Sex Is Neither Sin nor Sacrament

anything about sexual revenge?

All of this makes me nostalgic for some good old Friedrich Nietzche and Alastair Crowley. I've got an even better mantra than the one close to the top of the page:

SEX IS SACRED--PRAYER WILL GET YOU NOWHERE.
SEX IS SACRED--PRAYER WILL GET YOU NOWHERE.
SEX IS SACRED--PRAYER WILL GET YOU NOWHERE.
SEX IS SACRED--GOD? NEVER HEARD OF HER.

Bob, my thoughts are very much with you. I will keep checking back, should you be inclined to update us.

Even though the light is not dying, rage against it anyway.

Just a brief endnote from RB to Tonio, Phaedrus, E Fave, et.al

I got my MRI results today. It seems there may be evidence of a possible reocurrance of my brain cancer. I have to meet with another specialist (neurosurgeon). I've already seen my neurologist (today) and have the radiologist's report for their assessment. It's not an emergency and it could turn out that it is nothing. Most likely I will be monitored more closely (more frequent MRI's) to see what the tiny specks that showed on the current scan do.

It's been just over 8 years since my brain surgery.

I just wanted to update you. For those who pray, please pray for me. I am a bit "out of sorts" at the moment. For those who don't normally pray...maybe you might send a few "good thoughts" my way.

I most likely won't find out anything more for 2 or 3 weeks.

Once again, I've enjoyed my time with those of you who have taken the time and effort to chat!!

Best wishes to all!

Sincerely,

Robert Bavis (RB,aka Bob)

Hi Tonio
This teaching in (local context) is specifically directed to Jesus' disciples.

The first part of the passage does address any human "peer" that might want to kill them. The second part, Jesus somewhat indirectly refers to the "one" [i.e. the "evil one"/ (the) satan]. His disciples knew to whom he was referring.

Yes, When Jesus spoke then and elsewhere with regard to those who (e.g. in verse 32 & elsewhere) do not acknowledge Him and who He is, are at risk of being eternally separated from Him.

I would imagine that His disciples may have been a little less fearful (because the concept of the evil one was not new to them) but still, it was a very stern warning. Verse 32, though being said to the disciples also refers to all others to whom they would be amongst as they (the disciples) were sent on their way.

Jesus' teachings (e.g. on this issue) are usually quite clear whenever He speaks to the matter. There is no way of skirting the issue. Finishing chapter 10 emphasizes my point. However, there is a way to escape the punishment so described. This fact is also clear whenever he addresses the matter.

I suppose, of course that many people back then and many people now didn't and don't feel "comfortable" with this teaching, and of course many chose and many choose to discard the teaching, get angry at the teaching, turn away from Jesus because of His teaching, or do not even consider following His teaching because of this teaching.

As for Mr. Crossan et al., There are more than a few Bible scholars who thru their research and their biases (we all have them) and their presuppositions with regard to how the NT was "assembled", believe that only certain portions of NT text represent the actual words of what they call the "historical Jesus".

Their approach is very controversial to some and less so to others. To fully understand their "literary criticism" (this is a specific approach to looking at Scripture); one must plunge deeply into the nature of and methodologies for interpreting Scripture. This particular approach is very complex.

If one comes to the text and reads it "as is", one will arrive quickly at the one Primary Theme/Message. That message is literally embodied in the body of Jesus, the Christ (Savior). The Message - He (Jesus) is the Son of God come from the Father to reconcile His "Children" to Himself. Because sin estranges us from God and sin leads only to death, Jesus comes ultimately to take our sin and let it be "pinned" on Him (on the cross) so that we might be set free to be reconciled to God. By acknowledging Christ's actions on our behalf and by turning back to God because of what Jesus did, we will indeed be reconciled as per this one Primary Message found and expanded upon clearly in the NT.

Anyone who dissects, discards, reinterprets any small or large parts, chips away at any part of this Primary Theme/Truth is merely trying to escape the Message itself. The foundational belief of the Christian is grounded solely on this Message.

One can reject the message, disagree with it, debate it, soften the "punch" of it, ignore it or whatever. Everyone has the freedom to do with it what they may. But that message has survived the millennia, intact, to this day and is still the Primary Tenet of the Christian Church at large.

To say "take it or leave it" is a crass & insensitive way to say it, but the Message is what it is; as is the portrait of God for Muslims, Jews and Christians.

I love studying/scrutinizing Scripture almost as much as the most scholarly. I have spent many years doing that very thing, but I am much more concerned about God's scrutinizing me, God's interpreting and translating me, God's leading me, God's forgiving me. The Truth of the Bible will always be a "stumbling block" for many but for others it is the road to Shalom, the path to freedom in Christ and the entry into the presence of God.

I for one, choose Christ.

Oh yes, C.S. Lewis suggests (pretty much based on Scripture) that the “door” to Hell is locked from the inside. All those not wanting to be reconciled to God – ever - for whatever reason, will be allowed the “freedom” to be fully separated from God.

Tonio, I really appreciate our “conversations” and YOU. I will be taking a well-needed break from sharing my personal views and answering your and others’ questions on these issues because my homework for my Instructional Technology Design class is piling up.
I hope to “run into you again”…

I will respectfully pray that as you continue your journey that God might (continue to) reveal Himself to you thru Scripture, thru your mind and heart and via the many other ways God makes available. I wish you God’s blessings!
Sincerely,

RB (aka Bob)

Concerned,

Bart Ehrman has presented compelling reasons not to regard scripture as the inerrant word of deity. If Jews do not read the Sacrifice of Isaac as a presaging of Christ, then obviously there is more than one interpretation of the story.

However, I see that as somewhat irrelevant to my point. My recent posts have address my objections to the doctrine as presented and taught, not about the source or credibility of the doctrine.

If the Isaac story were not taught as historical fact, I would have the same objections to it, although I suspect that my emotions about it would not be as intense. It's possible that the story was intended as a metaphor to illustrate that Yahweh didn't require child sacrifices. But in my view, one can appreciate that only if one assigns no scriptural value to the OT. Scholars believe that the Greek flower myths (Hyacinthus, Daphne, Narcissus, Crocus) originated as sacrifice stories, and that the Greeks softened the meaning as they became more civilized.

Tonio,

Matthew 10:28 as per JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist, has concluded that this passage was not said by the historical Jesus. See his book The Historical Jesus for his reasoning. A listing of all of his conclusions about the various passages in the NT are posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf e.g.158-. Whom To Fear: (1a) 1Q: Luke 12:4-5 = Matt 10:28, (1b) 2 Clem. 5:4b;

See also http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb158.html to read Matthew 10:28 and its equivalents.

RB,

The "body and soul in hell" quote is Matthew 10:28. Obviously, Jesus was urging people not to fear their peers. But the latter part of the quote sounds like a threat to me. I'm trying to understand why a loving God would create a physical location like Hell as a punishment. Again, that would be like disciplining my children by threatening to kill them.

"These are rarer then you might think."

That is probably true. I still have a strong emotional reaction to their words. I have a theory that the most extreme members of any movement tend also to be the most vocal ones.

well I really enjoyed this essay, and I am going to look up other pieces you've written. I was scrolling down the page of panelists, read some bits was getting more and more disgusted at this "wonh wonh wonh sex one man one woman marriage blah blah blah".

v glad you remarked about the mother of god being a _virgin_. I always found it v odd how her virgin status was considered most the important, the staining of sex would make her unfit for the role of sacred mother. No I wasn't raised in any religion, just the general pervasiveness of Protestant Christianity throughout the British culture. I went to Church because I liked the singing, but find the teachings preposterous.

I get really tired of the endless devaluing of woman, of other columnists talking about God's will, making laws about controlling sexual desires, etc. As far as I am aware, all "holy laws" are inventions of mankind, and bend and flex on the cultural needs of a group, or strongly rooted in our evolution as mortal beings that live in communities.

So thank you.

Tonio.
Tonio refers to RB’s Quote: "Heaven & Hell are not mentioned directly or indirectly nor implied."

Tonio says: Doesn't Jesus mention "God destroying both body and soul in hell" in the Gospels?

RB says: I thought you meant in Genesis. As for your quote: Let me know where you found/find it. “Hades” & “Sheol” are mentioned in a couple places in the OT & NT. Give me the immediate context which Gospel, chapter verse and I can better respond.

In general, there certainly is mention of those who end up separated from God in a few different ways. Jewish views on this topic are much more extant than is in Christian theology, though certainly Thessalonians and Revelations and a small portion Matthew’s Gospel account look ahead to the “end times”.

RB Quote: "'Context' is CRITICAL for proper and hopefully accurate translation and interpretation."

Tonio says: I agree with that in principle. How does that square with the objective by evangelical Christians to convert everyone to Christianity? From that standpoint, wouldn't they want to make it as easy as possible for people to convert? They claim to be concerned with unbelievers' destinations in an afterlife, and that is probably an honest concern for some of them.

RB says: I am an Evangelical Christian. Evangel means “good news”, “evangelist” – the bringer of good news. Christians are “called” to bring the “good news” of/about Jesus Christ. How they go about it varies tremendously – some, a bit too “zealous” for my taste. No matter how delivered no Christian can ever “convert” anyone.

Christians understand that the Holy Spirit works thru them to change the heart of a “seeker” whose mind and heart are ready and willing to make the decision to live for and follow Christ.

This process always requires the voluntary willingness (of the NB) to ask, listen, share their reasons and understanding of why it is that they want to make their prayerful decision. The B explains what it means to be a Christian and what is required to become a B and prays with the ND if and when the NB decides to make the personal, prayerful decision.

It is very easy to BECOME a Christian, practically speaking…5 minutes…and you can be “in”. (This is a bit too casual of a way to say this)

The often “difficult” part (for many) is: One has to acknowledge that God (of the Bible) exists and that He sent His (Divine) Son Jesus to be born (on earth) and become a man; a man who lived (taught, made disciples), was crucified, died and was resurrected – all so that He could bear the judgment and punishment on our behalf; because of our own “sinful nature”.

NBs’ need to be willing to acknowledge their “sin”, ask for forgiveness and promise to (and actually) turn away from their past sin (i.e. repent) so they can be(come) reconciled to God. A simple process? - For some yes; for many no, because it requires humbling oneself to God (not the B) in the biggest way possible – turning one’s entire life over to Christ. Baptism is the traditional public, outward expression of their inner decision.

All that is the (relatively) “easy stuff”; the hardest part is living for Christ each and every day. Anyway, that’s the quick version what’s required.

RB quote: "Once again, the moment anyone attempts to judge the Judge, I say, first, that He is who He is, as revealed in the entire Bible."

Tonio Says: “I wasn't attempting to judge God as a being. I was explaining my emotional reaction to certain behaviors ascribed to God. I am trying to defend my emotions as valid.”

RB says: Understood.

RB quote: "I can only share openly and honestly that which I have come to know and understand thru a lifetime journey..."

Tonio says: “And I understand that. Your thoughts on theology seem far removed from the "Accept Christ or God's gonna get ya!" hectorings of the hellfire-and-damnation crowd. Still, I do not like the idea of anyone wanting me to change my religious beliefs. I know that sounds defensive, but the defensiveness has nothing to do with my own beliefs and everything to do with my need to feel secure in my personal boundaries. “

RB Says: Tonio what you describe is a stereotype exemplified (in my opinion, in the worse way) most often by the stereotypic “soapbox, hellfire & brimstone “preacher”. These are rarer then you might think. I fully appreciate an NB’s uh, shall I say, “anger” about this approach. As for boundaries, I understand. Most Christians do not violate those boundaries. They will allow the NB whatever time and “space” they need to make their decision (one way or other).

I have worked in a ministry that values what’s called “relationship-based ministry”. It’s a simple concept – build genuine relationships, and let things develop within that context. This is contrasted by those who are willing to share (for example) with total strangers, with no follow-up once that individual makes their decision.

Let me just say, too many NB’s have been tainted by a few B’s who once again fail to understand how to share the GOOD news in a way that doesn’t turn out to be received as more a curse than good news.

My hope, at least, is that MY modeling as a Christian who knows better how to deliver good news, might encourage you and/or others to get past their bad experiences (and if they are seekers”) find someone who is less “intense”.

There are many “ordinary”, respectful Christians who can articulate the good news as well or better then me.

RB,

"Heaven & Hell are not mentioned directly or indirectly nor implied."

Doesn't Jesus mention "God destroying both body and soul in hell" in the Gospels?

"'Context' is CRITICAL for proper and hopefully accurate translation and interpretation."

I agree with that in principle. How does that square with the objective by evangelical Christians to convert everyone to Christianity? From that standpoint, wouldn't they want to make it as easy as possible for people to convert? They claim to be concerned with unbelievers' destinations in an afterlife, and that is probably an honest concern for some of them.

"Once again, the moment anyone attempts to judge the Judge, I say, first, that He is who He is, as revealed in the entire Bible."

I wasn't attempting to judge God as a being. I was explaining my emotional reaction to certain behaviors ascribed to God. I am trying to defend my emotions as valid.

"I can only share openly and honestly that which I have come to know and understand thru a lifetime journey..."

And I understand that. Your thoughts on theology seem far removed from the "Accept Christ or God's gonna get ya!" hectorings of the hellfire-and-damnation crowd. Still, I do not like the idea of anyone wanting me to change my religious beliefs. I know that sounds defensive, but the defensiveness has nothing to do with my own beliefs and everything to do with my need to feel secure in my personal boundaries.

Tonio:
Tonio Says:
“Your post makes a valid point about narrative. First, part of the purpose of scripture, in my view, is to give people "the rules" for going to heaven or staying out of hell. That purpose seems to contradict the idea of teaching believers through narrative.”

RB says: Heaven & Hell are not mentioned directly or indirectly nor implied. One learns directly from the text that God both loves (e.g. clothes A & E in spite of their disobeying) & judges and punishes them by giving them what they wanted (i.e. to know good and evil).

This Narrative style in Genesis is not contradictory with any supposed truth conveyed therein. Narrative style by and large teaches real “down- to-earth, day-to-day lessons. There is no preaching, no interpretation and only rare commentary from the narrator.

No one knows for sure who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. “Tradition” ascribes the writing to Moses and there a few references to that found elsewhere in the Bible. Genesis is pre-history.

I “allow” for the possibility that the traditional so-called “literal” reading of Genesis is accurate (e.g. in 6 days +1…). Unlike the “creationists” I believe that Genesis is not a science textbook. My view is that up until (after) A & E are banished, the primary purpose/role of Genesis is that it establishes:
1.God over and above all other Gods (“Creator” of everything), which is a theological statement contained in narrative form
2.God’s relationship to the humans he created.
3.God’s “assignment” with re: managing the “garden”
4.God’s proscribed “boundaries” for humans
5.God’s love & judgment

With re: six 24 hour days (+ one day to rest)…It’s possible and may be true (certainly if God is "all powerful). I remain neutral or rather; “leaning” toward science on this specific matter.

Interpretation must be done very carefully so as to not blur our interpretation by current biases, attitudes, expectations, presuppositions, etc. My summary identifies key theological concepts taken directly from the Hebrew text.

As for my personal views, they are just that. The “theme” of Genesis is stated above. I remain humble with re: areas where I may be wrong.

Tonio Says: Second, the narrative idea also seems to contradict the fundamentalist teaching that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God. Maybe it's only possible to use a narrative reading if one maintains some doctrinal and emotional distance from the story.

RB says: the concept of “literal” and “inerrant” are terribly misunderstood by both B’s & NB’s. There are individual letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, sections chapters, ”units”, “books” and the whole Bible itself (for example) from which we draw our interpretations.

There are also, pre-history, narrative, proscriptive, poetry, songs, wisdom literature, prophetic literature, “apocalyptic” literature, Gospel narratives, letters, theological treatises and mixtures of one or more of these genres (e.g. Revelations).

Interpretation is often done poorly (e.g. not interpreting from within a particular genre).
Psalms (songs & poetry) may contain within them theological information but they must First be read, enjoyed, felt as songs & poems).

“Truth” in any piece of literature is contained and expressed in many different ways, each valid (or not, for that matter) within its own context. The first context from which a particular truth can be found is in a sentence. THIS is the very first place where many B’s & NB’s get tripped up. This is the old and famous, “you took this out of context” statement.

Listen carefully here. “Context” is CRITICAL for proper and hopefully accurate translation and interpretation. Any single sentence (and on rare occasion any single word) MUST be translated and interpreted from the greater contexts mentioned above. Isolate any sentence from that greater context risks many a war, taking out one’s eye for an eye, and many other maybe less dangerous results.

The reasons why Pastors (for example) go to a seminary (for example), is to dive deeply into the text, into the languages, into history into hermeneutics, exegesis, homiletics, literary genre, comparative religions, ethics/philosophy, “Biblical Criticisms” (this is not what you may think it means), and many other peripheral processes, IS so that they can be as prepared as much as humanly possible, to be “true to the text” and “true to the truth” contained within it so as to be able to teach and preach.

Most NB’s and many B’s have very little understanding about what takes place to be able to assist a novice reader/parishioner in their reading of the Bible and in assisting them in finding meaning and understanding.

I have studied all these fields in part so as to be able to convey what I am here and now, in this forum. If you either stepped into a seminary or similar type of advanced studies like those I have mentioned OR were mentored by someone who has, you would quickly learn that translation and interpretation are both an ART & SCIENCE.

Though I must heartily qualify by saying that ANYONE who follows some basic interpretive guidelines will easily find the ESSENTIAL “TRUTH(S)” found in the Bible. The truly “good news” is that the message is very clear without worrying or debating about “misspelled” words in the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic texts or even a few textual variants that do indeed exist.

The MESSAGE is unavoidably evident for the novice if they are looking for the major concepts, theological pronouncements, illustrations, statements, repeating themes, etc. Every bit of additional effort (study) will certainly aid in gaining the “fullness” and “dynamic” of the Bible.

This approach to reading and study is also the way to gain understanding of any book, but especially for more difficult ancient religious and historical texts.

I could go on & on…but won’t on this matter.

Tonio says: “Third, Christianity and Judaism disagree on what the "whole story" is in regards to the Old Testament. Why should I regard one religion’s reading as correct and the other as incorrect? What if neither is correct? What if both are correct if one regards both teachings as metaphors instead of real-world facts?

My objection to the Old Testament's portrayal of God would hold valid for Judaism as well as Christianity, at least in theory. But I don't know enough about Jewish theology to know if it treats the OT as literal truth, teaching metaphor, inspiration, or historical artifact. (When I was a kid, I wondered why modern Jews don't sacrifice lambs like their ancestors."

RB Says: This is true. My answer to this is like C.S. Lewis’ transition point in his book “Mere Christianity” (I recommend this book). He leads the reader very systematically from atheism to the theism. At that point he ends his section by saying one now needs make a decision (i.e. because of the very issue you raise).

With regard to which might or might not be “correct”, I already addressed this before. You read, you study, and you talk to others, etc. etc….and then make YOUR decision. With regard how Judaism parallels my approach re: genre…it treats & celebrates each form/genre much more than either of the others. They are steeped in the OT much more than the vast majority of Christians. I can only recommend that you do your “homework” to find out more.

Tonio says: “Fourth, even if I agreed that God was acting as Abraham's "drill instructor" for some greater purpose that is still incompatible with the idea of God as all-benevolent. I object to any being using me or controlling me for any purpose, no matter what that purpose may be. That use and control are inherently bad, because they assume that an individual has no right to make decisions for his or her own life.”

RB Says: Once again, the moment anyone attempts to judge the Judge, I say, first, that He is who He is, as revealed in the entire Bible. We can critique Him from our standards all we want, but unless one reads the entire Context, I believe everyone should be a bit more humble in their approach in finding out what is the actual nature of the God of the Bible. I already wrote to you about these issues in my last post to you. (an aside: do you feel yanked around in your life – that God may be forcing something on you? I don’t need a response this question.)

“All-benevolent” is a descriptor (one of many) placed primarily ON God BY man. In the Bible one MUST stay away (at least for awhile) from those heavily or at least potentially biasing words or concepts. Read what IS said and determine for yourself what He IS. You may once again find that, as I said before, God is a God of contrast - of both either/ors AND both/ands.

These are the “tensions” to which I referred to previously. In some/many cases you will not find peace or satisfaction, or full understanding. God is a God of paradox and mystery but we can cipher enough to make our decision.

With re: to this particular label, the entire Bible contrasts that human concept/construct with many other characteristics which “flesh out” a fuller, contextual understanding of those human constructs, some of which are misguided and or limited in their scope of meaning.

As for mankind’s ability to “choose” freely… that topic, I will leave to those greater than me. This topic is one the MOST debated theological issues of all time. Many people, B's & NB’s have spent much of their lives grappling with this issue. (I have however read many contrasting books on this and other controversial topics)

As for me, my personal “spin” is that, from my vantage and my experience, it “appears” to me that I total freedom. From God’s vantage, I suspect things may be a bit different. I do not lose sleep over this matter. (I could go on here but won’t).

I also previously addressed the Abraham dilemma from my “scholarly” vantage.

Tonio refers to my quote: "Unless you can live with a God who perplexes the mind of His creatures and whose character is full of paradoxes, things can be quite unsettling for quite some time."

Of course it's unsettling, but not for the reasons you offered. To me, your description sounds like a polite way of describing an alcoholic or emotionally unstable parent. Imagine that your existence is completely at the mercy of someone whose moods shift unpredictably and violently, who is impossible to please, who is jealous to the point of obsessive paranoia.

You end up filled with desperation to please a person who can never be pleased. That is the core of my point about "getting into trouble." Under an unstable authority figure, the definition of "trouble" changes constantly depending on the figure's whims.

RB says: I cannot relieve you of your thoughts and feelings (no sarcasm or patronizing here). I can only share openly and honestly that which I have come to know and understand thru a lifetime journey of study, reflection, prayer, dialog, debate, grappling, “fear and trembling”, miraculous encounters, healing and so much more.

I have answers and I have questions, but what I have the most is a faith that came before I can remember and a faith that has always been stronger than me. I placed my life in God’s hands long ago and He has never let me go – a personal experience that cannot be quantified in the way scientists quantify.

RB

Mr Mark - I used to be a smoker -- and would light up in people's homes, not thinking it might be offensive.

Luckily, I quit before it became acceptable to tell people not to smoke.

RB,

I hope your scan went well.

Your post makes a valid point about narrative. First, part of the purpose of scripture, in my view, is to give people "the rules" for going to heaven or staying out of hell. That purpose seems to contradict the idea of teaching believers through narrative.

