Sex! Woohoo!

[tonyenglish7]

You said "Isn't that rather a law grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition? Truth is subjective. Particularly as Christian's define it. Far better minds than ours have debated that point."

You asked if there is a law that is not directly linked to society and I answered there is, then by definition, your question is impossible because as soon as I bring in a moral imperitive that doesn't have utilitarian applications, you disqualify it. Begs the question.

Then, on your claim that Truth is subjective. It is a simple point, you don't need to appeal to "better minds" that debate the issue. This is very simple. The claim that truth is relative, is an objective truth statement, which itself, violates it's own claim and is therefore self-refuting. Any self refuting statement proves it's opposite. To try and explain (please forgive me if you get this), if the statement, Truth is relative, is true, then the statement itself is subjective, which is impossible because if it is "true", it breaking it's own rule, namely objective truth. Therefore, I have answered your challenge to show that something is not relative, namely truth.

You said "Your point seems to be that atheists know deep down that God exists as you have defined it. I would argue that people can find value and purpose in just about anything, for a variety of reasons that need not entertain the concept of God."

They can find subjective value in anything. i.e. I like chocolate ice cream, it makes me happy. But saying, hey neighbor, don't torture your baby for fun is a different category. The baby has real value, not just subjective value like ice cream. If the neighbor says, I like to torture babies for fun, they are objectively wrong and force "ought" to be used to stop the abuse. This is a self evident truth that by direct knowledge without need of evidence or arguement, is true. And because it is clearly morally wrong to torture babies for fun, I then point to the fact that morals are grounded in reality and since morals are not physical, they must be grounded in personal relationships between non-physical beings, i.e. man and God. This is not complicated, however the indoctrination of the humanist culture we have lived in since youth makes this concept difficult to accept, even though it is simply clear.

You said "Whoa! Who started the judging? If I'm judging you, it's for being judgmental toward Scott. And around and around we will go. I simply think you could have approached your disagreements with him without implying that he is shoveling innocent souls into the furnace.

Your comments about Jesus and the female followers are a preposterous misrepresentation of what I said. On the other hand, prove to me that they're NOT true. And while you're at it, please address my original point: Given a choice between preaching abstinence and praying that it sticks, and educating and encouraging moderation and care, I'll take the latter. It's much more likely to succeed, given that it provides people with valid, relevant reasons for not jumping into the sack with anything that comes along. Show me the data that proves that abstinence and sheltering are helpful in preventing people from having extramarital sex and I'll happily concede this point to you."

You made my point regarding judging, we are discussing the morality of an issue and as soon as I say it is wrong to teach that "sin is not sin", you judge me for judging, which shows the absurdity of the application of your standard of judging. So, you made my point perfectly. So the rule not to judge must mean something different then discussing morality. I think it is clear it means not to pass a verdict on a persons status before God and additionally, if you look at the commandment, it doesn't say not to judge but to only judge after you have judged yourself. I have done that and I am a total sinner so I am clear to discuss the issues.

So, you are asking me prove that it is wrong for Jesus and his followers to have women around for "responsibile, moderate" sex? Did I get that right? If so, I have nothing to say... if not, please explain?

Then regarding the false choice between a harsh ban on sex without any perspective and teaching moderation, and education. That's what it is, a false Dichotomy. A society that values sex as designed for a marriage relationship, yet teaches accurately that sex is good and not dirty is the best choice. A society that values the sanctity of the intimacy of couples in marraige would be way better off. The farther we stray from that standard, the more turmoil, heartache, brokeness and death we experience.

[kobodur]

They can find subjective value in anything. i.e. I like chocolate ice cream, it makes me happy. But saying, hey neighbor, don't torture your baby for fun is a different category. The baby has real value, not just subjective value like ice cream. If the neighbor says, I like to torture babies for fun, they are objectively wrong and force "ought" to be used to stop the abuse. This is a self evident truth that by direct knowledge without need of evidence or arguement, is true. And because it is clearly morally wrong to torture babies for fun, I then point to the fact that morals are grounded in reality and since morals are not physical, they must be grounded in personal relationships between non-physical beings, i.e. man and God. This is not complicated, however the indoctrination of the humanist culture we have lived in since youth makes this concept difficult to accept, even though it is simply clear.

