Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!jah
From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle? Is marriage?
Message-ID: <415@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 16:32:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.415
Posted: Wed Aug 14 16:32:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 20:54:28 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 148

> > Maybe you haven't gotten hurt yet, but I tend to doubt that.  Everybody gets
> > hurt, eventually, from intimate relationships that don't last.  And often
> > the things that hurt are actually done to us so that we will hurt.  If you
> > haven't been hurt, then maybe you've been doing all the lashing out.  At
> > some point it always comes down to the same thing.  Relationships end and
> > people get hurt.  Marriage, on the other hand, when done with the right
> > reasons with the right two people, should not end..until death do you
> > part.  Chew on that for a while.  
 
> "Should" not end?  Hmmm... No matter. 
I'm being honest.  The fact is many do.  Even Christian marriages.  But on
the whole, not as many as people think. 

> Is there something wrong with "getting
> hurt"?  Must we always seek the ultimate protective sure-thing environment?

Isn't that what your "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" morality is all
about?  Even if the discussion has another heading, your still Rich Rosen,
aren't you?  With the non-infringement policy?

> Why?  In doing so, in fact, in seeking the unattainable "perfect lifetime
> relationship with a person living up to YOUR expectations", you are
> predestined to fail.  (That much of determinism is a surefire reality!)

I guess we'll see about that.  I'll let you know at the divorce court, that
is, if I ever get married.

>> The sexual life style is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be.
> The married lifestyle is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be.

Unquestionably true.  Marriage is not glamorous.  It just helps to make a
workable family unit.  

>> Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need)
>> inside of you.  God fills it too, if you let Him.
> Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need)
> inside of you.  Freedom of thought and action do that too, if you let them.

Freedom of thought and action are there with or without *belief* in God.
The choice is always there, it is never taken away.  I choose daily whether
to believe God or not.  When I choose not, it is more fatal then when I
choose to believe.  But that's only personal experience.

>> And without the hurt
>> that numerous intimate relationships wind up inflicting on everybody
>> involved.
> And without the hurt that the intimacy of a single longterm relationship
> of commitment to a particular person winds inflicting on EVERYBODY involved.

The analogy here is that marriage is the ultimate fullfillment.  Never said
it was.  I said God is.  Marriage is just better, but only when it works.
When a Christian waits for God to make the choice, it works.  I can't speak
for the general populace.

>> And if not the mental anguish...what about the physical diseases
>> going around.  Fool around with the wrong person these days and you may not
>> be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so.
> And if not the mental anguish...what about the high incidence of marital
> violence and abuse perpetrated by people who expect and demand certain things
> from a marriage.

Unfortunately, this point concerns people's judgement.  You can't judge a
person as having VD or AIDS by his appearance.  One night stands don't
allow you the luxury of finding out about a person.  You can only HOPE that
you find someone honest enough to say.  The same cannot be said for longer
lasting relationships when there is a mutual agreement of fidelity between
the partners.  If this agreement is not established, then the case is the
similar to the one above.  The only exception here is that the infidelity
can be consistent allowing for several similar long lasting relationships.
Eventually, you get back to the risky case.

> Marry the wrong person these days and you may not be around
> to tell the story a couple of years from now or so.

If a person marries someone who physically abuses them, that is either
bad judgement or the person was fooled.  Unfortunately, in most cases,
it is bad judgement.  The case of being fooled can happen to anyone in
in any situation.  God may reveal a little extra information to you,
however, that is not publicly availabe.

> See how easy it is to make crass generalizations about a lifestyle?
Yeah.  I'm getting good at it.
 
> >  And if there is love, true love...why not marriage.
 
> And the more important question:  if there is love, why MUST there be
> marriage?

Way back when, marriage was established by the sexual act, but the commitment
was more serious.  The marriage paper does not constitute the marriage.  It
is the vow that the people are making.  God suggests one mate. He does that
from experience.  Christians are obedient to God for reasons of Love and
experience.  You can still do what you like.

> If you're talking about expectations, don't leave out marriage.  More people
> get married with unvoiced preconceptions and expectations of what the other
> partner is "supposed" to be (it worked like this in my parents' family,
> the Bible says that a spouse is supposed to do this...) than we could care
> to count.  And more of THEM wind up either in divorce or bitter twisted
> marriages as a result.

Tell me, Rich, how many marriages as compared with how many broken relation-
ships?  Obviously, uncountably more relationships than marriages.  Many more
relationships end than proceed to marriage.  Thus, many more relationships
are entered with those preconceptions and expectations.  It happens no matter
what because that's the nature of people.  Maybe many of those marriages that
you're talking about would have never happened if it hadn't been the initial
intimacy of sex.
 
>>>Working from assumptions again.  Since you have no
>>>experience with such "solemn trust" in the context you mention, you are in
>>>no position to judge.  I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's
>>>view, but the fact that others may not, and that married and unmarried non-
>>>Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows that the
>>>blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. [RR]

>> If your not Christian, nobody's telling you to change your way of life.  If
>> you become Christian, it's just a matter of time before you will, with God's
>> help.
  
> I'm not sure what on earth this has to do with my statement above.  Christians
> have no monopoly on proper perspective about things like marriage, though
> your assertions in your article make it appear that you feel that you do.

Okay.  I am playing both sides of the fence a bit.  But that's just me and
my impressions.  Other Christians have other impressions.  I personally
decided that frivolous sex was not fullfilling sometime before I became a
Christian.  But that's me.  Some do it because they love God and want to
obey, some because of similar reasons as I have expressed.  Most, I think
(purely speculation and assumption), do it for a combination of reasons.
Many don't bother to obey until after they have established their marital
relationship.  They are still Christian.  I can't judge, it's not my place.

> My point was that Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective on
> requirements about marriage, that (as shown above) a lot of assumptions are
> made within it.  I doubt that he wants to hear anything but that perspective,
> but that's his business, and his problem.  I'm just offering a different
> perspective from a different and perhaps less biased vantage point.
 
You're right.  Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective.  But
he's Christian and he is more likely to do so; not only because others say
it is better, but because he has a worthwhile relationship with God that
he values.

> Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
I'm still curious.

Julie A. Harazduk