Second, the narrative idea also seems to contradict the fundamentalist teaching that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God. Maybe it's only possible to use a narrative reading if one maintains some doctrinal and emotional distance from the story.

Third, Christianity and Judaism disagree on what the "whole story" is in regards to the Old Testament. Why should I regard one religon's reading as correct and the other as incorrect? What if neither are correct? What if both are correct if one regards both teachings as metaphors instead of real-world facts? My objection to the Old Testament's portrayal of God would hold valid for Judaism as well as Christianity, at least in theory. But I don't know enough about Jewish theology to know if it treats the OT as literal truth, teaching metaphor, inspiration, or historical artifact. (When I was a kid, I wondered why modern Jews don't sacrifice lambs like their ancestors.)

Fourth, even if I agreed that God was acting as Abraham's "drill instructor" for some greater purpose, that is still incompatible with the idea of God as all-benevolent. I object to any being using me or controlling me for any purpose, no matter what that purpose may be. That use and control are inherently bad, because they assume that an individual has no right to make decisions for his or her own life.

"Unless you can live with a God who perplexes the minds of His creatures and whose character is full of paradoxes, things can be quite unsettling for quite some time."

Of course it's unsettling, but not for the reasons you offered. To me, your description sounds like a polite way of describing an alcoholic or emotionally unstable parent. Imagine that your existence is completely at the mercy of someone whose moods shift unpredictably and violently, who is impossible to please, who is jealous to the point of obsessive paranoia. You end up filled with desperation to please a person who can never be pleased. That is the core of my point about "getting into trouble." Under an unstable authority figure, the definition of "trouble" changes constantly depending on the figure's whims.

Pheadrus – just to play the devil’s advocate, relating to your comments on people praying for you: “…what I think they are actually saying is ‘I care about you so much that I am willing to do what I think offers the best chance that things will go well for you.’ with these folks, I just say ‘thanks,’ and really mean it.”

What if one of these well-meaning people said they were going to ask their prayer group to add your name to the list of people they were praying for? Or, what if, when one of your beloved (and non-believing) family members died, one of these people sent you an expensive prayer card promising your deceased family member prayers for the repose of his/her soul? Then, let’s say you were anticipating another death in the family. How would you handle it with the person, knowing that another expensive prayer card was probably in the offing?

Obviously, I’m trying to get at situations where a simple “thanks” might not be the most comfortable solution.

Pheadrus,

I don't know what to say. Such indviduals have been with us since Cain and Abel (and whoever else might have been around way back in time.)

Books can bring an enlightenment that edifies the world.

Other books can be a recipe for "ethnic cleansing" and nuclear catastrophes

People are no different (seeing as, they write the books!)

RB

I have yet to look at my brain scans. I am not quite ready yet...probably tommorow. The MRI experience went a little bit better than usual, no borderline panic. I sang songs in my mind while the buckle on my belt kept rhythm with the rotating magnets.

E Fav -

Hello.

Interesting you bring up smoking. My dad smoked, and I well remember the family of 8 piling into the station wagon for a long drive with dad smoking most of the way. Pretty awful stuff!

After I graduated college, I moved to NYC. The first time my mom and dad came to visit and to stay with me in my 1-bedroom apt, I answered the door to dad holding a smoldering cigarette. Well, I was now my own man, so I smiled and said, "you know, I can't let you come in here with that. I don't allow smoking in here." He humphed a bit, but respected my wishes and put it out. During their stay, I would catch him sitting next to an open window with cig in hand. He'd toss the thing once I came in the room.

After they left, I felt bad for causing a scene, but I also felt good about protecting my space.

A few weeks later, I had calls from my siblings, all of who reported that "dad was really proud of you for sticking up for your rights." How about that? One by one, they all asked dad (and my yonger brother) to take it outside when visting their homes, which they did.

Eventually, dad quit smoking altogether and became virulently anti-smoking. His doctor figured it added 10 years on to his life. He's no longer with us, but the time we spent together after that NYC trip was different. He would confide things to me that he wouldn't tell other members of the family, especially about the cancer he was fighting. I found that a bit strange as the rest of my family are mostly born agains and dad was too, at least to a certain extant (he didn't feel that he need to witness to others).

Bottom line - I'm glad I stood up for my rights in that instance. The horrible scenario I had painted in my mind about how dad might have reacted was as wrong as people believing in hell, and the end result was good all around.

I will say that telling my family I was an atheist was much harder than confronting dad about his smoking...but that's another story.

Mr Mark,
I hope you read E Faves response to me re: NB's B', (or rather my last post to E Fave)

I took what E Fave referred to in your post and just shared what I have heard on rare ocassion. I have heard very hot interactions like I used for example. I was a litte confused by E Faves reference to your conversation. I just ran with what thought I understood about E Faves reference.

I had not read your post nor was I trying to start a new chain on the subject. I was not targeting my post at you nor anyone; just targeting a topic and any of those whose foot size fit the virtual "shoes" I tossed into the virtual world.

Thanks for stepping in to introduce yourself!

RB

For me, my reaction to somene telling me they are going to pray for me is based on what I think their primary motivation is. There are those who say these things to me, and what I think they are actually saying is "I care about you so much that I am willing to do what I think offers the best chance that things will go well for you." with these folks, I just say "thanks," and really mean it.

But, there are others who seem to be condescending to me by praying on my behalf, as if they are really saying, "you are so pathetic in your non-belief, or your sinful lifestyle, that if I do not implore God on your behalf, you are surely lost. Oh how great am I." And to these people, I say, "don't put yourself out buddy."

RB –

No, I didn’t realize your dialogue was purposeful hyperbole. Thanks for explaining it.

Interesting that you’ve seen non-believers get so heated-up about being prayed for. I’d never seen them react at all, until I saw Mr Marks’ response. If you have any real-life (or virtual) examples at hand, I like like to hear them.

Let us know about the MRI – you’ve got a few people here thinking about you now.

MR MARK -

Nice to see you here. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I do think you’re on to something trying to help people understand the impact of their words. Some interactions are such social conventions that people simply don’t notice the subtext.

The only example I can think of right now is from the anti-smoking campaign. If you’re old enough, you’ll remember when it was an absolute social convention to smoke just about anywhere except in a hospital room with an oxygen tent. Even people who didn’t smoke had ashtrays in their homes for guests. Asking smokers to step outside to smoke would have been beyond rude – it was simply unheard of. We all know how much that’s changed. And consider that smoking had no redeeming qualities, except that a lot of people enjoyed it. It stinks, it’s addictive, it’s unhealthy. That was generally acknowledged– even by smokers.

Of course there are huge differences between offering prayers to non-believers and lighting up in an otherwise smoke-free home (a term not even used in the old days). The important similarity, though, in my mind, is that the behaviors are so ingrained in our society that both cases there is no perception of a problem from people on either side of the issue and there’s no socially acceptable way of addressing it.

RB is right – this is not the most important thing believers and non-believers could be talking about, but maybe it’s a start toward a new social convention – that will impact more important issues down the road.

RB: 1st of all, I am with you on the scan results. A member of my family is in the same spot, and the anxiety gets particularly acute at that moment. I am a big supporter of the Livestrong Foundation, they do great work!

As for my question, based on this section of your post: "just talk to those who are open to share their personal stories and listen and reflect deeply. Read the Bible for yourself, ask lots of questions, listen to your heart, reflect on what you read"

RB says:
I think that's fine, except anti-semitism is not a religion that I know of (except maybe books from "skinheads"?) note: Protocols of the Elders of Zion for instance.

People can follow their convictions and sell and recommend books, knock on doors or whatever. I am in no way opposed to others sharing their own worldviews/ religions."

My point is that this is almost exactly what a few Muslims on other sites have told me was the source of their "knowledge" that allah supported honor killings, the stoning of adultresses, and the beheading of apostates. They assured me that if I would read the Koran with an open heart and mind, I would see that these things were morally correct.

As you know, I both distrust and fear what many people "hear" when they listen to their hearts about what to believe and what to do.

Regards,

Dear E Fav & RB -

One of my posts from another thread has been quoted here, so I thought I should contribute something.

I offered my original response to Deanna because I sensed from her writing that she hadn't really considered what the impact of her words were from the perspective of the non-believer. Her measured and understanding response to what I wrote indicated that I was correct. The only effect I wanted to get from my post was to - hopefully - have a believer stop for a second and consider what they were saying, and to enter into a dialogue. I accomplished that. It wasn't meant as a be-a-and-end-all question, but as an ice breaker.

Ice breaker responses by their nature can't always be nuanced. The nuance comes in the ensuing dialogue, and the dialogue that I had with Deanna on this subject was very civil and instructive. There's every chance that Deanna may well think about it for a few weeks and decide that she stands by her praying for NBs and will continue to do it publicly, or maybe she'll modify her behavior. That's fine with me as I'm interested in having a conversation, not in winning every argument.

When RB characterizes my response to Deanna by saying, "To me, this is one of the most absolutely ridiculous, childish conversation/retorts possible. This is not at all a new type of interaction," there is some truth to it. But my remark was not directed at RB. I think that RB needs to remember that what seems a tired old argument to him may be eye opening to someone else.

Let me posit a similar situation in a religious context. Many Xians have been scared into their faith by the old fire-n-brimstone preaching that's says, "Yer goin' ta hell!!! Repent!!!" A decade down the believer's road, such an unnuanced stance may seem quite "ridiculous and childish" in discussing one's now-deeper faith. In fact, many believers have told me that their becoming a Xian out of the fear of going to hell had the effect of them missing the whole point of Xian love for years on end, and that they wished that they had been brought into their faith through a message of love, rather than fear. Yet, they have no problem crediting the fire-n-brimstone talk for opening their eyes and getting them into the faith to begin with.

Bottom line: there's nothing nuanced about firing a shot across the bow.

BTW RB - if we're to reject out of hand any interactions that are "not at all a new type of interaction," then I suggest we start by discarding any conversations that have been going on for, oh, let's say, over 2,000 years, and go from there.

As far as responding to this sex thread, I don't have much interest in it except to rain scorn on the religionists for trying their best to vilify something that is natural among all species. I leave you with two thoughts on sex:

1. Homo sapiens did and could again thrive as a species without the extremely negative baggage of religion. On the other hand, to exist as a species without sex?...er, not so much.

2. As Woody Allen once remarked when asked if he thought sex was dirty: "It is...when it's done right."

Maybe that's why Xians aver that they have the best sex of all - because they consider that it's all basically dirty. :)

Phaedrus refers to my (RB's)post:
RB said:
"You (scientists and everyone else) don’t have to assume anything…just talk to those who are open to share their personal stories and listen and reflect deeply. Read the Bible for yourself, ask lots of questions, listen to your heart, reflect on what you read [read lots of other books ... or books that are recommended to you."

Phaedrus says: "RB: What would be your reply to someone who, substituting the appropriate book in place of "Bible," used this statement to argue for Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, anti-semitism, etc

RB says:
I think that's fine, except anti-semitism is not a religion that I know of (except maybe books from "skinheads"?)

People can follow their convictions and sell and recommend books, knock on doors or whatever. I am in no way opposed to others sharing their own worldviews/ religions. It would be terribly hypocritical of me to say otherwise. Some people's hearts and explorations may not lead them to Christ.

I certainly have no control on what happens on their journey. All I do is (if someone is curious about something they hear (from me) while interacting with them, I am then willing to chat about my own journey. It's up to them as to where they go during or after our chat(s).

I cannot "convert" anyone. Nor do I try. I share when asked. I listen to them and go with the "flow". I know God's Spirit works in and thru me. It will do its work only if there is a receptive heart.

I would tell anyone the same thing (i.e. talk to people, listen to their stories and experiences, read lots of books,etc.) People need to make informed decisions. In fact, I would encourage that for anyone who is really searching. Let them go where they go and see where (eventually) settle.

Hope that answers your question!

RB

E Fave,
I hope you understood that I purposely used a bit of hyperbole for my SAMPLE/EXAMPLE of a dialog that often goes way beyond Mark's. I was not directing those examples to you (or anyone else specifically). It was just an example of how heated NB's can get. Personally,I am more upset at my fellow B's when things get to the point when NB's feel attacked. But as I passionately conveyed, with a little less "reaction" and more "response" from NB's, hopefully B's will wisen up a bit more before they offer any prayers.

I hope this clears things up. I never despised you. I really appreciate you!

My MRI is done, but I have yet to look at the CD digital images...always a bit nervous about that.

RB

RB -- after reading your response, it seems pretty obvious that my post did not work out as well as the post from “Mr Mark” that I modeled it on. My clue is your use of terms like “despise” “how dare you” “insulting and arrogant” and “sling the stones.”

I don’t despise you at all. I assumed you were trying to be kind and didn’t realize that something meant as a kind gesture might not be not be taken as such. I thought you might like to know. I was thinking in terms of consciousness raising. Like I say, it worked for Mr Mark.

If you told someone you were praying to Jesus for them and they told you they were Jewish and didn’t believe in Jesus, I wonder if you’d be offended or perhaps grateful to know, so you wouldn’t put either one of you in that awkward position again.

What about if you offered someone a certain type of food and they said they were allergic to it? Would you get angry with them because they didn’t appreciate your offer or would you perhaps offer them something they could eat?

I can see, too, from some of your closing remarks, that you’re open to the thinking about this more positively: “Hopefully the B’s will be less (arrogant if they are) and much more discerning & respectful about interacting with people that differ in belief”

Also, as you say, there are more “critical issues” between believers and non-believers. Still, I think it’s also important to get some of this basic stuff out in the open, I really do. Just as you’ll keep praying, I’ll keep trying to get the word out.

Wishing you good news on your annual scan.

"You (scientists and everyone else) don’t have to assume anything…just talk to those who are open to share their personal stories and listen and reflect deeply. Read the Bible for yourself, ask lots of questions, listen to your heart, reflect on what you read [read lots of other books ... or books that are recommended to you."

RB: What would be your reply to someone who, substituting the appropriate book in place of "Bible," used this statement to argue for Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, anti-semitism, etc.?

Toni refers to RB’s quote:
"The bad news is that God (as described in the Bible) is a Righteous God (i.e. a Just Judge)"

Tonio says:
“My point is that a righteous being does not act in unrighteous ways. If I had been Abraham, at the end of the so-called "test" I would have felt so deeply betrayed that I would have lost whatever trust I might have had in anything God said or did. No matter how much God would claim afterward to be a God of loving mercy, I would always have the memory of the terror of almost losing my son, as well as the humiliation of being jerked around.”

Even if I agreed that the point of the "test" was loyalty, it still seems like a sick, twisted sense of loyalty that God wanted. The first half of the Ten Commandments describe God as jealous, insanely so in my view. Jealousy is not about love, it is about the desire to control.

RB says: Tonio, this story is indeed troubling to many. It’s rooted directly to the calling of Abraham – a man whom God chose for one of the biggest of jobs. (Read from where Abe 1st steps in “stage left”, if you haven’t already), this narrative sets the stage for generations to come. It is in some ways the archetype for the future Israelites and their millennia of “tests” of faith (by God).

This particular narrative is not just merely about loyalty but especially about faith and obedience. (Something much more than loyalty). If we place ourselves in Abe’s sandal (and if you happen to be a dad), this story is tremendously powerful and impacting.

One of the greater challenges when reading any one subset of the bigger Story is being willing to first be fully “caught” in the fullness of the narrative and let it play out fully. It’s hard not to get caught in this particular story. Certainly there are a number of different things that can be gleaned in the story…but…

Throughout Scripture, God’s character is revealed in numerous ways & in numerous settings. We gain insight early on in Genesis. We gain more in this story. We gain more in the next. Sooner or later we stumble onto a character quality that “rocks our boat” in a very big way.

In this passage, all that we bring to the table; all our preconceptions, presuppositions, tinted and tainted glasses are sliced open with knife held in Abe’s hand. We are “caught” mouth wide open (as I’m pretty sure Abe was too!). But, if we backtrack a bit…and remember…

God was the Great Creator in Gen. 1. God walked in the garden with A & E. God gave the garden. God punished A & E , clothed A& E before banishing them. God drown the many and saved the few…and on and on until this (another) crucial, frightening, much more personal story about father and beloved son [see quasi- parallel: God, Jesus, testing, crucifixion].

By this time in the narrative we already have seen a number of contrasting vignettes with re: to God’s character. This dagger moment is not really any different in that it (just) gives one more piece of information – though it is a BIG piece. But in the context of what preceded and what soon follows, it really only shows us one more piece of the “puzzled and puzzling portrait” of a God who continues to reveal himself little by little.

Narratives (as opposed to wisdom literature or Psalms, or letters, and other literary genre) must first be read as narratives/story. When we do so we are swept fully into the story without (too much) pause. We feel the fear, we sweat the sweat, we are in Abe’s head…we are “caught”. These moments in this narrative are (not yet) theological moments. They are just amazingly powerful, unpredictable and mind-blowing moments…”Oh my god, how can He make me do this!”(Inside Abe’s head)…

The narrative doesn’t stop for theological assessment, critique or commentary. It is what is. The story just rolls on with hardly break (till the lamb shows up- another glimpse ahead to Jesus) and we breath again.

Learning about the fullness of God’s character REQUIRES reading the Whole “Story” because it unfolds, refolds, gets (us) tied in knots, knocks our socks off, and ultimately turns almost all our preconceived notions of God inside out and flushes them down the drain. Paradoxically, even in the end when we have finished the complete Story, we will still be left with a bit more perplexity than we’d like.

But what we will have clearly learned is that though we know a lot more about God’s character than we did in Genesis chapter one verse one, we aren’t quite sure whether not we like what we have learned…the contrasts in character are “off the chart”.

At that moment, if we choose to re-read or re-remember the last couple chapters of Job, we will once again be slapped in the face with that unwelcome, way too humbling, summative reprise: “Where were you when I made…”

One can never be freed from the theological “tensions” that pull us from side to side as we read and re-read the Bible. The peaceful rest comes only in finally recognizing that God is who He is, not who we think He is, not what we think He should be. Maybe not what we hoped He would be – He just is.

This simple truth speaks out from a burning bush in the presence of an old and terribly frightened man – Moses, early in God’s Story.

Theology is addressed throughout scripture but especially in the NT.

TONIO refers to RB’s quote”
"An all-powerful God should make us 'quake' in our shoes."

Tonio Says: “No. Fear is incompatible with love. You cannot love them and cause them to fear you at the same time, and you cannot love someone and fear them at the same time.”

RB says; [quick response: yes you can. (I know, that answer doesn’t help but…you will find it to be true)

Read again what I wrote above. Even in the OT it is very clear that God is a God to be feared AND that He is a God of and that love(s). AND that even old father Abe both feared and loved God – simultaneously, while on mtn top. Abe loved God enough to obey the most horrendous of demands while surely peeing his toga. AND the, at first glance, “horrible” event ends on a “really good note”.

There is a difference between “jerking Abe around” and testing Abe’s faith as preparation to become seed of all future generations. (I know, I really have not eased your mind…)

Without spending another 2 hours writing (I’m not copping out here), let me just say with full sincerity, that though this and many other terrible “tensions” exist, they are indeed addressed throughout Scripture.

The “really big problem” is (bottom line); unless you can live with a God who perplexes the minds of His creatures and whose character is full of paradoxes, things can be quite unsettling for quite some time.

I never try to sweep away nor rationalize away the “tensions”. It’s in the midst of the “journey” one begins to understand some, be “OK” with some, and with some you may grapple every day of your journey. It can be FUN if you like dancing on the edge (the title of a book I wrote about life)

The classic “cop-out” is for me to tell you that all you need is a lot of faith. But in spite of its patronizing “feel”, truth be told, no matter how many “tensions” are relieved or not, there will never be a time when all such “tensions” will be relieved even with all the faith in the world. So despite that cruel truth…you STILL need a lot of faith to live with the unresolved, leftovers.

Tonio refers to RB’s quote:
"As for 'getting into trouble'…that’s the unavoidable dilemma of what’s called the 'Human Condition'."

Tonio says: “I define "getting into trouble" as displeasing an authority figure, as opposed to doing wrong through selfishness or errors in judgment.”

RB says it’s 11:14pm PST…but I’ll try to respond…though I am unclear…
well 10 more minutes have past, still no idea on how to respond…still unclear.

If it is important to you for me to respond, please explain in another post.

Keep me in your prayers (if you will) I get to put my previously cancered brain back into the MRI for my annual SCAN. Just so you know: had brain surgery Oct. 1998…still tickin…but each time I go back in the oven, you never quite know what you’ll find once your out again…scary…need lots o faith!
ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz…..

I truly apologize for posting to OMG without catching the missing paragraph breaks... I really am tired.
RB (AKA Bob)

the previous post is from RB

E FAVORITE: QUOTES RB
"RB: “All I can do is share, invite and pray that you might one day come to know and be known by the Creator.
"To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we do not see." (Hebrews chapter 11, verse one)
Blessings from one of many believers.”
E Fave says: “RB – I also appreciate your contributions. What follows is a reworking of your above comments, from the perspective of a non-believer:

“All I can do is share, invite and hope that you might one day come to understand and appreciate the great and ongoing accomplishments of humanity and the wonders of the universe, without seeing it through the lens of belief in a supernatural deity and stories written in an ancient book."

RB says: Whoa Nelly…what?! Sorry, this is a rough way for you to start…I’m already befuddled.

E Fave continues:
‘So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.’ Bertrand Russell, Atheist British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)
Best wishes from one of many non-believers.”

RB says: Huh?

Fave continues: “The idea to do this was not original; I’m borrowing from a non-believer on another “On Faith” thread, in a very civil discussion with a believer about a prayer she offered to him.
Believer: "I pray that someday you will hear God's voice calling from within you, asking you, His beloved child, to come home. Until that happens, I pray God will hold you in His hand and protect your soul."
Non-Believer: “I hope that someday you will realize that there is no god and that the voice you hear calling to you is your imagination, reinforced by a lifetime of religious indoctrination.
“Is that statement too harsh? Then consider this: from the standpoint of a non-believer, it's no more harsh than your statement that immediately preceded it.” Mr Mark
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2006/12/who_was_jesus/comments
RB, I repeat this in hopes that it’s helpful in believers’ and non-believers’ efforts to communicate. I do think some of us are trying very hard. It isn’t always easy.”

RB smiles a peculiar smile and says with outrageous passion:

I think I get the “point!?” The concept of having a “believer” say they will pray for the “non-believer” and the non-believer’s retort (basically) thinking/saying/implying, “Well, ‘how dare you!’ ‘Who are YOU to think I need or want your prayers…how insulting and arrogant?’…”here’s what I’ll pray for YOU….yadda,yadda,yadda”.