When I eat chocolate ice cream I like the way it tastes. When you experience ice cream and like it, you give it value. I could see a baby being valuable to its parents because they grow emotionally attached to it. Other people might object to the torture because babies seem innocent. These reasons are subjective, what objective real values are you talking about?

[tonyenglish7]

When I eat chocolate ice cream I like the way it tastes. When you experience ice cream and like it, you give it value. I could see a baby being valuable to its parents because they grow emotionally attached to it. Other people might object to the torture because babies seem innocent. These reasons are subjective, what objective real values are you talking about?

They can find subjective value in anything. i.e. I like chocolate ice cream, it makes me happy. But saying, hey neighbor, don't torture your baby for fun is a different category. The baby has real value, not just subjective value like ice cream. If the neighbor says, I like to torture babies for fun, they are objectively wrong and force "ought" to be used to stop the abuse. This is a self evident truth that by direct knowledge without need of evidence or arguement, is true. And because it is clearly morally wrong to torture babies for fun, I then point to the fact that morals are grounded in reality and since morals are not physical, they must be grounded in personal relationships between non-physical beings, i.e. man and God. This is not complicated, however the indoctrination of the humanist culture we have lived in since youth makes this concept difficult to accept, even though it is simply clear.

When I eat chocolate ice cream I like the way it tastes. When you experience ice cream and like it, you give it value. I could see a baby being valuable to its parents because they grow emotionally attached to it. Other people might object to the torture because babies seem innocent. These reasons are subjective, what objective real values are you talking about?

Wow, you think liking to torture babies for fun is the same as liking ice cream? You are actively denying that torturing babies for fun is in a different category morally then eating ice cream for fun? Wow, if so, you are completely destitute of moral reasoning and in need of extreme help and I am unable to even discuss this issue with you further. Or are you just yanking my chain?

[kobodur]

They can find subjective value in anything. i.e. I like chocolate ice cream, it makes me happy. But saying, hey neighbor, don't torture your baby for fun is a different category. The baby has real value, not just subjective value like ice cream. If the neighbor says, I like to torture babies for fun, they are objectively wrong and force "ought" to be used to stop the abuse. This is a self evident truth that by direct knowledge without need of evidence or arguement, is true. And because it is clearly morally wrong to torture babies for fun, I then point to the fact that morals are grounded in reality and since morals are not physical, they must be grounded in personal relationships between non-physical beings, i.e. man and God. This is not complicated, however the indoctrination of the humanist culture we have lived in since youth makes this concept difficult to accept, even though it is simply clear.

When I eat chocolate ice cream I like the way it tastes. When you experience ice cream and like it, you give it value. I could see a baby being valuable to its parents because they grow emotionally attached to it. Other people might object to the torture because babies seem innocent. These reasons are subjective, what objective real values are you talking about?

Wow, you think liking to torture babies for fun is the same as liking ice cream? You are actively denying that torturing babies for fun is in a different category morally then eating ice cream for fun? Wow, if so, you are completely destitute of moral reasoning and in need of extreme help and I am unable to even discuss this issue with you further. Or are you just yanking my chain?

I stated actual reasons why people would object to the torturing of babies. You said there was no need to give a reason and that torturing babies is just wrong. Do you think the reasons were objective? Don't you believe people inherit guilt from the sin of Adam? Or do they inherit sin nature? Either way, you have no reason to think they are objectively innocent.

[tonyenglish7]

I stated actual reasons why people would object to the torturing of babies. You said there was no need to give a reason and that torturing babies is just wrong. Do you think the reasons were objective? Don't you believe people inherit guilt from the sin of Adam? Or do they inherit sin nature? Either way, you have no reason to think they are objectively innocent.

Huh? I think we got off the train somewhere. The question at hand is; are there objective morals, or is everything subjective/relative? Just because you can list some subjective reasons people are against torturing babies for fun, doesn't address the question. Some people may hate the sound of a screaming baby. And some people may reasonably decide, without any reflection, that others should not torture babies for fun and if one has the power to stop such behavior, one "ought" to by any means necessary. The one that hates the screaming will appreciate it I am sure, but there are more reasons to stop the evil act. Namely, the baby has value and rights endowed by God. No other explanation works ultimately. The weakness of your worldview is evident in your attempt to hold to the subjectivity of the suffering baby.

