jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) (11/30/89)
In article <5087@jane.uh.edu> MATH1H3@jane.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) writes: >*strangers* in the world..." But the Christian is not to try to fit in, even >though he serves God in this world. John wrote in his first epistle: "Do not >love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love >of the Father is not in him. For God so LOVED THE WORLD, he gave his only begotten son. Sound familiar. Guess God the Father dosen't love himself. Actually, this is where "Buddhist detachment" fits in. The person who loves the world, and hasn't the love of the Father in him is the person who is still lost because of his desires and attachments to the world. There is nothing wrong with "loving" the world in the proper sense. There is nothing wrong with appreciating the beauty and wonder of the world. But its important not to be attached to this world, or interested in "having" the world. It is important not to KILL other people because you want their part of the world. >sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and >does--comes not from the Father but from the world. Where did the world come from? Isn't it fair to say that whatever comes from the world comes from that which made it? Who made this lustful, boastful beast? Who created this animal and gave it intelligence. Who gave it a desire and will to live and survive in this world? Who created the hormones that operate in these beasts that cause them to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Who created the sinner that chose to sin in the Garden of Eden? Who created the serpent who tempted these creatures? Who created the world and all its temptations. Who shaped a woman's breasts? Who created beauty? >pass away, but the man who does the will of the Father lives forever." The >Christian lives in the world under tension between his desire to serve God and >the desires of the world. The Christian lives in the world under tension between his fear of God and the desires of the world. By forsaking the desires of the world, the Christian hopes to avoid eternal punishment. -- -jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils -ames!elroy!jato!jrossi is still choosing evil." -Cptn. Trips **********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************
tbvanbelle@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) (12/04/89)
In article <Nov.30.03.26.32.1989.19409@athos.rutgers.edu> jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) writes: >In article <5087@jane.uh.edu> MATH1H3@jane.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) writes: >>sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and >>does--comes not from the Father but from the world. >Where did the world come from? Isn't it fair to say that whatever comes >from the world comes from that which made it? Don't forget that, while God made the world, it isn't going according to the way it should have. We've messed it up pretty badly (and I mean the whole world: the planet, ourselves, our relationships with others...) You seem to be implying that God wants us to sin. >Who made this lustful, boastful beast? Who created this animal and gave >it intelligence. Who gave it a desire and will to live and survive in >this world? Who created the hormones that operate in these beasts that >cause them to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Who created >the sinner that chose to sin in the Garden of Eden? Who created the >serpent who tempted these creatures? Who created the world and all its >temptations. Who shaped a woman's breasts? Who created beauty? Sexual attraction != Lust. A desire to survive != Boastfulness. Not all desires of the world are sins. In any case, we aren't simply beasts who are destined to operate in fixed instinctual patterns. We can, and should, supress those impulses that harm others. Better still would be to reach a state where damaging instincts don't arise; a laudable goal, but not terribly realistic. Still, it gives something to aim for. >The Christian lives in the world under tension between his fear of God and >the desires of the world. By forsaking the desires of the world, the >Christian hopes to avoid eternal punishment. IMHO, I think you're a bit off base with this one. The ideal Christian life is one in which we find continual joy in serving God. In this way we celebrate life while recognizing the sins for what they are: things which put distance between us and God. I hold fast to the idea that virtue is the path to true happiness. Ironically, the Taoists seem to be the ones who have caught on to this the best. As for your second statement, Christians have already avoided eternal punishment. That's why they're Christians. >-jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils >-ames!elroy!jato!jrossi is still choosing evil." -Cptn. Trips Terry Van Belle tbvanbelle@watcgl.Waterloo.edu ...!watmath!watcgl!tbvanbelle
jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) (12/06/89)
In article <Dec.3.12.35.18.1989.23045@athos.rutgers.edu> tbvanbelle@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) writes: > >Don't forget that, while God made the world, it isn't going according to >the way it should have. yes it is. How could it be otherwise? Are you suggesting that somehow God had an "idea" or a "plan" for how the history of the world would go, and somehow everything that happened instead was somehow a "suprise." Of course, the classic arguement against this, if nothing is going the way God planned, it is certainly within His capacity to see that it does. >We've messed it up pretty badly (and I mean the whole >world: the planet, ourselves, our relationships with others...) >You seem to be implying that God wants us to sin. Yes, we're a real credit to our Maker ;-). Of course God wants us to sin, because he wants us to learn, and you learn by making mistakes. Why did God create "sinners" in the first place? >In any case, we aren't simply beasts who are destined to operate in fixed >instinctual patterns. We can, and should, supress those impulses that harm >others. Better still would be to reach a state where damaging instincts don't >arise; a laudable goal, but not terribly realistic. Still, it gives something >to aim for. Who created "instincts." ? I agree that we aren't simply beasts, but beasts with a God given consicous-awareness, a soul, if you