To me, this is one of the most absolutely ridiculous, childish conversation/retorts possible. This is not at all a new type of interaction. It plays like an old LP (for you young-ins, a big CD).

I’m going to take risk here:
Let me clarify. For all those who are non-believers (NB’s) who despise people who want to pray for them – [Bear with me NB’s for a moment] “Get over it!” My gosh, as though their prayers will kill you. Why let it bother you at all? “Sticks and stones…” As for the arrogance of it all, be pissed if you like. Prayers are innocuous for any one who has one thrown their way. Toss it back if you like (as exemplified in E Fave above)

What is the big deal? ... This type of interaction is so trite. Let me say however I am NOT (totally) unsympathetic to the non-believer in such a situation. Beyond what I say to them…

I say to the believer (B’s) “Think before you speak!” “YOU know that a ‘blessing hurled in the morning can seem or be a curse to your neighbor’ (paraphrased, re-read Proverbs)” “Use your noggin. If you think a person would like prayer; ask. If you read the situation wrong, the curse is set free. However, [try not to get too upset by this –NB’s] let them go on their way as you go your way and pray for them (anyway) in the privacy of your own home (what non-believers don’t know about can’t hurt them…or you)”

Clarification for the NB’s:
We B’s pray for B’s and NB’s alike. We pray for both because we love them both.

I know this sort of thing really ticks off a lot of NB’s but I must be honest, there’s nothing NB’s can do to prevent B’s from praying. It just won’t happen. I’m sorry; I wish it didn’t piss off PB's

SO…sling the stones and break my bones… OR just let it rest. There are much more critical topics/issues to chat about between B’s & NB’s. Hopefully the “B’s will be less (arrogant if they are) and much more discerning & respectful about interacting with people that differ in belief.

On the flip side NB’s, give the B’s a break or at least “gently share” your retort so they gain better clarity re: your thoughts and feelings re: their prayers. We B’s aren’t always “sin free” when it comes to chatting it up NB’s (as I am sure you know!).

RB says he’s a tired B and hopes he hasn’t ticked off too many NB’s

No matter, he’ll still keep praying…

RB,

"The bad news is that God (as described in the Bible) is a Righteous God (i.e. a Just Judge)"

My point is that a righteous being does not act in unrighteous ways. If I had been Abraham, at the end of the so-called "test" I would have felt so deeply betrayed that I would have lost whatever trust I might have had in anything God said or did. No matter how much God would claim afterward to be a God of loving mercy, I would always have the memory of the terror of almost losing my son, as well as the humiliation of being jerked around.

Even if I agreed that the point of the "test" was loyalty, it still seems like a sick, twisted sense of loyalty that God wanted. The first half of the Ten Commandments describe God as jealous, insanely so in my view. Jealousy is not about love, it is about the desire to control.

"An all-powerful God should make us 'quake' in our shoes."

No. Fear is incompatible with love. You cannot love them and cause them to fear you at the same time, and you cannot love someone and fear them at the same time.

"As for 'getting into trouble'…that’s the unavoidable dilemma of what’s called the 'Human Condition'."

I define "getting into trouble" as displeasing an authority figure, as opposed to doing wrong through selfishness or errors in judgment.

OH MY GOD!:
to RB,
OMG says: “Your posting is interesting, could you please comment on the following:
You said, "For me - from my personal belief system - the "bridge" (at least in some ways) can be crossed from either side (and back and forth); the bridge does not set forth an "either/or" option necessarily, but (for at least some), a "both/and" option. [Later, this concept, (I predict), you would heartily challenge]"
I personally do not challenge the crossing, but my understanding (I'm not a religion scholar nor a scientist) is that if you belong to a religion based on the books, sure they will challenge you, and in extreme cases they may kill you.
You are not allowed to doubt or assume god does not exists.”
RB responds:
No where in the Bible, or in Church history or in Church doctrine, or anywhere else does it say one can not doubt. Doubt is a part of our human condition.
I believe one can never fully rise above doubt (i.e. not in this life)
Doubt comes into play probably as often in the life of a Christian who has made their “walk across the bridge” or “taken the leap of faith”, as someone who has not made that leap.
Doubts can however be alleviated or at least lessened in many ways. For a Christian who lives by faith in their understanding of the nature of God and His promises, the mere act of re-remembering, (re-reading), those understandings and promises provides many with a renewing of assurance, faith, hope and encouragement. The “body” (i.e. the community of believers) also can provide that. The mystery and power of prayer often provides new assurances and reassurances. The act of worship (like prayer) is another source of quelling doubts.
BUT, no matter what, there will be doubts. The “perfect Christian” would not have any doubts. There are no perfect Christians. There are however Christians (all of them) who are being “perfected” day by day. Doubt will be present in decreasing measure during this life-long process…as faith grows, doubt diminishes.
However, this “reduction” of doubt of over time is definitely not consistent or linear. Throw in a huge disaster in one’s life and all the stored up assurances & hope can go by the wayside; maybe requiring a “whole new start” of being reassured and renewed in faith and belief. It can take long time to recover. Some don’t (for many reasons) and fall away; maybe forever, maybe for just a time.
Christian’s are always susceptible to doubt but over time many come to be “OK” with it. This is primarily true because doubt turns a Christian back to God; to return to the ultimate source of reassurance.
The book of Job is the most unsettling and most informative to the reader with regard to doubt. Job had EVERY right to doubt God’s promises, and curse him. But the story is about one whom in spite of terrible circumstances, holds on by his teeth…however, the real “kicker” comes in the end!
OMG says “…You ask scientists to assume that god exists in order to explore or investigate a matter of spirituality. Have you, being a member of a religion, assumed that god do not exists just to further your scientific researches? “
RB says:
You (scientists and everyone else) don’t have to assume anything…just talk to those who are open to share their personal stories and listen and reflect deeply. Read the Bible for yourself, ask lots of questions, listen to your heart, reflect on what you read [read lots of other books (e.g. church history, critics, etc.) or books that are recommended to you. Often, a particular author will write something that will –in reading- change your life in an instant), try praying alone and also with others (you never know exactly where prayer will take you but the “journey” can be quiet enlightening).

As for your last question: I had an internal, intuitive sense of God presence and faith in Him from as far back as I can remember. I was always interested in learning about God. Even in the midst my own greatest hardships have (yet) to come close to doubting/ losing my faith.

My faith in God grew totally in “lock step” with my scientific curiosity and pursuits. Once my faith was “operating”, setting God aside was not possible.
Besides, why would I if I could?

My faith gives me an infinite framework to be able to explore the infinite - any and all things that are explorable. I can grapple with Quantum Physics and Chicken/Egg conundrums. All I need to know is that there is One who is in control, One who holds the universe together, One who loves me (and who I love), One who knows what I need and provides it, One who knows me better than any other, On who gives me grace when I need, One who I know will bring me into his presence in a whole new way, when the time comes, One who allows all my questions, One who allows me to try to “interpret” Him and One who teaches me how to be interpreted and translated by Him.

Will there be discoveries that will challenge my faith? Sure, will I have doubts? Of course

For me and many others- in the end – the fullest meaning and hope can only come from Him.

I see Him in the Ort Cloud and in the MRI films of my brain, where once there was cancer. I see his handiwork in everything. What better eyes for a scientist to have?!

RB

Tonio,

Tonio says: "...First, Christianity might be wrong on what "something more" might be. In fact all religions might be wrong in their descriptions of the divine."

Bob responds:
In all honesty I agree with the 1st portion of what you say.
We all might be wrong in everything or wrong in some things

Or some might be wrong in everything or wrong in some things

Or some might right in all things (highly unlikely in my opinion)

However, I cannot be wrong with regard to my personal experience or in my ability to describe those personal experiences (as best I can). That I believe is true for everyone.

No one (I believe) can escape this existential dilemma

Tonio says:
“Second, the God of the Old Testament and Revelations does not seem loving to me. It's partly that God is described as destroying the human race by drowning or fire, and ordering his worshipers to commit genocide, and emotionally manipulating Abraham and Job.”

Bob responds:
[General Note: for all potential critics, I speak of what is written in the Bible. I am not willing at this time and in this forum to be sidetracked with regard to the multitude of other side issues. My responses to Tonio are meant to be quick informative bullet points and my personal comments/responses and not debate points]

Tonio:
-The good news is in ALL the details (Genesis thru Revelations) and how those details manifest in human heart
-The bad news is that God (as described in the Bible) is a Righteous God (i.e. a Just Judge)

-The good news is that God is a Righteous God (i.e. a Just Judge)

-The good news is that God is a God of Loving Mercy & Grace

-The good news is that there is much more good news than bad

- The bad news is that Bible does not give all the answers

-The good news is that the Bible provides sufficient answers (i.e. enough so that one can make a relatively informed decision regarding whether or not to take the step of faith).

- The good news is one need not quit asking questions while "walking by faith"

- The bad news is that one must be prepared to answer God's questions (e.g. read Job in its entirety)

**See definition of “faith” posted previously.

Tonio Says:
"Third, the idea of an all-powerful supreme being who knows everything that I'm doing and thinking is immensely terrifying to me. With that kind of hyper-attention, I feel like I'm going to get in trouble with God no matter what I do."

Bob responds:
Indeed, those are valid/to be expected feelings. An all-powerful God should make us “quake” in our shoes. However, with an understanding of the fullness of his character (e.g. read above) one will also find shalom (peace). As for "getting into trouble"…that’s the unavoidable dilemma of what’s called the “Human Condition”. The good news is that God is both Just and Merciful; a God full of Grace. There is provision for all our foibles, fallibilities and “sins”.

RB

RB: “All I can do is share, invite and pray that you might one day come to know and be known by the Creator.

"To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we do not see." (Hebrews chapter 11, verse one)

Blessings from one of many believers.”

RB – I also appreciate your contributions. What follows is a reworking of your above comments, from the perspective of a non-believer:

“All I can do is share, invite and hope that you might one day come to understand and appreciate the great and ongoing accomplishments of humanity and the wonders of the universe, without seeing it through the lens of belief in a supernatural deity and stories written in an ancient book.

‘So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.’
Bertrand Russell, Atheist British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

Best wishes from one of many non-believers.”

The idea to do this was not original, I’m borrowing from a non-believer on another “On Faith” thread, in a very civil discussion with a believer about a prayer she offered to him.

Believer: "I pray that someday you will hear God's voice calling from within you, asking you, His beloved child, to come home. Until that happens, I pray God will hold you in His hand and protect your soul."
Non-Believer: “I hope that someday you will realize that there is no god and that the voice you hear calling to you is your imagination, reinforced by a lifetime of religious indoctrination.

“Is that statement too harsh? Then consider this: from the standpoint of a non-believer, it's no more harsh than your statement that immediately preceded it.” Mr Mark
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2006/12/who_was_jesus/comments

RB, I repeat this in hopes that it’s helpful in believers’ and non-believers’ efforts to communicate. I do think some of us are trying very hard. It isn’t always easy.

to RB,

Your posting is interestind, could you please comment on the following:

You said, "For me - from my personal belief system - the "bridge" (at least in some ways) can be crossed from either side (and back and forth); the bridge does not set forth an "either/or" option necessarily, but (for at least some), a "both/and" option. [Later, this concept, (I predict), you would heartily challenge]"

I personally do not challenge the crossing, but my understanding (I'm not a religion scholar nor a scientist) is that if you belong to a religion based on the books, sure they will challenge you, and in extreme cases they may kill you. You are not allowed to doubt or assume god does not exists.

You ask scientits to assume that god exists in order to explore or investigate a matter of spirituality. Have you, being a member of a religion, assumed that god do not exists just to further your scientific researches?

To R.B.

"Starting as teen I became deeply immersed in informal and formal scientific research: starting with Desert Ecology (ethology, geology, botany and local anthropology, I worked in Joshua Tree Natl. Park as a VIP (Volunteer in Park). I assisted Park researchers, provided desert-related educational programs to park visitors and did my own informal animal behavior "research".

Right after high school, I spent a summer working on the Juneau Icefield as a research assistant for numerous world class glaciologists and early "global warming" researchers."

Comment: Though it is one of the "7 Deadlies," I must say that I envy you these experiences. I was in JT in 97, and it is glorious. Plan to go to AK in the next couple of years.

I should also mention that I am a clinical psychologist, with an MBA, and a minor in philosophy. I have enjoyed our exchange, and hope to see you and Jeff on future threads.

"I follow my convictions and calling to share, as best I can, that there is 'something more'...the existence a loving God, a God that invites all to enter into his presence."

I can understand that part, RB. I disagree on several points - First, Christianity might be wrong on what "something more" might be. In fact all religions might be wrong in their descriptions of the divine. Second, the God of the Old Testament and Revelations does not seem loving to me. It's partly that God is described as destroying the human race by drowning or fire, and ordering his worshipers to commit genocide, and emotionally manipulating Abraham and Job. Third, the idea of an all-powerful supreme being who knows everything that I'm doing and thinking, is immensely terrifying to me. With that kind of hyperattention, I feel like I'm going to get in trouble with God no matter what I do.

Phaedrus,

I appreciate you as well. Thanks for sharing with us this week.

Best regards,

Jeff

RB,

I appreciate you, Brother!

Jeff

Please forgive me for writing such a terribly long post (above). I felt the need to more fully address many of the issues that have been presented - especially Phaedrus' very articulate,and knowlegable responses to me and others of my "ilk".

If it were not for the "danger" of including my email address in my posts, I would much prefer taking some of my responses and dialog offline.

I've stated my views on sex, morality and most recently in the above listed "tome" - the "bigger picture". There have been many critiques of my beliefs; all of which are appreciated (except for one 3 word attact/outrageous dimissal of my "being/existence")

Thanks for your views. Thanks for reading mine.

As a Christian immersed (as a "minority")in this sea of folks who are primarily (seemingly at least) "hostile" (not in a bad way) with regard to theology, spirituality, etc. There are a few of us Christians in the sea and for that I am encouraged. Too few Christians choose to enter a forum like this (for a variety of reasons).

My primary goal was to inject as best I could this Christian's thoughts and beliefs. I don't have any sense that anyone was convinced by some of my ideas & "arguments", but that's ok.

I follow my convictions and calling to share, as best I can, that there is "something more"...the existence a loving God, a God that invites all to enter into his presence. Many have entered into that glorious & mysterious relationship - many have not.

All I can do is share, invite and pray that you might one day come to know and be known by the Creator.

"To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we do not see." (Hebrews chapter 11, verse one)

Blessings from one of many believers.

RB

Phaedrus and RB,

Echoing Phaedrus, the people I know who are most struck with the wonder of the universe are often scientists. You can call it what you like (e.g. spiritual, etc.), but every time I truly understand something knew, I'm more filled with a sense of awe and transcendence. I don't attribute it to god or some other spiritual dimension, I just sit there in wonder.

On a related point, those who take the bible literally, really don't do justice to the universe. If there is a god (which I don't believe) and he knows what he's created, then he is mad as hell that people who call themselves true believers completely misrepresent his creation in such an infantile way. The biblical description of the universe does no justice to it.

Hi Phaedrus
You say;
"Comment: No offense intended, but I could never quite understand why reliance on verifiable and falsifiable data was in some way LESS "humble" than completely trusting a personal and internal feeling state that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable, just personally experienced. Seems to me that the humility is on the side of those who establish their positions, and are open to changing them as well, based on firm information. "

The "human heart" has proven itself to be a rather poor source of "knowledge" over time."

This particular response helps me a lot. It gives me a bit more opportunity to maybe clear up a few things.

1. I have poorly communicated...I indeed, strongly believe that scientists can & should be (by requirement of their vocation) humble. And I am very sure many are indeed humble (generally speaking); others may be less so as represented in a general distributional demographic.

My poorly framed comments regarding "humility" center around being able temporarily set aside the falsifiable/nonfalsifiable quantitative assessments for the sake of using a qualitative approach to explore a much more "soft" subject (i.e. for lack of better words - the super-natural world).

For a "technical" scientist", this exploration I believe, requires taking off their metaphorical lab coat while still maintaining their innate curiosity, keen observational and intuitive skills & "open mind and heart", and utilize a methodological approach that is common, in part, to sociologists, psychologists, and in a bit different manner, philosophers.

Though each of these relatively "soft" approaches often ends with statistical assessments (except that philosophers use logic statements) for the sake of professional recognition and formal (credible) contribution to society, preliminary methods are generally less lab-based.

Researching propositional statements (e.g. via surveys) from individuals who claim legitimate knowledge and experience of the super-natural and philosophical realm requires an immersion both in the subject/topic at large as well as with the "subjects" themselves. This process of immersion still remains in the realm of science.

In due course the researcher documents their findings many of which include both anecdotal and quantitative data. The sociologist then does their statistical stuff so as to report findings.
Those reports record human phenomonological experiences, many of which, in this case, would indicate commonalities as well as non-commonalities)

At this point I believe, if the researcher were investigating not solely for academic reasons but also personal, they may then find themselves at a crossroad between continuing their exploration for personal reasons (and at a much more personal "level") OR return, to publish and move on.

Some, at this point, do choose to acknowledge the apparent and potential (i.e. to the researcher) legitimacy of their former "subjects" shared experiences; those that may be "tangible" but not quantifiable.

Depending on the degree of impact (i.e. on the "researcher") by those individuals' personal accounts and by any ideas presented (e.g. via textual information) and researched directly by the investigator, the exploratory journey may lead in many directions. If by chance the researcher has their own "spiritual encounter", other choices need to be made; "go with the 'flow' and see where the metaphorical river leads OR maybe back away if what they experience is undesirable in some way.

My use of the concept of a "bridge", like all metaphors, has its limitations. However, such a bridge does need to be crossed so as to be willing and able to explore new territory in new ways. My bridge metaphor can be ambiguous to some or misunderstood without context...so...

For me - from my personal belief system - the "bridge" (at least in some ways) can be crossed from either side (and back and forth); the bridge does not set forth an "either/or" option necessarily, but (for at least some), a "both/and" option. [Later, this concept, (I predict), you would heartily challenge]

In general though, I believe crossing over requires a somewhat different kind of humility - a humble willingness to explore, first hand something that you may not end up finding and/or believing - a humility that says, "I do not currently believe in God nor any related "spiritual stuff” but I am truly willing temporarily suspend any current disbelief and let go of the "baggage" that might prevent honest inquiry, so as to enter a new place of learning.

This is the humility of which I speak.

This academic approach of looking for God is by no means the sole means of approaching the topic and task. For some (actually for many) science can easily "get in the way", disallowing God's ability to approach a "researcher" directly (read C.S. Lewis's "Surprised by Joy" as one example)

Bottom line is that at some point a decision based on faith is required. Cognitive acceptance is not enough, though it can and certainly has propelled many to take the leap of faith required to fully experience a whole different world.

This, I would propose is the universal requirement for entering into any spiritual journey and is lived and expressed via some kind of inner and/or communal religious expression.

Starting as teen I became deeply immersed in informal and formal scientific research: starting with Desert Ecology (ethology, geology, botany and local anthropology, I worked in Joshua Tree Natl. Park as a VIP (Volunteer in Park). I assisted Park researchers, provided desert-related educational programs to park visitors and did my own informal animal behavior "research".

Right after high school, I spent a summer working on the Juneau Icefield as a research assistant for numerous world class glaciologists and early "global warming" researchers.

During my college years, I worked as an itinerant science educator in schools and public science centers. And finally right after graduating I worked ten years in the Biology Department at the University of Washington as a life science proctor/tutor and manager of a life science learning resource center.

My love for scientific inquiry now is as strong as it was many years ago.

I grew strong in my Christian faith during this extended period of time and had wonderful opportunities to have very "stimulating" conversations with many research and teaching professors - both Christian & non-Christian alike. I gained respect from my much more scholarly friends for my ability to articulate how I integrate my faith in God with my relatively substantial experiences and understanding of scientific pursuits.

Most of my academic colleagues did not disallow the possibility of one's being able to live in "both worlds" (as I did & do) without compromising any significant "issues" pertinent to both science and spirituality. Some of course thoroughly disagreed with me.

I did however have more than a few non-Christian colleagues who were captivated a bit with my ability to reason with them in a way that did more than "perk their interests". Where they ultimately went with their curiosities (sometime down the road), I do not know.

I share my experiences and knowledge (both scientific and spiritual) with those open to exploring with me or on their own.

I actively pursue this divine pursuit with an integrity based in part on my first hand understanding and experience of the gloriously complex and yet paradoxically simple world AND the glorious simplicity of a Truth that provides the "framework" upon which to hang a tapestry that captures the fullness of life.

Again, to view the tapestry one must risk being surprised by what they find and experience and be humble enough to allow God to draw near.

I speak of course from my own Christian experience.

E. Favorite,

Thanks for the reminder. I just put your reference on my Favorites' list.

Ambassador -

Before you dismiss the mythical OT info, Do as I did and stop by a conservative temple on a Friday night and check out page 1343 of the Etz Hayim (‘Tree of Life’). That's where the section on Biblical Archeology begins - and covers everything "Concerned" mentioned. It's a big book with a red cover. In the temple I went to, there were several copies in each pew. The info is way in the back where people don’t notice. The book reads back to front. The book might also be available in libraries or bookstores – I haven’t checked.

By the way, the NY Times just reported about the OT and that other research study you mentioned, it didn’t do the original research. I assume many other newspapers reported on that research too.

If you want more on OT Archeology, see Jewish archeology scholars Finkelstein and Silberman’s “The Bible Unearthed” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=

Concerned -- as I suggested on another thread, please consider changing your link for OT archeology story to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
It just reproduces the article, without commentary, and links to the original newspaper print version.

Ambassador,

Hmmmm, 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis and their take on the mythical OT vs. data on the # of married females in the contemporary USA??? Talk about apples and oranges!!!!!

Then Phaedrus, examine "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" as a scientific, rigorous thinker before you dismiss those people trying to point you to something good.

Thank yu Jeff, I do, in fact, intend to get my hands on this book, and I really do appreciate the reference.

By the way, have you read Dawkins' latest? Or either of the Harris books? I receommend them NOT because of their current trendiness, but because they are actually informative.

Regards.

"am pretty much convinced that your "stats" will always supercede any sense of humility with regard to addressing the human heart and its innate ability to discern a different(i.e. spiritual)realm - one outside the realm of science & statistics."

Comment: No offense intended, but I could never quite understand why reliance on verifiable and falsifiable data was in some way LESS "humble" than completely trusting a personal and inernal feeling state that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable, just personally experienced. Seems to me that the humility is on the side of those who establish their positions, and are open to changing them as well, based on firm information.

The "human heart" has proven itself to be a rather poor source of "knowledge" over time.

Great debate going on here!

The argument that morality comes from God has been well and truly demolished. This outght to be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of history, world religions or even a basic understanding of the different cultures in the world today. No one religion or culture has a monopoly on morality, and there seems to be evidence that religion and morality are *negatively* correlated (although only slightly). Countries with low levels of religious faith tend to have low crime rates. It doesn't prove causation ... but it does makes you wonder. See the discussion of Mr John Shelby Spong's response for many interesting statistics.

People are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. People are inherently human. Why don't non-Christian(insert your religion here) societies degenerate into chaos? Because our shared sense of morality comes from shared biology not from any particular book. There are advantages to cooperating with each other and being considerate to others. Even animals have social rules and structures which help them to survive.

In the sense that we share a common biology, there is an absolute morality, except people are all different. Some are more honest than others, some have a bad temper. Some people are extremely kind and compassionate, others are more selfish. But on the whole, we try to be responsible and cooperate with each other. Religious and moral codes have been invented to control people and to help people to control themselves. But some of these codes are better than others.

We like to have sex - it's part of our nature. It's pretty obvious why (hint: we evolved). Moral rules about sex have been invented to keep this under control. Irresponsible sex has bad consequences. But I would prefer to be responsible about sex because I value my health and because I respect and love the people I have relationships with. I would prefer to base my ideas about sexual and emotional health on facts rather than things written in old books by people who knew less than the average high school kid today.

Dear Concerned,

Thanks for the reference, but the NY Times is not really a very reliable source on these matters, given their recent attempt to conclude that the majority of women are no longer married in America (by including 15-year-old girls in their sample size in order to make a conclusion that's just not true). With such an overwhelming lack of journalistic integrity in order to validate their claims and push their own agenda, I don't put much stock in what they have to say. Click here for more info on this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/opinion/11pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Thanks for your comments.

Pheadrus,
You say:
"As for your presumptuous charge of "overly inflated scientific pride," as the source of non-belief, the evidence suggests that the better and more rigorous the thinker, the lower the probability of their holding supernatural beliefs."

Well you missed my bottom line, and I am pretty much convinced that your "stats" will always supercede any sense of humility with regard to addressing the human heart and its innate ability to discern a different(i.e. spiritual)realm - one outside the realm of science & statistics.

For you The "bridge of faith in God" cannot be crossed. This not a "judgement" but rather the logical conclusion of your well articulated disbelief in God.

For you there is no "bridge" ...
...so I don't think I need a rebuttal.

From my perspective we stand on opposite sides of the "bridge"...

...That ok by me.

Atheists' "beliefs" are "falsifiable," in that they are subject to refutation should sufficient evidence be brought forth."

Go Pheadrus!

To me, it also helps explain why believers so often have doubts - they are called upon to believe in some extraordinary situations.

When I was a believer, I would wonder why God answered my prayer to do well on an algebra test, on the same day he'd let a whole family burn to death in a house fire. It didn't make any sense.

Phaedrus,

Yes, please get back to us after you do your own research (i.e. especially with specific regard to the statistics relating to those Christian documents compared to other historical documents). Even if you were to do so, I suspect you may still not be impressed, that is unless (maybe)you use your objective scientific prowess.

I am honestly not trying to be sarcastic, or "bait" you.

It's just that few "lay" critics of Christianity speak about things of which they know little.

Of course that cuts both ways.

**So.. just for perspective -so that you (and others)might get a glimpse of the man behind my words...

I have 8 years (2 Bachelors Degrees)of formal undergraduate studies in zoology,ethology (i.e. animal behavior), sociobiology, sociology and psychology. I also have a Masters degree in Theology & Biblical Studies and am currently pursuing a Grad Cert. in Instructional Technology Design. As a lifelong learner (as many of you are) I have dabbled in philosophy, world religions and other heady and not so heady stuff.

My primary vocation has been in Christian ministry mixed with professional mountaineering and university "professor".

I am about to turn 50 so I have had a fair number of years to gain at least a bit of meaningful wisdom.

Once again I only write these "bio-stats" so you know where I'm coming from.

Blessings

Not all agree that archeological findings support the Bible. As noted before: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

"Reflecting ‘the latest findings in archaeology,’ a new commentary on the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) was released last fall by the US-based United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Called Etz Hayim (‘Tree of Life’), it is the first commentary on the Torah to be published by Conservative Jews since 1936. A report in the New York Times (9 March 2002) shows just how far Conservative Jewish scholars have gone in their rejection of God’s inspired account of human origins and early history.

The New York Times article, titled ‘As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting,’ opens:

‘Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

‘Such startling propositions—the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years—have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity—until now."

"One contributor to Etz Hayim, rabbi David Wolpe of Los Angeles, says that the rejection of the Bible as literally true ‘is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis.’ In the back of the new commentary are 41 essays—some quite radical. In one essay on ‘Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,’ Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, says that modern scholarship links the Genesis account of origins and the Flood to Mesopotamian myths, e.g. Gilgamesh (but see Was Genesis copied from pagan mythology?). In another essay on ‘Biblical Archaeology,’ Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, questions the Biblical account of Jericho, arguing that the town was apparently empty and unprotected when the Hebrew people settled the area. "

Ambassador:

A novel taking place in New York City should not be assumed to be factually correct because it is cartologically accurate. The fact that the city of Jericho was found to exist, in no way verifies that its walls fell due to god's intervention.

Then Phaedrus, examine "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" as a scientific, rigorous thinker before you dismiss those people trying to point you to something good.

RB, you write:

"your use of statistics ignores the thousands of other scientists that have not been surveyed... maybe; just maybe there are more than a few "less perfect" scientists out there who have crossed that bridge."

Comment: Actually, among those "less accomplished" scientists, only 40% of those at the B.S. level believe in god. Scientific American, 1999.

"Of course they'd have to have had to leave their excessive, overly inflated scientific pride behind them so as to be able to examine the claims of those on the other side."

Comment: Or, they could just become less intelligent. Louis Terman reported that amongst those with IQs over 140, only 10% of men and 18% of women held strong religious beliefs. Brown and Love found that non-believers scored at the 80th percentile in intelligence, believers at the 50th. Poythress reported that mean SAT score for strongly anti-religious was 1148, while that of religious subjects was 1022.

As for your presumptuous charge of "overly inflated scientific pride," as the source of non-belief, the evidence suggests that the better and more rigorous the thinker, the lower the probability of their holding supernatural beliefs.

Hi Phaedrus,

In response to Jeff's comments, you stated,

"1. Says you. This is not evidence. It is mythology.
2. This "documentation" you speak of is no more the reporting of actual occurences than is Homer, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon, Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Koran. But, I bet you do not believe in the historicity of any of these "documents". Or am I wrong?"

I humbly ask if you have examined the evidence claims that Jeff cites? If you already have and have drawn these conclusions, then I can take no issues with your comments. However, if you have not examined the proposed evidence, then I ask you postpone passing judgment until you do.

Regarding your dismissal of the historicity of the Bible, may I quickly summarize some of the evidence in support of its authenticity? Regarding manuscripts, approximately 6000 manuscripts of the New Testament have been found with the earliest copy dated 30 years after the life of Christ. The second most manuscripts is Homer with approximately 100 copies, and the first is dated some 500 years after he lived. We have even less copies of Plato, Socrates, etc.

Regarding archeology, when digging began in the lands of the Bible, we found Jericho, we found Caiaphas's house. Not one archeological discovery has contradicted the Bible. Since the introduction of the Book of Mormon some 170 years ago, we have found nothing to support its claims. Also, the Book of Mormon has been revised and changed over 2000 times since Joseph Smith wrote it. In comparison, with the wealth of manuscripts of the Bible around, it would be much more difficult to revise it as some falsely claim.

This just scratches the surface of some of the evidence. I echo Jeff's remarks and ask that you examine the evidence before coming to any conclusions.

Thanks for your time and your thoughts.

Pheadrus:

You prove my point: a really good scientist has no bridge.

And by the way your use of statistics ignores the thousands of other scientists that have not been surveyed... maybe; just maybe there are more than a few "less perfect" scientists out there who have crossed that bridge.

Of course they'd have to have had to leave their excessive, overly inflated scientific pride behind them so as to be able to examine the claims of those on the other side. Many famous [read your histories of scientific inquiry if you will] and not so famous science guys and gals take that exploratory journey and some are even humble enough to stay to enjoy the joy and so much more.

But of course some don't and won't!

"I believe, however, even the scientist, if they were honest and true to their own life experiences, will have indeed experienced at least a bit of the immeasurable, intangible, unquantifiable -yes even spiritual moments.."

Fact: Survey of members of the National Academy of Scientists reveals that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic, and 7% believe in a personal god." Nature, 23 July 1998.

"God already did change water to wine, and He walked around on earth and did miracles and to top it all off, He did what no one else could possibly do: demonstrate power over death when He died then rose again, all to prove who He was. "

1. Says you. This is not evidence. It is mythology.
2. This "documentation" you speak of is no more the reporting of actual occurences than is Homer, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon, Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Koran. But, I bet you do not believe in the historicity of any of these "documents". Or am I wrong?

Pheadrus:

It's the scientific, secular humanist worldview which limits one's ability to logically acknowledge a spiritual world.

There is indeed no counter to that except if a curious and hopefully honest scientist were to (heaven forbid) also sense something "above and beyond" the material/measurable world in which they are steeped.

The "bridge" to the spiritual realm, for the "perfect" scientific, secular humanist, does not exist.

I believe, however, even the scientist, if they were honest and true to their own life experiences, will have indeed experienced at least a bit of the immeasurable, intangible, unquantifiable -yes even spiritual moments...

...that is of course, if they keep their scientific eyes and ears open to such phenomena.

Ultimately however, it is the human heart that recognizes there is something more to life than science.

Of course many hearts are hardened...

Look, I don't my any means have a corner on the high moral ground, but we are sure being painted that way. I'd like to challenge those uncomfortable with faith issues to examine their own statements and test their own logic.

First, stop lumping Christians together, over time or theology. As Andrew acknowledges, there are plenty of nonbelievers that have perpetrated crimes as bad as any in the Inquisition. Just as all muslims aren't terrorists, all Christians aren't led to torture and kill. Us Christians can't defend what those people did in those days, we generally as a group don't buy their reasoning either. They didn't speak for us. Not all atheists make reasonable arguments, and we don't point to those to tell you that you're all wrong because of what a few nutcases said.

Second, there sure is a vehemence associated with some of those repudiating statements that causes ya'll to leave the logic track as well. What we Christians are trying to communicate, without putting anyone down, and without acting morally superior, that we have seen the evidence and we are convinced. So we are now telling others about it. We're not name-calling or disrespecting you.

Third, non-theists have been saying what amounts to "stop telling us, we don't believe". If you want us to respect your right to say you don't believe, you need to allow us to say what we DO believe. Our great country is not founded on telling others to shut up. It is founded on letting others say what they believe, even if we think it's nuts.

Pheadrus, God already did change water to wine, and He walked around on earth and did miracles and to top it all off, He did what no one else could possibly do: demonstrate power over death when He died then rose again, all to prove who He was. It is documented better than any other historical event in history. There are more witnesses, writings, and effects on the world than any other person in history. I suggest you read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Josh was an unbeliever who wanted to research and write the ultimate book putting the Christian faith to death by compiling the evidence and letting the facts speak for themselves. In one of the most thorough studies in history, he breaks down most of the arguments, evidences, and issues I am hearing here. I challenge YOU to look at the facts and draw a conclusion. You're a reasonable man, check out these facts as objectively as you know how.

Andrew,
Is it not possible to believe that one who differs from you is not necessarily (or actually)"superior"?

[I am directly responding to what you wrote]:
Why is it you feel threatened (i.e. as an atheist)? No one is forcing anything on you? Ideas don't force. We don't burn atheists [i.e. anymore :)]

America happens to be (arguably) founded on Judeo-Christian principles rather than atheistic principles. My guess is that staunch atheists currently comprise a relatively small portion of the population. If that is true, I can appreciate the sense that an atheist could/might feel marginalized (much like certain other groups)

I too, know what it is like to, on occasion, feel oppressed (in my case) by secular society.

Christians often become the scapegoat for every person who "sins" but chooses to shoot at the easy target rather than "own" their own sins. (Those folks should slap themselves alongside their own heads.)

I wonder why it is that you feel threatened by a dollar bill or a quarter (referring to your comment)...just because it has Christian references.

I also wonder why it is that some people when told they are "wrong" about this or that, cannot just say(or think)that - "it's ok for you to share your opinion but please respect my own".

You say (in part): "...moral superiority is what, extended to its logical conclusion, led to the Inquisition, the extermination of Native Americans and the Holocaust against the Jews all perpetrated by Christians. It is also important to acknowledge that unbelievers that wrap themselves in the mantle of moral superiority - i.e. communism - also have committed unspeakable atrocities."

That may indeed be true for those who took that despicable path (-and by the way, Communism exalted atheism-). I disagree with fervor that my or anyone else’s so-called (as you describe) moral superiority automatically and necessarily leads all (e.g. Christians) to accidentally or purposely slide down what you seem to believe is an unavoidable "slippery slope" leading to the worst of atrocities.

In this forum if one feels offended or oppressed or...whatever...I recommend a bit of self-reflection prior to reacting and chastising the alleged offender.

Giving an "offender" an opportunity to respond, and where necessary sincerely apologize, I believe, is taking the "right" approach.

There is way too little grace given in the "real" and "virtual" world. There is way too much paranoia. There is way too much slaying of "goats”, and there is way too much "bashing".

Finally, Andrew
Unlike what you said ("I don't really care what others believe.")

I think you really do care about what others believe, otherwise I would think that you would be absent from this forum.

Respectfully different and respectfully the same.

RB

That last anonymous was me.

Mark Eaton,

You have a vendetta against "monotheistic religions".

Supposedly, monotheistic religions are more "evolved" than pantheistic religions because instead of having many gods creating mayhem, we then only have one. If we follow on this journey towards a more progressive, evolved religion by reducing the number of gods, then obviously, continuing our subtraction, we go from many gods to one god to, finally, no gods. Ergo, atheism is the most evolved "religion". Unfortunately, this leaves of with an inconsistency, since atheism isn't a religion and we are back to Godel's incompleteness theorem.

"Freedom to love? Sure, but who will repair the lives affected by the ones who leave after loving? Have we not seen and heard of the lives shattered by one night of love (lust)? We must govern sex and sexual attitudes within our society. How can we control "bad and painful insofar as it is an instrument of power and domination" without laws that define what is power and domination?"

Have you ever heard of personal responsibility, man? By this rationale you could justify any laws to save people from themselves, since, according to you, we were born into sin, and need the saving. This is the road to totalitarianism. By the way, I don't need saving. I believe even RB would object to what you propose.

In a previous post, I wrote "My moral values are quite likely different from yours and they are nobody's business but my own, especially not the government. The only time they are anybody elses business is if they impel me to actions that harm others. We, of course, have laws for objectionable actions. Unfortunately, some laws were (slavery, jim crow) and are plain wrong. Some of these laws use scripture to give them an aura of moral certainty. This is what disturbs me most."

Your post makes me more disturbed that ever. I like sex and being naked with sexy women. What we do with each other is none of your damn business and certainly not governments business. If god objects, let him take action, either now, or later when (AND IF) I end up with Mark Twain in warmer climes. You make sex sound like some ugly, subversive thing. I assure you it is not. Perhaps you should try getting naked more often. You might like it.

In terms of "repairing lives", why do lives need to be repaired if you take personal responsibility for your actions? How about honesty. How about birth conrol?

RB

You are absolutely right, I sound like what I'm afraid of.

I am mighty scared though of what is happening to our country. The religious right is trying to legislate morality. My moral values are quite likely different from yours and they are nobody's business but my own, especially not the government.
The only time they are anybody elses business is if they impel me to actions that harm others. We, of course, have laws for objectionable actions. Unfortunately, some laws were (slavery, jim crow) and are plain wrong. Some of these laws use scripture to give them an aura of moral certainty. This is what disturbs me most.

Ms. Jacoby,

You have a vendetta against "monotheistic religions". I determine that by how many times you use that expression. If you intend to dismiss it, then do so without saying a word. By speaking out against it so often, you prove how much emotion you still have for it. Granted, the emotion is hate, but emotion still.

Freedom to love? Sure, but who will repair the lives affected by the ones who leave after loving? Have we not seen and heard of the lives shattered by one night of love (lust)? We must govern sex and sexual attitudes within our society. How can we control "bad and painful insofar as it is an instrument of power and domination" without laws that define what is power and domination?

Casual sex with someone is not love. Not even "partners who wish other other well". Love really comes when the sex is over. Love is demonstrated when a husband gives up career and life to take care of a wife who now has Alzheimers. Love is about giving, not receiving. Our monotheistic religion taught all about love. You must have missed that. Yet, the teaching is read mostly during weddings. Perhaps I can refresh your memory. 1 Cor. 13:4 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.".

Hershey's Mom,

I might be persuaded if you defended your argument with reasons. Until then I am satisfied that Miss Jacoby's essay encompasses the Mormon experience of sexuality.

You are taking Mormon theology out of context. Mormonism is a profoundly patriarchal religion that is obsessed about the sexuality of women. Recently, one Mormon apostle referred to young women who violate his ideas of modest dress as walking pornography.

That's a fact. Every year, there are similar messages communicated during general conference. Whatever feminist resources are available in Mormon theology are marginalized. Feminist Mormon theologians are routinely excommunicated.

Boys are pressured to confess masturbation to their bishops. Gays and lesbians are required to remain celibate.

In light of these facts, it is unreasonable to argue that Mormonism promotes a healthy attitude about sex. Miss Jacobs' words about her Catholic experience translate pretty well into the Mormonism.

"And on a brief side note, I find it quite amusing when (for example) a devout Atheist points to those who claim moral certainty (i.e. by faith) and are seemingly unaware of their own concrete "faith"- based certainty (I'm uncertain whether or not it is a moral certainty or amoral certainty) with regard to their belief in the nonexistence of God."

The reappearance of the red herring!! In other words; "atheism is just like theology in its adgerence to a "faith-based belief system." Nonsense.

Atheists' "beliefs" are "falsifiable," in that they are subject to refutation should sufficient evidence be brought forth. This is because they are founded on evidence, or the lack thereof, as a matter of course. I am always open to changing my position on the existence of god if he would show himself, or even turn this bottle of water into a fine cabernet.

Thesists' beliefs are "non-falsifiable" in that they are not based on evidence at all.

Let's at least get this distinction clear.

Robert B: That works for me.

Concerned --

I think your hatred for Islam has finally triumphed over whatever love for Christ you have...

Another perspective:

The historic Jesus movement is one of many that are moving religions towards convergence. For example, the Koran without the flying chariots, talking "spirit/angel", and militant passages, without the passages that make women inferior, and without the passages that allow slavery to include harems and polygamy is basically the same as the NT without the embellishments (e.g. the son of a god, miracles, resurrection and nativity myths). Bottom line: Islam, Judaism and Christianity could be joined with one book/way of life and we would be well on our way to the utopia of religious convergence. The name of the Book would be ?? "Finally, Reality" !!!!!!!!

To Andrew --

You asked, "Are Christians willing to have a society in which it is possible for me and my family to live our lives free of your religion?"

This Christian is, provided that you and your fellow atheists respect the rights of people of faith to practice and, indeed, proselytize. For Christ did command the apostles to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth...

Lest anyone accuse me of using my faith as a political tool, I will bring up the words of St. Augustine, who wrote that the Christian can live in any society that respects the Christian's right to worship. Indeed, he even goes so far as to claim that citizens of the City of God (as he calls the Church) must live like "pilgrims or captives) in the City of Man (secular society), always remembering that their earthly citizenship is transitory.

Well, we are on quite different frequencies here. I acknowledge and accept that Jeff and RB believe in profoundly different things than I do. But I do not claim that my views are the 'gold' standard for anything. RB made it clear that he meant no ill will, but the sense of not just moral certainty but moral superiority is what, extended to its logical conclusion, led to the Inquisition, the extermination of Native Americans and the Holocaust against the Jews all perpetrated by Christians. It is also important to acknowledge that unbelievers that wrap themselves in the mantle of moral superiority - i.e. communism - also have committed unspeakable atrocities.

I don't really care what others believe. It's not my business. I was raised to respect those who hold contrary, even deeply contrary, views. It is the basis for a harmonious society. In the U.S., at least in theory, we have a founding principle of religious freedom. But, we do not, in fact, have religious freedom, we have limited religious tolerance - not a bad thing but not religious freedom either. I am an atheist, but I have religion imposed on me in countless ways every day. It's on the money, in the Pledge, in my taxes (churches do not pay property taxes so I am forced to subsidize police and fire protection and other services for churches).

So, my question is always the same, and, finally, at age 60, I believe that I know the answer. Are Christians willing to have a society in which it is possible for me and my family to live our lives free of your religion? I do not believe that you are - you would have to give up many things that are important to you. So, I try to adapt to an environment that is not really atheist friendly - although no one is killing us either. It remains, even after all this time, a bit scary. I do keep my passport up to date.

Jeff, the last post was from me - RB

Hey Jeff,
I wrote and was about to post a post to Danielle that was quite similar to yours with regard to the issue that all "sins" are equal in God's sight. A very unsettling concept if as Jesus (and other moral role models have) said, that lust was and is equivalent to adultery (one example of Jesus' "take" on morality)

Just before I pushed the button to post, I read Maurie's scathing attack on my "terrorist" tendencies, and I felt it rather important to reassure Maurie and the world that I have no guns, bombs, WMDs...that I do not know how to fly a 737 and that indeed I am "safe" to converse with.

As you read, I too want(ed) to "take a stand" similar to the one that led the Moral, and paradoxically "God/Man" to a cross to be killed by "fallen", immoral men.

Taking that stand, as you and others know, will always lead to attacks by those who actively and passively revile God and his followers.

I appreciate the few of us who are willing to take that stand by entering into the "fray", and who are I believe fully capable of articulating...

...to the best of our abilities...

...with logic and intellect and hopefully with more than a bit of spiritual guidance, the common tenets and truths that comprise the major religions in the world.

Thanks again for speaking both your mind and with Christ's heart. It is indeed refreshing that there are a few willing "stand" for their faith.

RB:

Amen!

Generally speaking, I believe most Christians (and Jews and Muslims and maybe others) first perform moral acts (hopefully to the best of their abilities) to please (not appease) God. This at least is true for most Christians.