Regarding origninal sin, that is a whole different discussion, however, every person will be judged for the specific sins they commit, nothing more, and in some cases, nothing less....

[StillSearching]

Huh? I think we got off the train somewhere. The question at hand is; are there objective morals, or is everything subjective/relative? Just because you can list some subjective reasons people are against torturing babies for fun, doesn't address the question. Some people may hate the sound of a screaming baby. And some people may reasonably decide, without any reflection, that others should not torture babies for fun and if one has the power to stop such behavior, one "ought" to by any means necessary. The one that hates the screaming will appreciate it I am sure, but there are more reasons to stop the evil act. Namely, the baby has value and rights endowed by God. No other explanation works ultimately. The weakness of your worldview is evident in your attempt to hold to the subjectivity of the suffering baby.

Regarding origninal sin, that is a whole different discussion, however, every person will be judged for the specific sins they commit, nothing more, and in some cases, nothing less....

You are right about one thing. We have definitely derailed the train of thought.

This whole truth discussion should be moved to a new thread. Back to the topic at hand please, which is sex. This conversation started as a result of Tony's objections to Scott's treatment of premarital sex during the podcast. Tony, if I understand you correctly, you claimed it was wrong for Scott to say that it was dangerous to tell people to not have sex until marriage. You object to viewing morals in this way. You then concede to a utilitarian argument and make your case for abstinence. Now, here's where the real disagreement lies within our discussion of sex.

Society is better off if we as a group agree that sex should be reserved for marriage because;

Stop right there. Whether or not your arguments below make an airtight case for reserving sex for marriage, there's a problem with your opening statement. I suppose we could agree, as a society, that sex should be reserved for marriage, but are you honestly expecting that everyone would abstain?

1) Children are better off in general with both a committed father and mother in a family unit (this which is proven using sociology). But further, it can be proven by simple reflection. Who, given the choice would choose to be born into a broken home with only a mother or only a father? Everything being even, any rational balanced person would choose a nuclear family for his/her upbringing with a committed heterosexual couple.

If only life were that way Tony. I agree with you partially, in that I believe children are better off when they are raised by more than one person. However, I would open my mind a bit more and say that doesn't necessarily need to be a committed heterosexual couple. There is plenty of evidence that healthy, happy children can be raised by committed homosexual couples, grandparents, aunts & uncles, etc. Your argument puts a finger in the dam while the water is coming over the top. Single parents can also raise healthy, happy children if they are prepared and committed to doing so. Having support from family, friends, etc. also helps. Your argument also assumes that all single parenthood is a choice or a product of promiscuity. I'll give you one example that falls outside of this view: Soldier marries and impregnates wife. Soldier goes to war and dies. Wife is now a single mom. It's great for you to see the world in black and white. I sometimes wish it were so. But the reality is that there is much more gray in the world.

2) Sex produces children sometimes. Every method of birth control has a few percentage chance of failure.

Yes, no method of birth control is perfect. I'm sure your answer to this will be "Except abstinence!" And you'd be right, IF everyone practiced it. To repeat what I said above, you can't seriously think that at some point we will be able to eradicate all sexual desire outside of marriage, and that doing so would be a good thing. Since you can't control the sexual urges of everyone without resorting to draconian measures (castration, mandatory medication, strict laws regarding gender mixing, etc.) the best thing to do is remove the taboo from sex, discuss it openly and honesty and thoroughly and educate people on ways to engage in it without spreading disease or creating unwanted children.

3) Unwanted children are a burden to society or at the very least cause society to struggle with social issues because of troubled adults who had a bad childhood.

I agree, that's why education and birth control are necessary. You don't try to prevent sunburn by turning off the sun do you?

4) Since the standard used in this discussion as simply utilitarian, then this one argument shows that if all sex occurred in marriage alone, society would be better off. Like stealing, murder and drunk driving, we all agree not to participate.

