Sexual Sin: A Private, Not Public, Affair

Daniel, I stuck around because you kept answering my posts. Well, I wouldn't call it answering, just agreeing to disagree and avoiding the questions. You call yourself a Christian and yet appear to take God's word as anything but. It seems based on the postmodern, liberal school of thought that has no reference points that will allow examining - an invisible faith that doesn't want to be scrutinized but is willing to call someone else on theirs. I invited you to show me from the Bible where and why you believe I error. I don't think I am going to get a straight, honest answer to my questions, so we might as well move on.

Take care!

Peter

I know that I am alot older and more experienced than you are. There are lots of people in the world like you. I have met many of them.

You want to engage me personally in dialogue, but it's not going to happen so stop asking. You know what you know, and you know I am wrong, and there is nothing that I could say to make you understand, so I am not going to try to. I have seen your other posts, and how you react to other people's arguments. You are God's all-knowing spokesman. You have never responded to me saying this, other than to say that it is not true. Then why do you think I say it? You certainly seem like a very arrogant person, who could use a good dose of humility. But that is your problem.

There is no one else reading or posting, here, not a soul, maybe we should both move on.

Daniel, you are giving me power I do not have. Judgment on where anyone of us goes is reserved for God alone.

What I cannot understand is what you base your Christianity on? How do you decide on what you will and will not accept and where do you get your standard from? Since it is not God's word is it your own subjective opinion? Do you make the rules? Do you call truth true, or is it true whether you believe it or not?

Peter

Clishces and platitudes; platitudes and cliches. And endless Bible-quoting, and endless and profound assurance that you have all the answers as God's spokesman on Earth. I am not impressed. And so, Peter, as God's agent on Earth, go ahead and cast me into Hell.

Evening Nuh-uh,

YOU: "First of all, your quotes don’t back up your claim that the Lord Himself told us WHEN the beginning of God's creation was. Unless, of course, you mean THE BEGINNING, which doesn’t require scripture to figure out. They also were not created male and female FIRST anyway."

Well, he asks us to worship Him with our minds.

If He discloses that man was around in the beginning of His creation, and if the genealogies trace Jesus' human lineage back to the first man, Adam, then we can get a rough idea of when that came about. WE know that there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ. That is forty-two generations. (Matthew 1:17) We also know the linage from Abraham to Adam. That is recorded in Luke 3:34-38 and also in various places in the Old Testament such as Genesis 5 and 10 to name two.

YOU: "According to Genesis: “3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.”

“10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

6 "A firmament"... By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.”"

YOU: "There was morning and there was night the first day, but the Earth itself was not created until the third day. So, the idea of the first two days being only 48 hours does not stand up to scrutiny. I have NO REASON to believe as you do, but still believe that we are both Christians."

End of quote.

Genesis 1:1-2 is an introduction. In those statements God creates the heavens and the earth first. Verse 2 informs us that the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep. Verses 3 to the end of the chapter is an explanation on each specific twenty four hour period of creation, after the creation of the heavens and the earth, starting with the creation of light and proceeding onwards.

Another word for earth is land. There is no contradiction between the first statement and preceding statements. In one place it means this terrestrial ball, in another the ground or land. It is just like the word "world" or the word "all" in Scripture. They have a variety of meanings depending on context. For instance, the word all can be used without distinction to mean every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, or it can mean within a category or kind, like all peoples, meaning people from every tribe and language and nation of the world.

YOU: "Peter, you really remind me of her. Turning one’s back on common sense and/or reason , which are gifts from God is not better than what I believe even if I am wrong. In any event, you are not right simply by nature of your inability to be humble."

I can say the same of you, Nuh-uh in your willingness to believe what man tells you. You lack godly wisdom.

I am using the reasoning abilities that God has given me. God is our Creator and He does not make mistakes; not the God I worship. He is infinite in His understanding. The question is why don't you believe Him? Are you always going to trust the views of man over your Creator?

YOU: "Yes, we are asked to proclaim the message also. I agree, but not by “showing them why their worldview does not stand the test of sensibility” and claiming I have stuck my “neck on the chopping” block when they are INEVITABLY not receptive."

Whether they are receptive or not is not up to me, or you, but up to God. We can only be faithful in proclaiming His good news to the world. We don't save, He does. (Matthew 1:21; Ephesians 2:8, 9) Notice who does the action; notice who is sovereign.

YOU: "Sticking your neck on the chopping block is standing by your faith even under threat of death, not having to deal with fallout for bad manners and condescension. You are not a martyr yet my friend."

It involves the whole gambit Nuh-uh. That includes persecution. The Lord Himself gave us instruction in the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5:3-12)

Paul is a prime example. (1 Corinthians 9:16-18; Romans 1:14-17; Acts 9:15, 16) How many times during his life did he barely escape death for preaching the gospel? Needless to say he was persecuted before he was martyred. (Romans 8:35) How many times did he reason with the Jews or gentiles? Acts 17 is a prime example.

YOU: "I believe in living my life in such a way that if someone asks , “Why are you so content”, I can credit my faith. If they want to know specifics, I am more than happy to share. If someone comes to me with a problem, among other practical advice I might add, “don’t forget to turn to you faith”. If they want to know about mine, or why I would turn to it, I will explain. No one would ever ask if my approach is “you are wrong, not sensible and you need to know why”."

"How, then, can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?...Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:14, 15, 17)

Hi Daniel,

I wasn't going to reply to what you said in your last post, but I started thinking about it and I think it deserves a response. I do not know how long you have been a professing Christian, what exactly your beliefs are concerning the Scriptures, but I know this, I'm not going to use flattery when you are condoning falsehood. Granted, I could have used a more gentile approach, but I wanted to wake you, Arminius and Nuh-uh from your slumbers. I was hoping we could engage in some Biblical discussion on why you are saying the things you are, on why you believe that science trumps the word of God, for He created the whole universe and understands perfectly how it was made to the last detail. Scripture claims to be the infallible inerrant word of God and as such is accurate and speaks the truth on all things, including its historicity, ethics and science where it addresses these issues.

If you want to question the veracity of His word and put it to the test, I wish you would not try to disguise it as humility or tolerance, because when you do you fall into the trap of the relativist. Why would I want to compromise His truth as the objective external standard of all truth in order to tolerate falsehood? I'm trying to understand how it is possible to confess that you are a Christian and yet not follow the teachings of your Founder? It seems like you are practicing duplicity. You are trying to make friends with the philosophies of this world to appear tolerant and respectful of others, but wWhen you do this you compromise the truth of God.

Relativism and Christianity do not go well together. To do and believe what seems right to you is to go against the truth of Scripture. As a brother in Christ I am calling you to reason this out by God's word, not by human standards.

Relativism is a revolt against God. You are in effect saying that you know better than the God who put the entire universe together and has perfect understanding of it and is not correct in His revelation to you.

Your statements earlier show me that you do not understand the teachings of Christ, so I figure that you are young to the Christian faith and have received your training from a liberal source. That is why I offered to discuss our differences by the use of Scripture. Your response shows me an immaturity in knowing what you believe or why. You are believing what you prefer to believe, rather than trusting the word of God. That is like trying to manipulate what God has said. If you think I am wrong in what I have said, use the Scriptures to show me why. If you are rightly interpreting His word and are able to convince me of such, I will apologize sincerely. But what you are doing is dismissing what I have said as Biblical without showing me why it is not so in Scripture. God is not vague in His revelation of Himself and of our condition before Him.

Just because the world, as a whole has fallen for the idea of relativism, that truth is relative, what you make it, keep your head about you, test everything and hold on to what is good. Don't practice dishonesty by misinterpreting the Bible, find out what it really says, for God's Word is about truth, and our worship of Him relies on an accurate understanding of who He is and what He has done. (John 4:23-24; John 8:23-25) Don't be deceived by worldly standards. Relativism leads to totalitarianism or to anarchy. When everyone does what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25; 17:6), then truth is perceived whatever you make it to be, where my truth is different from your truth, when something is true for me but something else contradictory is equally true for you, we are on the path to utter chaos.

"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the One who now holds it back will continue to do so till He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the splendor of His coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refuse to believe the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that they will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12)

Daniel, make sure you are preaching the truth of the Gospel instead of trying to win the approval of men. (Galatians 1:6-12)

As the apostle Paul said,

"For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed - God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else." (1Thessalonians 2:3-6)

The gospel is not an inclusive message. All those who do not believe will not be saved.