Second, to be obedient to the One who knows what's best for us (and for others) and third, because it is pragmatically "good" for society at large.

And on a brief side note, I find it quite amusing when (for example) a devout Atheist points to those who claim moral certainty (i.e. by faith) and are seemingly unaware of their own concrete "faith"- based certainty (I'm uncertain whether or not it is a moral certainty or amoral certainty) with regard to their belief in the nonexistence of God.

If such an atheist is indeed "moral" (i.e. at least from a secular, humanistic vantage) than you might think there would indeed be a bit more human (moral) grace given to other fellows who also value certainty.

Many Atheists have an almost wonderful sense of certainty; and some even the highest level of integrity with regard to their "cause" (if indeed it is a cause.)

Others, maybe (what I call soft) agnostics, might rightfully & necessarily claim theological uncertainty, indeed that is the case if they are not sure whether not God exists.

"Hard" Agnostics, (which is not derogatory term) by philosophical definition, believe with strong maybe "quasi-certainty" that it is impossible to know if God exists.

Both hard and soft can, if they actually live their theological or non-theological views can of course always and still pursue the "Greatest Good" if they so choose.

Let's hope that the "many" that do can make a difference.

As for SEX, again I say "Godly, consecrated sex" is fun, wonderful, tangible, pleasurable, edifying, healing, etc. etc. But most of all it is sacred, it is mystery, it is bliss, it is not sinful, it is much much more than a sweaty encounter, a one night (or many night) "affair".

For those of us who agree (especially us dastardly Christians), let us stand up and boldly admit and celebrate the glories of Godly, consecrated sex!

Amen?!

Pogo,

I don't think man is capable of a pure act because of sin. Even your proposal that we just do something because it is right has some payoff that you interpret as good. Because we all disagree on what is right on any given issue, there must be one gold standard, otherwise any standard is as good as any other standard, meaning there is no right or wrong. I haven't validated "no right or wrong" in my life experience--I find that we all pretty much object to some specific things like people killing others and people taking other people's stuff. I find that to be God's programming in us. God seems to use all the tools at His disposal to say "Here I am, come to me".

But what is the point of doing good, what purpose is served? Who decides what is good? (devil's advocate questions)

I think the discussion turned toward morality quickly because of the sex and religion topic, and it was hard to avoid discussing the issue of how you can be sure of what is truly right or wrong, which frequently clouds this topic.

Respectfully,

Jeff

Hey, Danielle.

All people DO go around violating others. You and I both do. Pretty much daily. Hourly. Minutely.... The first step to getting better is admitting you have a problem. I do. You do. We all do.

Just as some of the others point out, Christ said that all sin, no matter how big or small, is the same and the guilty will all receive the same penalty--death. Even if you sinned just once back in 1999. But He gives us a solution to kill the sin problem and get an abundant life in the deal. Christ, who lived a sinless life, gave His life as a substitute for our sinful lives, and took the punishment for us. All ya gotta do is ask Him in.

That's not to say that there are some very good things in us as created beings. God created us as excellent, awesome creatures! But because of the choices of our farthest ancestors, we all have to come to terms with the inherited sin disease that predisposes us to reject God and look out for our own interests more than anything else. We also have an uncertain lifespan to figure out whether to ask Christ to forgive us and direct our lives to be in harmony with Him. He's knocking on your door and inviting you to get your cure for a disease deadlier than cancer and to pick up your Publisher's Clearinghouse check for an abundant, eternal life.

Like God once said..."God...ya gotta love Him. People...ya gotta love 'em!" (Matt 22:37-40 Jeff's paraphrase)

"Of course, any good that we do accomplish is also due to God's aid in this endeavor as well (which often does not sit well with non-Christians)."

Of course it doesn't sit will with non-Christians. If humans can't accomplish good on our own, not only does that equate to humans being inherently bad, but it also provides justification for someone to place others under authoritarian control under the guise of acting in God's name.

Jeff sez:

"It also sounds like we agree that man is capable of moral acts without knowledge of scripture. I am just saying that moral acts don't amount to a hill of beans if God doesn't exist."

Why?

I guess I believe that we can, in fact, create our own morality. Certainly it will never satisfy your need to have it come from an external source, but if an atheist acts out of concern for another, it can and should be seen as a moral act.

Also I believe that one does not perform moral acts for gain or the hope that it will buy one a better seat in someone’s view of an afterlife. It is done just because we are able to.

That is enough. That is all it should be.

The thread had to do with sex and religion. One hopes that you will turn the discussion back to the topic.

Pogo Possum

To Tonio --

Augustine's doctrine of original sin is only half the story. He also says that we humans are indeed capable of great good, if we can overcome our fallen natures. Of course, any good that we do accomplish is also due to God's aid in this endeavor as well (which often does not sit well with non-Christians).

It's easy to paint Augustine as the ultimate "Bible-thumper", but such characterizations miss how complicated he actually was. For example, unlike many modern leaders in Christianity, he frankly admitted that his beliefs regarding Christianity evolved over time and even retracted some of his earlier works at the end of his life because his understanding had improved.

E Favorite, I think these discussions generate so much heat because they seem to come down to this question: "Humans - inherently good or inherently evil?" Augustine's doctrine of original sin takes the latter view, because "sinful" means "evil." However, I believe that humans are capable of both enormous good and enormous evil. Personally, I do not like being told that I am a bad person. I do not mind being told that I'm capable of enormous evil, as long as I get credit for also being capable of enormous good.

Hey, RB and Maurie and Andrew, et al

Please keep up the debate - I'm enjoying it and think it's very useful all around. I think we're all learning how to talk about these things, so a few hurt feelings, flying feathers, misperceptions or other stumbles along the way are to be expected.

Considering this is a virtual and anonymous conversation, I don’t think we have to worry about any real wars breaking out. Who knows, with a little more open discussion or this sort, we might ultimately avert a war.

Well said, RB.

Maurie,
I assure you my so called Moral certainty (as you put it) will not bring me to fly airplanes into buildings. Nor will it bring others like me to initiate pogroms. Why is it you so quickly relegate me to a category which you clearly despise rather than responding to a view/opinion (in this case on morality) that clearly differs from your own?

I cannot believe how quickly you move to a vehemence that borders on "let's blow this guy to kingdom come". Get the guns, the baseball bats... "If only RB were in the same room I would..."

Wow, to be honest, that sounds more like an extremist reactionary militant... "Kill all the Christians" because they have the audacity to speak with a faith based certainty on matters that no one should ever speak with certainty.

What scares me are those ("out there") who are ruled by their own "scary monsters" and who are unable to set them aside while attempting social discourse.

As I said, my choice regarding my belief that moral certainty can be found - by the certitude of my FAITH in God does not affect anyone else, at all! I shared my personal views as you did & do.

Disagree, disbelieve it, and choose your own morally uncertain "high ground" [which of course is a presupposed oxymoron), choose what you will (as you already do, of course) but PLEASE do not treat me like one of your scary monsters. I am a person who clearly differs from you in thoughts and beliefs but I am a person who should, in this forum be given the benefit of the (i.e. your) doubts.

None of you chose to address or challenge my position thru discussion. Each of you responded in the same way...in what I personally believe is/was a terribly wrong way. "Kill" the Christian so that you don't have deal with his "semi-intellectual" diatribes.

I need not share any other of my views, ideas or opinions because you have already painted me as the great "Satan" whose views are doomed to corrupt the world and spark war upon wars on the heathens...

Do you get my point?! Give me a break! Who's the intolerant one(s) here? I am more than willing to face my "accusers" and enlighten them with the man behind the words.

But I really have my doubts whether any of you "sinners" [I choose this word only in levity - really :)] currently have enough humility to apologize.

The day the stereotypical anti-religion, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim anti-anything that looks like your scary monsters - person is able to "lighten up" and risks giving all those you already hate, a chance to share their views in the confines of our free speech, pluralistic society...

That is the day this Christian will shout a loud Halleluiah!

Here’s to hoping that everyone’s “moral high ground” gets lowered enough to agree to disagree if that is what results from a mutually respectful debate/discussion/blog.

Maurie,
Thanks for clarifying. I agree (i.e.with your comments about not using biology (or theology) to justify "outrageous" behavior.

________________________________________

Andrew,et al.
My personal views on the nature of and origins of social Mores and Morality do not disallow the reality of anyone's pursuit of and living a "moral" (lower case "m")life.

Anyone can pursue, attain & live (at least for a time) varying degrees of a "moral life". I'd like to believe that everyone shared and lived that pursuit...because it is the morally "right" pursuit.

But we all (hopefully)recognize that both religious and non-religious, both Christian and Atheist (for examples) are still subject to failing to live up to that righteous aspiration and calling.

Most/many of us have the greatest intentions and strong desires to be moral and act ethically. The Moral person knows what is right. The Ethical person does what is right.

I am truly sorry my "pseudo-intellectual diatribe" led you to become so offended.

My primary point/opinion is that being moral, as opposed to being merely moored to social Mores is never a fully acquired state of being (i.e. for all of us human animals).

Good Intentions aside, our sincere attempts to live the "moral" life are constantly assailed by the immoral. No one escapes (what I argue)the "natural tendency/proclivity" to do just the opposite.

Problem is - I think - most/many people rank immoral acts on a sliding scale with (for example) murder & rape on the worst end and hate, anger or lust (for example) nearer to the other end. This tendency to view immoral behavior (or thoughts) with grey-tinted glasses stands over and against the concept and definition of morality - it makes us feel better if we "only" cursed (i.e."under our breath") the seemingly (or actually) self-righteous Christian (for example).

In such a case some/many tend to believe they are still "good persons".

Jesus (for example, but not the only example) had the provocative audacity to "strongly suggest" that lust (for example) is no less immoral than adultery. In fact, he and other "moral role models" argue vociferously that all immorality (i.e. what we might call big and small immoralities) are one and the same.

One can choose their own subjective (human, secular, naturalistic)definition for "morality" (as many do). One can disagree with Jesus' provocative view on morality, as many do.

Few can honestly deny that we all fail(morally) more often than we would like to admit.

I believe (and you may certainly disagree) that living a "partially" moral life is not actually living a truly moral life...but of course it's the "best" we (all) can do (i.e. be partially moral).

My summary is/was that the "Law" handed down from God (that which undergirds -in my opinion- all morality)is the only source from which to draw a truly moral (not a partially or ephemeral moral)set of guidelines.

Anyone and everyone has access to those (what I call) "gold standards".

Christians, Jews and Muslims (and maybe many others) not only acknowlege the Divine origin of Morality but also recognize their need to do their absolute best to trust in and obey the One who has the actual capacity to move them in the morally right direction, that direction which was originally intended from the beginning.

In closing, by all means disagree - vehemently if you will. But I read and write to you with full respect to all whose viewpoints differ from my own. Each of you also speak with - shall we say- "strong" opinions...nothin wrong with that!

But if you expect me to respect the persons behind the words than I suggest that (Maurie and any others) choose to avoid the personal (i.e. wrong) way that you blew me off with: "RB is nothing". Attacking the writer (in this case)is the greatest "sin" in the world of debate.

I make and made no personal attacks on anyone. If you feel attacked don't project your feelings on behalf of the "many". Own your own feelings/ attitudes and leave it at that.

I too am subject to communicating or rather miscommunicating in (wrong) ways in which I am sometimes unaware. I am always humbly open to correction on such matters.

But please, if you are "moral" at heart (as
I hope you are), than do the "right" thing and own your "own" adament disagreements or incredualities and try to avoid slandering (overtly or subtly) my initials and associated thoughts, ideas and strong opinions.

Maybe I need a bit more (moral) grace from those of you who are or were "disgusted"...I know I need God's Grace each and every day because even though I am indeed one of those dastardly Christians, I fail time and time again. For me personally, the biggest Grace comes from the One (who I strongly and unabashedly)believe is the original Giver of the only morally pure Grace.

Blessings on all you believers and unbelievers alike.

Maurie Beck:

While I can read the Second Amendment, my home is a gun free zone - I do have a baseball bat, however. :-)

The Cal Thomas essay is so staggeringly offensive that I just can't post on the essay. What would I say? So, with Cal, I figure it's pretty much a res ipsa loquitur kind of thing, and nothing more needs to be said.

RB

Your moral certainty scares me as much as the islamic extremists who flew planes into the world trade center. They too had absolute moral certainty.

Andrew,

RB is nothing. Go read Cal Thomas. Just make sure you lock up your guns or you might go shoot him. If you don't have any guns, you might want to reconsider. I think we're heading for a religious war. Islamo-fascists do exist. Unfortunately, Christian fascists also exist and they are on the march in this country. I'm sorry for sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

RB: Wow. Your pseudo-intellectaul diatribe on morality is almost certainly the most singularly offensive thing I have yet seen posted on On Faith. You have, in one short page, offended half the population of the planet, the vast, vast majority of whom live quite moral lives without any consideration of your god. People like you constantly demand respect but give none in return.

Are we atheists to be the new Native Americans, new Jews, new Palestinians, new Tutsies, whatever? Your screed sounds quite like the initial rationale for a pogrom. What is the next logical step? Take our children from us so you can indoctrinate them, strip us of our rights, put us in camps, come after us with machetes? Tell me, what is the end game here?

RB,You wrote:

Maurie,
You aren't the only scientist posting ideas. You are self-contradictory with regard to the origin of morality: "...don’t go looking to biology to justify your belief, behavior, or morality."

and then: "If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong..." ...Please...

I did not contradict myself at all. I said there is a good deal of evidence that supports a biological basis for morality. I cited the book for those interested in further reading. However, I warned against JUSTIFYING one's belief and behavior with things that occur in nature (i.e. naturalist fallacy). Social Darwinists (who were not evolutionary biologists and had a poor understanding of evolutionary theory) used the idea of "survival of the fittest" to justify terribly exploitive behavior of other humans, believing the law of the jungle would lead to more fit humans, while those less fit were best weeded out. What they failed to understand is that there are other mechanisms in human society that foster cooperation as well. Using "nature" or holy scripture is never justification for outrageous behavior.

Robert B: I have enjoyed our exchange, and I have found you to be civil and open-minded even though we disagree profoundly on very fundamental concepts. I think you already understand this, but I hope you will give me space for what must come next with regard to another poster.

Correction - that sentence should be, "Even if I accept the idea that sex is inevitably addictive when there are no consequences..."

Robert B., I am not a fan of Augustine or his doctrine of original sin. I reject the idea that sex is so addictive that people need the fear of consequences (pregnancy, STDs) to keep their urges in check. In my view, that suggests a low opinion of humanity in general. I believe people are capable of sexual moderation for its own sake, or for the sake of their spouses.

Even if I accept the idea that sex can be an addiction, how is a sex addict supposed to satisfy the craving on a regular basis? Outside of prostitution, sex is not as readily available for the addict as it is for, say, alcohol or gambling. That is because the act involves a willingness to make one's self vulnerable, and it's a bad idea to allow that kind of vulnerability for strangers or casual acquaintances. One could argue that people who do regularly allow it have other issues besides sexual ones.

I find it somewhat disturbing that there is at least one individual here who claims that were it not for faith in Christ, people would go around violating others.

It's false, of course, but is that the kind of person that he is?

Most people aren't that weak. Most people are not evil by nature, they're just regular people trying to do right by their families and their neighbors, not ravenously sinful freaks.

Please don't inflict your own pathologies on the rest of humanity. We're not all like you.

Maurie,
You aren't the only scientist posting ideas. You are self-contradictory with regard to the origin of morality: "...don’t go looking to biology to justify your belief, behavior, or morality."

and then: "If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong..." ...Please...

_____________________________________
Others:

Morality supersedes social Mores. Societies (big, small, eastern, western, religious, non-religious, etc.) may have some (or even many) social Mores in common as well as some that are profoundly different. The moment one rooted in their own society’s Mores criticizes and stands aghast at the another’s societal Mores, is the critical moment where either a Global/Universal Morality response kicks in…or doesn’t.

Social (Mores-based) relativists logically must accept all social Mores even though their “gut” might send a different (morally “objective”?) message. It’s easy, convenient and currently PC (in America) to tacitly (claim to) be a social (Mores-based) relativist.

It’s much tougher for that same individual to have the honesty, humility and integrity to personally and publicly admit that when their “gut” kicks in (i.e. with regard to making judgments against others’ Mores), they are no longer a relativist - that they are inextricably being “coached” by a totally different (possibly Moral) standard – the universal Standard that does indeed reside (in a less than perfect state) in everyone.

However, Pride (as opposed to the universal Moral Standard) can interfere and lead one to take the tacitly false moral “high ground” as justification for criticizing anyone and any society that stands over and against their own personal, society-based Mores (i.e. not necessarily representing their own limited, innate human morality). Again, in this moment Mores-based relativism inconveniently and embarrassingly dies its logical but rightful death.

One needs to recognize the difference between the influences of (“local”) social Mores on one’s own limited, innate human morality to determine which is taking precedence. This can only be done if there is indeed a “higher” standard upon which a comparison can be made.

Taking the (true) Moral “high ground” is only possible when one kills pride and (humbly and honestly) recognizes that social Mores are not sufficient enough to make the world a better place, and that there is a moral imperative to turn to the human-limited “morality” that rises (hopefully) above the inconveniently differing, subjective and often contradictory societal-based Mores.

Only the most honest, humble, people of integrity recognize that human-limited “morality” is still not enough to fully make fully moral decisions and judgments; for that one must turn to the Universal Morality that supersedes all that is human – the one that many find in the proscriptions originating and handed down by the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims.

As I wrote in a prior post, it is and has been prideful, “wishful thinking” to believe that a person (or a society – local and/or global) can live a universally Moral life… (i.e. fully capable of "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps")...

Differing social Mores have and will continue to wreck social and moral havoc.

Morality is not a recent historical phenomenon. Nor did it rise from the primordial slime and advent of humankind. Humankind is not evolving with regard to Morality (though it feels good to think so).

Mores rose and developed as societies grew. Mores changed and continue to change – some for better, some for worse (i.e. some grounded in the true Morality, others not).

Human (self-righteous) pride seldom dies. Our best moral insights and behaviors all fall short… but, better to be pursuing the Greatest Good than to be settling for the fallibilities and foibles of social Mores. Those who are truly humble know - by faith – Who it is that provides the “gold standard” for living a moral life.

Hi Robert,

It is written for a general audience.

To Maurie Beck --

Thanks for the info on the Hauser book. One question, though: is it written for a general audience or do I need a doctorate in evolutionary biology in order to understand it? :)

Apparently, I'm the only scientist on this website, so from the godless scientific viewpoint, I just have a few things to say.

The question for this thread dealt with sex, though it quickly devolved into issues of morality. Americans are certainly hung up on sex and absolutely obsessed with it. This foot-on-the-gas and foot-on-the-brake obsession (see Wendy Doniger) is derived from a rather warped (in my view) Judeo-Christian worldview that actually has its roots in biology.

Much of it comes from the view that male animals often treat females as a limited resource (i.e. property). According to evolutionary theory, females are often the limiting resource (1 egg vs. billions of sperm), though it is far more complicated than that, often depending on mating strategies. To protect their "property", males often employ a strategy called mate guarding to assure paternity. Instead of just mate guarding during destinct periods of estrus, ovulation (estrus) in humans is largely concealed. A number of reasons have been proposed for concealed ovulation: 1) hidden ovulation forces males to protect their "property" so that other males cannot impregnate "their" loose mates (you just can't trust those innocent, pure, virginal women); 2) Females and males have divergent reproductive interests (sexual conflict theory). The male wants to assure his paternity, whereas the female may want a non-philandering father (sticks close to home and provides lots of resources) to raise the offspring of the true biological father (a roguish devil) who sows his seed widely and is more likely to produce roguish, sexy sons (increases his and her fitness).

It’s no wonder then that men might use religious stricture and anything else at hand to assure paternity, whereas women, far from being pure and virginal, are active sexual participants with their own fitness interests to consider (this is not a conscious decision).

I know I’m going to get howls of outrage from the fundamentalist folk on this website; save it.

One other point I’d like to make; don’t go looking to biology to justify your belief, behavior, or morality. This is called the naturalist fallacy; i.e. anything natural or found in nature is good for you or permits any sort of behavior because it is "natural". Many plants have poisonous fruit (the apple might be spiritually toxic); even though the fruit is “natural”, don’t eat it cause you'll die. Other examples include a biological rationale favoring higher aggressiveness (and therefore murder rates) in males, but we don’t condone homicide. Evolutionary theory and empirical evidence both explain and support why forced copulation (rape) is prevalent in many animal mating systems. This does not pardon such behavior and is likely to get you yahoos locked up if you try to use such reasoning to excuse rape. Similarly, for all you fundamentalist folk who don’t believe in biology, don’t go looking to the bible or any other sacred text to justify your behavior as well. Instead of the naturalist fallacy, you are succumbing to the same kind of logical disconnect (i.e. fallacy), though in this case it involves unreasonable beliefs. Aside from the biblical pronouncement that men are superior to women, the good book justifies all sorts of other extraordinary behavior: raping and killing wanton, adulteress women; slavery; killing apostates, heretics, and blasphemers; killing homosexuals; justifying incest (Lot and his daughters); stoning to death a whole host of those practicing strange offenses like planting the wrong crops together in the same field.

If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong." It's too bad the author used "design" in the title, because nature is not an entity and can't design anything. The premise of the book is that we and our ancestors evolved an innate sense of right and wrong that is subsequently influenced and adjusted by experience. You heard right; amoral evolution by natural selection favored a moral sense. It is not only present in humans, but it has been demonstrated in other animals as well (especially primates).

Tonio said: "Finally, I believe that sex for pleasure does not inherently cheapen the act. People cheapen it when they treat it as a commodity or or as a way to manipulate others."

True enough. But again, for the Church, sex without the "danger" of procreation opens the door to maxing sex merely a commodity or a method of manipulation. Plus, if we follow Augustine's theories regarding sin, sex without the need to worry about what might happen afterwards tends to seduce men and women into following the pleasures of the body without regard for the pleasures of the soul. In other words, there is the distinct possibility that artificial contraception can breed and attitude that "getting laid" is the end-all and be-all of our existence.

"In the eyes of the Church, artificial birth control cheapens the sexual act into something done for mere pleasure rather than something that can create life."

I can appreciate that opinion, although I disagree with it. For one thing, I reject the idea that every person has a duty to procreate. I also question the notion that the creation of life has such priority that everything else is secondary. I can imagine instances where the preservation of life would be the greater priority. (For clarification, I do not intend for that to be read as a justification for abortion.) Finally, I believe that sex for pleasure does not inherently cheapen the act. People cheapen it when they treat it as a commodity or or as a way to manipulate others.