It makes a case for being one possible scenario that might have a positive effect on society, but again, it assumes that achieving global agreement and compliance is possible. Not realistic. We DO NOT all agree not to participate in things like stealing, murder and drunk driving. Turn on your local news tonight for proof. We do agree, as a society, that those things are harmful and should not be done.

5) Now we add the other “medical” issues like aids, VD, abortion, (40 million +) etc.. and the utilitarian argument is fatal.

All of which could be minimized through the use of safe sex practices. The utilitarian argument is not fatal, it is practical.

Therefore, sex outside of marriage is wrong for utilitarian reasons.

You haven't proven this to my satisfaction. Find me some facts. I'm not looking for a dissertation, just find me some sort of reasonable reference that shows that eliminating sex before marriage is both possible and beneficial.

There are other reasons as well to base the view but I will not get into them here.

Why not? That's what we were discussing before we got off on the "what is truth" tangent.

[ScottBarger]

So I was going to wait to respond because I thought we might talk about this some more on the next podcast, but due to scheduling conflicts, I may not be involved in the next podcast...so I will post my thoughts here. These comments are primarily in response to Tony's objection to the way I handle the "fornication" issue.

First, I have personally decided that I believe in the existence of the God of the Bible, the mission/message/person of Jesus Christ, and the authority of the Bible. The very nature of any kind of moral/philisophical discussion with an atheist means that I have to be careful how often I revert to a "the Bible says so" kind of argument, since it is an invalid starting place for an atheist. There are times when the ONLY reason I have to believe something is because "the Bible says so" but if that was the only reasoning I ever used, it would make for repetitive and boring discussion with an atheist. We simply do not share the same view of the Bible.

So when Emery and I have a discussion about sexual morality, I tend to be careful of how many "Bible says so" arguments I use. Furthermore, I want to be VERY careful not to say "the Bible says so" if the Bible doesn't ACTUALLY say so. The Bible doesn't actually say "thou shalt not have sexual intercourse before marriage" what it says is to stay away from fornication (from the Greek πορνεία "pornea" meaning: sexual immorality) and that marriage is a good option for those who may otherwise "burn with sexual desire" (1 Corinthians 7). The problem is that the Bible itself offers no definition for the word πορνεία so how do we know what the word means? Tony has defined it to mean, among other things, "sexual intercourse before marriage." He may be correct, Greek scholars have told us that the word may be used to mean precisely that, but that it probably has a much more general meaning, this is why many modern translators translate the word as "sexual immorality" and not "fornication" or "intercourse before marriage."

So what is "sexual immorality"? The Bible doesn't say. So how do we live out the biblical teaching to avoid sexual immorality? We derive our OWN definition based on our cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions. Let me give an example by answering some questions while assuming the role of a pretty cut and dry Christian who believes that sex before marriage is wrong.

Is vaginal intercourse before marriage wrong? Yes.
Is anal intercourse before marriage wrong? Yes.
Is oral sex before marriage wrong? Yes.
Is prolonged kissing and caressing before marriage wrong? Probably.
Is kissing before marriage wrong? Maybe.
Is hugging before marriage wrong? Probably not.
Is hand holding before marriage wrong? No.

I have just defined pornea to include everything beyond light kissing and hand holding. Is this definition biblically derived? No, it is culturally derived. If our definition of pornea is culturally derived, then it is open for discussion as cultures are always in a state of flux. Furthermore, such a discussion is entirely permissible (and I would argue completely necessary) between people who hold to the moral authority of the Bible. There are many such biblical teachings that we practice in ways that are culturally derived, which is why I often say that the practice of Christianity is a product of human culture. We have a divine calling that we must struggle to live out in an ever-changing cultural context. What is culturally acceptable for me may be culturally offensive to someone else. In these cases, the transcendent and morally binding teachings of the Bible must be revisited and reapplied to our changing cultural contexts.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

[StillSearching]

Scott, you get an "AMEN" from me on this. If all religious people adopted this kind of thinking, the world would be a better place.

[NH Baritone]

We derive our OWN definition based on our cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions.

Scott --

If you are willing to allow this kind of relativism in discussions of sexual morality, why are you stopping there? From a global perspective, the acceptance of the Bible as inspired word of God seems similarly determined by culture. The same is equally true for every revealed religious dogma, from the Abrahamic to the Zoroastrian.

