Sex! Woohoo!

[kobodur]

Having said that, the question of whether or not anyone is "getting hurt" is a difficult question. One line of feminist thinking, for example, is that pornography that is made by men for men is inherently exploitative (either of the actors/models, or of the reader, or both).

What do you mean by exploitative? What is it about exploitation that you find offensive? What is inherently exploitative about porn made by men for men?

[Mr. Sluagh]

Having said that, the question of whether or not anyone is "getting hurt" is a difficult question. One line of feminist thinking, for example, is that pornography that is made by men for men is inherently exploitative (either of the actors/models, or of the reader, or both).

What do you mean by exploitative? What is it about exploitation that you find offensive? What is inherently exploitative about porn made by men for men?

Inherently? Nothing. In practice is another question (one that I'm not equipped to answer well).

[NH Baritone]

Having said that, the question of whether or not anyone is "getting hurt" is a difficult question. One line of feminist thinking, for example, is that pornography that is made by men for men is inherently exploitative (either of the actors/models, or of the reader, or both).

What do you mean by exploitative? What is it about exploitation that you find offensive? What is inherently exploitative about porn made by men for men?

I believe that Pseudo was referring to porn that was made by men with WOMEN actors. He is asserting that the women would be exploited. I understand (and am amused by) your confusion.

[Rian]

Also, what about pirating porn?

*pictures girls in short shorts and eyepatches holding parrots*

[darkumbra]

Also, what about pirating porn?

*pictures girls in short shorts and eyepatches holding parrots*

So you do watch porn from time to time?

[Pseudonym]

However there is a difference between 'watching your words' and speaking in a manner that goes against your own beliefs.

Can you give a couple of examples of where you think Scott did this?

[darkumbra]

However there is a difference between 'watching your words' and speaking in a manner that goes against your own beliefs.

Can you give a couple of examples of where you think Scott did this?

Did I think that? Not to be too much of a nit picker here, but I think, make that... I'm certain... that I steered clear of that accusation in my remarks. I don't know Scott well enough to make that accusation... and respect him enough not to.

I admire his willingness (courage?) to disclose more in the podcast, than he might be doing with/in his own community.
It's not what I would do, but then I don't set myself up as a pastor. I would not be able to maintain a silence on my own doubts.

Yes - I'm walking a fine line here - for reasons I'm not clear about in my own mind - giving Scott some leeway here - seems appropriate to me. Consider it my own personal hobgoblin if you wish.

[Redpower]

I understood his point perfectly. It probably helps that I spend my career hanging around scientists, because they do it all the time.

There are a lot of things that scientists tell each other that they would never say when addressing the general public. That's not because it's secret, or because they don't want to admit it, but rather because it'd be too confusing and contrary to the messages that the general public need, or because they don't want some of their opinions to carry the force of "a prominent scientist said X".

For example, on the D-brane theory, one physicist mentioned to me that some of this stuff that serious physicists say "makes less sense than astrology". I understood exactly what he meant. It's not that it's as wrong as astrology (brane theory has some maths behind it, even if it doesn't have any observations behind it yet), but that it's as hard to believe as astrology. However, he would never say this to the public, because it would give them the wrong idea. Astrology nuts would, for example, likely misquote him as "physicist X says astrology just as good as physics!"

Business managers have a similar problem. As a CEO, if you say the wrong thing and it affects your share price, you can be sued by shareholders for mismanagement. Because of this, managers have developed a large vocabulary of content-free phrases and terms so that they can always say the right thing while actually saying nothing.

In general, if your job involves speaking to the public, you need to be very careful what you say in public.

So when Scott speaks as a pastor to his church, it is his job to be a spokesperson for Christianity. He cannot give random opinions depending on where his whim takes him, because to do so would give his random opinions an authority which he doesn't believe they should have in that forum.

So, Redpower, I don't think you're a troll. A little naive, perhaps, but not a troll.

You comparing theological pondering with science is ironic. You comparing theological pondering with business managers is a fallacious and invalid and irresponsible and senseless comparison.

You said I was a little naive for thinking Scott shouldn't share his philosophical struggles with his church....
Well, comparing the plethora of unanswered questions about Christianity to a facetious comment a scientist made about the "D-Brane theory" is Naive... In fact it's the epitome thereof.

[StillSearching]

That was a great topic which was covered well in the last podcast. However, it left out some sidebar topics that it would be nice to visit in a Sex Part II episode. One "hot topic" that many fundamental Christians give much attention is pornography and how it relates to Matthew 5:27-28.

The Bible doesn't mention pornography.

I think between the Matthew verse mentioned above and the commandment "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" it would be safe to assume that the bible, if interpreted even semi-literally, doesn't approve of pornography.

Having said that, the question of whether or not anyone is "getting hurt" is a difficult question. One line of feminist thinking, for example, is that pornography that is made by men for men is inherently exploitative (either of the actors/models, or of the reader, or both). Another line of thinking is that the production of pornography need not be exploitative, but in this day and age, in this culture, it usually is. Yet another line of thinking is that making pornography may well be empowering, though most would concede that it's far from a guarantee.

To put it another way: the morality (or otherwise) of pornography cannot be discussed without also discussing the morality (or otherwise) of the industry that produces it.

I agree that you must address the morality of the industry. To me, this issue should take priority in the discussion of adult entertainment. There's an interesting example here in Florida. A man by the name of Joe Redner. Joe owns, among many other businesses, two nationally-known strip clubs in my city. Joe has run for public office many times here (city council, county commission, etc.) and obviously he's a controversial figure. In spite of my misgivings about his businesses, I have to say I don't think he exploits his employees. In fact, newspaper stories have mentioned that he provides health care benefits and does many other nice things for them. I've listened to his political stances, and I have to admit, the guy is a refreshing change of pace from the bigoted, bible-thumping, special-interest-serving, red-herring-chasing people who are currently part of my local government. Just goes to show that you can't lump the whole industry into one big bad ugly cesspool. To me, consent, professionalism and discretion are the keys to making this industry acceptable, if that is ever possible.

[tonyenglish7]

I am so glad there is a new podcast to comment upon. I was fairly surprised that a pastor who calls himself “evangelical” would essentially agree with the worldly view of Emery. I guess I will end up being the brunt of objection again, that is not my goal but someone needs to point out and defend the Christian view for this site to be at all interesting.

The Pastor said at one point that “the most destructive teaching of the church is that sex outside of marriage is sin”. What is confusing is that both the so called Christian and the atheist agreed. Yet, they both seemed to have a utilitarian view of the issue. Repeatedly the comments were made, “hurting nobody, no victim, not damaged goods, more heartache from broken love then sex, etc..

In other words, all moral behaviors can be judged by what they do to persons or societies. And having defined morals in this manner, both the pastor and the atheist commence to argue that sex out side of marriage is benign and therefore not a sin.

I have a few problems with this starting with the premise that morals are defined this way. Of course from the atheist view, everything happened by chance for no purpose via random non-directed events with no meaning. So morals are just the illusionary result of what ended up working for society, a net effect of evolution. There are no intrinsic moral issues, only quid-pro-quo agreements that make society work better. Ultimately, there is no real meaning, value, or purpose. Everything is subjective to the individual.

In Christianity, we believe in a universe that is not only physical but has meaning, was initiated and interactive with a personal being whom by His very nature grounds morality, meaning, and purpose. Because there is more to the physical universe then matter and energy things like love, beauty, value, purpose, numbers, truth, philosophy, music, relationships, person hood, and yes, morals exist. Not just as theories but in reality.

OK, so, going back to the utilitarian few that apparently both parties shared in this discussion, I think within that limited framework, the idea that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can be supported. I do not consider this the best argument, but because this was the mutually agreed upon standard, and since it doesn’t even pass this test, I will use this argument.

Emery constantly states that stealing is wrong because it hurts people. (Somehow, hurting people is wrong in this worldview although I don’t see how because people are without intrinsic objective value). But notwithstanding, this is how I would argue.

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

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.
2) Sex produces children sometimes. Every method of birth control has a few percentage chance of failure.
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.
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.
5) Now we add the other “medical” issues like aids, VD, abortion, (40 million +) etc.. and the utilitarian argument is fatal.

Therefore, sex outside of marriage is wrong for utilitarian reasons. There are other reasons as well to base the view but I will not get into them here.

I now want to address the Pastor. Wow, my brother. I am surprised. Emergent Church? This was very dismaying. When Jesus was talking about the heart of man, he was revealing who he was. The religious people always wanted to know exactly what they needed to “do” to be good, and Jesus with his so called “hard sayings” was revealing that he was the law himself. The law and morals are founded in who he is, his own authority and existence.

He was teaching man that sin is a problem of the heart. He knew they had all sinned in their hearts and he was pointing it out. The solution was not, we need to never do that, because that is impossible, it was to accept the good news that was to follow. Some make excuses to lighten sin, others see the weight of the law and admit they are sinners.

This reminds me of when Saul, after being instructed to destroy everything of the Amalikites, ended up keeping some of the best items for himself. He later justified it by claiming he was going to use the items for God. He basically made excuses and tried to make himself OK my redefining the instruction of the Lord.

