mammel re Steven J. Brams "Superior Beings...":
* "Brams concerns himself exclusively with Old Testament *myths*, but clearly
* his approach is just as applicable ... to *myths* in the New Testament..."
I don't know if "myths" is Mammel's or Brams's, but it obviously indicates a
philosophical presupposition. Unacceptable.
More Brams, this time on Abraham and Jephthah:
There is a clear difference in the cases. The former was God commanding
Abraham to do something; the latter was Jephthah's choice to say.
Side note: Genesis 22:5 "I and the lad will go yonder; and *WE* will worship
and return to you." There is no question about the plural - Abraham's faith
that Isaac would return with him was already evident.
Waiting at 4C for the rest to get below 100C,
Larry Bickford,
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab {ittvax,amd70}!qubix!lab