In other words, if you had not been born in the West, the chances are near overwhelming that you would neither be a Christian nor hold your current views on sexual morality.

[ScottBarger]

SS, thank you for the feedback

NH, it is true that my decision to become a Christian was heavily influenced by the cultural setting in which I was raised. After all, I knew many Catholics and protestants, but not so many Buddhists or Hindus so there was very little cultural pressure to explore Buddhism or Hinduism. However, these cultural influences do not validate or invalidate my faith. I can believe something is true primarily because my parents always said it was true, this doesn't mean what I believe is untrue.

Secondly, an appeal to understand the Bible via culture does not necessarily allow for unlimited cultural relativism. There are many moral teachings in the Bible that must be understood and practiced in light of culture, for example:

We should practice modesty.
We should practice generosity.
We should practice self-sacrificial concern for the well being of others.
We should not seek vengeance.
We should not harbor anger towards our fellow human beings.

However, these teachings convey unchanging truth. We must practice generosity REGARDLESS of what our culture tells us to do. How I practice generosity may change based on cultural factors (do I practice generosity by sharing part of my harvest with a neighbor or by writing a check to a local charity) but the moral "ought" remains the same. The follower of Jesus is to be generous.

[tonyenglish7]

Scott,

Thanks for your response, I was looking forward to discussing it but we will get to that someday.

I think your response is an equivocation of this issue. You are in effect saying, “The definition of fornication is culturally based because it is culturally based.” There is no argument there.

The word for fornication is essentially the same as we would use today, namely, “sexual immorality”. Which includes sex outside of marriage among many other things.

There are all kinds of words in the bible and these words all mean things. Very few are accompanied by a definition. For instance, sodomy, adultery, murder, homosexuality, covetousness, and many other sins are understood clearly because they have a common understanding. There is no need for a dictionary footnote. They are simple and straightforward.

Any word study of fornication will lead to the simple conclusion that it includes in its meaning, sex out side of marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every women have her own husband.” Why if sex outside of marriage is OK? Context determines the meaning, no need for a biblically endorsed imbedded dictionary.

I will not bore you with all the scriptures but do you remember when Jesus was arguing with the Pharisee’s in John 8:41, they scorned him for being “born of fornication”, i.e. the unique birth that he had, the rumors still circulated apparently that Jesus was conceived before his mother was married. It is clear what they meant by “fornication”. So why does this meaning get watered down simply because we are more sexually tolerant as a culture now?

I brought this up to “Stillsearching”,; Was it kosher for Jesus to bring some women along the way for sexual encounters for himself and his disciples? If this was not immoral, then why not, right? Is that just cultural for his time, but now it would be OK? If so why?

I understand some things are cultural. But some things are not, they are objective moral issues to be dealt with by those who desire to keep them. Culture is art, music, poetry, entertainment, food, etc.. But one of the arguments for objective moral standards is that they are cross cultural generally. Some cultures are more moral then others, for instance, South Africa without Apartied is morally superior to prior. So, just because a culture accepts something as OK, doesn’t make it right. And if culture was the only standard, then there is no room for reformers who push for a better society like Martin Luther King and Mother Teressa.

Discussions about what is more true morally are meaningless if culture is all that determines the issue. Words mean things. Why would you think that fornication no longer means sex outside of marriage when it clearly meant that during biblical times? Is there a verse that says, these words still count even if the meaning changes over time? OR, it is ok to change the meaning of these words in order to flow with whatever culture you are in? Reminds me of the "living document" discussions about the US Constitution.

Your thoughts?

[ScottBarger]

Thanks for the feedback Tony, we will hook up on the podcast in the future, hopefully. Emery is a gracious host, I am sure he can work something out.

Here are some quick responses. If need be, I will give a more thoughtful answer tomorrow.

I think your response is an equivocation of this issue. You are in effect saying, “The definition of fornication is culturally based because it is culturally based.” There is no argument there.

Actually, what I was trying to say was this, since we have no divinely inspired lexicon and since our culture is separated from that of the NT, we must use caution when defining terms like "pornea" because such definitions will necessarily be culturally derived.

The word for fornication is essentially the same as we would use today, namely, “sexual immorality”. Which includes sex outside of marriage among many other things.

It is essentially the same as "sexual immorality." But absent any biblically derived definition for "sexual immorality" we must be careful of imposing our meaning on to a term used in a different culture, time, and place. This is why I used the "sex continuum" as an illustration. The bible doesn't say "sexual immorality = vaginal intercourse before marriage" we infer this to be the case.

There are all kinds of words in the bible and these words all mean things. Very few are accompanied by a definition. For instance, sodomy, adultery, murder, homosexuality, covetousness, and many other sins are understood clearly because they have a common understanding. There is no need for a dictionary footnote. They are simple and straightforward.

You are correct, some terms are very straightforward, some are not. In fact, some of the words you have listed come from ancient words with broad semantic ranges, and thus bible translators have to wrestle with the meanings of the words as they are used in their context. The words for homosexuality, murder, and sodomy to name a few. Other words (like your example of "covetousness") have straightforward definitions, but their application is culturally derived. At what point are you coveting?

Here is a good example: a friend of mine spent the better part of two decades in central Africa. He said that here in the United States, we have no moral issue with someone saving their money to buy something (new car, vacation, house, whatever). In fact, we think that to save our money to make these kinds of purchases reflects a moral virtue we call "good financial stewardship." In cultures like the ones he experienced in central Africa, saving money to buy something for yourself is considered highly immoral. Which culture is correct? Which most accurately reflects biblical morality?

Any word study of fornication will lead to the simple conclusion that it includes in its meaning, sex out side of marriage.

True, but just because a word includes a specific meaning within its semantic range, doesn't mean that particular meaning is what the author had in mind when he/she wrote it. Not every word caries every meaning each time it is used. It would be hard to communicate if language worked that way. This brings me back to my initial assertion, minus clear biblical instruction (ie. "thou shalt not have vaginal intercourse before you are married" or "flee sexual immorality, and what I mean is never put your penis inside a woman's vagina until you are married") we must apply these teachings with care.

1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every women have her own husband.” Why if sex outside of marriage is OK? Context determines the meaning, no need for a biblically endorsed imbedded dictionary.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but your example proves my point. The context clearly teaches against using a prostitute and later adultery. Both of these acts are lumped under the broader teaching against "sexual immorality"

I will not bore you with all the scriptures but do you remember when Jesus was arguing with the Pharisee’s in John 8:41, they scorned him for being “born of fornication”, i.e. the unique birth that he had, the rumors still circulated apparently that Jesus was conceived before his mother was married. It is clear what they meant by “fornication”. So why does this meaning get watered down simply because we are more sexually tolerant as a culture now?

Or, they were mocking Mary for getting pregnant to another man while she was engaged to Joseph. The text simply is not explicit here.

I brought this up to “Stillsearching”,; Was it kosher for Jesus to bring some women along the way for sexual encounters for himself and his disciples?

The Bible doesn't say that he did or didn't. We infer that he didn't based on what we understand about his culture and his teaching.

Tony, I actually believe that premarital sex is a bad decision for most Christians most of the time. This comes from a lot of other teachings from the Bible, and not from a single, explicit "thou shalt not" commandment. But lets face it, in some cultures (including different cultures at different times within the biblical record) you marry someone by having sex with them and then sometimes even demonstrating the consummation of the union to the community. If vaginal intercourse before marriage is universally wrong, then people from these cultures would never be able to marry without sinning.

[whoosanightowl]

I consider irresponsible sexual promiscuity something that is not morally good for at least a couple of reasons.
1)Babies are born to mothers who aren't even sure who the fathers are.
2) The rampant spread of STD's is a direct link to sleeping around.

I also believe it is morally wrong for most teens to engage in sexual activity because they are not usually responsible enough or emotionally mature to handle it. Especially if something unexpected happens as it so often does.

In both of these cases, sexual promiscuity and teen sex have many negative consequences on society at large, as well as the individuals involved. This is why I consider them to be morally wrong.

[tonyenglish7]

Actually, what I was trying to say was this, since we have no divinely inspired lexicon and since our culture is separated from that of the NT, we must use caution when defining terms like "pornea" because such definitions will necessarily be culturally derived.

So maybe you could write a book? "Gray areas in the bible" or maybe "What you can do and still be a Christian" or "Possible technicalities that allow you to do what you want?" I think we need to be careful on the most plain meaning of the word and use context to determine, what the writer meant. Since we know what they meant by the word in their own culture, why do we get to redefine it in ours?

Here is a good example: a friend of mine spent the better part of two decades in central Africa. He said that here in the United States, we have no moral issue with someone saving their money to buy something (new car, vacation, house, whatever). In fact, we think that to save our money to make these kinds of purchases reflects a moral virtue we call "good financial stewardship." In cultures like the ones he experienced in central Africa, saving money to buy something for you is considered highly immoral. Which culture is correct? Which most accurately reflects biblical morality?

That is a valid question that actually is worth asking and finding an answer because we can judge cultures with some being better. Just because some issues are more difficult to think through, doesn't mean there is always no right or wrong. Some things are neutral, some things are not. We do not make a rule based upon an exception. But even in this above example, we can use moral and wisdom to determine which is better. Not that the lesser is bad, it is just not as productive. In this case, we see that saving, working hard and building capital both helps the individual and helps society as a whole. Basic economics has proven this out. But that is not to say, it is always the case, in a society struggling to survive on basic sustenance, many a more socialist set-up is effective. So, this is an issue that can be discussed and if needed, the society could learn and improve by either adapting or changing its practice. Just because there are neutral differences in some situations doesn't mean we cannot learn morals by thought, direct insight and the word of God.

This brings me back to my initial assertion, minus clear biblical instruction (i.e. "thou shalt not have vaginal intercourse before you are married" or "flee sexual immorality, and what I mean is never put your penis inside a woman's vagina until you are married") we must apply these teachings with care.

The place to use care is the other way around. If unclear, err on the safe side, not the other way around. But this is simply silly, the meaning of the word is very clear, any other argument is non-sense. If this standard of equivocation was used on every word in the bible you could probably re-interpret the bible into the Communist Manifesto!

tonyenglish7 wrote:
1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every women have her own husband.” Why if sex outside of marriage is OK? Context determines the meaning, no need for a biblically endorsed imbedded dictionary.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but your example proves my point. The context clearly teaches against using a prostitute and later adultery. Both of these acts are lumped under the broader teaching against "sexual immorality"

Why is trading money for sex wrong? Isn't that a victimless crime? And where in the bible is it clear that prostitution is defined as "Prostitution" and what does Prostitution mean? Is it ever spelled out? Maybe if I go for oral it is ok? It never says that oral from a prostitute is wrong!

The Bible doesn't say that he did or didn't. We infer that he didn't based on what we understand about his culture and his teaching.

Under your view, I could however take some babes on the road with me.

Tony, I actually believe that premarital sex is a bad decision for most Christians most of the time. This comes from a lot of other teachings from the Bible, and not from a single, explicit "thou shalt not" commandment. But lets face it, in some cultures (including different cultures at different times within the biblical record) you marry someone by having sex with them and then sometimes even demonstrating the consummation of the union to the community. If vaginal intercourse before marriage is universally wrong, then people from these cultures would never be able to marry without sinning.

Which verses do you get that from? I think this makes my point, most cultures have a marriage tradition as it is part of being human.

[tonyenglish7]

I consider irresponsible sexual promiscuity something that is not morally good for at least a couple of reasons.
1)Babies are born to mothers who aren't even sure who the fathers are.
2) The rampant spread of STD's is a direct link to sleeping around.

I also believe it is morally wrong for most teens to engage in sexual activity because they are not usually responsible enough or emotionally mature to handle it. Especially if something unexpected happens as it so often does.

In both of these cases, sexual promiscuity and teen sex have many negative consequences on society at large, as well as the individuals involved. This is why I consider them to be morally wrong.

Why would you think that? Are you saying that a girl having sex with her boyfriend is sinning? What do you mean by morally wrong? How should it be enforced?

You said "It's funny how the invisible and the non-existent look exactly the same", - it is funny how green has no taste! Category error......