"If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His Father's glory with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)

"He who is not for me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Matthew 12:30)

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 3, 4)

"But dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. But you, dear friends, build yourself up in the most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." (Jude 17-21)

"In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposers will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:12-17)

Daniel, when a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, a disciple of the Lord, ignores or will not engage in Scripture to instruct and correct and train someone who he believes is not preaching according to God's word, something is wrong. If you cannot show me from His standard why I err, but want to pass judgment from your own wisdom the signal goes up.

Pauls admonition to Timothy was,

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)

I hope you do not take His Word for granted. You are on a faith forum, that for the most part is going to be hostile to the message of the cross. (1 Corinthians 1:18- 2:16) Don't settle for a standard that is second best, find out what God says brother.

Peter Huff

You are free to quote the Bible all you want. But you are a very wearisome guy. You are rude, even to the point of being obnoxious; you reserve that right for yourself, but when I am honest here, and say my reaction to your rudeness, then all of a sudden, I am the bad guy.

I think, in your demeanor, you are rude, obnoxious, and off-putting. And I'm a Christian! Think of how atheists and non-Christians must perceive you.

You are not making any headway with your current style of arguing. Maybe you should rethink things and try a different. way.

YOU: "The trouble is you more often don’t say anything else that makes me believe that YOU actually believe this."

I'm not following you here.

YOU: "You claim to know what I am mistaken about in the midst of asking me what that actually is."

That is just a means I use to get you to see that your rational does not make sense. Or, when you say something, such as, the Bible is not inerrant, I could ask you how you know this to draw out a response and make you commit to your position. That way I come to see how you think on a specific subject. In that way I can also test what you believe about the Word of God.

YOU: "You ask questions crafted around the desired answers and change the subject in response to challenges of your claims."

Half the time I find you do not answer my question, so I rephrase the question to try to get to the bottom of your thinking.

YOU: "When I questioned you about such things you responded directly to me with questions of what I believe as a matter of faith. I had already stated that things I believe on faith alone I know I cannot prove, but that I also will not claim that the can be proven…least of which by pointing to scripture. By pointing to scripture I may be able to indicate WHY I believe it, but not as PROOF of it’s truth. I’ll even accept that it is proof of why I believe, but again, not that it is proof of my belief being true."

The point I am trying to make to you is that your worldview is inconsistent and at times contradictory. Faith, my friend, is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1). You do not seem sure of what you believe. You do not even know which words of the Bible are true if you do not take the whole of it as God's infallible and inerrant word. You pick and choose which verses you are going to believe in as true and someone else picks those exact same verses as false. So who is right? The point I make is that either the whole Bible is what it says it is, God's revelation to us, preserved by Him, or it is not something we can put our faith (trust) in because if we are wrong in believing that one verse is not true, we can be equally wrong as to whether other verses are true.

YOU: "This little exchange between you and Daniel is an excellent example:

DANIEL: "When you seek to cast doubt on evolution, and ridicule people who believe it, you are really making a statement loud and clear: "I am ignorant." And you are undermining the credibility of Christians and Christianity because you imply that all Christians must believe as you do, when, in fact, they do not."

ME: "Yes I am casting doubt on evolution because it is not true. No I am not undermining the credibility of the Christian message Daniel. You are the one putting doubt on the character of God and validity of God's word."

The Lord Himself told us when the beginning of God's creation was,

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' (Mark 10:6)

"'Haven't you read,' He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' (Matthew 19:4)

YOU: "First of all, your quotes don’t back up your claim that the Lord Himself told us WHEN the beginning of God's creation was.

God uses the words, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" to signify the start of His creation. Would you grant that or not? He tells us that He spoke into existence the physical universe by such phrases/references as "God said" nine times at a quick scan in the first chapter of Genesis. Psalm 33:6,9 confirms the exact same thing as do other passages,

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth...For He spoke, and it came to be."

Are these verses clear and plain to you or would you like to dispute the meaning of them? (See also Psalm 148:5; Hebrews 11:3)

So when Jesus refers to "'Haven't you read,' He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female" what beginning do you believe Jesus is referring to? Let's see how you read something into the Scriptures that are not there. Jesus is referring to the account of creation that is laid out in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The word "yom" is used 2,225 times in the Old Testament, mostly meaning an ordinary day.

The phrase "evening and morning" break down the meaning even more specifically. The term evening and morning is used in 37 verses outside of Genesis, every time describing a normal day. Why would the meaning change here?

In the hundreds of times that the word "yom" is used in conjunction with numbers (the first day, the second day, etc) it never means anything other than a normal day. Why would it change in Genesis?

The Hebrew word for ages is not yom but olam.

When God gives the commandment to work six days and rest on the seventh and gives Himself as the example by citing how long it took Him to create the heavens and the earth, the seas, and ALL THAT IS IN THEM, how would the Israelites know how long this was if it was not earthly days that God created in? Exodus 20:11

The Bible tells us that death came into this world by the disobedience of one man. Therefore it follows that man was on this earth at the beginning of God's creation.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12)

Hundreds, if not thousands of verses throughout the two testaments treat the Genesis accounts as historical events.

These are just a few of the reasons why a correct interpretation of Scripture reveals a young earth. We can get into it further if you like.

YOU: " Unless, of course, you mean THE BEGINNING, which doesn’t require scripture to figure out. They also were not created male and female FIRST anyway."

I don't follow the drift of what you are saying here.

YOU: "I agree fully with Daniel that you undermine the Christian message. I do not believe as you do, but am a Christian. You claim to KNOW the mind of God himself. You are not just allowed to interpret scripture, but YOUR interpretation is the only RIGHT one. You question my Christianity because I can believe that God is the creator and one of his methods is evolution of the species."

Please give me examples of undermining Scripture. Scripture is undermined when you read a meaning into the text that is not there, when you make God say something that He did not say, when you go counter to the revelation of God as to the truthfulness of His Word, when you try to supply metaphor to everything in the Bible, without just cause to do so, when you rely on what man says over and above what God has revealed.

As for knowing the mind of Christ, Scripture both reveals and instructs us to be like minded (Philippians 2:1-5), to find out what is pleasing to God (Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:3, etc), and how we can know God (Ephesians 3:19; Colossians 2:3; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John, etc)

I question for a number of reasons, only one of which is your belief that God uses macro-evolution to create.

YOU: "Furthermore, the actual statements you make about evolution itself indicate that you don’t really know what it is, so denouncing it is just a case of you preferring what someone else had to say about it…which according to you is not the same as looking to God for the answers. I am not aware of any scripture where God either denounces evolution, nor reveals his METHODS of creation.
You quote from Genesis: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." (Exodus 20:11)

I spent years testing the claims of evolution and over twenty years in Bible study. I know enough about evolution to know it is not true.

YOU: "There is no claim that they are 24-hour days though. After all, what is a 24-hour day? The earth making a complete turn."

See my reply above.

I'm getting tired so I will continue tomorrow with you reasoning, the Lord willing.

Here's some advice that Paul offered Timothy,

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)

Daniel, why are you speaking for Nuh-uh? This is a faith forum. Aren't I entitled to a say? Are you the censor here who decided for others? Is your opinion the only one that counts? I am prepared to shake the dust of my feet concerning you, but Nuh-uh has not told me to get lost yet. But thanks for your graciousness anyway!

Nuh-uh, you said,

"You pointing to God as the one who hold the answers is good. The problem here is that you reinforce the point we are making. The questions are not worth answering nor are the arguments valid.

"What does pointing to God as the one with the answers have to do with you asking questions that are contrived in such a way that the ONLY answer is the one YOU want? Furthermore, when you ask, “How do you know they are true or right? Do you just prefer what they have to say?”, you give a perfect example. You SAY you point to God as the on with the answers, but what reason do I have to believe that he actually gave them to you? Because I know YOU “are true and right”? Because I “prefer” what YOU have to say?"

I think it is very relevant that God has given us a trustworthy standard, His Word. Without an absolute standard that has been revealed to mankind it is every man's opinion for himself, exactly what someone who does not believe that the Scriptures are infallible is trying to establish, his standard over God's. So I appeal to His standard as the only way to make sense of morality or truth. It is the condition for morality and making sense of this world.

What must recognize that words in context have certain meaning, so it is not a matter of what I have to say, but actually what God says in the Bible.

YOU: "You further post: “And Scripture reveals the true meaning for Scripture reveals Scripture.”

YOU: "This is much like someone saying, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.”

It is also like a scientist saying science proves science because it is scientific. Look hard enough and you will find that this is the nature of reasoning. It is circular. But what is the standard used?

YOU: "I do not accept this. Rather I believe that the Bible is the word of God because my faith tells me so. However, if another person’s faith tells them differently, I am not going to assert to them that they are flat out wrong and back it up with, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so”, or “Scripture reveals the true meaning for Scripture reveals Scripture.”"

