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