Sex! Woohoo!

[Pseudonym]

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.

If by "semi-literally", you actually mean "ultra-literally, with a big dash of pig-headedness thrown in", then I agree.

The "no graven images" commandment, like most commandments in the Bible, was delivered in a certain place at a certain time to a certain group of people to specifically address some fairly specific misbehaviours. You may or may not recall that, as the story goes, while Moses was receiving this commandment the Hebrews were down the bottom of the mountain casting a golden calf to bow down to.

To get from "no idolatry" to "no books with illustrations" is an unbelievably huge stretch.

In spite of my misgivings about his businesses, I have to say I don't think he exploits his employees.

Right. I'm not saying that it can't be done. Indeed, I think that, in general, looking at the morality of the business is much like looking at the morality of any other business. Buying your pornography from this guy rather than some shadier outfit is, in a sense, the same as buying barn laid eggs rather than cage eggs.

[Pseudonym]

We need more Christians lay down the law around here!

The rest of us lay down the grace.

[ScottBarger]

One of the more difficult things for me is know when to keep my "theological ponderings" to myself. Since I am a pastor of a church, It behooves me not to shake things up too much. If I weren't a pastor, I think it would be much easier to question different aspects of my faith.

I guess I was the only person on the forums disturbed by this. You can't shake things up because people might evade the next group think session, do some thinking on their own, leave the church and cost you tithes? Or... Some other explanation? If you're sure you have it right and Christianity is the way. Why would you be afraid to ask all the questions in the world? There must be answers right. Or are you just a complete cynic so deep into the business that you can't afford to question your faith?

I'm sure I'll be called a troll and be flammed for this, but I don't care. Your comment makes me ashamed to be a human being.

Thanks for the long awaited update. It was fairly enjoyable. Don't wait 6 months to do another update please.

All I was trying to say is that one of the difficulties of being a pastor is knowing when to question, and perhaps more importantly, HOW to question. This is because not everyone is in a place where they could actually benefit from hearing about my personal struggles. Not every thought, doubt, or concerned ought to be voiced at every opportunity in every context.

I also noted the lack of integrity that Scott's comment implied, but he and I have gone back & forth about this before. He's charming, and seems genuinely concerned about his congregation. However, he also doesn't seem to care how much of what he's teaching is true or not. He's in good company. It's the same among most Christian clerics. For them, success is having a growing church, not having a thinking church.

Hey now, keep those punches above the belt. I don't feel that I have a lack of integrity. I mean, if you are strapping your child into their car seat and they ask you "Daddy, am I going to die in a car accident?" is it disingenuous to say "No, you will be fine"? I care very much about the truth if what I am teaching. I also think that to have a growing church, you must also have a thinking church.

[NH Baritone]

We need more Christians lay down the law around here!

The rest of us lay down the grace.

I'm a psychotherapist, and rather than challenge believers' faith, I try to use it as a tool to broaden their perspectives and help them modify their thinking or behavior. I often see Christians who come in full of either self-hatred or rage at others. They run the range from seminarians & pastors to pew-dodging fundamentalists. When I become curious how their concept of grace affects how they think about their problem, you might be surprised at the high number of Christians who HAVE NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED THAT.

[NH Baritone]

One of the more difficult things for me is know when to keep my "theological ponderings" to myself. Since I am a pastor of a church, It behooves me not to shake things up too much. If I weren't a pastor, I think it would be much easier to question different aspects of my faith.

I guess I was the only person on the forums disturbed by this. You can't shake things up because people might evade the next group think session, do some thinking on their own, leave the church and cost you tithes? Or... Some other explanation? If you're sure you have it right and Christianity is the way. Why would you be afraid to ask all the questions in the world? There must be answers right. Or are you just a complete cynic so deep into the business that you can't afford to question your faith?

I'm sure I'll be called a troll and be flammed for this, but I don't care. Your comment makes me ashamed to be a human being.

Thanks for the long awaited update. It was fairly enjoyable. Don't wait 6 months to do another update please.

All I was trying to say is that one of the difficulties of being a pastor is knowing when to question, and perhaps more importantly, HOW to question. This is because not everyone is in a place where they could actually benefit from hearing about my personal struggles. Not every thought, doubt, or concerned ought to be voiced at every opportunity in every context.

I also noted the lack of integrity that Scott's comment implied, but he and I have gone back & forth about this before. He's charming, and seems genuinely concerned about his congregation. However, he also doesn't seem to care how much of what he's teaching is true or not. He's in good company. It's the same among most Christian clerics. For them, success is having a growing church, not having a thinking church.

Hey now, keep those punches above the belt. I don't feel that I have a lack of integrity. I mean, if you are strapping your child into their car seat and they ask you "Daddy, am I going to die in a car accident?" is it disingenuous to say "No, you will be fine"? I care very much about the truth if what I am teaching. I also think that to have a growing church, you must also have a thinking church.

Hmmm... Is it just me or isn't it more than a little condescending to, by analogy, imply that your congregation are children whom you are strapping into their car seats? And this is the metaphor you use when referring to a thinking church?