will. Still the bio programming that is built into us, our nature, is not something we invented. That we struggle against our nature is a indication that we are striving for a higher order, an order that transcends the limited natural world. >>The Christian lives in the world under tension between his fear of God and >>the desires of the world. By forsaking the desires of the world, the >>Christian hopes to avoid eternal punishment. > >IMHO, I think you're a bit off base with this one. The ideal Christian life >is one in which we find continual joy in serving God. In this way we celebrat I agree. >between us and God. I hold fast to the idea that virtue is the path to true >happiness. Ironically, the Taoists seem to be the ones who have caught on to >this the best. Whats so ironic about that? Is this a plug for Taoism? Much of what I practice is akin to Buddhism, another Eastern path. I once said that Buddhism helps me be a better Christian, because it helps me to not sin, much more so, than any Christian "method." >As for your second statement, Christians have already avoided eternal >punishment. That's why they're Christians. So theysaved themselves? Have you saved yourself? Do you know for a fact that you are "saved?" Have you ever entertained a temptation, but resisted it because you "feared" God? Are you certain that you did so only because you're grateful to God for saving you, and not because deep inside you feared the consequences of disobeying God. The reasons for this are that I know many Christians who resist things because, as they have stated, they fear Hell. -- -jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils -ames!elroy!jato!jrossi is still choosing evil." -Cptn. Trips **********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************
tbvanbelle@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) (12/11/89)
In article <Dec.6.00.53.43.1989.11391@athos.rutgers.edu> jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) writes: >In article <Dec.3.12.35.18.1989.23045@athos.rutgers.edu> tbvanbelle@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) writes: >>Don't forget that, while God made the world, it isn't going according to >>the way it should have. > >yes it is. How could it be otherwise? Are you suggesting that somehow >God had an "idea" or a "plan" for how the history of the world would >go, and somehow everything that happened instead was somehow a "suprise." Actually what I meant was that God created the world perfect and good, but gave man the option of operating in a way which is not perfect. When I said 'should have', I didn't mean the way God expected it to go, but the optimal way. >Of course, the classic arguement against this, if nothing is going the >way God planned, it is certainly within His capacity to see that it does. And it's still within his capacity to force us all to be good. But it really wouldn't mean much. Instead, we're promised that one day we'll have the capacity to be good (and be close to him). >Yes, we're a real credit to our Maker ;-). Actually, the real credit to our Maker is the fact that we had the choice. The rest is our doing. >Of course God wants us >to sin, because he wants us to learn, and you learn by making >mistakes. Why did God create "sinners" in the first place? First of all, while we might learn correct behaviour, the real problem seems to be in following what we have learned. I can't speak for others, but I find it notoriously hard to condition myself out of a sin, even when I know it's wrong. Secondly, I might ask why we should learn when one day we will know? As for why God created sinners in the first place, he didn't in the way you're suggesting. He created man & gave them the ability to to choose whether to serve him or not. If we chose yes, beautiful. If we chose no, he could send Jesus. >>In any case, we aren't simply beasts who are destined to operate in fixed >>instinctual patterns. We can, and should, supress those impulses that harm >>others. Better still would be to reach a state where damaging instincts don't >>arise; a laudable goal, but not terribly realistic. Still, it gives something >>to aim for. >Who created "instincts."? Results of the fall? >I agree that we aren't simply beasts, but >beasts with a God given consicous-awareness, a soul, if you will. Still >the bio programming that is built into us, our nature, is not something >we invented. That we struggle against our nature is a indication that >we are striving for a higher order, an order that transcends the limited >natural world. Sounds good to me. We realize our present sinful nature & strive to act in the ways God wanted us to act. But here's the problem: our 'nature' makes us act in extremely unnatural ways when you compare us with the animal world. What other animal fouls its own nest? Destroys others of its kind for no good reason? I realize some animals band into groups & attack other groups, but if they had the intelligent means to work out their difficulties and didn't, what excuse would they have? >>Ironically, the Taoists seem to be the ones who have caught on to >>this the best. > >Whats so ironic about that? Is this a plug for Taoism? My apologies. I didn't mean to offend. >Much of what >I practice is akin to Buddhism, another Eastern path. I once said that >Buddhism helps me be a better Christian, because it helps me to not sin, >much more so, than any Christian "method." Christianity is by no means a method to stop sinning. It is a realization that we cannot help but sin & need help. Incidentally, I'm interested to know if Buddhism has helped you to completely avoid sinning. If so, I'm in the wrong religion. While anything that helps you to reduce the number of sins you commit is all well and good, do you really think you should be relying on it totally? >>As for your second statement, Christians have already avoided eternal >>punishment. That's why they're Christians. > >So they saved themselves? No more than a book saves itself from getting wet when someone brings it inside.It has still avoided becoming a soggy paperback at the next rain. >Have you saved yourself? No. >Do you know for a fact that you are "saved?" Yes, for as long as I want it. >Have you ever entertained a temptation, >but resisted it because you "feared" God? Are you certain that you >did so only because you're grateful to God for saving you, and not >because deep inside you feared the consequences of disobeying God. I can't recall ever having this problem, but it's possible. In any case, I see it as a sin. >The reasons for this are that I know many Christians who resist things >because, as they have stated, they fear Hell. I don't think your Christian friends are feeding you Biblical Christianity. Christianity by definition is a state of being in which you don't have to worry about Hell because Jesus has already gone in your place and won. >-jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils >-ames!elroy!jato!jrossi is still choosing evil." -Cptn. Trips Terry Van Belle tbvanbelle@watcgl.Waterloo.edu ...!watmath!watcgl!tbvanbelle
jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) (12/15/89)
In article <Dec.11.03.54.55.1989.23733@athos.rutgers.edu> tbvanbelle@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) writes: >>God had an "idea" or a "plan" for how the history of the world would >>go, and somehow everything that happened instead was somehow a "suprise." > >Actually what I meant was that God created the world perfect and good, but gave >man the option of operating in a way which is not perfect. When I said >have', I didn't mean the way God expected it to go, but the optimal way. This is a good pt. for discussion ... lets think about the optimal way for a minute and maybe ask ourselves what this means. We would have to, for a a minute take into consideration what would happened had Adam and Eve never chosen to disobey God in the first place? Now I'm about to make some assumptions about what this would mean, but before I do, I need to get some feedback on a fundamental question: did Adam and Eve have an erotic relationship wherein there would be children, or are sexual relations a consequence of the fall, and therefore, human life in the Garden limited to just Adam and Eve? If you answer yes to this question, then the most obvious result of the optimal way, is that you and I would never exsist. You would probably never know the joy you might know watching your child grow up. We can really branch out into a lot of things: having never sinned, we couldn't watch Rams games, go to Grateful Dead concerts, eat really good fudge, play with computers, get married, have children, go to school, go hiking at Yosemite, explore the moon, study history, experience rich, diverse cultural events, read good books, watch Johnny Carson, participate in community events, and basically enjoy and appreciate the chance to be alive. You and I would miss out on all this, because Adam and Eve decided not to take a chance, and chose to selfishly spend the rest of eternity with God, by themselves. So, to sum up, I'm not sure that things aren't already going the optimal way. Where God had two friends, now he has many. And if this is the opitmal way, I am of the faith that our loving Father has made a provision so that in this opitmal unfolding/revealation of His, there will be no uneccessary suffering. >>Of course, the classic arguement against this, if nothing is going the >>way God planned, it is certainly within His capacity to see that it does. > >And it's still within his capacity to force us all to be good. But it really >wouldn't mean much. Instead, we're promised that one day we'll have the >capacity to be good (and be close to him). What bothers me about this statement is that I believe we have the capacity to be good and close to God *now* ... To put your goodness and closeness off in the future is to reinforce the idea of a Santa Claus God, a God that rewards your faith and trust in him on an imaginary Christmas day in the future. Also, isn't bringing about repentance and goodness, by threatening to completely seperate ourselves from Him, and thus, insure our death, in a manner of speaking, coercion, or force? If I hold a gun to your head, and say Love me, or die, are you going to love me out of free will, or because I have a gun to your head. And if, in the future, there is still free will, doesn't that mean that there is a chance this will all happen all over. In order to prevent it from ever happening God would ultimately have to remove our capacity for free will, and *force* us to be good. >>Yes, we're a real credit to our Maker ;-). > >Actually, the real credit to our Maker is the fact that we had the choice. Th>rest is our doing. If I hand a child a gun, and the child kills himself, or someone else, is it a credit to me. If God gives out the chance to make a choice, knowing the choice will lead to the damnation of billions of souls, can we really say that God cares about humanity. If I had to choose between FreeWill/damnation, and NoFreeWill/Peace, take away my free will. Eternity is a long time. >>Of course God wants us >>to sin, because he wants us to learn, and you learn by making >>mistakes. Why did God create "sinners" in the first place? > >First of all, while we might learn correct behaviour, the real problem seems to >be in following what we have learned. I can't speak for others, but I find >it notoriously hard to condition myself out of a sin, even when I know it's >wrong. I agree ... and while some personal sins are real difficult, for me learning to love, accept, respect, and listen to myself and others, is getting easier, and easier. Praise God. >Secondly, I might ask why we should learn when one day we will know? Because its fun. Learning is part of the knowing. Why go to church, why read the Bible, while listen to anyone? >As for why God created sinners in the first place, he didn't in the way you're >suggesting. He created man & gave them the ability to to choose whether to >serve him or not. If we chose yes, beautiful. If we chose no, he could send >Jesus. You mean he could send himself? The interesting thing is He knew he was going to send Himself before he even created us. >>>In any case, we aren't simply beasts who are destined to operate in fixed >>>instinctual patterns. We can, and should, supress those impulses that harm >>>others. Better still would be to reach a state where damaging instincts don't >>>arise; a laudable goal, but not terribly realistic. Still, it gives something >>>to aim for. >>Who created "instincts."