Really! How does your faith tell you this Nuh-uh? Does it say, "I believe the Bible because nobody can make sense of it so it must be the word of God?" Does it say, "It is just another religious book like so many other religious books that is used by the God of the universe to convey spiritual truths. It's not based on history or reality, just mythology and metaphor?" Or does it say, "I believe the Bible because it is true in what it says?"

What does your faith rest on, blindness? You can't see God so how do you know He exists? Because you feel Him? How do you know your feelings are real? Somebody else believes the exact opposite that you do, that there is no God. Are they right too? Can you both be right? Can there actually be a God and not be a God at the same time? Not logically, but you try to live as if logic is valid. Without it nothing could be made sense of. Where does logic come from? Did it just happen by a random chance process of evolution, like the atheist believes? Are we all just biological machines? Likewise if God speaks in contradictions then He would not be consistent in what He said and we would not know what to believe. This is not the case.

What do you base you belief in God in, if not on His infallible inerrant, trustworthy Word of truth?

Do you believe that only some of the Bible is true? If so, which verses do you decide to believe as true? What happens if someone who believes in the same manner, believes that you are wrong, other verses are the ones that are true? Who decides? Who is right?

No my friend, truth does not depend on yours or my personal feelings, it depends on whether something is true to what is real or not, regardless of whether someone happens to believe or not. Either God's word is true or it is not. You can't have it both ways. Which is it for you?

What do these words mean to you,

"Every word of God is flawless" (Proverbs 30:5)

"All Your words are true" (Psalm 119:160)

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappears, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the LAW until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

"Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

"If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you." (John 15:7)

God is real, whether someone believes in Him or not. People deny the God of Scripture because they want to be the ones in control.

YOU: "I think your beliefs are good, but your assertion that YOU are right and any differing belief is wrong is absurd."

If I am right then logically any differing belief is wrong and absurd. I cannot be right and wrong at the same time. It is not logical. But the proof is not what I say, but what the God of the Scriptures says. And I contend that He is necessary for anything to be made sense of, whether that be logic, truth, ethics, origins, the universality of nature, etc.

"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments." (Colossians 2:2-4)

YOU: "If there were NO subjectivity in the meaning of what is written in the Bible there would be ONLY ONE Christian denomination. There are, as we both know, many."

Yes there are many denominations, because people think that they can read into the Scriptures their own meaning, like you are trying to do. You need to find out what God actually is saying in His word; not what you want it to say.

See 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:13

ME: "The Bible deals with actual historic people, places and events. The Resurrection is an historical happening. What do you find unhistorical about the Bible?"

YOU: "A Tale of Two Cities, and Gone With the Wind deal with actual historical places and events, but they are not history books."

Yes they do, but the characters are pure fiction. Jesus Christ is a real Person. There is a great difference between what comes out of someones mind and what really is.

"Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly." (1 Timothy 4:7)

What you, Nuh-uh are missing by not paying careful attention to Scripture is what Paul warned of in 2 Timothy 4:2-4,

"Preach the Word: be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. For a time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want them to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Or

2 Peter 1:19,

And we have the Word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

YOU: "I believe in the mystery of the resurrection, but do not run around insisting that it is indisputably true and can be proven…least of which by way of what is written in the Bible. I also don’t believe that the Bible was meant to be used this way. I do not believe that the timeline of the Bible was intended to be SO accurate as to be able to determine the age of the earth by counting backward through the family trees."

Believing in the Resurrection is a good start, but what do you believe about it? If it is not indisputable truth how do you know it is true at all? Can you not trust that God speaks only what is true? (Hebrews 6:16-19)

The Bible does speak in terms of generalities and also specifically about the age of the earth. We know that man was here in the beginning (2 Peter 3:3-7; Romans 1:19-20; Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6, etc.), that death entered the world from man's sin (Romans 5:12), that the earthly lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38)

The genealogies throughout the Bible are not just there so that we can fall asleep over them, but serve the purpose of tracing the lineage of Jesus to the time of Adam, through a certain family tree.

I'm going to continue of the next post, this is getting way too long.

Peter Huff

Please don't waste your time here with your Bible-quotin' cliches. Your arguments are meant for a Sunday School class, where everyone present already believes exactly as you do. Save it for Sunday. Thanks

Well Nuh-uh, I give you credit for responding with Scripture and thanks for your blessings!

5:30 a.m. comes early so I will respond to what you have to say later on this week. Thanks for the effort. Let's see how your interpretation holds up to the reasoning of the Scriptures.

Blessings in Christ Jesus the Lord!

Huh-uh

Your post was very impressive. I wanted to highlight something you said to contrast it to Peter Huff's views:

I have no proof of my faith; I seek no proof; and I offer no proof; that is why I call it faith. Peter Huff is working feverishly, and futiley to prove everything he says, but he will not and cannot succeed.

And a last thought, if you have confidence in the positions that you hold, that gives you alot of strength. I for instance, do not mind hearing Susan Jacoby's opinions because I have confidence in my own. In her many writings here, I have never read a single thing that has challenged my core belief about Christianity, nor insulted, me, as a Christian, at all. In fact, I find her to be a pretty polite, person.

So, it makes me wonder, at all the angry Christians who perceive hate in her writing, when I do not see anything like that, at all.

Arminus & Daniel (BTW, that's my REAL name)

It's been nice getting to see posts from people who are faith affirming.

It is, at the very least, nice to see the forum being used for its intended purpose. Sometimes it can be so hateful in here, don't you think?

Bless you both.

P.S. Bless you too Peter Huff.

Peter Huff,

Daniel posted: "I have to agree with the others, that your arguments and questions are not worth answering. You are not really giving any kinds of valid arguments, nor making any valid points, at all."

You responded: “Well Daniel, what do you base standards on? I point to God as the one who holds the answers. You just agree with others. How do you know they are true or right? Do you just prefer what they have to say? Is there a basis for truth?”

You pointing to God as the one who hold the answers is good. The problem here is that you reinforce the point we are making. The questions are not worth answering nor are the arguments valid.

What does pointing to God as the one with the answers have to do with you asking questions that are contrived in such a way that the ONLY answer is the one YOU want? Furthermore, when you ask, “How do you know they are true or right? Do you just prefer what they have to say?”, you give a perfect example. You SAY you point to God as the on with the answers, but what reason do I have to believe that he actually gave them to you? Because I know YOU “are true and right”? Because I “prefer” what YOU have to say?

Makes no sense.

You further post: “And Scripture reveals the true meaning for Scripture reveals Scripture.”

This is much like someone saying, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.”

I do not accept this. Rather I believe that the Bible is the word of God because my faith tells me so. However, if another person’s faith tells them differently, I am not going to assert to them that they are flat out wrong and back it up with, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so”, or “Scripture reveals the true meaning for Scripture reveals Scripture.”

I think your beliefs are good, but your assertion that YOU are right and any differing belief is wrong is absurd.

If there were NO subjectivity in the meaning of what is written in the Bible there would be ONLY ONE Christian denomination. There are, as we both know, many.

You said, in your post directed to me, “The Bible deals with actual historic people, places and events. The Resurrection is an historical happening. What do you find unhistorical about the Bible?”

A Tale of Two Cities, and Gone With the Wind deal with actual historical places and events, but they are not history books.

I believe in the mystery of the resurrection, but do not run around insisting that it is indisputably true and can be proven…least of which by way of what is written in the Bible. I also don’t believe that the Bible was meant to be used this way. I do not believe that the timeline of the Bible was intended to be SO accurate as to be able to determine the age of the earth by counting backward through the family trees.

You say: “What I have said is that the plain or literal meaning of a passage is to be taken as such where there is warrant to do so. Where there is an historical account it is to be taken as an historical account, where the language is figurative or poetic the text is to be taken as such.”

One thing I can agree with you on is encapsulated there. The trouble is you more often don’t say anything else that makes me believe that YOU actually believe this. You claim to know what I am mistaken about in the midst of asking me what that actually is. You ask questions crafted around the desired answers and change the subject in response to challenges of your claims.

When I questioned you about such things you responded directly to me with questions of what I believe as a matter of faith. I had already stated that things I believe on faith alone I know I cannot prove, but that I also will not claim that the can be proven…least of which by pointing to scripture. By pointing to scripture I may be able to indicate WHY I believe it, but not as PROOF of it’s truth. I’ll even accept that it is proof of why I believe, but again, not that it is proof of my belief being true.

This little exchange between you and Daniel is an excellent example:

YOU (meaning Daniel): "When you seek to cast doubt on evolution, and ridicule people who believe it, you are really making a statement loud and clear: "I am ignorant." And you are undermining the credibility of Christians and Christianity because you imply that all Christians must believe as you do, when, in fact, they do not."

Yes I am casting doubt on evolution because it is not true. No I am not undermining the credibility of the Christian message Daniel. You are the one putting doubt on the character of God and validity of God's word.

The Lord Himself told us when the beginning of God's creation was,

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' (Mark 10:6)

"'Haven't you read,' He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' (Matthew 19:4)

First of all, your quotes don’t back up your claim that the Lord Himself told us WHEN the beginning of God's creation was. Unless, of course, you mean THE BEGINNING, which doesn’t require scripture to figure out. They also were not created male and female FIRST anyway.

I agree fully with Daniel that you undermine the Christian message. I do not believe as you do, but am a Christian. You claim to KNOW the mind of God himself. You are not just allowed to interpret scripture, but YOUR interpretation is the only RIGHT one. You question my Christianity because I can believe that God is the creator and one of his methods is evolution of the species.

Furthermore, the actual statements you make about evolution itself indicate that you don’t really know what it is, so denouncing it is just a case of you preferring what someone else had to say about it…which according to you is not the same as looking to God for the answers. I am not aware of any scripture where God either denounces evolution, nor reveals his METHODS of creation.
You quote from Genesis: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." (Exodus 20:11)

There is no claim that they are 24-hour days though. After all, what is a 24-hour day? The earth making a complete turn.

According to Genesis: “3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.”

“10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

6 "A firmament"... By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.”

There was morning and there was night the first day, but the Earth itself was not created until the third day. So, the idea of the first two days being only 48 hours does not stand up to scrutiny. I have NO REASON to believe as you do, but still believe that we are both Christians.

You remind me of a neighbor I had when I lived in Orlando. Hurricane Charley was bearing down on us, the curfew was in effect, and there was nothing left to do but hunker down and pray for the best. Shortly before it got bad enough that you HAD to go inside once and for all, several of the neighbors were still chatting in the parking lot, as the landlord ran through taping windows that were not already done. One lady turned to me and asked, “Why is he taping the windows”? I explained why. Then she said, “Well I don’t want him to tape mine, it would be like saying I don’t trust God”. I then said to her, “Then shouldn’t you really sit on the ground in the middle of the parking lot to ride out the storm instead of seeking any shelter”? She said, “Well”. But ultimately she tried to stop the landlord from taping her windows anyway. He told her it was not optional, and as soon as he left she took it down.

Peter, you really remind me of her. Turning one’s back on common sense and/or reason , which are gifts from God is not better than what I believe even if I am wrong. In any event, you are not right simply by nature of your inability to be humble.

For example: “That is definitely true, but we are asked to proclaim the message as well. Sometimes that means sticking your neck on the chopping block in standing for truth. The people we talk with are usually not open to the truth of the gospel. All I am doing is planting seeds, Daniel, showing them why their worldview does not stand the test of sensibility.”

Yes, we are asked to proclaim the message also. I agree, but not by “showing them why their worldview does not stand the test of sensibility” and claiming I have stuck my “neck on the chopping” block when they are INEVITABLY not receptive.

Sticking your neck on the chopping block is standing by your faith even under threat of death, not having to deal with fallout for bad manners and condescension. You are not a martyr yet my friend.

I believe in living my life in such a way that if someone asks , “Why are you so content”, I can credit my faith. If they want to know specifics, I am more than happy to share. If someone comes to me with a problem, among other practical advice I might add, “don’t forget to turn to you faith”. If they want to know about mine, or why I would turn to it, I will explain. No one would ever ask if my approach is “you are wrong, not sensible and you need to know why”.

I doubt Peter Huff, not God. Peter Huff is not my God. Peter Huff who knows he is right on everything is not right on anything. Peter Huff who speaks for God knows very little about God.

Let God speak for himself.

Let people believe as they will; that is only common sense.

You cannot control other people's beliefs, thoughts, feelings, or emotions. If other people have beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and emotions that you do not like or agree with, then that is tough; there is nothing you can do about it.

You cannot compel an atheist to believe in God, if he does not. You cannot compel a heretic or an apostate (as I assusme you consider me to be) to comply with your personal orthodoxy; not by argument; not by force.

The most that you can force from a person is an insincere pretense of outward belief, that is not inwardly held. And in the past, Christian political authority was used to do just that, to force people, on penalty of torture or death, to "believe" that which they did not believe.

You cannot make me believe what I do not believe, and I cannot make you believe what you do not believe. My objection with the Peter Huff's of the world is the indoctrination of Jesus Christ into political machines which seek to promote worldy agendas of power and wealth, and to exclude and even destroy those who stand in the way of this political agenda, as enemies.

The fossil Peter Huff is still spreading his unctuous gibberish around and even finds some honest "discussion" partners. He still isn't tired of the monotonous: "How do you know? Who told you? You don't know, but I know, because I can quote the bible! I have the absolute, you don't"!

I wonder how far his kindergarten belief actually goes: Has he ever seen our little, photographed planet in Google Earth, where you can zoom through space millions of light years? Oops, there is no such thing, since it all began 6000 years ago, including our comparatively small own "home" galaxy, the Milky Way, spanning some 100.000 light years. Does he know what a light year is (our present rockets would need 75.000 years to reach the next star, Alpha Centauri, created by his god in one day (not to mention the billions of galaxies billions of light years away!). Btw, the distance to Alpha Centauri can be measured by simple trigonometry. But, I forgot, he "doesn't believe" in trigonometry: God changes all mathematical results. 2+2=5, I forgot.

Does he believe in the "firmament"? That is the place behind which heaven, aka sky, is supposed to be. Heaven "above" depends on whether you live in the US or Australia: Opposite directions, lol!

No, Peter, you are barking up the wrong tree.

The fossil Peter Huff is still spreading his silly gibberish around and even finds some honestly contradicting partners: "How do you know? Who told you? You don't know, but I know, because I can quote the bible!"

I wonder how far his kindergarten belief actually goes: Has he ever seen Google Earth, going through space millions of light years? Oops, there is no such thing, since it all began 6000 years ago,including our comparatively small own "home" galaxy, the Milky Way, spanning some 100.000 light years. Does he know what a light year is (our present rockets would need 75.000 years to reach the next star, Alpha Centauri, created by his god in one day. Btw, the distance to Alpha Centauri can be measured by simple trigonometry. But, I forgot, he "doesn't believe" in trigonometry.

Does he believe in the "firmament"? That is the place behind which heaven, aka sky, is supposed to be. Heaven "above" depends on if you live in the US or Australia: Opposite directions, lol!

No, Peter, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sorry PaganPlace, I just realized I had not responded to your last post. Please, if you are wiling check in this weekend, since I am now pushed for time.

Hi Daniel,

YOU: "I have to agree with the others, that your arguments and questions are not worth answering. You are not really giving any kinds of valid arguments, nor making any valid points, at all."

Well Daniel, what do you base standards on? I point to God as the one who holds the answers. You just agree with others. How do you know they are true or right? Do you just prefer what they have to say? Is there a basis for truth? (John 18:37; 1:15-18, vs. 9; 14:6, etc)

The problem Daniel is when you compromise the Word of God all you are left with is subjective opinion. You may choose what parts you are going to take as being true, someone else may choose some entirely different verses or passages. The problem is when you do not take the whole as truth is you call God a liar. The word of God does not become subjective to the person reading the passage, to each persons private interpretation, but we are to derive the Author's intent out of the passage.

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Do you believe that Daniel?

"Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2-4)

Do you believe that Daniel? Is it stated plainly enough for you? What do you believe it says? Does a cat have your tongue my friend?

"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17)

Do you believe that Daniel? How about you Nuh-um or you Arminius?

"All Your words are true; all Your righteous laws are eternal." (Psalm 119:160)

Do you believe that guys?

You guys are picking and choosing what you will and will not believe. What makes you right? The three of you are followers of Christ. Who are you actually following?

"It is a misguided, misplaced, and foolish question for a Christian to ask if the Bible is literally true from cover to cover; it is not a tabulation of yes/no, true/false, black and white data. Whatever I may have learned from the Bible, and whatever I might believe from the Bible, I must moderate and reconcile with all other sources of knowledge, which are many."

Where have I ever said the Bible is to be taken literally from cover to cover? As for it being true, which parts do you take as true and which do you take as false? How do you know? There are thousands of verses. How do you choose the true ones? Does someone else choose for you?