I call every one of my doctors by their first name, to signal that I want to have a level playing field in my conversations with them. While I respect their expertise, I simultaneously want them to explain to me why they recommend particular courses of action and the possible side effects of each. I would hope that you would respect your congregation members enough, including their capacity to think, to at least summarize the options available and why you have made your particular choice, along with your doubts about it and others.

[StillSearching]

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.

If by "semi-literally", you actually mean "ultra-literally, with a big dash of pig-headedness thrown in", then I agree.

The "no graven images" commandment, like most commandments in the Bible, was delivered in a certain place at a certain time to a certain group of people to specifically address some fairly specific misbehaviours. You may or may not recall that, as the story goes, while Moses was receiving this commandment the Hebrews were down the bottom of the mountain casting a golden calf to bow down to.

To get from "no idolatry" to "no books with illustrations" is an unbelievably huge stretch.

Thinking that the bible doesn't address the issue of pornography is a huge stretch too. Does it "mention" it? No, not by name or description because glossy girlie mags didn't exist at the time. However, I don't think you'd find a single biblical scholar who would be willing to go out onto the "the bible doesn't say porn is wrong" limb. Cultural context aside, the bible says no likenesses of anything and warns against lustful looking. That's pretty clear no matter how you interpret it. I don't happen to think those are practical commandments. I was just arguing against your statement that the bible doesn't mention pornography.

[NH Baritone]

Thinking that the bible doesn't address the issue of pornography is a huge stretch too. Does it "mention" it? No, not by name or description because glossy girlie mags didn't exist at the time. However, I don't think you'd find a single biblical scholar who would be willing to go out onto the "the bible doesn't say porn is wrong" limb. Cultural context aside, the bible says no likenesses of anything and warns against lustful looking. That's pretty clear no matter how you interpret it. I don't happen to think those are practical commandments. I was just arguing against your statement that the bible doesn't mention pornography.

I actually have to side with Pseudo here. The images' contexts refer to idolatry, not all "likenesses." Jesus even referred the Caesar's head appearing on the Roman coins without any comment about how it shouldn't be there.

And as for the girly magazines, there are many Roman & Greek statues & pottery that were likely traded throughout the Mediterranean. For examples, click on the links below, but only if you will not be offended by seeing the ancient Greek equivalent of Hustler.

http://www.greek-thesaurus.gr/images/p6/ancient-sex-scene.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2608023778_ef414a6289.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Shuvalov_Painter_erotic_scene_Antikensammlung_Berlin_F2414.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2608024364_3df8c53e74.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2608023984_260ec29ab1_m.jpg

[StillSearching]

Except now you're focusing solely on the two examples that I gave. My point to Pseudo: By saying "The bible doesn't mention pornography" you're implying that the bible has nothing to say on the subject. I flatly (and respectfully) disagree. It may not speak, by name, of the multibillion dollar modern porn industry, nor does it specifically mention the apparently lucrative Roman & Greek pottery porn industry, but it does address the subject, albeit in roundabout, archaic and contradictory ways. The bible has no reference to stem cell research either, but that doesn't keep the religious right wackos from railing against it in the name of God. In spite of its age and inconsistencies, the bible is a surprisingly thorough document.

EDIT: I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that many people "worship" pornography. The "context of idolatry" argument doesn't exactly disprove my point.

2nd EDIT: Those ancient mediterraneans were nasty! My virgin eyes are burning!

[ScottBarger]

NH,

All I was trying to say is that there is appropriate time to share doubts, and times when it is maybe best not to.

[whoosanightowl]

tonyenglish7 wrote:

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.

Everything is not subject to the individual alone but to society as a whole. Human beings determine what has meaning, value and purpose, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

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 these things are subjective.

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.

What about children whose parents end up getting divorced (currently 50% or more)? What about children who have an abusive parent? In ideal situations, I agree the 2 parent model is preferred, but not all situations are ideal. Birth control fails within marriages too, and many abortions are performed on women in stable marriages.
Walking instead of driving would reduce the number of auto accidents and save lives too, but most people choose to take the chance and drive. People injured in automobile accidents is also a financial burden on society, but we allow children to start driving at age 16. We teach them road safety and hope they do the right thing when we're not watching.

[Pseudonym]

I often see Christians who come in full of either self-hatred or rage at others. They run the range from seminarians & pastors to pew-dodging fundamentalists. When I become curious how their concept of grace affects how they think about their problem, you might be surprised at the high number of Christians who HAVE NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED THAT.

With respect, that doesn't seem to be a huge "range". Still, I am quite shocked. Where is it that you live/practice?

Except now you're focusing solely on the two examples that I gave. My point to Pseudo: By saying "The bible doesn't mention pornography" you're implying that the bible has nothing to say on the subject.

No! I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I specifically mentioned one plan of attack: looking at the morality of

the multibillion dollar modern porn industry

which produces it.

The bible has no reference to stem cell research either, but that doesn't keep the religious right wackos from railing against it in the name of God.