To Andrew --

Forgive my confusion. Andy was answering my questions to you regarding your views of natural law, so I got confused... :)

Anything I said to Andy regarding atheists being moral of course should apply to you as well. :)

To Tonio --

To answer your question, in the eyes of the Church, artificial birth control cheapens the sexual act into something done for mere pleasure rather than something that can create life. Children are the natural consequence of lovemaking, so those who wish to have sex should be prepared to accept a child into their lives. The form of birth control advocated by the Church (natural family planning) demands a certain degree of discipline and sexual abstinence during the ovulatory period.

In other words, it is a more responsible act to fully accept the consequences of sex than it is to dodge them through artificial means.

"That said, I hasten to add that the Catholic position on birth control and condoms, one shared by many fundamentalist Protestants, is very harmful and incredibly short-sighted and I very much wish they would change that stance."

I agree. A person who uses those items shows foresight and a sense of responsibility, even though the items are not foolproof. I do not understand why a religious teaching would classify a responsible act as immoral.

Dear RAS,

Thank you for your comments.

You asked, "How does one gets to be an Ambassador for Christ?"

2 Corinthians 5:17-20: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

"I am just saying that moral acts don't amount to a hill of beans if God doesn't exist."

Why not? I agree that intentions are important. But the point of morality is to act in ways that help others or avoid harming others. I see that concern for one's fellow humans as having the greatest meaning.

Yockel,

I think your statement on Mormonism contains many distorted as well as out of context information that is misleading and a poor representation of LDS theology.

As there is another more appropriate place on this site for Mormon back and fourths, I hope those interested in a more balanced view will check it out (please see Michael Otterson as LDS panelist) before a case closed on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For the record I will say here that Eve, her choices and ultimately her exaltation are frequently heralded in Mormonism. Moreover, this expanded and positive view of Eve has been echoed again and again by LDS leaders since the early days of the Church as a key component to restoring understanding of the true nature of the fall and of God’s non-accidental plan for His sons and His daughters.

I find what LDS theology has to add on this topic wonderfully refreshing and look forward to Otterson's post and the discussion that will follow...

Robert B; Andrew (me) and Andy are different people. I believe that all morality exists within a human context, but my personal morality may differ from societal morality. If it does, then I must be prepared to pay whatever price I must to remain consistent with my personal morality. As an example, pacifism (opposition to all war for all reasons) is a philosophy espoused by only a miniscule percentage of the U.S. population. When I got drafted, I went to jail - there was no provision for conscientious objector status for atheists until late 1970 (see Griffiths vs. U.S.). I hope this is a helpful clarification.

Hey, Robert.

I'm not saying that man was incapable of moral acts before the death of Christ, so we are in agreement on this issue. I'm just saying that moral acts don't mean anything except as defined by God. He obviously existed far before the death of Christ. Same God existed before Christ as there was when He poured Himself into human form and visited as a man.

It also sounds like we agree that man is capable of moral acts without knowledge of scripture. I am just saying that moral acts don't amount to a hill of beans if God doesn't exist. But He does, so they do. An act alone isn't moral nor immoral because it takes its definition in whether God views it as moral or immoral. And an act is judged on its intentions, and God searches the hearts of man to determine this. He can bring any man to salvation He wants to with or without revelation. I'm just saying that He has told us that a way that definitely works is revelation.

I don't believe that Scripture is in any way a trick to show us we can never achieve any amount of goodness, it states it. Check out what Paul states in Philippians.

Sounds like there is a dialog here, just gotta make sure we avoid the limitations of short passages of writing.

I'm not sure if my previous post was understood. I think morality is based on one's society. The same person born in a different era or society would have different morals.

I don't want to confuse morality with compassion or generosity. I guess I'm really more concerned with evil rather then good. I don't want to condemn other cultures, but, for example, recently in Afganistan (or maybe Pakistan), a tribal council of elders instructed a gang of young men to gang rape the sister of a man who had committed some act of dishonor. To them this act is moral, even demanded by god. To anyone reading this I would assume it would be immoral.

To Mary,

As for animals having morality, do you think chimps or cats and dogs have an idea of right and wrong, good or bad? I'm an animal lover and I would love to think they possessed that kind of intelligence, but my cat keeps throwing up on the couch. I hope he doesn't think that is moral, :)

To Jeff --

Well, if I understand you correctly, your post says that no man was capable of moral acts before the death of Christ. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. The great thing about natural law is that it can be known through human reason *alone* (that is, without reference to revelation). In other words, man is independently capable of moral acts without knowledge of Scripture.

I also find much wrong with your ideas that all of the exhortations and proscriptions given in Scripture were a mere trick to show us how we can never achieve any amount of goodness, which is essentially Luther and Calvin's argument against free will. My view of man is far more positive than that.

On these matters, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. I doubt that either of us will come up with an argument capable of convincing the other.

Oh, no, Robert, there is no conflict here. Divine Law and natural law are intimately intertwined. That's the beauty of God's design. Human reason is definitely far subordinate to divine law (if I am addressing the point you are making). I don't see support for your assertion that I am going too far, can you shed some light?

The origin of morality, and the validity of it only has its meaning in God. However "good" or "bad" we treat each other only finds its meaning in how God interprets those terms. If He isn't there doing that, then who cares how others see our lives or actions, or WHY care? We can't be moral enough to accomplish any meaningful good, per Him. The results of our "good" acts don't earn us a thing. But Christ's sinless life, put in place of our lives when we accept Him, create a moral result where justice, morality, and truth are all satisfied. The morality being discussed in this blog is only a term that draws attention to our failure to be moral, our hopelessness to attain morality, and should force us to our knees to accept our grave condition and only hope for cure in Christ.

Dear Jeff and Todd,

I'm especially happy that most true believers are "true believers", because hearing them tell it, without having Christ in their hearts, you can just imagine the additional mayhem they would be up to, besides tousing alter boys, burning people at the stake, and raping and pillaging, without their higher moral sense. I can attest that this is true; I rape and pillage every chance I get. Obviously I’m a secular humanist and a moral relativist. Not having Christ in my heart leaves me morally unencumbered, so no one expects anything from me other than raping and pillaging, which I will merrily continue until caught. What’s absolutely surprising is that I’ve never been arrested. God must be watching over me.

Of course, even with Christ in their hearts, throughout Christian history true believers had no problem doing absolutely frightfully delightful things to non-believers (thank god for the first commandment and Deuteronomy; truly inspired). It was just frowned upon to do those things to other Christians, unless they belonged to other denominations ……………, or they were witches.

Finally, there is one additional part of christian history I’d like to address. Jews have been accused (Paul, Mel Gibson) of killing Christ. Of course, jews have vehemently denied it, instead blaming it on the Romans who later converted to Christianity. However, being a member of the communist, jewish, atheist conspiracy of international bankers, I've decided to come clean, be truthful, and break with tradition. It's true. I admit it. We killed your lord (or at least our ancestors did). Unfortunately, I never got to relish and revel in the original pounding of the nails and I hate being accused of something without the satisfaction of being guilty. Fortunately, Christ's second coming is coming soon (I hope), so I've got my hammer and nails ready. Then, once you all enter the rapture and leave the world to rest of us sinners, we can go on raping and pillaging with abandon, and we might even save our planet and our enlightened way of life.

Jeff's idea of morality represents one aspect of the concept of natural law that we have been discussing here. Even as a believing Christian (Roman Catholic, if anyone cares), I feel he goes too far in conflating divine law (what Aquinas called "eternal law", which is known by revelation) with natural law (which stems from eternal law, but whose precepts are accessable through pure human reason).

As I said to Andy, morality is not the sole province of those who are religious. Agnostics and atheists can live moral lives as much as any theist. My questions to Andy and others were meant to inspire discussion and debate over where morality has its origins.

To put this issue and most of the responses to it into perspective:

Right or Wrong has absolutely NO meaning if God doesn't exist. Wrong is only meaningful if God defined it so. If you don't think He exists, you can be a serial killer, pedophile, homosexual, or do anything you can possibly think of because there will be no consequences, except for the reactions of your fellow human beings who will try to contain you in most instances.

Problem is, He DOES exist, and gave us info about Him and what He wants us to do in a way that everyone could find out the Truth. As a loving Father to kids He loves because He created ALL of us, He provides a cure to a fatal hereditary condition (sin) that started when two of our ancestors decided to ignore His directions and ate something that caused disease to them and their offspring in every following generation. Keep in mind, He didn't do it, He warned them not to. If we should be mad at anyone, it's Adam and Eve.

As a result of Adam and Eve's action, we are all eaten up with a fatal hereditary disease (sin) that clouds and distorts our views. Its biggest symptom is denial that we are sick, denial that God exists and denial that He has told us how to overcome our disease, simply: Just as He simply told Adam and Eve to stay away from the one tree for their own good or else they would have consequences they wouldn't want, He tells us the cure is to believe in His Son Jesus Christ, follow Jesus' directions, and we will be healed from the fatal disease (sin), and saved from its consequences (death). We live in a world of sick people who will madly tell us that WE are the mad ones, and want us to feel as miserable as they do because they are sick, so anything they can do to get us off track will do.

But ultimate truth can be known. Are you listening to the sick ones, or to the doctor who can give you the cure?

1) Admit you are sick--that you have failed to do the things God has asked you to do and you have done the things He told you NOT to do. Admit that you are incapable on your own strength and actions to solve the problem and make yourself well.

2) Ask God to give you the free cure (Jesus), the ONLY cure that resolves your disease. All other purported cures are man-made, not God-made, and incapable of curing the disease. How do we know? Because of the results shown by people that truly took the Cure such as permanently changed lives, willingness to live for others, even willingness to die to get word of the Cure out, among many other things.

3) Ask Jesus to come into your life and take control, to lead you and help you all the rest of your days. Ask Him to clean you up from your past and to help you avoid sin the future.

Then read life's instruction manual (The Bible) to learn the lessons through stories and teaching in order to know what God wants you to do, and get to know Him and how He has worked on Earth in previous generations. He'll prove Himself to you, He promised to if you really seek Him, just as He proved Himself to me. Don't worry about what all these other people or religions are saying about Him, many of them are sick and distort His message. Find out for yourself.

Pray (talk to Him yourself). Tell Him what ticks you off, confuses you, argue and fuss, build a relationship with Him. Ask to understand. Figure out for yourself, between you and God, what is right and what is wrong; what is true and what is false. Ask Him to help you with whatever you want help with. Then go out and live a full life with God in it. You'll begin to get it right more than you get it wrong and you'll see some pretty amazing things happen that show He is listening, that you can't account for for any other reason.

Then ask Him to guide you to His people, either in a Christian Church or just out in your world, someone you can relate to. If you find a sick church, try another one until you find the one that He uses to teach you about Himself and make you feel at home.

There are answers and Truth can be known (by you) on the issues that sparked this debate. My wish for you is that you accept the Cure....

In Christ's Love,

Jeff

To Andrew/Andy --

I find your two comments somewhat paradoxical. In an earlier post, you claim that you personally would find something immoral that society did not, thus implying that each man has a moral compass independent of what society teaches. And then, you claim a more Hobbesian view: "morality is strictly a human construct and a fairly modern one at that."

Either morality is something that man has an innate knowledge of (and is therefore independent of man) or it is a construct of human society. Which is it?

Again, I'm not trying to bait you or anyone else. I'm just trying to get a clearer idea of your concept of where morality comes from. Also, please understand that I'm not claiming that you are immoral because of your atheism. Sadly, many religious people fail to live up to the moral code of their faith.

Andy writes---My point is that morality is strictly a human construct and a fairly modern one at that.Behavior in the animal world is not moral or immoral.---

Well, I think you are being unfair to the animals. Where is Norrie Hoyt--who maintains animals pray--when you need him?

You certainly have never had a dog. My own hound can feel guilt (it doesn't *stop* her from most things, she just feels guilty) with the best of them. She feels joy and tenderness towards her young--& btw towards my young. Chimps can laugh, cats engage in gratuitous cruelty.

I won't comment on this, Andy:

---the social morality of wealthier, more educated societies has evolved more then some other poorer, less educated societies...

except to ask: does the evolution of "wealthier, more educated" societies mean they also shed all their compassion? If so, then poorer societies are also kinder and have more compassion. What was that about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven????

Dear Ba'al,

I did a quick scroll down & was surprised--well, astonished!--to find you agreeing with me on birth rates amongst migrants.

I wrote to Ms Jacoby not because her anti-Catholic charges on birth rates were false. Any quick glance at country facts on the CIA website (which gives respective fertility rates) will determine that (and I note our Mormon friend after chastising me--what a scold!--didn't even both to check them). No, I wrote because in addition to being false, they were harmful.

Because if we charge--as Ms Jacoby does--that a perverse teaching of the Church is responsible for high birthrates then it is easier just to rail at the poor (who after all have the most children), demonise them & not work to alleviate their poverty. And that is very harmful.

Let me give you a personal example. I;ve never denied my Roman Catholicism, a minority faith in Britain. My family came from western Ireland & I spent summers there, amidst rural people. I did postgrad economics at the LSE in developmental economics at a time when the major aid agencies wanted to offer abortions to women in the developing world. This to me seemed so wrong. These women in, say, Bangla Desh would be insulted/ would be *infuriated* by a stranger pushing abortions at them . They had a lot of children because they were *poor*, not because they were Muslim. Nor would they be happy with aid workers demonising their religion!

Birth rates fall as economic conditions improve--& that is a constant in demographic history.

That;s all from me to Ba'al

And to Ms. Jacoby I would only hope you refrain from making that particular charge against Catholics again (I'm sure you can replace it with another!) Remember: birth rates fall as economic conditions improve.

We are every one of us the products of our society. The one thing that is true of almost every human is that we feel a need to fit into whatever society we find ourselves born into. When we were living in small bands on the savannah, it was the only way to survive because only by working together could we survive the predators and get enough to eat. Cultures are different, but each culture has norms that limit our behavior. When we are born we begin to internalize the norms of our culture. We make them part of our taken for granted assumptions about what is "right" and what is "wrong." This is easily seen when we look at the diets of people from around the world. Things seen as yummy and delicious in some parts of the world are disgusting here and people are forced to eat them on reality TV. If we want to be free, really free, we have to question our culture and see how it limits our behavior. I support Susan Jacoby's and anyone elses efforts to question the value system that has been imposed on all of us. Believe what you want to believe. It's okay. But don't try to make me believe what you believe because it ain't gonna happen. I'll fight you first. And don't take criticism of established power as trying to make you believe something you don't agree with. This is all about the children. I'll tell you what. Take responsibility for your own children, and I'll take responsibility for mine. Just don't be surprised when they question the logic and sense of your values because that's what children do.

Ms. Jacoby,

I am shocked by your insulting view of woman with many children. By using your own mother's beauty you condone a view of woman as mere sex objects. I ask the fathers out there if there nothing more beautiful than your wife's swollen body carrying your child-- a personification of your love for one another-- within her womb?? Mothers, how many of your feel your most beautiful while pregnant? Is there a single image more beautiful than a mother nursing her newborn baby? The notion that repeated motherhood causes aging and ugliness is profoundly anti-feminist. It supports an overwhelmingly shallow notion of beauty. One that objectifies women as nothing more than a pretty face and a slender body with little to offer beyond that. My wish for you is that you one day experience the true love of a man who loves you for your mind and heart and goodness rather than for smooth skin and perky boobs. I aspire to a house full of children-- the chaos, the love, the laughter and the beauty of love personified. I am a woman and a mother and although I only have four children at present I assure you my beauty increases with the birth of each one. I think having the opportunity for a career is necessary for woman. I am greatful for all those who struggled so I could have that opportunity, but as a well educated housewife I am angered by those women who wish to degrade and insult my choice to be full time wife and mother. For me there is no more rewarding way to spend my time. I deserve to be respected for my choice as much as a carreer woman. Let us not work for one freedom only to remove another.

I'd like to make a comment, although I don't know how well it will be received. Also, I really don't care how it is received. It seems to me that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion regarding sex and its place among cultures and religions, and so forth. But that's all it is, an opinion. Just because she has something to say that you don't agree with doesn't mean you need to degrade her and shove your overbearing belief system down her throat.

What I find funny is how people use religion as a crutch. Yes, I said it, a crutch. Ever notice how you thank God when you do something great? So why not thank Him for allowing you to fail also? Seems to me the HE has reasons for you to prosper or fail if that is what you truly belive in.

But back to the sex. Sex shouldn't be a bad thing, and yes, to some people it is something that needs to be cherished only in holy matrimony. But here's the thing: whether you think sex as bad or good, you must admit, that when you have it, you aren't gonna complain about it. I can only leave you with this thought(maybe it will hit home, maybe not)-religion seems to be about holding back and regression. If you can't be who you really want to be, don't take it out on other people. Be free, have fun, and live life the way you think it should be lived, not the way people who lived 2,000 years ago think you should live it.

Ms. Jacoby
I must say that after reading many of the posted comments regarding your article, I find it healthy to have such a debate. Like you I was raised in a very religous environment which ultimately I found to be very oppressive. You are correct when you say that men have created many of the rules regarding sex. I believe that these rules are in place to extend control over people's behavior. The use of "God" is invoked to elicit either fear or guilt because it's difficult to refute such an abstract concept.

Robert,

My point is that morality is strictly a human construct and a fairly modern one at that.

Behavior in the animal world is not moral or immoral. Actions that would get you put in jail or worse in human society are natural everyday occurances in the animal kingdom.

I would submit that in early human days the same would apply. Killing and stealing women or food or whatever would not be judged as immoral by a cave man. Without a society to give it prospective, morality has no meaning.

Now I'm not saying that for modern humans there is no innate morality. While people of faith may believe that morality comes from god, I believe morality comes from one's society.

Aztecs throught virgin sacrifies were moral. Extremist Muslims think car bombing is moral. Some African tribes think female gential mutilation is moral. If Afganistan, gang raping the sister of a man who had "sinned" is moral. In Papua, murder is forgiven in exchange for a pig. In Cambodia, preteen, even infant prostitution is ramant. If morality is an absolute handed down from god or from nature then what happened to these people?

I believe that humans have stopped evolving biologically and are now evolving socially and technilogically. Not to be too Western-centric, but the social morality of wealthier, more educated societies has evolved more then some other poorer, less educated societies. I would argue that middle age European morality was far less evolved then today. Burning witches at the stake, inquisitions, torture, public beheadings, stoning "unpure" women, etc were are fairly common acts, most taken in the name of morality (read god). Sounds like some societies today, or a CIA training film.

To Andrew --

You said, "even if society at large had not deemed these things as immoral, I would find them so anyway."

But why would you find them so, if there were not some kind of moral standard that exists independently of humanity?

I'm sorry that I continue to harp on this. I'm writing a paper on Aquinas's theory of natural law and I guess I have it on the brain... :)

Considering things like AIDS and the current debate about inoculating girls for HPV, I wonder what the world would be like if everyone behaved according to the horribly proscriptive limits set in the Judeo-Christian traditions?

Maybe there was a Divine Plan after all.

I would like to add that it has been a long time since I have read such a well constructed and open-minded peace about this subject. It is amazing how something with so many valid points, with touches of sarcasm ;), can bring about so much senseless emotion in some of the previous posts. BRAVO! You now have a new reader :)

From a Jewish point of view: man exists for Divine purpose, and the most perfect acquittal of that purpose is possible only if no thought but of God insinuates itself in the actor in the discharge thereof. Among one's Divinely ordained duties is to "be fruitful and multiply" (one of the 613 Mitzvos incumbent upon every Jew to observe). Christianity knows no objective standards for right conduct, but not so Judaism: the Code of Jewish Law ("Shulchan Oruch") gives clear and uniform instruction for the correct discharge of every duty a Jew can perform in the absence of the Temple.

It is relevant, here, to correct a misapprehension common among non-Jews, namely the notion of "Holy." Judaism includes no such notion. The word generally mistranslated, "Holy," is "Kodesh," which literally means "separate." Sex, to be "Holy," must be an act separated from the mundane, not an expression of one's animal nature, but of one's "Godly" intent -- to "be fruitful and multiply." From the perspective of wonder at God's Creation as manifest in the human body, assigning high purpose to an act already wonderful in itself has the potential to increase the pleasure, joy and belief in the "rightness" of sex to truly transcendant proportions.

This discussion seems to demonstrate that one’s presuppositions determine one’s conclusions. Our starting points determine how we will interpret data, our interpretations show which direction we are already heading, and we ultimately arrive at the conclusions predetermined by our starting points. Objectivity has vanished. Even supposed commitments to pragmatism (i.e., “truth is what works for me”) are the products of our imagination. For everyone here, including Ms. Jacoby, “truth” corresponds to what we already assume to be the reality of the situation. Any apparently-conflicting evidence is simply reinterpreted accordingly, and the opposing viewpoint is almost effortlessly reduced to the level of the absurd. This is why “discussions ” such as this never actually solve anything.

So what is a person to do? I agree with some of what Ms. Jacoby writes. It is true that much of the Christian tradition has handed strange and cruel notions about sex down to succeeding generations. It is also true that Islamic concepts and practices, at least as we see them carried out in more conservative Muslim quarters, are brutal and obscene, especially as they affect women. Why do I believe that? Because of my commitment to Christ and his teachings as they are found in the Scripture.

Meanwhile, I can’t help but notice so much more of what Ms. Jacoby wrote demonstrates a seeming lack of acquaintance with the Bible’s teaching that sex is, as part of God’s original creation, good, and to be received with thanksgiving. Regarding her opposition to biblical restraints upon sex, please refer to what I wrote above concerning presuppositions.

And on that note I conclude that “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). My wife, by the way, would not have it any other way.

I can't really understand why some many people keep on defending something that doesn't have a hint of a proof and on top of that removes so much of their freedom.
I suppose it must be that we have evolved to be gullible, and religions have gradually become better and better at brainwashing children when they are too young to know better.
Why can't anyone see that half of the bad things in the world (intolerance, discrimination, wars, torture, denial of human rights) are directly borne of religions and would cease in a puff of smoke if religions were abandoned?
And all this for something that, if it wasn't called "religion", everyone would laugh at for how nonsensical and clearly false it is?

Ignorance + Supersition = Religion

After spending my whole life looking for God's truth's, and REALLY wanting to find them....I finally had come to this conclusion..that righteousness has at its heart..humanitarianism...and NOT these issues such as SEX ...Religions have always used SEX as well as other issues to CONTROL people...Now, sexual responsibility is very important, but all manner of consensual sex goes on by the millions of incidents every second and always will....Religion is good as a guide, but if you really believe that damnation will befall you if you get outside these controls, you have bought into a lie....Always be a humanitarian, look out for others, but don't believe that issues like SEX will damn you...These rules ARE man-made, some men just believe they are GOD personified...