What I have said is that the plain or literal meaning of a passage is to be taken as such where there is warrant to do so. Where there is an historical account it is to be taken as an historical account, where the language is figurative or poetic the text is to be taken as such. And Scripture reveals the true meaning for Scripture reveals Scripture. It is its own interpreter. If God had not spoken plainly to us, in language that we could understand, then there would be no reason to believe what the Bible teaches, because everyone could come up with a different interpretation. But there is a correct meaning to the text, and to achieve it you must take out of the text the Author's intended meaning, not read something into the text that is not there. An understanding of the culture and customs is also important because Jesus was speaking plainly to the Jewish people who had a particular culture. There is only one true meaning although many applications. (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16, 17)

YOU: "I know that evolution is true, but I wouldn't waste my time trying to get you to understand something which is perfectly clear to any educated person."

How do you know that Daniel? Which subjective person or body of people has convinced you of that? Do they have the handle on truth. As God said to Job (and these are not my words),

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me if you know." (Job 38:4)

Did Paul not remind Timothy,

"Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and, 'Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." (2 Timothy 2:16-19)

If you do not have an accurate knowledge of God how will you know when you are straying from the truth brothers in Christ? You can only get an accurate knowledge by studying His Word and rightly interpreting it. But you keep contradicting what He has revealed.

YOU: "When you seek to cast doubt on evolution, and ridicule people who believe it, you are really making a statement loud and clear: "I am ignorant." And you are undermining the credibility of Christians and Christianity because you imply that all Christians must believe as you do, when, in fact, they do not."

Yes I am casting doubt on evolution because it is not true. No I am not undermining the credibility of the Christian message Daniel. You are the one putting doubt on the character of God and validity of God's word.

The Lord Himself told us when the beginning of God's creation was,

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' (Mark 10:6)

"'Haven't you read,' He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' (Matthew 19:4)

Do you not think that Jesus would know when the beginning was, or do you not believe that He made everything Daniel?

"Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." (John 1:3-5)

The reason they don't understand it is because they cast doubt on the veracity of God. "Did God really say?" Yes He did Daniel.

God Himself confirms how long it took to create all that is,

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." (Exodus 20:11)

Is the language not plain enough for you Daniel? Do you wish to trust the fallible reasoning of men, rather than your Creator Daniel?

YOU: "I agree with Nuh-uh, the main way to make your arguments is by the example of the life that you lead."

That is definitely true, but we are asked to proclaim the message as well. Sometimes that means sticking your neck on the chopping block in standing for truth. The people we talk with are usually not open to the truth of the gospel. All I am doing is planting seeds, Daniel, showing them why their worldview does not stand the test of sensibility. Who am I? Paul sums it up,

"What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.. The man who plants and the man who waters each has a purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor." (1 Corinthians 3"5-8)

A tad bit of advice to the three of you from the Scriptures,

"Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone of you thinks he is wise by the standard of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness", and again,, "Thge Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." (1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

I appeal to the God of the Bible because He is the condition to make sensible and intelligent the truth of the matter. God requires in each one of His people that we be diligent in the study of His Word. (Deuteronomy 6)

My hope is that He gives the three of you ears to hear, and a repentant heart for doubting Him.

Arminius, and Nuh-uh! At last: two kindred souls.

Dear Peter Huff,

I have to agree with the others, that your arguments and questions are not worth answering. You are not really giving any kinds of valid arguments, nor making any valid points, at all. That which you call arguments are really revelations regarding your inner predisposition.

Your Christianity is framed in dominance and submission, authoritarianiam, anger, jealouly, and punishment. It is not a universal "religion" but something very specific to you. And I notice, over and over, that you presume to speak for God. You will always lose me when you do that. When I hear someone speaking for God, I just give up and say, "I'm out."

You seem shocked that everyone does not believe as you do. Why? In the 16th and 17th centuries, Christians battled each other and killed each other by the thousands, perhaps by the millions, in France, Spain, Egland, and Germany. It was not Christians fighting the Muslims, nor Christians fighting the atheists, nor the Secular Humanists; it was Christians fighting Christians. You seem perfectly happy to go down that road again. You seem unable to stop yourself.

It is a misguided, misplaced, and foolish question for a Christian to ask if the Bible is literally true from cover to cover; it is not a tabulation of yes/no, true/false, black and white data. Whatever I may have learned from the Bible, and whatever I might believe from the Bible, I must moderate and reconcile with all other sources of knowledge, which are many.

I know that evolution is true, but I wouldn't waste my time trying to get you to understand something which is perfectly clear to any educated person. When you seek to cast doubt on evolution, and ridicule people who believe it, you are really making a statement loud and clear: "I am ignorant." And you are undermining the credibility of Christians and Christianity because you imply that all Christians must believe as you do, when, in fact, they do not.

I agree with Nuh-uh, the main way to make your arguments is by the example of the life that you lead.

Athena, Athena, Athena,

Repetition is a one of the keys to education. I trust you read to the bottom of the list of acts of terror. And note, I do update the list and it now covers World War II to the present.

Hard to know where to start. A lot has been said since last we chatted.

Nuh-uh, you said,

"Arminius,

Thank you for the complement. I am a Christian too.

However, as in the case of Peter Huff, I do not believe that ALL claims made by people claiming to be Christian are accurate, fair or right."

You are right there Nuh-uh. Case in point, 2 Corinthians 13:5, 6

"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you - unless, of course you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test."

You, Arminius and Daniel are all claiming to be Christians. I would like to know what that actually means to the three of you. How do you discern the difference between truth and falsehood since you you talk about accuracy, fairness and doing what is right. Whose right? What you perceive as right? Is your standard absolute that you can say you are right?

If your standard is God's word we can talk about why you think I am wrong (Please include the verse). If it is yourself or your subjective opinion on truth, accuracy, fairness, doing right, what do you base your judgments of these matters on?

Nuh-uh, you also said,

"One more thing...

I actually find it blasphemous to claim that the Bible is a history book, atlas, science book, encyclopedia, etc."

It is a history about God's dealings with mankind, about His plan of redemption in reaching out to a fallen race because mankind has violated His trust in our sin against Him. God takes this seriously, because when we do sin we not only disrupt our relationship with Him, but also with others and ourselves. God has taken the initiative in restoring that relationship with Him and that is by the means of sending His Son into the world. The Bible deals with actual historic people, places and events. The Resurrection is an historical happening. What do you find unhistorical about the Bible?

"I believe it is the Christian guide to salvation, but to use it as you see fit to accost other people, or worse...REASON...is abuse of it. I cannot imagine that this pleases God."

Christians should be united in the truth by sharing and proclaiming that truth to the world. As you say, "I believe" but what do you place that belief in, your own reasoning ability or that of God Himself?

An "On Faith" forum is a place to share the good news and expose falsehood. Remember that to accurately understand the Christian message is to correctly interpret the Word of God. I don't know where you are placing your faith in, but it does not resemble the gospel message. (Galatians 1:6-10, esp. 10) Make sure you have the right message my friend. You cannot afford to be wrong.

Our Lord Himself confronted false prophets and mistaken belief. The Apostles did the same. Paul went into synagogues to reason with the Jews on numerous occasions (Acts 13:14; 14:1-3, 21, 22; 15:1-2; 17:2-4, 11, 13, 17) as well as with the Gentiles. (Acts 17:22-34)

The examples continue, but the point is that people were reasoned with the apostles even to the point of sharp disputes over the word of God.

"They preached the gospel in the city and won over a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lysta, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith." (Acts 14:21-22)

Notice the historical places.

"As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead." (Acts 17:2,3)

Are you willing to reason with me from the Scriptures Nuh-um, Daniel, Arminius?

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)

This verse brings up lots of important issues, but please note that they used the Scriptures to check and see if what Paul was saying was true. That is their source of truth. What is yours as Christian brothers, for you are proclaiming that you are Christians?

What is your bases for saying that I am not being Biblical Nuh-uh? Because I am confronting your false views on many issues? Would I rather see you continue in error? No! I'm not saying this out of malice or hatred, but out of concern for the truth of Scripture and in the hope that God will expose the errors, including mine when they go against His Word.

Again, I see the atheist and pagan using morality but not being able to account for it. The same goes for the three of you if you do not believe the absolute standard that is the Word of God.

Arminius, what are you teaching? You say,

"We are very close in our beliefs. Teach by example, make one's life a prayer, not a shouting in the marketplace."

Whose example are you using? If it is Christ's how can you be sure that you are correctly interpreting what He said?

You also said,

"My point there was in fact that you can't 'love your neighbors' if you run around like Peter screaming they must be horrid, evil, beastly animals if they don't obey your 'absolute laws.'"

Do you think I would be showing love if I constantly lied to my neighbor and sugar coated the gospel message? I point out to PaganPlace and others what God says in His Word, because there is no higher source of appeal. There is only one way to God, man has done horrid things to his/her fellow man in his/her rebellion to the Creator. That is just a biblical fact. The absolute laws I talk about are not mine, they do not come from me, but by them I can make sense out of man's inhumanity to man.

In your reply to PaganPlace you said,

"Paganplace,
Thanks, and you are right to distrust absolutes."

Are you absolutely sure of that Arminius? If not absolutely sure of that statement how sure are you? How "right" are you? You banter around truth claims, but what is your source for truth?

"'The Bible is true' is a postulate only within a fundamentalist system of belief, and cannot be applied to other systems."

God is the source of what is absolute Arminius. Without His revelation all you have said is just mere opinion that does not have meaning other than what you can force on others or agree with others upon. But in such a case don't tell me it is true or valid or "right." There is no such thing without absolutes.

Truth does not contradict what is real. You are a walking contradiction because you keep positing truth statements without having a solid standard on which to base them on, one that does not change.

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL...

Nichols and McVeigh were caught prior to 9/11, which was Clinton's watch. OBL may still be "hiding in a cave", but he's not in custody after 5+ years of hunting for him. Northern Ireland's peace process was also a triumph of the Clinton administration. Eric Rudolph hid out in the mountains of North Carolina with the help of good Christians like yourself, who considered him to be a hero. Libya's renouncement of terrorism had less to do with the "War on Terror" and more to do with their economy going into the crapper.

With all of the repeated cutting and pasting that you do, how often do you have to replace the CTRL C and CTRL V keys on your keyboard? It just proves that you don't have an original thought. You just keep recycling the same old garbage.

Athena,

Information to broaden the historical scope of terror:

A Partial Body Count and why "Until the koran is deflawed, no one is safe!!!!

1) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens,

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 77,573 – 84,502 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

I think I know a little bit more than you do about Saddam and what he did or did not have. Those "gassed Kurds" were gassed in the 1980's, with chemical weapons that WE gave him. Look up "Donald Rumsfeld" and "Saddam Hussein" for the proof. So... why did we go after Saddam for something that he did in the 1980s, but haven't gone after Pakistan - which DOES have nuclear weapons, and is harboring Bin Laden? Why haven't we gone after North Korea, which tested a nuke last year?

Oh... I know why. Those countries don't have OIL.

Hi, E Fav,

Interesting. Even the King James version has 'burden'. Wonderful music, by the way!

Arminius

E fave,

What do you play?

Hi PaganPlace, Arminius, Daniel, Nuh-uh.

I will have to return a reply on Monday or Tuesday since I am working this weekend.

Aminius: "His yoke is easy and his burden is light."

Handel says "burthen."

I must have practiced it 10 times today. Getting ready for a concert!

Hey, Paganplace,

As you said, "It's only really a 'yikes' if you think the appropriate treatment for neighbors is to freak out if they aren't the same as you or under a control you like.

My point there was in fact that you can't 'love your neighbors' if you run around like Peter screaming they must be horrid, evil, beastly animals if they don't obey your 'absolute laws.' "

Yup. Peter cannot love his neighbors, regardless of what he might say. Actually, my 'Yikes!' was more for, if all the world is my neighbor, I must love Bin Laden as myself... I confess to having some difficulty with that!

Your boat metaphor was indeed contorted, although I got the meaning, and agree. I personally would prefer the steamboat, but that is again hugely personal. Not to downplay sailboats, one of man's creations that is almost alive.

Respects,

Arminius

" Arminius:

"Hi, Paganplace,"

Hi. :)

"You said, "I think the first step to being good neighbors is admitting you *have* neighbors. :)"."

"My reply:
Yup, we got neighbors, unless we live in a cave that no one else knows about. Of course, your statement begs the question: Who ARE my neighbors? The folks living around me? (Yes, primarily, of course.) Or those in my town, or my state/province, or country, or, God willing, the whole world? Yikes...."

It's only really a 'yikes' if you think the appropriate treatment for neighbors is to freak out if they aren't the same as you or under a control you like.

My point there was in fact that you can't 'love your neighbors' if you run around like Peter screaming they must be horrid, evil, beastly animals if they don't obey your 'absolute laws.'

"I would feel quite comfortable living as the token Christian in an entire neighborhood of Pagans."

I'd hope so. We've even been known to have the occasional Friar Tuck in our merrie companye. :)

" I admit to confusion about your beliefs, but, from what I have seen here, you folks are good company."

Well, thanks. It's actually a lot less 'confusing' when you see all the ideas and people working together... as opposed to, say, when we're trying to speak halfway in the likes of Peter's terms and presumptions. These guys love to demand answers to the wrong darn questions. :)

It's kind of like someone looking at your boat and saying, "How is this part a boiler, and where's the paddle wheel! You can't have a boat without these, and it's sure to explode without a relief valve! Look, it says it right here in my manual!"

"Err, This is a *sail* boat. Would you like to see the diesel?"

Tortured metaphor as that is, basically, you kind of have to see how the 'parts' actually interrelate to really see the bigger picture. :)

Oops,

"Conclusion: A lot of OT, NT and koran thumping and thumpers are actually thumping the rules and codes of the ancients like King Hammurabi who did NOT need revelations from "pwtfft"s or mountain voices to develop needed rules of conduct for us hominids.

Oops,

Conclusion: A lot of OT, NT and koran thumping and thumpers are actually thumping the rules and codes of the ancients like King Hammurabi who did NOT need revelations from "pwtfft"s or mountain voices to develop needed rules of conduct for us hominids.

Hi, Paganplace,

You said, "I think the first step to being good neighbors is admitting you *have* neighbors. :)".

My reply:
Yup, we got neighbors, unless we live in a cave that no one else knows about. Of course, your statement begs the question: Who ARE my neighbors? The folks living around me? (Yes, primarily, of course.) Or those in my town, or my state/province, or country, or, God willing, the whole world? Yikes....

I would feel quite comfortable living as the token Christian in an entire neighborhood of Pagans. I admit to confusion about your beliefs, but, from what I have seen here, you folks are good company.

Arminius

I think the first step to being good neighbors is admitting you *have* neighbors. :)

Some of my neighbors are Christians, most of em are really good and nice people. Sometimes I wonder if they'd all be so nice if they knew just how many Pagans were in the neighborhood, thanks to the awful things some Christians tell other Christians about us, but I like em. :)

Nuh-uh,

We are very close in our beliefs. Teach by example, make one's life a prayer, not a shouting in the marketplace.

Arminius

Paganplace,

AAARRGH, a correction here! Replace 'postulate' in the above post with 'axiom'. Color me embarassed!

Arminius

One more thing...

I actually find it blasphemous to claim that the Bible is a history book, atlas, science book, encyclopedia, etc.

I believe it is the Christian guide to salvation, but to use it as you see fit to accost other people, or worse...REASON...is abuse of it. I cannot imagine that this pleases God.

Daniel,
Right on, brother! I won't stand for the degrading of Jesus' message either. This crap from the right wing 'Christians' claiming a hammerlock on morality is blatant stupidity. 'Love your neighbor as yourself', as well as 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', and, of course, 'An it harm none, do as ye will' - all these exhibit morality at its grass roots. Christianity just echoes that, but - IMHO - also refines it, but that is beyond the scope here.

Paganplace,
Thanks, and you are right to distrust absolutes. Within a given system of thought, they are OK. 'The shortest distance between two points' is a Euclidean postulate, and therefore an unprovable 'absolute', but only an absolute within its own system. 'The Bible is true' is a postulate only within a fundamentalist system of belief, and cannot be applied to other systems.

With utmost respect,

Arminius

Arminius,

Thank you for the complement. I am a Christian too.

However, as in the case of Peter Huff, I do not beleive that ALL claims made by people claiming to be Christian are accurate, fair or right.

I do believe that I can enlighten non-Christians in leading by example, and do not need to belittle another person's faith to make mine stronger. What better way to spread Christ's message than to ACTUALLY try to be Christ-like at all times? Isn't that much more effective than accosting people with scripture and criticism?

Furthermore, I will fully admit and enumerate specific aspects of my faith that are just that...faith! I will not defend those things with the lie that they are provable. I defend them them by knowing that I can only control my own destiny and that MY believing them is what I need to do. I would be available to anyone who wanted my Christian advice, but who would ever ask if I belittle them or THEIR beliefs?

Sorry, off on a tangent...

*with a curtsey to Arminius.* :)

I suppose he can Peter can use as much non-reason in his own belief as he likes, it's when he starts trying to apply his 'Absolute Truth' onto others that he *really* gets screwed-up.