? > >Results of the fall? I disagree. God is the author of life, and life, by studying nature, we know is pretty much governed by a natural kind of software. Nature works in a certain way, and by suggesting this, your are essentially saying the Natural World and all the beasts, and natural wonders, and the whole system is an inadvertant creation of mankind, not God. I prefer to see it as a fall INTO the natural order, but that natural order exsits the way God created it. And what about the curiousity that prompted Adam and Eve, to taste the "fruit" of knowledge. Is this desire to learn and know various things, a trait that God himself possesses since he created us in His image? Did he give us "curiosity" or did we create it? >>I agree that we aren't simply beasts, but >>beasts with a God given consicous-awareness, a soul, if you will. Still >>the bio programming that is built into us, our nature, is not something >>we invented. That we struggle against our nature is a indication that >>we are striving for a higher order, an order that transcends the limited >>natural world. > >Sounds good to me. We realize our present sinful nature & strive to act in the >ways God wanted us to act. >But here's the problem: our 'nature' makes us act in extremely unnatural ways >when you compare us with the animal world. What other animal fouls its own >nest? Destroys others of its kind for no good reason? I realize some animals >band into groups & attack other groups, but if they had the intelligent means >to work out their difficulties and didn't, what excuse would they have? good point. I believe what you really want to say is that our nature makes us act in unGodly ways. As for your next question, a dog is another animal that fouls its own nest. A dog will s**t all over the same yard it plays in. If you really examine our reasons for acting in barbaric ways, you can see that they are the same as animals. Instincts. To survive, eat, live, reproduce, keep warm. We attempt to address, fulfill our needs, as dicated by nature. The difference between us and animals, is, we have the awareness, consciousness, sense of morality, to see that we can make choices, and do things differently. Part of us, or spiritual part is above nature, and comes from God, and can recognize that these animals are acting on lower levels, and do not have the capacity for self awareness that we do. Unfortunately for us, the dilemma is we are also bound by our nature. When one animal feels its food supply is threatened by another animal, it can kill the other animal with nary a thought or regret. It did what it had to do. When we feel our food supply threatened, we can't do as animals do, because our spirit knows its wrong, and yet at the SAME TIME, we are driven by the same needs as animals, and feel the same kind of suffering and pain that they do when these needs aren't meet, or our sources of food, and shelter are taken away by other "life forms." >>>Ironically, the Taoists seem to be the ones who have caught on to >>>this the best. >> >>Whats so ironic about that? Is this a plug for Taoism? > >My apologies. I didn't mean to offend. No offense taken. I was just wondering if you, as a Christian felt, that Taoism is a good thing. >Incidentally, I'm interested to know if Buddhism has helped you to completely >avoid sinning. If so, I'm in the wrong religion. >While anything that helps you to reduce the number of sins you commit is all >well and good, do you really think you should be relying on it totally? No more so than you're religion has helped you to competely stop sinning. But Buddhism isn't my religion, and if I relied on it totally, I wouldn't be here in this newsgroup. I'm here because I still feel I need Christ, and while I need Christ, it is up to me to resist sin in its many forms, out of love for God. By embracing paths, methods, and ideas that are found in Eastern philosophy and religious thought, I am able to focus inward on my heart, and also seek first the Kingdom. Buddhist practice is really about tearing yourself away from the world. At least in my case, I do it for God. And if I sin less because of it, like you said, it is well and good. >> >>So they saved themselves? > >No more than a book saves itself from getting wet when someone brings it insid But a book dosen't have free will. Now if the book shouted "save me" ... >>Have you ever entertained a temptation, >>but resisted it because you "feared" God? Are you certain that you >>did so only because you're grateful to God for saving you, and not >>because deep inside you feared the consequences of disobeying God. > >I can't recall ever having this problem, but it's possible. In any case, I >see it as a sin. kind of like a dirty rag, right? >I don't think your Christian friends are feeding you Biblical Christianity. >Christianity by definition is a state of being in which you don't have to worry >about Hell because Jesus has already gone in your place and won. yeah, thats fundamentalists for you. :-) Thanks for putting up with me. -- -jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils -ames!elroy!jato!jrossi is still choosing evil." -Cptn. Trips **********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************
crf@ginger.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (12/17/89)
[This is a response to a thread of discussion about Taoism and Buddhism. The posting this responds to was from jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov. --clh] >By embracing paths, methods, and ideas that are >found in Eastern philosophy and religious thought, I am able to focus >inward on my heart, and also seek first the Kingdom. Buddhist practice >is really about tearing yourself away from the world. At least in my >case, I do it for God. And if I sin less because of it, like you said, >it is well and good. There seems to be some confusion here about the relationship between Christianity and other religions. Maybe this analogy will help... Imagine yourself working on a large jigsaw puzzle, putting pieces together to form a picture. You've made some progress, so after a while you decide to take a break. Looking up you find many other people around you working on the same puzzle (that is, each one has his/her own copy). So you walk around and observe their progress. To your surprise, you find that most of them have put a few pieces together, and some of them have even matched pieces that you haven't gotten to yet, but none of them have made anything near the amount of progress you have made. This confuses you for awhile until you realize the difference: you have been working all the time with a box-top that shows the picture you are working toward, while these other people have no large picture to work from and can only guess at what their final result will be. Now I realize this isn't a perfect analogy , but it makes its main point well. Namely, all of us (the people) are trying to make some sense out of life (the puzzle). In doing this each of us have certain clues (the puzzle pieces) which help us in our quest; among these I would count the natural world around us, our own experiences, and our conscience - see Romans 1. But as Christians, we have an additional resource which none of the others have, namely, the sinless life of Jesus Christ on earth, lived in a perfect example of fellowship with God and total dependence on him in daily life (the picture on the box-top). (Aside: I believe that, in addition to being an example to us, Jesus was also the atonement for our sins, enabling us to have this fellowship. Ultimately, this fellowship also enables us to understand God better. But this is only a clarification; the original analogy still works even without bringing up this fact.) This idea has helped me a great deal when considering other religions. To apply it to the example in Buddhism above: apparently Buddhism teaches about withdrawing from the world, in (to some extent) a similar fashion to Christian teaching. It may even be that, given some people's background, the Buddhist way of teaching this will make more sense than the Christian way does. Great; that's one more truth learned. But it's not a reason for saying that Buddhism is just as true as Christianity. All this proves is that Buddhism has a hold of at least one truth, whereas Christianity can be called a means for finding all truth (all truth that humans can know, that is) because of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. All this to say: 1. Any religion can have some truths in it. 2. Ultimately, only in Christianity can we have any hope to find all truths that can humanly be found. 3. #1 and #2 do not contradict. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
procsy@cbnewsd.att.com (Jeff Sargent) (12/17/89)
In article <Dec.15.01.42.09.1989.17476@athos.rutgers.edu> jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) writes: > did Adam and Eve have an erotic relationship wherein there would be children, > or are sexual relations a consequence of the fall, and therefore, human life > in the Garden limited to just Adam and Eve? > > If you answer yes to this question [presumably meaning the second part of > the question], then the most obvious result of the optimal way, is that > you and I would never exist. One of the biggest bogosities in church history is the promulgation of the idea that sex is itself intrinsically bad, which is implied in the idea of sex being a consequence of the Fall. Remember, God's command to be fruitful and multiply was given *before* the Fall; presumably that command would have been obeyed then by the same method as it is now. [That is, indeed, the one and only command of God which humanity has obeyed to the full! :-)] It has been suggested, in fact, that sexual pleasure would have been greater before the Fall than it is after -- which makes sense, because to experience the extreme openness and vulnerability of sex, without at all having to worry about actually being wounded, would surely be paradisal, since it would lead to a much greater oneness and communion between the partners than occurs today. -- -- Jeff Sargent att!ihlpb!jeffjs (UUCP), jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Internet) AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 5A-433, Naperville, IL (708) 979-5284 "In the world you'll have your troubles; but smile! I've got the world beat." -- Jesus, as quoted in John 16:33 (up-to-date version) [The idea that sex is evil was certainly present in some Gnostic groups. However as applied to mainstream Christianity it seems to be primarily an accusation that various groups make about others. That is, it's common to accuse people of believing it, but I don't know of any group within mainstream Christianity that actually did. There is a strong tradition of abstaining from sex -- as from the world in general -- in order to concentrate on God in a special way. Whatever criticisms one wants to make of this approach, it is not based on the idea that sex is evil. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (12/21/89)
In article <Dec.17.02.19.40.1989.15453@athos.rutgers.edu> procsy@cbnewsd.att.com (Jeff Sargent) writes: Speaking of God's commandment to man to be fruitful and multiply which was given before sin entered the creation, Jeff commented: >... [That is, indeed, the one >and only command of God which humanity has obeyed to the full! :-)] We are even disobeying this commandment very grievously these days. While we are certainly doing everything we possibly can to involve ourselves in the physical act that God uses to cause us to be fruitful and multiply, we are doing our utmost to avoid the results that God would have that act yield. Our use of contraceptive measures has far exceeded epidemic porportions! The Scriptures very clearly teach that it is God who decides when any given conception should take place. If we believe that God makes perfect decisions then we must assume that His decision to initiate another human life is for the long term best even if we cannot see it and even if the short term prospects do not look very good. Do any of us really dare think that our judgement, which is only based on an extremely short term outlook, is better than God's? By using contraceptive measures people are, in effect, deciding that they, rather than God, know what is best for their own lives. This is no less than out right, blatent insubordination! Under the guise of being self-proclaimed judicious stewards of their personal time and finances, people are rather crudely doing no less than trading obedience to God for the mere seeking of self-satisfaction. It is also worth noting, although I do not want this statement to initiate a massive debate on abortion, that our continual desire to seek our own pleasure and to overrule God all too often results in our committing the additional and very grievous sin of murder. We all can point our ever accusing finger at King David and talk about how wrong he was when he attempted to cover up his sin of adultery by having Uriah murdered, but then we readily and without conscience justify ourselves for doing what amounts to the very same thing. Most people engage in sexual intimacy for their own short term pleasure and not solely for the pleasure of their spouses. This, too, is a deliberate act of disobedience to God. The Scriptures teach that a husband is to please his wife and that a wife is to please her husband. They also teach that, once two people marry, they no longer own their own bodies; the woman's body becomes the property of her husband and the man's body becomes the property of his wife. When a man and woman marry both of their goals is to become the selfless seeking of the other's pleasure and betterment. Our selfishness for our own personal sexual satisfaction is also expressed by the extremely high number of people who involve themselves in sexual intimacy outside the confines of marriage even though God has very clearly placed this constraint on it. We not only have seriously disobeyed God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply but also have brought to almost complete ruin the marvelous gift of sexual intimacy which He has given us to richly enjoy! There really is no single commandment of His which we have even remotely been able to keep. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (12/21/89)
In article <Dec.17.02.19.40.1989.15453@athos.rutgers.edu> procsy@cbnewsd.att.com (Jeff Sargent) writes:
[comments deleted about sex being considered intrinsically bad in church
history]
<
The moderator comments:
[The idea that sex is evil was certainly present in some Gnostic
<groups. However as applied to mainstream Christianity it seems to be
<primarily an accusation that various groups make about others. That
<is, it's common to accuse people of believing it, but I don't know of
<any group within mainstream Christianity that actually did.
Does anybody know if there is a connection between the idea of sex
being bad and puritanism? One of my friends defines a puritan as a
person who is just sure that somewhere someone is having a good time
and he can't stand the thought. I know that there have been (and
maybe still are) groups who seem to think that man is not deserving
of anything enjoyable and therefore should not have any fun or
enjoyment. Some of them seem to think that the only way to reach
heaven is to avoid all pleasure and happiness on earth. It seems to
me that this attitude could easily lead to the idea that sex is bad
since it's enjoyable. However the people I've known who thought sex
was bad were not puritans in other areas, in fact they were
Peruvians who really knew how to party.
Anybody know more about this?
[I think this definition of Puritan is like the original claim about
sex being evil: it's an accusation often made against groups, but few
if any actually fit it. I don't know of any groups that were opposed
to joy as they saw it. Properly speaking, the term Puritan refers to
a broad movement in the English Church during the 16th and 17th Cent.
They wanted to purify the church of non-Scriptural elements. How far
they wanted to go varied, as did whether they felt constrained to work
within the Church or ended up separating from it. Many of them wanted
to turn England into a Godly commonwealth organized on Biblical
principles. People varied from responsible to extremist. The more
responsible ones specifically disavowed positions that people tend to
use the term "puritanical" for. E.g. they stood for responsible use
of alcohol, considering total abstinence to be a cop-out. On the
other hand, they certainly objected to many activities that were
popular at the time, including as I recall all or some kinds of
dancing and theater. The objection was not that people had fun, but
that at least as practiced at the time, the activities encouraged
lustful and other non-Christian attitudes. However they certainly
engaged in plenty of activities that supplied innocent pleasure.
Anyone who attempts to make decisions like this is bound to make
decisions that somebody else finds silly. Some people find that all
rock music is harmful, etc. Others think this is silly.
Unsympathetic people characterize them as objecting to anything that
is fun. I know of no reason to think that Puritans got less enjoyment
out of life than others. I've always liked the first question of the
Westminster Shorter Catechism (one product of this group): "Q 1. What
is the chief end of man? A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to
enjoy him forever." --clh]car@cblpn.att.com (Clarissa A Brower) (01/01/90)
In article <Dec.20.22.56.51.1989.18624@athos.rutgers.edu>, bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > While we are certainly doing everything we possibly can to involve > ourselves in the physical act that God uses to cause us to be fruitful > and multiply, we are doing our utmost to avoid the results that God > would have that act yield. Our use of contraceptive measures has far > exceeded epidemic porportions! More stuff deleted about how contraceptive use is unscriptural . . . For a good scriptural defense of contraception read the book, "The Act of Marriage" by Tim and Beverly LaHaye. I won't repeat their defense here, but I will point one other thing out. If God truly wanted us to not have sex if children were not a possible outcome, there would have been a statement in the Old Testament forbidding a woman past the age of menopause to have sexual intercouse. No such statement exists. C. Brower AT&T-NS -I don't speak for AT&T
kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) (01/01/90)
In article <Dec.20.22.56.51.1989.18624@athos.rutgers.edu> Dave Mielke writes about contraception, and says: > >The Scriptures very clearly teach that it is God who decides when any >given conception should take place. Lots of people make claims about what the Scriptures `clearly teach', and (like Dave) they usually can't be bothered to provide any verses, and we are just supposed to believe them. I usually don't. (Indeed, I usually just ignore articles that follow this pattern.) So then, do you have any verses which might lend support to your assertion? (To save bandwidth, don't bother quoting them, just give a list. And if they are really as clear as you claim, you won't need to provide any commentary either -- if you have to explain how you arrive at your interpretation, then the Scriptures do NOT `clearly teach' it.) Dave's article also said two other things, one of which makes no sense and one of which is horribly insulting. Firstly, we have this: > >If we believe that God