Later, when David was king, he sinned as well, but he confessed his sin and took responsibility, not parsing the words of God for vindication. David, who was as big, if not a bigger sinner then Saul, was justified as a man after God’s own heart. Saul, was a failure and went down in defeat. These things were written for our instruction.

My brother, you are parsing the words of God looking for vindication, that is a dead end, literally. The bible is clear about fornication. It is not a worse sin then murder or stealing or adultery or gossip, but it is there. Be very careful teaching your flock that fornication is no big deal. I understand the pressure to be relevant, but at what cost?

Matthew 18: 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 ¶“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

We have good news, but the world doesn’t even know the bad news that makes the good news good, how much more when our own ambassadors join in?

[Emery]

Tony! Glad you're back, man. We need more Christians lay down the law around here! You know, I think it's time to get you and Scott together in the same room. What do you say we do a threesome? We can talk about sex, or any other topic where you'd like to give the good liberal pastor a dose of that old time religion. I think Scott is game, and I think it would be a fun show. Plus, it will keep Redpower happy.

BTW, check out part two of Sex, hot, I mean hot, off the podcast today.

[StillSearching]

I am so glad there is a new podcast to comment upon. I was fairly surprised that a pastor who calls himself “evangelical” would essentially agree with the worldly view of Emery. I guess I will end up being the brunt of objection again, that is not my goal but someone needs to point out and defend the Christian view for this site to be at all interesting.

The Pastor said at one point that “the most destructive teaching of the church is that sex outside of marriage is sin”. What is confusing is that both the so called Christian and the atheist agreed. Yet, they both seemed to have a utilitarian view of the issue. Repeatedly the comments were made, “hurting nobody, no victim, not damaged goods, more heartache from broken love then sex, etc..

In other words, all moral behaviors can be judged by what they do to persons or societies. And having defined morals in this manner, both the pastor and the atheist commence to argue that sex out side of marriage is benign and therefore not a sin.

I have a few problems with this starting with the premise that morals are defined this way. Of course from the atheist view, everything happened by chance for no purpose via random non-directed events with no meaning. So morals are just the illusionary result of what ended up working for society, a net effect of evolution. There are no intrinsic moral issues, only quid-pro-quo agreements that make society work better. Ultimately, there is no real meaning, value, or purpose. Everything is subjective to the individual.

Yes, Tony. Moral behaviors can be judged by what they do to persons or societies. They can also be judged based on what they do to lima beans, or horses, or planets, or stock prices. The key concept here is subjectivity, and all morals are bound by that concept. We have created our morals to serve the interests of ourselves, specifically our interest in surviving. They are not illusionary, nor are they random and without meaning, value or purpose.

In Christianity, we believe in a universe that is not only physical but has meaning, was initiated and interactive with a personal being whom by His very nature grounds morality, meaning, and purpose. Because there is more to the physical universe then matter and energy things like love, beauty, value, purpose, numbers, truth, philosophy, music, relationships, person hood, and yes, morals exist. Not just as theories but in reality.

All of these are human constructs and are subjective, with the possible exception of numbers, and even that has an element of Made By Man. Give me one example of a moral that is grounded in God and nothing else.

OK, so, going back to the utilitarian few that apparently both parties shared in this discussion, I think within that limited framework, the idea that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can be supported. I do not consider this the best argument, but because this was the mutually agreed upon standard, and since it doesn’t even pass this test, I will use this argument.

Emery constantly states that stealing is wrong because it hurts people. (Somehow, hurting people is wrong in this worldview although I don’t see how because people are without intrinsic objective value). But notwithstanding, this is how I would argue.

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

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.
2) Sex produces children sometimes. Every method of birth control has a few percentage chance of failure.
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.
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.
5) Now we add the other “medical” issues like aids, VD, abortion, (40 million +) etc.. and the utilitarian argument is fatal.

Therefore, sex outside of marriage is wrong for utilitarian reasons. There are other reasons as well to base the view but I will not get into them here.

First of all, I don't think atheists would appreciate your assumption that they all believe nothing has value or purpose. You're confusing them with anarchists.

Your argument above skirts the issue a bit by assuming that all of these bad things would go away if it weren't for premarital sex. You're assuming that all marriage is perfect when it obviously is not. Conversely, trying to scare people into avoiding premarital sex by calling it sin can be counterproductive. What is needed is open dialogue and a reality check. People like sex. People will feel the urge to engage in it. We can accept that and discuss things like moderation and safety, or we can take your route, tell them it's a sin and they're going to get VD, and then leave them to their own devices. Personally, I'd go with the former choice. And I base that opinion on the moral reasoning that leads me to believe that it's better for society.

I now want to address the Pastor. Wow, my brother. I am surprised. Emergent Church? This was very dismaying. When Jesus was talking about the heart of man, he was revealing who he was. The religious people always wanted to know exactly what they needed to “do” to be good, and Jesus with his so called “hard sayings” was revealing that he was the law himself. The law and morals are founded in who he is, his own authority and existence.

He was teaching man that sin is a problem of the heart. He knew they had all sinned in their hearts and he was pointing it out. The solution was not, we need to never do that, because that is impossible, it was to accept the good news that was to follow. Some make excuses to lighten sin, others see the weight of the law and admit they are sinners.

This reminds me of when Saul, after being instructed to destroy everything of the Amalikites, ended up keeping some of the best items for himself. He later justified it by claiming he was going to use the items for God. He basically made excuses and tried to make himself OK my redefining the instruction of the Lord.

Later, when David was king, he sinned as well, but he confessed his sin and took responsibility, not parsing the words of God for vindication. David, who was as big, if not a bigger sinner then Saul, was justified as a man after God’s own heart. Saul, was a failure and went down in defeat. These things were written for our instruction.

My brother, you are parsing the words of God looking for vindication, that is a dead end, literally. The bible is clear about fornication. It is not a worse sin then murder or stealing or adultery or gossip, but it is there. Be very careful teaching your flock that fornication is no big deal. I understand the pressure to be relevant, but at what cost?

Matthew 18: 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 ¶“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

We have good news, but the world doesn’t even know the bad news that makes the good news good, how much more when our own ambassadors join in?

You're doing a fine bit of parsing as well. Not uncommon among evangelists. Let us not forget that Jesus welcomed prostitutes and rebuked those who objected to him doing so. Let us not forget the odes to horniness within Song of Solomon (some say these passages describe young, unbetrothed lovers) and of course that old standby, judge not lest you also be judged. The key to vice - whether sex, booze, food, whatever - is moderation. Preaching abstinence as the only way can net you two bad outcomes: Rebellious overindulgence, or complete ignorance which can lead to future problems.

[Atheist37]

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

Back in the day (mid '70's) I had sex with many a young Christian woman, without any birth control, and there was never a chance of her getting pregnant. There are lots of ways to achieve sexual satisfaction, and a large number of them don't risk pregnancy.

Just wondering... was all that still considered "fornication"? It was a lot of fun, so I suppose it must have been a sin!

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

[ScottBarger]

The Pastor said at one point that “the most destructive teaching of the church is that sex outside of marriage is sin”.

That's not what I said. What I said was "One of the most dangerous things I was told when I was growing up was 'Don't have sex until your married.'"

We weren't able to flesh the point out right away, but I think we got around to it later in the show. I feel it was dangerous because it was overly simplistic. I was never challenged with the ideas of what sex was created to be, what sex involves, and what it meant to be a sexual creature. The result was somewhat destructive to me. I think there is a better way to teach young believers about sexuality.

I now want to address the Pastor. Wow, my brother. I am surprised. Emergent Church?

No. I have no affiliation with the so-called Emergent Church. I work for a church that is part of a fellowship of Brethren churches, which come from a fairly conservative Anabaptist tradition.

This was very dismaying.

Sorry you feel this way.

My brother, you are parsing the words of God looking for vindication,

How so?

The bible is clear about fornication.

You are correct, the Bible is clear about fornication, but is decidedly unclear as to what the word "fornication" means. In 21st century America, we use the word "fornication" to mean "having sex before you are married" but the word as it was used in the Bible had a decidedly broader semantic range.

Be very careful teaching your flock that fornication is no big deal.

You presume too much. I have never taught that fornication is "no big deal," quite the opposite in fact.

I understand the pressure to be relevant, but at what cost?

I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "relevant." In my understanding of the Bible, cultural relevance is a divine mandate.

Matthew 18: 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 ¶“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

We have good news, but the world doesn’t even know the bad news that makes the good news good, how much more when our own ambassadors join in?

I will share your concerns with my Elder Board. Perhaps they will agree, perhaps they won't.

Thanks for your comments.

[Pseudonym]

You comparing theological pondering with science is ironic.

That doesn't make sense, even if you use the Alanis Morisette sense of "ironic". I think that you're just offended that public speaking about science and preaching could have anything at all in common.

I think it'd be great, for both Steve and his congregation, if he shared his philosophical thoughts with his church. But I'd completely understand it if he slapped a bunch of disclaimers on it of the form "this is just what I've been thinking about lately".

For the record, nobody has yet come up with a single concrete example of Steve being hypocritical about this. And if I weren't a cultural Methodist, I would wager that you won't find one, either.