It's possible to believe there's an absolute morality without there being a God, just like one believes in physical law or emergent regularities in complex systems.

One thing I've learnt about sex - and I'm no sexual athlete - is that it's about a lot more than feeling good or fun. A big factor, for me, is feeling valued and making someone else feel the same way too. It's interesting in that light that bonobo chimpanzees use sex in a similar way to enhance social interactions and reduce the anxieties caused by power and status issues. Sex is a way of saying "Your are valued" - perhaps that's the closest it comes to being really 'sacred' when it's not part of a life-long friendship/commitment. For a lot of people, at low points in their life, it's been a rescuing hand out of a pit of despair.

Here's hoping you are more persuasive when you meet your creator. Just do it? Seems like you took a NIKE ad, and ran with it. Show some originality, Sex, without love is just that, sex! That is why we have different words in our language to describe the presence of, or lack of emotion attachment.

Rationalize your moral failure all you want, we call it "free will"!

Fortunately, in many societies nowadays, people are free to simply reject religions which oppress them (and their sexuality).

You don't need religion to be a good person (and I am saying that even though, as a reverend, I am a religious person). You don't need God to tell you how to behave.

You just need to be considerate of others and treat people kindly. If you have the mental fortitude to be a good person without needing Holy Writ to dictate it to you, that makes you a darn fine example of humanity.

'How do you know what's right?' Well, think like a rational person. Don't be a jerk to your fellows or to yourself or to your loved ones.

That's all. It's not complicated, though it can be hard. But it's just about being personally responsible.

Now, in terms of religiously-sanctioned monogamy making sex safer: please explain to me how the Catholic position on birth control is keeping African wives safe from their HIV-infected philandering husbands. Or how young women in afghanistan immolate themselves to escape the shackles of abusive marriages.

The current pope is an educated man, sure. But he's educated in mores that were obsolete centuries ago. He's written tracts about the 'evils' of neo-paganism and feminism and the war that the Church must wage against them.

Just because some people turn to religion to validate their abusive sexual kinks regarding submissive women doesn't make it justified, no matter how many people insist that it is just, good, and divinely mandated.

I don't know why this is such an issue nowadays, at least in free societies (but I do approve of this article), except that fearful people impose limits on themselves and others.

Those who are not fearful have nothing to fear. Just practice responsible methods of birth control and don't sleep with jerks.

If God is so pettily insecure that he has to micro-manage your sex life, I think that's grounds for a serious evaluation of His priorities.

I'm sick of so many "firm believers" automatically assuming that anyone with an open/compromising viewpoint is an "atheist." I am a Christian. I am not the best Christian in the world. I don't claim to be better than anyone who follows Allah, science, Vishnu or the flying spagnetti monster.

I have an open mind to accept differing viewpoints on moral issues. Some people believe that sex is immoral. Do I care what they believe? No! As long as they stay true to themselves and don't condemn others for following a different moral set.

And I'm a step ahead of you, "What if someone believes that murder isn't wrong?" Murder hurts people. Consensual, responsible sex doesn't. And if it does, educated people know the risks that they take.

If just one of you who are so outraged by Ms. Jacoby's article could merely walk across the pool in my back yard without getting wet we could close the boook on this and many other debates and declare a clear winner. Until then the truely devine among you should forgive those of us who haven't mastered that trick yet.

Eddie O

I am deeply saddened by all those who fail to experience and acknowledge the Divine sacredness (i.e. the "rightness") found in the act of consecrated sex between a man and a woman.

The day that a reductionist scientist/ sociobiologist (or atheist or anyone else for that matter) reduces and relegates sex to a mere act of perpetuating our species, OR a sexual hedonist reduces and relegates sex to the realm of mere pleasure, recreation and/or hobby, is the day that the wonder, mystery and life-changing power of Love becomes debased...

For them, I would (logically) expect there to be no heartbreak when relationships are broken...for surely there are plenty of other human animals to replace the lost "love" (i.e. plenty of sex to go around).

The "sinfulness" (i.e. "wrongness") comes into play when the "rightness" is ignored, denied, debased.

It's a tragedy that so many people attribute the origin/root of morality to a "humankind" that is in itself capable of the worst of immoralities.

Logic forces a universal (i.e. Divine) moral standard that "rises above" the less than perfect human set of social "mores". Otherwise, we humans could not distinguish the right and wrong social "mores" found in different societies, ethnic groups and religions. Though there may be a limited set of "common mores" there are also plenty of profoundly different "mores" that serve as Moral "flashpoints".

Religion is not the bain of humankind. Humankind is its own bain. We cannot "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps"...never have, never will.

Atheists don't know nor want to know what they are missing in life and love; and if they remain atheists, they will never know.

"Soft" Agnostics...keep searching until you find what your heart hopes for - it's there. Knock and the door will be open(ed)

"Hard" Agnostics...it is possible if you take your head out of the sand and follow your "softer" compadres...at least they are looking.

Hedonists- Eat, drink, (have lots of sex), be merry and die; for that's all there is for you.

Nihilists-You don't exist so "no worries"

Existentialists- You are... (maybe?)

Pantheists- you're all parts of "God", so get your acts together and do something "good" and "moral"

As for me, I choose God - the Divine Lover and Giver of love, the Divine Morality, the Just and Loving God that Christians, Jews and Muslims exalt above all things (i.e. even sex).

Ms. Jacoby does not hold a candle to the Theology of the Body.

I think that a lot of people are missing the point on sex "not having a single moral category." Did anyone else interpret "not single" as "more than one"? Sex is a gray area. Sex with a loved one: good, Consenting sex with a stranger: gray, rape: not good. Obviously, not everyone subscribes to the same moral concepts.

Many people believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and justify it with the "fact" that it leads to STD's, unwanted pregnancies, divorce, etc. Are these the same people who advocate for "abstinence only" sex education? The reality of it is, yeah, abstinence is great, you won't get STD's yadda yadda, but kids are still going to have sex.

Why not prepare them to make safer decisions so that when they choose (preferably of free will) to engage in sexual activity, they won't believe their partner who says "you can't get pregnant your first time" and end up with twins, or they won't get an STD, or they will realize that you can get STD's from other contact than solely intercourse.

While at the beginning of the article, I wanted to agree with you, upon further consideration, it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Furthermore, it is evident that your thoughts on the subject of sexuality and the Catholic moral tradition are nothing more than one dimensional cliches. I can't actually believe people allow you to write nationally and consider it enlightened.

Ms. Jacoby,

Brilliant.

Simply brilliant.

Let the sexist Christian fundamentalists and metaphorically blind complain and call you biased. I just don't care what they have to say in regard to my life. Plain and simple.

The bible does not say that sex is only for procreation. In fact, especially in the New testament sex is presented as a form of pleasure, best fulfilled within marriage. The New testament also gives men and women equal status with different roles.
1 Cor 7
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command

Hey Todd Cook,
You seem to assume that ethics, morals and social rules can only come from your favorite book and only from your favorite deity.

Take your nose out of that book for more than a minute and look around. For millennia individuals, families, societies and civilizations have been able to successfully decide and agree on what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and not, well enough to sustain a thriving social order, without having to hear it from the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

It is sad that some (not all) Christians have so low an opinion of people that they assume that moral chaos always results when people don't subscribe to biblical moral codes. Perhaps this reflects their own underlying lack of character. If you really think this way about people, please cite some examples.

Ms. Jacoby,

How many in our society know how to love? How many express true love in sex at all times? You assume it comes naturally and it does not given our hurts, insecurities and misguided ethics. Selfishness and temptation are everywhere and can easily seduce where love should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't make edicts, it presents its moral convictions. These teachings explain the Nuptial Meaning of the Body, a Theology of the Body, the human dignity and are the basis for understanding Catholic teaching on sexual relations.

JP II and Benedict XVI were and are immense scholars. They don't sit on pearly white throwns and "pontificate" but they do put out volumes on a subject. These are extremely educated men giving us their best understanding of the dignity of the human person. They think, contemplate, write, debate and pray on this stuff all the time.

To toss them aside or marginalize their teachings because of perceived sexism is a huge mistake and it is your loss as someone engaged in pursuit of truth.

Whether any action is good or bad is wholly dependant on the human mind. Without intellect and empathy actions are just instinctual, with no inherent moral value.

Many animals forcibly mate, kill sexual rivals, kill the infants of rivals or even their own infants, kill and even eat their mates, and do many other things that as humans we view as "inherently" immoral. Is a black widow spider immoral for eating her mate after fertilization? Is a lion immoral for forcibly mating with as many females as possible or killing his own offspring if food resources are scarce?

Imagine humans 10,000 years ago. Life was a constant battle. Death hunting, starving, freezing, being hunted, getting injured, were everyday occurrences. Man (read men) had to procreate as often as possible with as many different partners as possible in order to pass on their genes to the next generation, just like any other animal.

Hypothetically, if you assume that humans are no longer evolving, since living, dying, and procreating, are no longer dependant on one's ability to hunt and gather food, the availability of resources, or the ability to defend oneself from predators, morality takes on a whole new perspective.

Once these threats are removed and just about anyone can procreate "evolutionary" behavior was no longer needed and "morality" was born.

Hello, Todd Cook - as I recall, there's plenty of racism and genocide in the Bible.

You don't have to be religious to be moral. Even chimpanzees have a moral code.

Considering that a high % of the US population is Christian and a high % of prison inmates are Christian, religious people must be committing a lot of crimes.

You might consider reading some excerpts from Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. Sex is not bad. The body is not bad. However, God designed humans with a conscience and a purpose. When we stray from this, I would not focus so much on the sin but on the consequence. I have seen too many women hurt by premarital sex.

See http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

If there is no God (as many here claim) and if the Bible is not valid (as many here claim) then it's all good: racism, genocide-- you name it. Sure, some will suffer pain at the hands of their fellow man, but there's no "wrong" to it. How can there be?

How does one gets to be an Ambassador for Christ? Is there a Letter of Credentials given by Jesus so one can be an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenepotentiary for Christ?

And being ambassador means one should be accorded full diplomatic immunities and priveleges as stated in the Vienna Conventions. The Holy See has such privileges. And its priests are immuned from persecution for pedophilia I gathered.

Wow, not that I disagree strenuously with what you wrote -- I mean one can argue about some leaps you make -- but you got way past the question and got a lot of stuff off your chest here.

I hope you are getting therapy on a regular basis. You do seem like an intellectual/emotional pretzel ... all twisted up and unable to tell one from the other.

My philosophy is pretty simple. Neither man nor woman is better or worse than the other. We are just animals like all other animals. The single difference is we possess self-awareness. I believe God was created by man (probably men) as a way to control. You are 100% correct in your statement. As a man, I look at these people of faith as having no faith in themselves or anyone else.

I was born a Jew, but practice no religion; mostly as a direct result of my hatred for how so many religions relegate women to slaves. It sickens and disgusts me.

It was a pleasure to read your article.

Like Hershey's Mom, I am a Mormon. I disagree with her reading of Mormon scripture. Insofar as there is a partnership between men and women, women are subordinate.

Mormon women are supposed to obey the priesthood. Only men qualify for the priesthood. The Mormon marriage ceremony requires women to cling to their husbands though the latter do not need to reciprocate. Instead of being bound to their wifes, the Mormon marriage ceremony requires husbands' allegiance to a male god.

While the practice of polygamy is currently discontinued in the largest Mormon sect, polygamy remains in the canon. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 demands that women tolerate that their husbands take several wives while prohiting that women have several husbands.

Mormonism is not a feminist alternative to traditional Christianity. On the contrary, the role of the ideal Mormon woman is even more constrained than in most mainstream churches. As a matter of theology, even Catholicism offers more gender equality than Mormonism.

The Eve of the Pearl of Great Price still has to submit to her husband, a consequence that continues to affect the fate of Mormon women to this day. Until the 1970s, Mormon women were not even allowed to pray in worship meetings. The priesthood remains reserved to males. Insofar as there are female officers, they always have to answer to male supervisors. I am afraid that Eve lives in Mormonism.

Miss Jacoby's essay speaks quite well to sex and gender in Mormonism.

Susan, if, after all the insults you've recieved because of this article from all of the (ahem) GOOD xtians, and the numerous times you've been called a 'sinner', you have any doubts about how wonderful your article was, let me reassure you: It needed to be said. And it's about time. I AM a man, and all you have stated is historical fact. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But all the 'good' christians don't seem to want to face reality on so many different levels. For example - Jesus, was a Jew. I know. I know. This is shocking to most christians that Jesus actually was not a christian but an actual Jew. He was also radical, if not at the very least - extremely LIBERAL in his cultural and spiritual beliefs (especially back then). To believe the contrary is to not quite understand the meaning of conservative and liberal. And I doubt those polarizations have changed in 2,000 years. This may also come as a complete shock too. And then here's the one that brings the house down - he was not, in fact, an alien, but (gasp) a human. Which can mean any number of things. Like even meaning that JC could have even had sex. If I were a god, I know I'd be having sex. Lots of it, in fact. I'd be a pretty lousy god not to. After all, I created the amazing act of procreation. It'd sure be a waste not to partake of something so wonderful. Anyway, I thought I'd make sure you knew that the entire world doesn't hate you and spew venomous vitriol just because you betray their own weak faith in their brand of mythology. At least not the non-christian world anyway.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your comments. My apologies if something I wrote was offensive to you.

I do not feel that I distorted Ms. Jacoby's comments and views about the moral significance about sex. Again, her comment was, and I quote at length: "Assigning sex to a single moral category is every bit as silly as attributing moral significance to food. If there is one aspect of traditional religion that infuriates me more than any other, it is its insistence on making sex either sinful or sacred.

Sex is simply (and, for humans, not so simply) a part of the natural world. It is good and pleasurable insofar as it is engaged in by partners who wish other other well, bad and painful insofar as it is an instrument of power and domination rather than a source of mutual joy."

The question posed states, “Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?” The question says nothing of morality, but Ms. Jacoby takes it upon herself to interpet sacred and sinful as moral categories. A quick lookup of the word "moral" in the dictionary states that it is "of or concerned with the principles of right and wrong conduct." So, by word association, we can establish the following terminology: Sacred = good/right. Sinful = evil/wrong. Again, Ms. Jacoby assigned these terms to moral categories; I didn't. Therefore, if you cannot assign sex in each of its contexts to either being sacred or sinful, by Webster's definition of the word "moral", it does not have moral significance since it cannot be rightly assigned one of the two moral categories. Ms. Jacoby may not have explicitly stated that "sex has no moral significance", but by the rules of logic, it becomes one of the implications of her premise. Hence, I believe my rebuttal against her argument is still valid.

You also stated, "You seem to be implying, please correct me if wrong, that morality not based on religion is not morality." I truly apologize if you interpreted something I said to mean that. I believe that there is morality that is not based upon religion. My comments to Ms. Jacoby were simply meant to convey the observation that it appears that she quickly dismisses any points/viewpoints made by a person of faith, no matter how silly or how valid the viewpoint may be. I admit that this is a biased observation, since I am a person of faith, but that's why we have this message board to try and understand one another.

Thanks for your comments.

Robert B.,

I wouldn't use the words "curb" or "order and structure." I think a better description would be "enlightened self-interest." Obedience to a democratic government or to an employer is a give-and-take situation. People who obey the law receive protection from the law. People who obey an employer receive compensation. That give-and-take might serve as the curb or structure you are talking about.

That is not the case with religion. Religion presents itself as an authority without any basis, whether that authority would be its teaching or its deity or its hierarchy of priests. It claims to offer give-and-take, but the giving amounts to spurious claims about rewards or punishments in an afterlife. And the taking is not any kind of material benefit for the religion, but simply acceptance of certain teachings. As in, "Believe or you'll burn forever in hell." There is no order or structure, just simply living in terror that one might do something to anger the deity.

Phaedrus:

I think another way of characterizing the mindset you point out in your post is; "Better cancer in the future than fornication in the present."

But nah, Bible thumpers are reeeeeeaaaal "healthy" about sex! Not!

Robert B: No, actually, I do believe that there are acts which, by their very nature, are immoral. Killing for any reason other than personal self-defense (I am one of about 50 atheist pacifists in the U.S. - BTW, there are tens of thousands of Christian pacifists), rape, lying, theft, etc. As I already expressed, I believe that these acts are immoral because we humans have deemed them immoral, but, even if society at large had not deemed these things as immoral, I would find them so anyway. All of these acts inflict one person's rage, desire for dominion, or whatever on some other person's person, property or space.

PHAEDRUS:
Freedom to choose must be suppressed becasue the choice may offend the religious.

I'm not knocking your analogy but I'm afraid tobacco companies have been working on both prevenative and cures for cancers related to smoking for a long time. I know that from personal experience. I worked as a chemist on a particular promising project, 1960s, Brown and Williamson. That was well before the relationship between smoking and cancer was public knowledge. If smoking related illnesses could be prevented by a vacination the tobacco companies have the money to promote it. Religion has the money to block cures for illnesses that may be sexually related. And they do too as you so aptly note.

My apologies, the previous post was mine.

I agree with Ms Jacoby regarding the irrational view of sexuality perpetated by the mono-theists, although, outside of the Islamic world, these attitudes are no longer matters of life and death. However, there is one example of some Christians' attitudes towards sex that has been in the news recently, and it is a matter of life and death, though not in an immediate sense.

Gardisil is a medication that prevents a virus that has been linked to cervical cancer. When adminsitered to adolescent girls, it holds especial promise of efficacy. Some states are considering laws making vaccinations available at tax-payer expense, or even mandating them. However, some fundamentalist Christian groups have come out in opposition to these measures, stating that these vaccinations will make it more likely that these girls will engage in sexual activity. They claim that abstinence is all that is needed to avoid this risk. Why would any adult seek to deny this medication to any young person, when it would serve to protect them from cancer in later life, simply as a last-line defense in case young people make irresponsible decisions. And why should it surprise no one that those who would do so would be religiously motivated?

Perhaps another way to conceptualize this issue is to substitute another behavior with disease implications. Suppose that a company developed a drug that, if administered in adolescence, would protect people who smoked from acquiring smoking-related lung cancer. The drug could be given without interfering in any way with exhortations to these young people that they should not smoke, from any parent or group. Would we expect the same type of opposition from Christian groups that we are seeing with Gardisil? Would they be coming out with statements that this drug was not necessary because "proper" decision-making on the youngsters' part would be enough in and of itself? Not likely. And with good reason.

So, what is the difference here? I submit that it is the role of "sex," and the irrational religious attitudes towards it. Any rational person would recognize that receiving an injection to prevent lung cancer is not likely to affect the decisions of an adolescent to smoke or not. And it is obviously the same with sexual behavior, in fact it is even LESS likely as there is no biological "drive" to smoke. Is this general inability to consider long-range behavioral implications in daily decision making not the very reason that we do not grant outright autonomy to children? Is this not why adults take it upon themselves to make serious decisions on their behalf? IS this not the role of a "responsible" adult?

There is no infringement on parental liberties to have children vaccinated with Gardisil. There is no state intrusion on what they can tell their kids about sex, or anything else. Most of the proposed laws have an opt-out provision, yet they are still opposed by some religious groups. Would there even be an opt-out clause if this were not a "sexually" transmitted virus? Probably not. But this is the latitude afforded to superstition in America, if that superstition is in the form of a "religion."

I say bravo Ms. Jacoby. We have to keep speaking out on these issues.

Of course we are a slave to our passions; we've got hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary history to thank for that. It's all about survival and reproduction.

As far as men treating women as property; we can thank our evolutionary history for that too. According to evolutionary theory, females are often the limiting resource (1 egg vs. billions of sperm), though it is far more complicated than that, often depending on mating strategies. To protect their "property", males often employ a strategy called mate guarding, especially since ovulation in humans is largely concealed. A number of reasons have been proposed for concealed ovulation: 1) hidden ovulation forces males to protect their "property" so that other males cannot impregnate "their" loose mates (you just can't trust those innocent, pure, virginal women); 2) Females and males have divergent reproductive interests (sexual conflict theory). The male wants to assure his paternity, whereas the female may want a non-philandering father (sticks close to home and provides lots of resources) to raise the offspring of the true biological father (a roguish devil) who sows his seed widely and is more likely to produce roguish, sexy sons (increases his and her fitness).

It’s no wonder then that men might use religious stricture and anything else at hand to assure paternity, whereas women, far from being pure and virginal, are active sexual participants with their own fitness interests to consider (not necessarily consciously).

I know I’m going to get howls of outrage from the fundamentalist folk on this website; save it.

One other point I’d like to make; don’t go looking to biology to justify your belief or behavior. This is called the naturalist fallacy; i.e. anything natural is good or is meant to be. Many plants have poisonous fruit (the apple might be spiritually toxic); even though the fruit is “natural”, don’t eat it. There is certainly a biological rationale favoring higher aggressiveness and murder rates in males, but we don’t condone homicide. Evolutionary theory and empirical evidence both explain and support why forced copulation (rape) is prevalent in many mating systems. This does not pardon such behavior and is likely to get you yahoos locked up if you try to use such reasoning to excuse rape. Similarly, for all you fundamentalist folk who don’t believe in biology, don’t go looking to the bible or any other sacred text to justify your behavior as well. Instead of the naturalist fallacy, you are succumbing to the same kind of logical disconnect (i.e. fallacy), though in this case it involves unreasonable beliefs. Aside from the biblical pronouncement that men are superior to women, the good book justifies all sorts of other extraordinary behavior: raping and killing wanton, adulteress women; slavery; killing apostates, heretics, and blasphemers; killing homosexuals; justifying incest (Lot and his daughters); stoning to death a whole host of those practicing strange offenses like planting the wrong crops together in the same field.

Finally, sex is good, I’m a slave to my passion, and just because love is essentially chemical doesn’t mean it is any less real.

Clarification -- male gorillas have small testicles because the females do not have multiple partners. Obviously, the male who manages to acquire a harem will have many partners, whereas most males of that species have none at all.

There are interesting studies on sperm competition and the size of male human testicles relative to body mass that show pretty conclusively that men and women in our species on average have had multiple sexual partners for probably thousands of generations. Not as many as partners as chimpanzees, many more than gorillas (who have harems). We may be a lot of things but we have NEVER been chaste! It is clear to see in our reproductive physiology, as clear as our historically omnivirous diet is indicated by our tooth morphology.

