Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle? Message-ID: <1452@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 10:36:52 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1452 Posted: Fri Aug 9 10:36:52 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:15:37 EDT References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 144 >>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an >>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and >>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the >>assumption. [RR] > Archeology winds up supporting Biblical accounts. Cosmology doesn't pose > too many definite answers as to the origins of things (from nothing...BANG... > dream on!!!!) [HARAZDUK] You left out paleontology. Of course. Archaelogy merely shows that the civilizations described in the Bible existed around the times and places described therein. Archaeology certainly offers no support to the notions of divine acts also described therein. And as for cosmology, well, this just sounds like "Ah, you don't know the ultimate truth, therefor MY wishful speculations MUST be right". >>>Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because >>>they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. >>>[SARGENT] >>Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and >>truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to >>see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other >>people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? > 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. Is there something wrong with "getting hurt"? Must we always seek the ultimate protective sure-thing environment? 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!) > The sexual life style is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. > Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) > inside of you. God fills it too, if you let Him. And without the hurt > that numerous intimate relationships wind up inflicting on everybody > involved. 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. The married lifestyle is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. 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. And without the hurt that the intimacy of a single longterm relationship of commitment to a particular person winds inflicting on EVERYBODY involved. 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. Marry the wrong person these days and you may not be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. See how easy it is to make crass generalizations about a lifestyle? >>>>Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what >>>>makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside >>>>"conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! > Sex is not the thing that hurts. It's the relationship that does. Sex > creates an intimacy that is an illusion when there is no love between two > people. Just as marriage often creates an illusion of possession/possessedness and safety that simply is not there. Works both ways. > And if there is love, true love...why not marriage. And the more important question: if there is love, why MUST there be marriage? > The only way > sex can hurt is physically...by disease, partners being inconsiderate (why > bother if it's only tonight), force, unwanted pregnancy. Mentally, it's > not the sex that hurts but the mirrage it creates. Being inconsiderate? How about the notion in marriage that the partner is now "yours", and thus you no longer need to be considerate as you did during the process of "snaring" this person? You can't just blithely condemn a non-marriage lifestyle when such problems are rife in people's preconceptions and actions in marriage. >>Sure add in enough guilt ("this is WRONG! this is WRONG! this is...") and >>it's sure to be painful. > I never felt a guilty moment in bed, but I got hurt. Expectations are built > on the intimacy that sex creates. If both people don't live up to those > expectations, someone will get hurt. And it's usually pretty messy. Most > people don't remain friends (socially) after sharing an intimate relationship. 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. >>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. 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. >>>>Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, >>>>but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity >>>>your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. >>>>Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things >>>>in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from >>>>those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've >>>>often spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need >>>>without interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, >>>>but the real thing is out here amongst us people. [RR] > Usually, parents (good parents that is) exhibit this kind of love for a child. > Eventually, their patience runs thin sometimes. God's patience is forever, > He's just waiting for us to ask for help, and He's there to help. My mom > and dad have often had to have this same attitude. Without rehashing how the existence of god is an a posteriori imposition of the things you want in the universe onto that universe (and its "creator"), this is just what you WANT to have, not necessarily what exists. Your belief that such things exist is your belief, that's all. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr