From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:10:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


>>>In such a case, would sex not be regarded as a *positive* act?  That
>>>it occurs outside of marriage in that case is at least irrelevent, and
>>>at most a necessary precondition for it to be a positive act.
>>
>>Look around.  Look at society today.  Look at marriage today.  Before the
>>sexual revolution, sex outside of marriage was looked down upon.  
>>Notice that the divorce rates were very low.  
>
>You cannot make the claim that people were *truly* happier before the
>sexual revolution than afterwards on *this* basis.  The divorce rates
>were very low at least in part because divorce was frowned upon by the
>society of the time, and that made divorce a losing proposition in most
>cases.

I don't know whether or not people considered themselves to be happy.
But I don't think the only benefit of marriage is the warm fuzzies.  I
think married people should stay together and work through their difficulties.

But what we are talking about is "positive acts" or positive effects.  I
think that couples staying together generally has a positive effect
on society.  Or rather, when marriage is treated lightly, and people
divorce more often, it has a negative effect on society.

>>Look at the divorce rate now.
>
>Look at the divorce rate immediately after the "sexual revolution".  Do
>you *really* think that there would have been so many divorces if the
>people who got divorced were *happy* together?

I think divorce is generally evil.  I think that an increase in the 
divorce rate is a negative result of the sexual revolution.  You 
may not agree that divorce is generally bad.  But I think that it has
caused some other problems in our society.

>>Look at how many children are born without having a father present to 
>>raise them.  Has this strengthened society.
>
>Would it have strengthened society to raise children in an environment
>where their parents were *not* happy with each other?  I think not!

I also think it is prefferable that a child also be raised by a father.

Look at how society has changed.  I was talking to a teacher earlier
this week.  Children are wild.  She has had her hand in a cast.  Someone
else was talking to me about how children will smack busdrivers.  
On the news recently, you can see that children in inner city schools
carry guns to shcool.  Some children commit acts of violence.  Others
are scared of ciolence.  This did not happen to a as great of an 
extent before the sexual revolution.  I think it is in part a result of
a fatherless society.  Like the school teacher I was talking to said,
many of these are latch key kids.  Their single mothers work till 11 at
night, and their children almost never see them.  The younger children are
raised by eight graders.  In a family with a father and a mother, at
least one parent has a greater chance to be with the children when they
are home.  Also, there is greater financial support for the children, so
that Mom, or Dad for that matter does not generally have to work till
11 pm.  

Children need positive male role models.  Especially young men who grow
up with no male role models other than what they see on the streets.
there are other factors involved.  Parents using tv as a babysitter might
have something to do with it.  Society is becomeing corrupted overall.
IMHO, I think society is going to become more corrupted, and more chaotic.

Of course, not every child who grows up in a single family, or who is
a latchkey kid will carry a gun to school.  
There are plenty of people
who grew up in single parent families that turned out well, but parenting
without a father is that much more difficult.

>>I don't know how many Christians would even agree with your premise that the
>>laws God gives are detrimental.  
>
>No, of course they wouldn't agree.  They believe that the benefits are
>to be found in the afterlife if they are not to be found here on earth.
>But that flies in the face of the fact that God has no need to create
>such a consequence.

The issue is not what God needed to create.  God does what He desires  to
do.  He does what He does because of His character.  There are benefits 
here on the earth, also.

>>Sometimes it is possible to suffer for
>>obedience.  Take martyrdom for example.  Several martyrs refused to deny
>>Christ.  They paid with their lives.  

>So in temporal terms, they lost.  Now you *have* to rely on them winning
>in spiritual terms.

Only if what they really cared about was their own lives.  If one cares
about the welfare of others more than himself, he can WIN by giving up
his life for their benefit.  Many martyrs have decided that God,
the allowing the good news to reach others was more important than their
own lives.

>But worse, the mere *existence* of spiritual consequences of temporal
>acts flies in the face of the concept of a "loving" God.  A loving God
>would not require us to make such immensely important decisions
>without giving us the ability to see *for ourselves* what the consequences
>of those decisions would be.

What is love?  If God loves us, does that mean that all we would experience
is pleasure, and that we would never have to make a difficult choice.
And whose to say that many of these martyrs never saw the consequences
of their actions.  Take the example of Stephen for example.  Paul had
many visions.  He had many visions.  Paul tells of a vision, writing in
the third person in II Corinthians 12 about seeing the third heaven.
It is also possible to percieve things without physical vision.

>So you *think*.  But what you *think* is counter to any definition of
>"love" that I know of as it might apply to God.

Parents love their children, but they discipline them.  If they did not,
the children would grow up to be wild.  I know it is hard for a child
to believe that they are being disciplined because their parents love them
when they hear it, but it can be true (though it may not always be the case.)

Little babies do not like to eat certain baby foods, but their parents
have to teach them to acquire a taste for it, for their own good.  
Sometimes love has to be tough.

Of course, martyrdom is not punishment, but these are examples of how that 
in some cases showing love is not always easy on the recipient.

Also, here is a key point.  The value system of a martyr is not the same
as most other people.  What they desire first and foremost is not what
other people desire.  Many people place their own lives in number one 
priority.  The fact is that people have to make decisions between alternatives,
and a martyr who has had the chance to recant does not give his own life
number one priority.

>The people who
>martyred themselves would have suffered severe negative consequences in
>the afterlife if they had not taken the actions that ultimately caused
>them to suffer and die, right?  So they're facing a dilemma: suffer and
>die at the hands of men, or suffer and die at the hands of God.

here you assume that martyrs make their choice based on selfish purposes,
for their own well-being.  This is not always the case.

>When God can change the rules at will in
>order to *protect* those very same people he loves, so that they may
>live a happy temporal life *and* a happy afterlife?

Why would anyone go to college.  There are exams, classes, homework.
If they go to school to party, they could just live and work in a college
town, and party with the students.  One who completes a college education
has (or used to have) a better chance in the job market.  He  gets a
diploma, a degree.  He (hopefully) gets and education.

Why does anyone run a marathon?  Especially the last miles which are 
so difficult?  Difficulty is a part of life, but their are rewards for
overcoming difficulty.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc