Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/4/83; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm!v6m
From: V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: the GREAT MARCHIONNI replies  (all bow....:-)   )))
Message-ID: <1534V6M@PSUVM>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 12:44:46 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.1534V6M
Posted: Thu Jan 24 12:44:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 07:28:57 EST
Lines: 79


If Paul has indeed discarded his past formal Christain training then so be it.
But this does not weaken the strength of his arguments nor does it weaken my
respect for them.  Paul mentioned the natural law as the basis of his
arguments since he did not quote religious sources.

Lest you think that the natural law is a figment of his and my imagination
check various philosophy books on the natural law.  There should be much
available.  No I'm not going to quote any texts since the ones I read have
the Imprimatur.  And this seems to be an objection to some netters.
Fine, use alternate sources which are not theologically based for materialon the
natuarl law and I think you'll find reasonable arguments similiar to Dubuc's.

I'm still going to stick up for Christain based opinion on this subject.
It is at least as valid as the atheistic viewpoint.

I do not have contempt for our mixed society. The other guys have the right to
be wrong.  But I am NOT going to keep my mind and conscience in a constant
flux trying to redefine a moral system without absolutes for every problem
that pops up in society.

When I try to prove a point I refer to higher sources whom I have accepted.
It makes it easier for the reader to retrace my position since none oh the
sources are secret.

One of the problems with using natural law arguments IN SHORT postings is that
while the natural law should be OBVIOUS to all observers, it is not because of
the fallen state of man.  Ideally Rosen and I should be able to apply the
natural law to the same problem and come with the same solution.
( You've seen how succesful the two of have been---  :-)  )
That's why I don't use it in arguments.

I don't quite understand how Rosen thinks that I am against the individual.
The WHOLE purpose of this porn question was the problem of degradation
of the individual since it was well argued that if porn degraded
(evidently the jury is still out..:-)   ) then it degraded both sexes.

The subject has since moved to censorship, religion, politics and academic
integrity and morality. NOT BAD!!  But this should prove that it touches a
basic point of humanity.  One needs a comprehensive world view to handle it.
I have one and so does Rosen.  We do seem to be anti-thetical though.
Both are legal in this country, fortunatly.
Rich and I have gone round before in net.abortion with the same results
(and style I might add... I can't stand his posturings either...but at least
it's obvious to every one else...  :-)   )
... Anti-thetical positions do that.  I claim that the individual is
subordinate to a higher authority and that authority has a position on morality
 and this position explains the evil of pornography and the beauty of
sexuality.  The higher authority is NOT SOCIETY.  It is God and His Church.
It is also the case that while I am subordinate to my God I am NOT
diminished by this.  A further discussion should be in net.religion.

I think Rich misunderstands the role and importance of the individual to
religions. It is the religion's purpose to save the individual for eternity.
There are earthly benefits accrued such as good order but also affirmation
of basic human rights.

I understand Rosen's objections and fears over individualism being lost.
As I said it is difficult to understand the Christian view without deep study
if you are not one.  It can be done however.  This does not mean that you
will become a Christian Rich..no matter how much water I throw on you :-).
Christianity involves all planes of man's existence simultaneously.

AS FOR BEING RIGHT!!!!!             HERE IT COMES FOLKS   :-)

As I said this is persuasive argument  both of us can't be right.
Use your conscience.  Christians have a high regard for the conscience
even when it is wrong.  (Even  you  Rich.. That's why Arndt likes you :-)

I'm sorry Paul but I can't accept the solution of censorship, morally correct
that it is.  Remember  A GOOD ACT that leads to evil is not allowed either.
St. Paul mentioned it I believe and it has been taught consistently.

Aren't you glad we solved the problem??????   :-)


See you all in net.abortion or  psu.ai.ethics.

Vince