makes perfect decisions then we must assume that >His decision to initiate another human life is for the long term best even >if we cannot see it and even if the short term prospects do not look very >good. Do you similarly suggest the people born with heart defects should not have corrective operations? Using your own argument, `if we believe that God makes perfect decisions then we must assume that his decision to end another human life is for the long term best.' And then, another in a series of insulting comments: > >Most people engage in sexual intimacy for their own short term >pleasure and not solely for the pleasure of their spouses. Dave, how do you know this? Can you read people's minds? How would you feel if I started claiming that you are an atheist who only posts articles here to make Christians look bad? You have no business making judgements like this (though you do it all the time), and you are rapidly convincing me that I need a KILL file for this newsgroup. kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Intolerance is a state of mind, rudeness is a way of life." -- C. Wingate
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (01/04/90)
In article <Jan.1.10.59.49.1990.11754@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) writes: I hope that the following is not too confusing. I am responding to a number of objections that were raised with respect to some statements which I made in a previous posting (article <Dec.20.22.56.51.1989.18624@athos.rutgers.edu>). Those paragraphs which are preceeded by a double right angle bracket are my original comments. I have left them in as they would have to be repeated anyway for a correct understanding of the objections that are being raised. >>The Scriptures very clearly teach that it is God who decides when any >>given conception should take place. >Lots of people make claims about what the Scriptures `clearly teach', and >(like Dave) they usually can't be bothered to provide any verses, and we >are just supposed to believe them. I usually don't. (Indeed, I usually >just ignore articles that follow this pattern.) I believe that an inspection of my passed postings will reveal that you have made an extremely unfair statement. I usually (to use your own word) include far more Scriptural backing than most others. Please accept my sincere apologies for having neglected to do so in this particular case. I am clearly guilty of occasionally responding with too much haste and when I am not in a position to provide the Scriptural support that any declaration of the will of God not only ought to be accompanied with but also deserves. Please feel free to ask for additional Scriptural support at any time. I most respectfully ask, however, that you, and anyone else who is so inclined, please refrain from accompanying such a request with additional inuendos which are merely an attempt either to stimulate aggrivation or to discredit. I am sure that there are many other posters who will agree with me that snide personal insults do not serve any productive purpose whatsoever. >So then, do you have any verses which might lend support to your assertion? Yes. Here are a few passages which speak to the issue. Although you asked that I not quote them, I shall do so for the benefit of those without easy access to a Bible. I shall, however, honour your request to refrain from adding my own personal commentary. The issue, by the way, is my statement that it is God, and not just the intimate union between a husband and wife accompanied by chance, who decides when each and every conception is to take place. From this fact I draw the conclusion that the use of contraceptive measures is no less than a deliberate act of disobedience to God, as it is a voluntary attempt to overrule His decisions with respect to our lives. Psalm 127:3 says "Lo, children {are} an heritage of the LORD: {and} the fruit of the womb {is his} reward.". Psalm 128:3-4 says "Thy wife {shall be} as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD.". Psalm 104:29-30 says "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.". >>If we believe that God makes perfect decisions then we must assume that >>His decision to initiate another human life is for the long term best even >>if we cannot see it and even if the short term prospects do not look very >>good. >Do you similarly suggest the people born with heart defects should not >have corrective operations? Using your own argument, `if we believe that >God makes perfect decisions then we must assume that his decision to end >another human life is for the long term best.' While, on the surface, your response appears to be logical, it has not been made with the wisdom of the Scriptures as its foundation. Of course, as the last Scripture quoted above (Psalm 104:29-30) states, it is God who also decides when each and every life is to be terminated. If it is His intention that a baby born with a heart deffect is to die then no doctor will be able to prevent that baby from dying. It is incorrect, however, to interpret the life preserving efforts made by doctors as attempts to overrule God's will with respect to the lives of their patients. This is because we are commanded to not commit murder, i.e. the willful termination of any person's life. We do not know what God's will is for that baby, but we do know that we would be willfully desiring his death, i.e. committing murder, by denying the necessary treatment. We must, therefore, do all that we possibly can to preserve his life. God may, in fact, want to bring glory to His own name through the efforts of those doctors whom He is using as they labour tirelessly at their life preserving tasks. Just letting a person die would be a violation of our obligation to do all that we can to preserve life. The same cannot be said with respect to the practice of contraceptive measures. In this case we are doing all that we can to prevent life. >>Most people engage in sexual intimacy for their own short term >>pleasure and not solely for the pleasure of their spouses. >Dave, how do you know this? Can you read people's minds? How would you >feel if I started claiming that you are an atheist who only posts articles >here to make Christians look bad? > >You have no business making judgements like this (though you do it all >the time), and you are rapidly convincing me that I need a KILL file >for this newsgroup. Be it known that I would never make a