But ain't that the trouble with absolutes. :)

Peter, I am a Christian too, and I will no longer sit by quietly while Jesus Christ is dragged through the sewers by the Political Christian Right machine. As I said earlier, common sense trumps Bible quoting. You do not have a monopoly on the the "mind of God."

Paganplace and Nuh-uh,

I declare you both tied for 1st place in the debate with Peter. Excellent replies, both. I am sure you are aware that it was a Quixotic quest, since Peter will never give in. He is locked in his cage of non-reason.

Peter, if you read this - I am Christian. But I evolved into it, urged by a spiritual experience, and it was a long journey. I came there not accepting all as truth, but searching for truth. I found it in the Gospels, in the form of what Jesus said. The Bible is NOT the end-all-of-all, it is a door, a map for our search. One of many maps and doors. His yoke may be easy, and His burden light - but it is NOT easy to understand, or live by.

Oh, Lord. Here I am, tilting at windmills.....

Arminius

Ah, here we are:

Peter:

"PP: "Suffice it to say She managed it without even a book or anyone screaming about it. :)"

"Peter: In other words, pick your belief, any belief and make it something that you can worship and live with."

Ah, no. Interesting that that's how you believe faith works, though: That's a belief from *your* religion, *about* my religion. This wasn't about 'picking' anything, ...my personal experiences of the Gods came about long before I'd heard one word about Wicca or Neopaganism or any such thing.

"Take a myth and make it your god/goddess. Don't worry whether it is based on truth, on what is real, just build it, believe it, and others will come to your field of dreams and dance in it."

You're the one who needs the books, man.

"Peter: " What proof can you offer that is based on historical verifiable information that this "goddess" is anything more than a myth invented in some persons mind? "

Umm, the preponderance of Gods and mother Goddesses in worldwide and independent cultures?
But myths and words are not the Goddess.

There's nothing 'historical and verifiable' about Christian beliefs and myths, they're just *set in a discrete historical period.* ...a history in large measure only told to us by people with Christian agendas, at that.

"YOU: "Have I said anything which relies on you taking on faith or obeying what I say the Goddess says?"

"Your implication is that any religious view is valid and true, as long as the person believes it, except of course Christianity, which cannot be true because it claims it is exclusively the only way to God and the only worldview that ultimately makes sense."

Hardly makes sense to me, especially cause the world doesn't work that way. Certainly, the exclusivist claims to 'one Truth' don't bear out and are contradicted by the direct experiences of many, as well as a vast body of scientific observation.

A religious belief does not have to meet others' standards of 'Valid and True' for people to have the individual rights of freedom of conscience, though.

"How can two opposing worldviews both be true?"

Put em in two people? :)

I don't believe your worldview is true, but it exists... Frankly, you're the one that brings the contradictions... Lots of religions can have very different practices and names of Gods and other beliefs without being fundamentally opposed to any other's existence.

Claiming to have the 'One True Way' is the hallmark of religions that don't play well with others. And all the nastiness that comes of that.

"Christianity has a written record that extends back to the beginning of history."

That it *claims* is the beginning of history because that's when its book starts. Which book is also contradicted by real observations of the world. And further claims that believing myths and stories are literal authorities gives one the right to control others in the name of unverifiable divine authorities.

That's not 'proof' of 'superior morality,' ...in fact, I find that that book is taken to advocate many things which I consider 'immoral.'

" The people, places, facts, events, prophecies are historically reliable. The record has be preserved throughout the centuries."

If by 'preserved,' you mean "Passed on and retranslated and adapted by people with the same agendas to power over others we see here today, who did their level best to destroy nearly all other 'knowledge' at times, I suppose that's 'preserved.'

"Your belief seems to be pulled right out of the air. Presto! Magic!"

Believe it or not, there is a bit of magic involved in Wicca, yes. :)

You see, my belief in my Gods, apart from some pretty blatant visions and 'miracles' I guess you'd say, being involved, is something I think's *supported* by the fact that no one with such an agenda *told* me about it. No one told a *lot* of Pagans what to believe, or tried to 'prove' it in order to justify some agenda...

Coming together in our modern forms isn't called 'conversion,' ...it's often called, 'Homecoming.'

My faith is something that no presence or absence of a book can take away... my *religion* is adapted to the modern world, yes, and we take some pride in that.

You say this:

"If you have an absolute good what is your measure?"

We don't believe that 'absolute good' is something that can be dictated by a book, if that's what you mean. In fact, our morality is based on a personal and interactive awareness of the effects of our actions. Claiming 'absolutes' only tends to obfuscate and displace what's *really* good.

Tends to screw up the perspective, and *having* a human perspective seems to be your basis for turning around and trying to attack other peoples' religions when they don't obey *your* sense of your absolute authority.

"How has your absolute good be revealed that we can know it is something more that wishful thinking, that there is justice out there other than what you choose to make it, since in your belief each persons good can be defined somewhat different and hence good is changing?"

Because these are all faculties we are given, and must be exercised, not codified as if the entire universe was all that spooled up about who has sex without a particular religion's clergy's permission.

" No absolute equals no moral foundation, just personal opinion."

Nonsense. Honesty, compassion, and willful awareness are a far better foundation than trying to interpret absolutist words and say whatever your opinion about *those* dictates is therefore 'absolute good.' ...even if in practice that 'Absolute written truth' is often aggressive, abusive, repressive, and often tyrannical.

" In such a world why should your, or my concept of good be "good" or be the defining concept of what good is?"

Why should you think that's *necessary?*

Look around. Pay attention. We have hearts, minds and spirits. Use em, that's what we say.

Now, we *could* come up with a book and claim it's absolute truth leading to absolute good, ...which is all, in a sense, that your form of religion actually does. Make *claims* that don't even logically follow or necessarily function, then claim that not-believing it disqualifies one from having a moral opinion in the first place.

See, though, this isn't a religion of 'followers' ...morality isn't imposed from the 'top down,' it's built from the bottom up, if you will.

It appears you'd be surprised how well that actually works. :)

Peter Huff,

You fail to ask questions that are even worth answering, and when there is the INEVITABLE lack of response (ESPECIALLY one that would suit YOU)you claim some kind of victory. Self delusion is not proper use of the brains God gave you.

"If you think so where did morals come from? Why is your view the right view? A rock is not a moral agent. The atheist believes we evolved from matter. How do morals come from matter?

Believing that we "evolved from matter" is not the definition of an Atheist. Life coming from matter is not the definition of Evolution. Evolution is not about life being made from matter, it is about what happens to life after it exists. If life does not exist, it cannot evolve.

In fact, it is the Creationist who claims that life came from matter...twigs and mud blown on by God.

Even if Evolution did claim that life came from matter, why does that mean that morals did too. Why are morals not a human invention?

It is very Christian to attribute morality to God, as something he gave us. But why does that mean a person who does not believe in God has to credit anything outside humanity for the existence of moraliy?

Your questions are contrived to have specific answers that neither follow from the question, nor are worth answering because they don't mean anything.

"I ask you how what you believe is based on what is real, what is historical, and you have no substantiation again."

This again is really kind of silly. No one can PROVE the existence of God any more than it can be disproven. It may be real because you believe it, but for someone who doesn't believe you have no PROOF to offer. Just your say so.

"Surely if what you believe is true, you would want to share it with others and help them to test your truth claims."

Again, what is this? What is true is TRUE, whether it is believed or not. I cannot always prove that what I believe is TRUE, but then I won't claim it is either. Furthermore, why MUST a person want to share what I know to be true, just because they know something that is true? Not wanting to share it does not automatically make it false. What is the point in this?

"What proof can you offer that is based on historical verifiable information that this "goddess" is anything more than a myth invented in some persons mind?"

Why ask a question YOU can't answer either. And I don't mean, "The Bible is true because IT says it is true".

"How can two opposing worldviews both be true?"

What makes you so sure even ONE of them is true? Are you saying there are ONLY two world views? What if those two are both wrong, along with the third and fourth, and it is the fifth that is actually TRUE?

"Christianity has a written record that extends back to the beginning of history. The people, places, facts, events, prophecies are historically reliable. The record has be preserved throughout the centuries."

If the beginning of history is 2000 years ago, then yes, you are correct. Surely even you know better than that. Furthermore, the historical reliability of EVERYTHING in the Bible is non-existent. It is absurd to assert that your faith has provable accuracy, you do your faith a disservice.

"Why can't I test what you believe for validity? Is there anything substantial that you can base your faith on, beside pagan myth, besides "I say it is so, therefore it is"?"

Another question not worth asking because you can't even answer it yourself about your own faith.

"If you have an absolute good what is your measure?"

