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!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: fornication and Christianity
Message-ID: <457@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 14:46:51 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.457
Posted: Mon Feb  4 14:46:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 03:10:05 EST
References: <428@pyuxd.UUCP> <1777@pucc-h>
Organization: Pristine Area
Lines: 52

> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway?  This
> is where we all went to avoid him]:  [SARGENT]

So nice of you to admit it, Jeff.  (To avoid what, one might ask...)  Also so
nice to bring my name up every so often (Brown, Marchionni) in my "absence".

>>Why MUST everything we do be be "beneficial"?  "Constructive?"  Isn't life
>>full of things that are neither (though not antipodal to either)?  Don't many
>>of those things heighten the overall experience of life?  [ROSEN]

> Can you name any examples of non-beneficial, non-constructive things that
> enhance life?  The opposite of constructive is DESTRUCTIVE, and I am trying
> to get away from that. [SARGENT]

Thus, all things in the universe are either one way (A) or the exact opposite
(not-A), and of course there's nothing in between and no neutral ground and
no exceptions.  Examples of things that are "neither" abound (sorry, Greg
Skinner), and in fact these very things are often the basis of discussion
(i.e., often violent argument) between the religious and the non-religious.
For example, homosexuality.  Is it CON-structive?  Is it DE-structive?
There are numerous other examples, among them:  open sexual relationships
outside of marriage, individualism in sex/family roles (actually, this is
quite constructive!), and, last but not least, NOT devoting all of one's life
to god.

>  I do not think that Paul was setting out a MUST, but
> rather saying "If you are wise, if you *really* know what is best for you,
> you won't do certain things, because they are not good for you; and if you
> are a really caring person, you won't do certain things because they could
> mess up other people."  He was saying these things, not to lay down a rigid
> law, but rather as part of the whole program of God, which is to lead to an
> optimal life for people.

I'd hope he was.  Fact is, I for one still don't agree with all of what he
thought was "best".  He was human.  He could have been wrong.  But try and
tell that to some people.  (Comments have repeatedly been made about Paul's
own "biases".)

>>BRIAN:  "You're all different!"
>>CROWD:  "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!"
>>MAN:    "I'm not ... "

> I like this .signature; it's clever and not obnoxious. [SARGENT]

Oh!  Pardon me for ...   It comes in a matched set of .signatures that
includes the following oldie but goodie that (quite appropriately for this
article) precedes the one above:
-- 
BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong!  You don't have to follow me!  You don't
        have to follow ANYONE!  You've got to think for yourselves! You are
	all individuals!"
CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"			Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr