Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hou2b!gkm
From: gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christianity and Sex (Etymology of "fornication")
Message-ID: <347@hou2b.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 09:35:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2b.347
Posted: Fri Sep 28 09:35:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Sep-84 10:27:43 EDT
References: <138@cadovax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 27


In regard to this statement, I take strong issue!

    In closing, I concede that the Pauline letters condemned  sex  per
se, even in the case of marriage.  Paul believed that he was living in
the "End Times" before the second coming of Christ.  Why  bother  with
sex  as  procreation  when  the  Final  Judgement  is right around the
corner?
                                 Jeff Fields

You have taken one place in Paul's writing where he was concerned
with the inpending destruction of Jeruselem to conclude that Paul 
"comdemned sex per se".  If you would read more his writings you
would find quite the contrary.  For example, the leaders in the
churches, ie the Elders(=Pastors, Presbyters,Bishops) and Deacons
both had to be married in order to be such! See I Tim 3 and Titus 1.
He also says the "marriage bed" is undefiled, that the husband's
body belongs to his wife and vice versa. I don't have the time right
now to continue, but Paul definitely was in favor of "sex" in its
proper place: in marriage!

in Him who works all things after the council of HIS own will,

						gary