I notice that you have changed your tune a bit here. You (quite correctly) didn't assert that the Bible has anything to say about stem cell research per se, in the sense that it might (in a round-about way) have something to say about pornography.

I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that many people "worship" pornography. The "context of idolatry" argument doesn't exactly disprove my point.

No, I don't think that's a stretch either.

One of the things about how we related to the Bible is that given that we're so far removed from the time and culture in which it was written (and given that it was written over the course of a thousand years or so, not counting collation and editing, it's wrong to talk about the time and the culture), there's some hard work to do.

Roughly speaking, the process that you go through is:

1. Research. This involves many steps, some of which (e.g. textual criticsm) are already done for you by people more knowledgable than you. But the essential things that you want to know are:
   
   
   1. What does the text actually say?
   2. Who said it?
   3. What are the historical and cultural circumstances in which was it said?
2. Interpret. This is where you put the research together to try to understand what the writer meant. A great example of this was in the second Sex podcast, where both of the participants knew what Jesus literally said, but were trying to understand what they thought his point was.
   
3. Apply. This is where you take everything you've discovered, and work out what it means for you.

When I say that "the Bible doesn't mention pornography", I mean that no Biblical author literally wrote about it (research), and no Biblical author had it in specifically mind when writing (interpretation). That doesn't mean that there is no application of Jesus' or Paul's thinking to pornography.

Your example of idolatry is a good example. What the "no graven images" commandment literally means is "don't cast a golden calf and worship it". The intention behind it is to centre you around the true God, not those other false gods. Today, in most parts of Christendom, there is little or no risk of slipping off and bowing down before a false god, so we quite correctly apply it to our current circumstances: Don't put "other stuff" ahead of God, whether that "other stuff" is material possessions, sex or kudos.

[StillSearching]

This discussion is moving to the Part 2 thread I guess...

[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.

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.

How are they not illusionary? Our interest in surviving is subjective and without grounding itself. And where would altruism come in? If survival is the only goal, would you suffer and die for society? If so why? If survival is the only goal?

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.

Worship the Lord you God and him alone! Further, you missed truth, you claim truth is subjective? Are you 100% absolutely, no doubt about it? Truth is subjective? Is that a true statement? (Self-Refuting).

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 actually know that atheists, contrary to their own world view, know deep down that life and people have value and purpose. That is my point.

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.

Parsing is always a problem, I agree... (:-) Did Jesus and his followers take Mary Magdalene and the other women with them for moderately controlled sex as they traveled the region? Were the prostitutes there to practice their profession? Are you judging me because I disagree with your view of the morals of Sex? (Self-refuting). There is a true answer to this discussion, otherwise, why do you discuss?

[tonyenglish7]

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.

OK, I understand how it is to not be able to discuss your full view so I will give you that. But simplicity is not always the culprit. I think it is dangerous and wrong to change the meaning of words in the bible that you feel are culturally harsh now. I agree that culture is changing as was predicted in the bible. 2 Peter 3:3 " ¶First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."

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?

Changing the meaning of the word, "fornication"

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.

It has the same meaing today as it did then. It includes sex outside of marriage and other sex related sinful acts.

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.

"Depends what the meaing of the word "is" is".

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.

I agree, we are to be all things to all people, but not of this world. If adultry becomes the norm, are we to engage in that as well?

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.

Perhaps they will be right and perhaps they will be wrong, I hope the flip of the coin goes your way!

[StillSearching]

Tony,

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.

How are they not illusionary? Our interest in surviving is subjective and without grounding itself. And where would altruism come in? If survival is the only goal, would you suffer and die for society? If so why? If survival is the only goal?

I was simply using your words. Define "illusionary" before we go down that road please.

Our interest in survival is indeed subjective but that does not make it ungrounded. It is grounded in self-preservation, a desire shared by all living things. In humans, it is further grounded in a desire to perpetuate the social units to which we belong: family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, etc. BTW, this is where altruism comes in. And yes, I would suffer and die for society, to ensure its survival. What's the alternative? Extinction? I'll take my chances with survival of our species, and that would be all the meaning I would require. To flip it around, if God communicated clearly and without equivocation to all the people of the earth that he had changed his mind, and that the human race must be extinguished, would you accept that as "grounded" and "right" without even a twinge of rebellion and desire for survival?

tonyenglish7 wrote:
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.

Worship the Lord you God and him alone! Further, you missed truth, you claim truth is subjective? Are you 100% absolutely, no doubt about it? Truth is subjective? Is that a true statement? (Self-Refuting).

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.

I actually know that atheists, contrary to their own world view, know deep down that life and people have value and purpose. That is my point.

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.

Parsing is always a problem, I agree... (:-) Did Jesus and his followers take Mary Magdalene and the other women with them for moderately controlled sex as they traveled the region? Were the prostitutes there to practice their profession? Are you judging me because I disagree with your view of the morals of Sex? (Self-refuting). There is a true answer to this discussion, otherwise, why do you discuss?

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.