judgemental statement about any specific person. Be it also known that I would never make a judgemental remark to people in general if I did not find elements of my assessment in my own life. I can assure you that I am well aware of the strong traces of my own selfishness in my intimate relations with my own wife. If anyone really wants to prove that he is selflessly interested in the sexual pleasures of his spouse then let him do his utmost to continue to stimulate her regularly and often for the next several months or years or decades or whatever without her returning the favour. I feel quite safe in claiming that we all, whether we be husbands or wives, crave to be stimulated by our mates, and that at least part of the insentive for initiating intimate contact with them is that we want to get them to do so to us. If our sole insentive were our truly selfless love for others then there would be no such thing as premarital sex. We ought to care so much for the well-being, physical and spiritual, of the other person that we would find it unthinkable to drag her into an activity which we know is in rebellion to the commandments of God and that is deserving of eternal damnation. If a person really selflessly wants his girlfriend to experience the pleasures of intimate relations then why would he not do things God's way by marrying her first and by committing the rest of his life to her for better or for worse? The extremely unpleasant fact is that most of us couldn't really care less about the eternal future of others. We find the perceived status of having won the victory in some short term conquest to be much more stimulating. You, and perhaps many other people, do not like many of my remarks. This is, however, a fact that does not particularly bother me. If I am wrong then show me a Scripture that proves this to be so. If I am right, i.e. if I am interpreting the Scriptures correctly, then you are really angry with God and not with me. 1 Samuel 8:7 says "And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.". It is not my fault that the Bible is full of statements which prick our consciences very deeply and painfully. It is, rather, God's will to prove to us that we really are nothing better than dirty, wrotten, filthy, no good sinners before Him and, in so doing, to alert us to the fact that we really do deserve a punishment as nasty as eternal damnation and that our only escape route from that horrifying destiny is the Lord Jesus Christ. We can protest God's assessment of ourselves publically as much as we want to, hiding behind the pretense of the visibly decent lives that we attempt to portray, but that does not fool God. 1 Samuel 16:7 says "But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for {the LORD seeth} not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.". Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart {is} deceitful above all {things}, and desperately wicked: who can know it?". My duty, as a servant of God, is to faithfully proclaim His message, whether or not others enjoy it, and whether or not I feel like agreeing with it. This is, by the way, His demand of every single Christian. He has told me that this will not always be met with joy. He has, in fact, declared that strict obedience to His calling can be expected to be met with out right hatred. In John 15:18-21 Jesus says "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before {it hated} you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.". In Matthew 5:10-12 Jesus says "Blessed {are} they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when {men} shall revile you, and persecute {you}, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great {is} your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (01/04/90)
In article <Jan.1.10.51.52.1990.11661@athos.rutgers.edu> car@cblpn.att.com (Clarissa A Brower) writes: >If God truly wanted us to not have sex if children were not a possible outcome, >there would have been a statement in the Old Testament forbidding a woman >past the age of menopause to have sexual intercouse. No such statement exists. You have misquoted me. I did not say that God commanded that children must be the result of intimate relations. What I said was that it is God who decides when intimate relations are to result in conception. We should be thankful that God has done things in such a way that a couple rarely have children when they are beyond an age at which they could easily care for them until they are fully grown. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
TTAERUM@ualtavm.bitnet (01/04/90)
As usual, any discussion of the first 2 chapters of Genesis creates more heat than light. Two issues seem to predominate: contraception and creation. With respect to contraception, the command "be fruitful and multiply" is set in juxtaposition with "subdue the earth". More correctly, these words ought to be seen as blessings rather than commands. That is, every- thing at this point is 'good' - sin has not yet entered into the picture. and one is "fruitful" simply by G-d's command in the same way that the earth is "created" simply by G-d's command. There comes a point, in this imperfect world, however, when to be fruitful is not to be blessed. Lest anyone gain too much comfort from this thought, I will also suggest that some people decide to be unfruitful simply because they do not agree with G-d that to be fruitful is to be blessed. Some simply do not like people (except for themselves) and definitely do not like children. Others (I believe the figure is about 5%) are simply unable to have children and obviously this discussion is NOT about them. With respect to the question of creation, I have yet to see a carpenter who 'apologizes' for how he makes something. If an observer argues with the carpenter that his brief description of how he made something is inadequate, he will likely get my sympathy but not much more. If he argues that it couldn't have been made that way then the first test would be to see if the other person could make the same article. If he couldn't then my attention would wander rather quickly. The critic might be right, of course, but he will certainly have difficulty proving it. The case in point is somewhat like a first century man telling a 20th century man that men cannot fly - it might be a question of definition and experience So, who's right? Well, I think I am - but then again. Terry Taerum