I agree with the main point of this post, although somewhat amazingly I find myself agreeing with one of Mary Cunningham's posts -- namely that the country of origin rather than the religion is the main determinant of family size, and that Catholics may have been unfairly singled out. That said, I hasten to add that the Catholic position on birth control and condoms, one shared by many fundamentalist Protestants, is very harmful and incredibly short-sighted and I very much wish they would change that stance.

Ms Jacoby,

You said "Punitive monotheistic religious attitudes toward sex have changed only to the extent that they have been modified by women who refuse to accept the notion that their enticing bodies are hopelessly impure vessels designed to tempt men."

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka a Mormon and wanted to point out that my monotheistic religion’s attitudes towards sex have been different than what you here describe.

I love, what LDS theology offers in additional scripture, revelation and teachings that I believe faithfully transcends the Virgin/W h o r e dichotomy and restores the virtue of Eve, sexuality and the in turn the marriage relationship.

In the Pearl of Great Price (additional LDS scripture restored in 1830 believed to be revealed to Joseph Smith), I find an expanded understanding of Eve and her relationship with Adam. She is curious and desirous of knowledge in her attraction to partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
She is honest, insightful and joyful in her statements that follow the consequences of partaking it - seeing herself as one who has now gained profound knowledge and meaning in entering the fallen world, understanding the atonement/her redemption and in becoming a parent.
She and Adam till the earth together, raise their children together, call upon God together and share their sorrows together.
In the Doctrine and Covenants section 138 (additional LDS scripture believed to be revealed to Joseph F. Smith in 1918) In vision, a glorified Eve is seen upon a throne beside an equally enthroned and glorified Adam.
Furthermore, I find in LDS theology that while sexual relationships are forbidden outside of marriage, sexuality in marriage is upheld as a sacred and beautiful expression of love and unity between a husband and wife.
Instead of being seen as a dirty earth bound necessity to procreation, it is seen as a potentially sanctifying experience in the marriage relationship for both the man and the woman in addition to being celebrated as the ushering in of the utmost of earthly blessings - a child.
In LDS theology, the “powers of procreation” will even persist into the life hereafter within covenant marriage relationships.

In these scriptures and teachings, I find the divine status of motherhood maintained, female inquisition, intelligence and sexuality as virtuous clarified and the marriage relationship lived as an equal partnership despite men and woman being given different roles exemplified.

Here I find an ideal I can embrace as my own and am happy to recommend.

To Andrew --

So you interpret natural law as the laws of nature. OK...

So, am I interpreting you correctly when I say that you believe there is no such thing as an act that is by its very nature wrong?

Robert B: Evolution, plate tectonics, quantum physics, etc.

To Andrew --

Yes, I understand that. My question was what your definition of natural law was, since you said that you would not define it as I did.

My intention is not to bait you. I'm honestly curious what you think about these issues.

Robert B: If moral absolutes exist outside the human mind, then what is their source? The only thing that I can think of is some supreme or supernatural entity. I am an atheist - I do not believe in any supernatural entity.

To Andrew --

OK, that's fair. So, how do you define natural law?

Robert B: That's not how I define natural law, but, given your definition, yes, I deny the existence of any such thing.

To Andrew --

You wrote, "On this planet, morality exists only within the context of humans. If you want me to accept that there are absolute morals that exist outside the context of humans, then you really don't understand what atheist means."

Please forgive a question that is getting way off-topic. Given your statements about morality, would you affirm or deny the existence of so-called "natural law" (that is, the idea that there are moral absolutes that exist independently of the human mind)?

Ed,

More "Edification":

Intercourse outside of marriage can lead not only to STDs but also divorce, illegitimate children, children without inheritance, alimony, child support, and loss of leadership figures in the child's life. This is why Christianity extols the sanctity of the marriage contract.

And my Aunt Katherine was making a point about practicing self-control. We got the picture and never considered such mutilation. :)

Ambassador: That's twice now that you've accused Ms. Jacoby of saying that sex has no moral significance. She said no such thing. She said sex is neither sinful nor sacred. Atheists do not believe in the concepts of sin or sacredness. These are purely religious concepts. But sex, along with many other things, certainly does have moral significance. You seem to be implying, please correct me if wrong, that morality not based on religion is not morality. That view is very offensive to atheists. The comment about pedophilia was especially troublesome.

I do not view sex between adults who are not married as immoral. Within the context of marriage, my pledge is my bond and it would be immoral and irresponsible to violate that pledge. I have been faithful to my wife for 35 years.

On this planet, morality exists only within the context of humans. If you want me to accept that there are absolute morals that exist outside the context of humans, then you really don't understand what atheist means.

To Tonio --

I never said that mankind could not control its passions, just that it usually needs a curb in order to do so. You yourself said that the purpose of law is "balancing the individual's wants with a goal of a peaceful society." What is law, then, but a curb to make certain our desires do not run out of control?

You also agree with me that history is "filled with examples of humans who never recognized their capability or else chose not to use it." I do not deny that there are those who could exercise this discipline without the benefit of the curbs that I discussed. However, they were (and are) few and far between (and I certainly don't count myself among them).

Every political philosopher that I can think of from Plato to the modern era (with the possible exception of Nietzsche) has espoused that mankind needs order and structure in order to function. My main complaint with Ms. Jacoby's statement is that it could easily be misconstrued as a denial of the validity of *any* type of authority, whether religious (which is her chief complaint) or secular.

The idea that women who bear a lot of children look like old scags is ebtirely false and offensive. I know women who have had six or more children, who are older than you, and look beautiful and young.

Some people need laws to keep from hurting others. Most of us have an innate sense of what's right and wrong, and it is based on the precept of not adding to the suffering of any living creature, whether on purpose or through carelessness. This in no way supports the divinity of Jesus, or the virginity of his mother, or that the entire cosmos was created by an intelligent designer, or any other of the countless myths perpetuated by the world's religious doctrines.
We need laws, clearly, but our laws are based on reason and reality, not myth & fantasy.

Miss Susan, you left out the part of your Catholic education where they explained how selfish it was to not have children and use the money on a washing machine. "The rich get richer and the poor get children" I recall are lyrics from a 50's song. Doris Day?

You also failed to address overpopulation. Life is still sexually transmitted? A disease?

Then there is the religious strategy of world conquest through procreation based upon the fact that the children adopt the religion of the parents. I recall hearing that protestants would be diluted to insignificant by their practice of birth control. Some portestants seem to have adjusted recently and rejoined holy mother church. They claim to be a majority at any rate.

One Pharaoh had 75 sons. That's over 56 years of pregnancy for his wife. I'll bet she was sore. Wonder if he had any daughters.

Is Dr Ruth on the panel here?

"It seems rather that you now affirm that there are moral components to sex, but you just don't want someone affiliated with any type of religion or faith to suggest so, because it cripples your argument against religious orthodoxy."

I don't know what Jacoby's answer would be, but here is mine - religious orthodoxy is not about morality, although the way a particular orthodoxy is defined may overlap with morality. Orthodoxy is about obedience to a religious authority for its own sake. Such an authority doesn't care about the principle of morality.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

Thank you for taking the time to offer a response. I just want to make sure that I am understanding your argument correctly.

First, in your original post, you stated that sex cannot be assigned to a moral category and that it doesn't have any moral significance. In your follow-up response, you affirm that there are good and evil episodes of sex. Which is it?

It seems rather that you now affirm that there are moral components to sex, but you just don't want someone affiliated with any type of religion or faith to suggest so, because it cripples your argument against religious orthodoxy. Hence, your comment: "A number of comments criticizing my description of sex as "good and pleasurable when engaged in by partners who wish each other well" offer perfect illustrations of the ways in which orthodox religion cripples human reason."

"Or are you saying that we ought to get rid of laws, since they also assume that men and women cannot control themselves?"

That is not how I view laws, at least in a democracy. I see the concept of laws as balancing the individual's wants with a goal of a peaceful society. Too far in one direction, and you have anarchy. Too far in the other, and you have totalitarianism. In my view, implicit in the concept of laws is the principle that an individual is capable of recognizing when his or her wants may conflict with the goal of a peaceful society.

I disagree with your contention that "mankind is generally a slave to its passions without some kind of curb, whether it be philosophical, religious, or legal." I suggest that humans are capable of governing their passions on their own. Certainly history is filled with examples of humans who never recognized their capability or else chose not to use it. But if we assume that humans have no such capability, then how was civilization ever created?

To Ms. Jacoby --

You said in your response (which, by the way, I applaud you for taking time out of your schedule to post):

"Religious prohibitions regarding sex are, in fact, based on the belief that men and women are incapable of controlling themselves and must be forced to do so by fear of hellfire and damnation."

Sadly, history has proven that mankind is generally a slave to its passions without some kind of curb, whether it be philosophical, religious, or legal. One need only point to the reaction of the Athenians during the plague of 431 BC recorded by Thucydides to understand that. Or are you saying that we ought to get rid of laws, since they also assume that men and women cannot control themselves?

A number of comments criticizing my description of sex as "good and pleasurable when engaged in by partners who wish each other well" offer perfect illustrations of the ways in which orthodox religion cripples human reason.

Of course pedophilia cannot be included in any description of good sex as an act between partners who wish each other well. Pedophilia is always a form of rape--physical or emotional. Rape is an evil act in the moral universe, whether one believes in God or not.

Adultery is somewhat different. It is a betrayal of a person to whom one has pledged love and fidelity, but it is certainly not pure evil in the sense that pedophilia and rape are evil.

No one who knows what love is, and what it means to treat other human beings decently, needs the ten commandments or priests and popes to tell her (or him) what is right or wrong in sexual ethics. And people who do not know how to love cannot be helped by any edicts from churches. Religious prohibitions regarding sex are, in fact, based on the belief that men and women are incapable of controlling themselves and must be forced to do so by fear of hellfire and damnation. That, by the way, is what veiling women is all about.

--Susan Jacoby

"Punitive monotheistic religious attitudes toward sex have changed only to the extent that they have been modified by secular knowledge--and by women who refuse to bow their heads and accept the notion that their enticing bodies are also hopelessly impure vessels designed to tempt men."

An example of that would be the burqa, a symbol of the ridiculous idea that men cannot control their sexual impulses around a woman.

Traditionally, Western culture emphasized virginity for women but not for men. Girls who lost their virginity were ruled ineligible for marriage. No such custom existed for boys. That old custom seemed to serve no useful purpose for society, and certainly had nothing to do with any practical definition of morality.

What a common-sense and logical essay about sex-thanks, Ms. Jacoby. You are one of those precious candles in the dark, and I can't wait to read your book.

I think your critcs missed the part in your essay where you talked about sex being "good and pleasurable, insofar as it is engaged in by partners who wish each other well." Just like with food, or anything else we really enjoy, for that matter, it's a matter of personal accountability, self-discipline, and, well, common sense. If you need a rule-book to keep you from becoming a gluttonous sloth, or a perverted degenerate, I feel sorry for you.
(Before anybody gets offended, here's my qualifyer: If you engage honestly in sex with other consenting adults, and no living creatures are abused in the process, and it doesn't take so much time out of your life that you can't keep the bills paid and maintain other social obligations, you are not by my definition a sexual degenerate.)

Susan, your arguments miss the true point of both the sacred nature of sex as well as its sinful potential.

Religion considers sex sacred because it is the power of creation. It is the power to create new life. But having acknowledged this, people have sex most often for pleasure, not procreation. This is great, so long as you are responsible with the power you are dealing with.

I think the Bible takes a very practical view of sex: monogamous sex within the context of marriage is good.

Monogamous sex lessens the chance of getting or giving a sexually transmissible disease. True: Modern science has never been better at curing sexually transmitted diseases – but herpes is becoming more and more common and there are an increasing number of drug-resistant forms of gonorrhea. AIDS may have never made it out of the jungle if it were not for sex and if it had, it certainly would not be the epidemic it is today.

It is a sin (reckless or malicious behavior) to place your pleasure over the health and well-being of another.

Marriage is a commitment - it is the best way of providing for the emotional and material well-being of any child you may intentionally or accidentally create. Children living in single-parent households are many times more likely to live in poverty than children who have two full-time parents who are married. Children who have a full-time mother and father are more likely to have successful relationships as they grow up and these children tend to do better in school and in life.

A baby born out-of-wedlock used to be called an illegitimate child, but this is incorrect. The child bares no fault. It is the parents who are illegitimate because they placed their pleasure above the well-being of the child they have created. This selfishness is also a sin.

And despite the widespread use of contraceptives, there are more unintended pregnancies today than ever before.

And what of married homosexual couples? Should marriage apply to them? I think in Biblical terms, ‘married homosexual’ is an oxymoron. I believe the Bible sanctions marriage because it assumes that a man and a woman sharing the same bed will eventually produce a child, whether that is their intent or not. Homosexual persons cannot procreate, no mater how hard they may try, and so I do not think marriage was intended to apply to them.

What about an infertile heterosexual couple? Should marriage apply to them? Two thousand years ago, infertility was determined by putting a man and a woman together and letting them have sex, repeatedly, over the course of several years. You don’t determine your level of commitment after the baby’s on the way; you do it before.

Susan, get a spiritual life!

A healthy sex life exists not to objectify your spouse or for your own gratification. A healthy sex life is found within the safety of marriage. It is a loving expression that sees the spouse as a whole person. It is in a way that says I love you enough to create life with you. That is sex. That is the Catholic Church's teaching.

Ms. Jacoby seems to take this all down to sexism. A typical intellectually light weight position on her part.

To Ashley --

The respect for women shown in medieval culture, while imperfect, was a far cry from the ancient world. Many scholars portray the ideals of courtly love as simply another form of patriarchy, but that neglects the idea that a woman can be valued for the way she lives her life instead of for her biological processes. The cult of the Virgin helped inspire that ideal, as did the various other female saints (not all of whom died virgins).

As for your condemnation of Catholic birth control, it is true that natural family planning (NPF) is not perfect. But then, neither is any other form of birth control. The problem that many have with NPF is that it requires far more discipline than simply putting on a condom or taking a hormone pill every day. NPF demands a certain degree of sexual self-control, which many people nowadays seem loath to exert.

Lest you think me a secret hypoctite, Ashley, I will admit that my wife and I did indeed have pre-marital sex and used artificial birth control. I was not attempting to portray myself as "holier-than-thou", but pleading with Ms. Jacoby to broaden her mind a little by actually trying to understand *why* the Church takes such a seemingly old-fashioned view of sexuality.

Ms Jacoby, is a name caller. She doesn't engage on the well known moral issues relating to Catholic teaching on human sexual relations. Its easier for her to call names than to examine teaching at face value.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

I appreciate your comments. They provide me with valuable insights in to what non-believers think about certain issues. I do want to draw attention to some of the points that you made however.

You said, "Assigning sex to a single moral category is every bit as silly as attributing moral significance to food. If there is one aspect of traditional religion that infuriates me more than any other, it is its insistence on making sex either sinful or sacred."

Everyone I know was outraged (and rightly so) when the news broke about the pedophilia running rampant in the Catholic Church. May I ask the question again, is pedophilia morally wrong? Would you classify that as "sin"? According to your definition of sex that does not hold any moral connotations, then by definition you would have to conclude that pedophilia is not wrong. Surely you would not come to such a conclusion!

And indeed I don't believe that you do because you go on to say, "Sex is simply (and, for humans, not so simply) a part of the natural world. It is good and pleasurable insofar as it is engaged in by partners who wish other other well, bad and painful insofar as it is an instrument of power and domination rather than a source of mutual joy."

In response to this comment, I simply pose a question to Ms. Jacoby. I don't know your biography, so I'll operate under a hypothetical assumption that you are married. If, again hypothetically speaking, you come home early from work one day and you catch your spouse in the act of committing adultery, is that morally wrong? Based upon your comments, your spouse and partner wish each other well, so therefore it is good. Therefore, you do not have a justifiable right to be upset. If it is not morally wrong, then you have nothing to be upset about, since it is only a physical act of the natural world and has no moral significance (as you suggest) and the two that engaged in the act meant each other well. Stating such an argument in these forums is fine, but would you believe your own argument if such a hypothetical situation actually happened to you? (I pray that you won't have to experience this however).

Given these two examples, how can you come to such a conclusion that sex has no moral significance?

Also, you stated: "One of the main differences between my mother and most of my friends' mothers was that my mom looked much younger. I realize now that the real difference was that she had only two children and most of my friends' mothers were worn out by continuous childbearing." The suggestion that the more children one has the quicker they age is shaky at best. When making such a suggestion, I would ask that you cite some statistical data that concludes such a correlation. There are many factors that could go into such an observation: your mother could use a different kind of facial lotion or makeup. Your mother may have been someone who handled stress well. Your mother could have been someone whom God blessed to age later in life. The point is that your conclusion is based upon a single observation made from a biased perspective (she was your mother) and does not indicate in any way your conclusion. Therefore, your argument based upon this conclusion fails.

As I stated earlier, you have given me new insights however. For that, I thank you.

Thanks for the rational point of view!

Hey Concerned,

Quit trolling out your sick Aunt Katherine's nonsense. It wasn't interesting on the last thread either.

To Blaine --

If you think that it is reasonable for Ms. Jacoby to condemn religion for all that is wrong in the world, that is your privilege. I tend to think that her words are merely a childish rebellion against her Catholic upbringing.

A truly "reasonable" person (whether he or she believes or not) is able to recognize and accept that religion has both positive and negative aspects. Ms. Jacoby seems unable to do that, which is a pity since she seems to have a fine mind otherwise.

Robert B,

My irony meter is on the verge of exploding. In your rant against Susan Jacoby's article, you exemplify the sexually perverse attitudes Ms. Jacoby exposes.

I think it's quite obvious Ms. Jacoby is aware of Christianity's sexual proscriptions. Perhaps some Christians do believe that the purpose of religious sexual doctrine is 'to remove sexuality as being the sole focus of one's existence'. In practice, however, it is almost purely a means of control. In our society this primarily takes the form of social pressure to conform to accepted sexual practices. The religiously-based attempt to deny homosexuals an equal place in society is the most obvious expression of this desire to control.

Please tell us how exactly Catholic devotion towards the Virgin Mary has prevented women from being baby factories. The Catholic Church still prohibits all effective forms of birth control, even for married couples. Your claim holds no water.

In everything we do, there is always the safety aspect. It is obvious that intercourse can be very, very pleasurable but it also can be very, very dangerous especially when having intercourse with multiple partners. This has been recognized in Judaism and Christianity for many millenium with the resultant Commandments of Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife. Mother Nature can be very cruel when there are violations of said Commandments. This cruelity can be extended to the children of violators with diseases being transferred and families being torn apart.

My very wise Aunt Katherine's advice to her nephews? Slamming it in a window brings instant self-control.

I am sorry, I am just not in the mood for evasions right now. Unsolved problems only come back to haunt. God Bless you whether you believe or not....up to you dear friend. Again, I am sorry. Please forgive the pain I feel. I'm getting better.

Wow! What another really courageous stand you take!! Get a clue.

Jacoby dearest, what would we do without you? Seldom have truer words been spoken.

The cosmic surveillance man, if one is to believe Judeo-Christian or Islamic scriptures, is more concerned- much more than he is about any other issue of morality and ethics- with fulminations on the proper use of genitalia
.
Theists, in all their dogmatic insistence on chastity unwittingly belittle their God: as if the creator of the Vass universe remotely cares where one puts his penis.

Of course it would all be harmless comic releif were it not that some Muslim authorities take this business of sexual morality in dead earnest: hanging gays (as in the recent case of the two young Iranians) and stoning women to death.

Ms. Jacoby's comments are not "anti-theistic," they are "reasonable."

Dear Miss Cunningham,

I find it troubling that you consider it appropriate to ask Susan Jacoby to chant with you as if she were your child.

On the merits of your argument, you are correct that wealth influences fertility rates more than religion. It does not follow, however, that religion plays no role. Procreation is not a monocausal phenomenon.

Susan Jacoby cites data, admittedly anecdotally, that demonstrate that there are a adherents of certain religions who have more children than their neighbors subscribing to different faiths. That's an argument that large-n statistical studies confirm.

Thank you very much for providing context to Susan Jacoby's argument but your criticism of her argument cannot be rationally sustained.

Dear Ms Jacoby,

You write complete hogwash! Look up something called the "demographic transition" and you will find that poor rural folk, having no social security and only the labour they and their offspring can manage, have more children. Their children are their riches--in fact there used to be a Sicilian saying "How many children rich are you?" Disadvantaged urban people--like the Palestinians in the West Bank, Roman Catholics in West Belfast--also have more children. Religion has less to do with fertility than poverty.

The tosh you write about *your* mother staying young and pretty while your *friend's* mothers looked like hags is even worse. There is no--and I mean none--demographic evidence from US areas to suggest that--adjusted for income and social class--Catholics had significantly more children than non Catholics. What does/did determine fertility in immigrant populations is the fertility in their country of origin. Memorize that! This means that if your mother was a Catholic immigrant from France (where birthrates were low), she would have fewer children than if she were a Catholic immigrant from Ireland (where birthrates were higher). Today the highest fertility rates in the US are amongst Mexican immigrant women, imitating their country of origin similar to their Irish and Italian predecessors.

I normally would not write here, but you are going to open up a Pandora's Box of anti-Catholic diatribes & I just hate them, I really do. I won't respond to them, but I do wish you'd stop writing intolerant nonsense about fertility rates amongst different religious groups. They are worse than wrong--they are positively harmful. Say this again three times and memorize it:

Globally & in the developing world birth rates are not determined by religion but by poverty.
Globally & in the developing world birth rates are not determined by religion but by poverty.
Globally & in the developing world birth rates are not determined by religion but by poverty.

Thank you.

Ms. Jacoby,

Once again, your anti-theism is raising its ugly head. I find that sad, seeing as your columns indicate that you are an intelligent human being with important things to say.

Have you ever considered that Christianity makes sexuality a sin only in certain conditions (i.e. promiscuity, sex outside the bonds of matrimony, etc.)? In doing so, it tries (and is trying) to remove sexuality as being the sole focus of one's existence.

Have you considered that the devotion shown for the Virgin Mary by Catholics like myself which you so readily disdain actually aided in having people view women as something other than baby factories? Sexual morality is certainly not the sole province of religion, but it is a major vehicle for it.

Your "crusade" to blame religion for all of the world's ills blinds you and to the very real fact that religion has done much good for humanity as well. The problem is that religion's failures make the front page while its successes are often invisible.

I'm not asking you to believe, Ms. Jacoby. I'm just asking that you respect and try to understand our beliefs as most of us respect and try to understand yours.