Who says there HAS to be an absolute good? This is not a world of absolutes.

Paganplace's responses to your questions seem appropriate to me based on their own merit. You seem to be asking just to convince YOURSELF with your own answers because, again, they are just kind of silly.

Morning, Peter:

"Wow PaganPlace, great answer with lots of substance! In other words "I don't know and cannot make sense of this question but it is so because I want it to be."

Morning. I didn't say I don't know, though maybe I was implying the presumptions your accusatory *question* was based on make no sense.

You were obviously trying to use your denial of evolution as somehow supporting your claims to exclusive moral authority over others. I didn't think I had to explain evolution *again.* to propose the simple possibility: "It's just that cool."

If you like, I could say, 'It could be because of natural laws in which the stable parts of the universe form structures, and structures with any kind of replicative advantage tend to replicate... structures with an adaptive advantage tend to adapt and endure: this goes all the way to peoples and societies.

Oh, and it's alive. :)

"or "I will criticize what you believe because I do not like the implications of your belief,"

Actually I was mocking your cocksure condemnatory arrogations, because I don't like your constant attacks and defamations based on them.

"even though I cannot prove what I believe is true and have no backing for what I believe."

Actually, you're the one claiming he has 'proof of what he believes' (which is no proof, especially in the face of the weight of evidence against it) ...in order to defame others based on not holding your beliefs."

"Most of the pagans I have had discussion with believe in evolution, life coming from non-life. Where did life come from? How can a non-living process produce something living?"

See, *you're* the one making an argument from ignorance. For one, *you're* the one who sees matter as 'essentially non-living in some spiritual way.' For another, you can study and read how it happens. In a universe this big, it's actually *inevitable* for this to happen, somewhere.

"Peter: "When you talk about your "goddess" it is contradictory to the revelation of the Christian God."
"PP: "That's really your problem, then, isn't it? :)"
Peter: "That is the difference between our beliefs. I ask you how what you believe is based on what is real, what is historical, and you have no substantiation again. There seems to be a theme developing here."

I didn't say there *was* none, I simply *offered* none. The assertions I make do not require you to take my beliefs as an authority over you, thus that's not where the 'burden of proof' is.

Pagan beliefs are certainly based in what is real, particularly now, and to an extent, what is historical, in that we examine and adapt ancient practices and myths, ...we don't call our myths 'history' and insist they're the only thing that is 'real,' however.

The theme is you seem to like to attack other people's religions and then claim the burden of 'proof' is on them.

Peter:

""ME: "How has this "goddess" revealed herself to you?"

YOU: "In my religion we tend to take a dim view of 'witnessing.'"

I wonder why? ""

We learned it from watching *you.* :)

"Surely if what you believe is true, you would want to share it with others and help them to test your truth claims."

Actually, we believe it's true enough that if we can find it on our own, then others who need to can, as well. Kind of goes with our view of old religions reborn despite the deliberate destruction of much of what was dear. Death and rebirth and all.

See, what you edited out of your quotation was in fact the simple answer... If the Gods could find me where I was with no one telling me, then they don't need me advertising like that. We're not the ones out to convert the world, but we do have things to say.

" These pagan mystery religions feed off Christianity and Judaism, all the time undermining it, saying that Christianity borrowed from them. I've looked at some of your proofs. You are on shaky ground my pagan friend. "

Feed off? What the heck is *that* supposed to mean. My proofs? Where?

As for what's on shaky ground, ...if you're basing your beliefs on the idea Christianity didn't substantially adapt, co-opt, and retain practices taken from Pagan peoples... look around. :) If that's not enough, there's Church records with *instructions* to missionaries to co-opt what they couldn't destroy, and the connections in the anthropology are obvious enough that Christian theologians had to claim that they were 'prefiguring' the coming of Christianity.

You *undermine yourself* by building your rigidity onto false premises and overstepping your human authority to try and enforce systems that don't work.

If I'm trying to undermine anything, it's your need to believe that only your religious tabooes constitute 'morality,' ...because this is not borne out, even in the face of your defamations.

"You can live morally to a certain degree, just as I can, or any atheist can, but on what basis do you have to determine that your morality is anything more than your own social construct? Why should you believe in the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede?"

The latter, because it works in practice. Social constructs need not claim basis in 'absolute divine authority' to work, either.

'Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: An it harm none, do as ye will.'

"Where does it come from?"

The language is likely connected to the Hippocratic Oath (Hippocrates was Pagan) and Thelema's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law: Love is the law, love under will."

In a Wiccan context, it refers to our responsibility to be aware, responsible, and of good will, on an interactive basis, not looking for some interpretation of some verbal rules of some authority in order to get one's way.

It's a little different from the Golden Rule, and it goes a lot deeper in practice.

"I contend you borrowed the concept from the Judeo-Christian faith to make sense of why people desire to be treated with dignity and respect"

We never found there was any need to 'make sense' of that in the first place. It's manifest and obvious.

How bout a little of that human respect?

"Christianity has a written record that extends back to the beginning of history. The people, places, facts, events, prophecies are historically reliable. The record has be preserved throughout the centuries. Your belief seems to be pulled right out of the air. Presto! Magic!"

The beginning of history? I don't think so. Unless you believe that the world began 6,000 years ago. The Goddess has been around since the Neolithic Era, in all parts of the world - not just the Middle East. Remeber, Egypt was an old Empire by the time that Joseph got there. The Pyramids were already ancient by that time. They believed in muliple Gods and Goddesses, including Isis. Goddess figures have been found in caves from France to what is now Iraq, and have been dated from prior to 10,000 BCE.

Peter Huff is trying to be logical and analytical about this whole thing, but it is a frutiless task in this brief setting, because the subject of morality and sexuality is so broad and deep. There is always a thought left incomplete, before starting a new thougt; always opposing arguments neglected or skipped over, because there is not enough time.

I think that Susan Jacoby's essay on this topic falls under the category of "common sense." I think that on morality and sexuality, common sense trumps Bible-quoting.

There is a superstiious mystique about sex, that Christianity has inherited. But just as there are many Christians who accept the findings of evolutionary science, there are also many Christians who regard human sexuality with a more "common sense" attitude than the mere black and white, good and evil characterizations of a more superstitious past.

Hi PaganPlace,

ME: "If you think so where did morals come from? Why is your view the right view? A rock is not a moral agent. The atheist believes we evolved from matter. How do morals come from matter? Why should logic come from an impersonal, non-thinking, blind, random, chance process?"

YOU: "Because the world's just that cool? :)
Cause it's *alive?* :)"

Wow PaganPlace, great answer with lots of substance! In other words "I don't know and cannot make sense of this question but it is so because I want it to be." or "I will criticize what you believe because I do not like the implications of your belief, even though I cannot prove what I believe is true and have no backing for what I believe."

Most of the pagans I have had discussion with believe in evolution, life coming from non-life. Where did life come from? How can a non-living process produce something living?

ME: "When you talk about your "goddess" it is contradictory to the revelation of the Christian God."

YOU: "That's really your problem, then, isn't it? :)"

That is the difference between our beliefs. I ask you how what you believe is based on what is real, what is historical, and you have no substantiation again. There seems to be a theme developing here.

ME: "How has this "goddess" revealed herself to you?"

YOU: "In my religion we tend to take a dim view of 'witnessing.'"

I wonder why? Surely if what you believe is true, you would want to share it with others and help them to test your truth claims. These pagan mystery religions feed off Christianity and Judaism, all the time undermining it, saying that Christianity borrowed from them. I've looked at some of your proofs. You are on shaky ground my pagan friend.

YOU: "Suffice it to say She managed it without even a book or anyone screaming about it. :)"

In other words, pick your belief, any belief and make it something that you can worship and live with. Take a myth and make it your god/goddess. Don't worry whether it is based on truth, on what is real, just build it, believe it, and others will come to your field of dreams and dance in it.

ME: " What proof can you offer that is based on historical verifiable information that this "goddess" is anything more than a myth invented in some persons mind? "

YOU: "Have I said anything which relies on you taking on faith or obeying what I say the Goddess says?"

Your implication is that any religious view is valid and true, as long as the person believes it, except of course Christianity, which cannot be true because it claims it is exclusively the only way to God and the only worldview that ultimately makes sense.

How can two opposing worldviews both be true?

Christianity has a written record that extends back to the beginning of history. The people, places, facts, events, prophecies are historically reliable. The record has be preserved throughout the centuries. Your belief seems to be pulled right out of the air. Presto! Magic!

YOU: "Funny, I thought I was just saying I have a different religion, and a bit about what that means."

Christianity is open to criticism. Why can't I test what you believe for validity? Is there anything substantial that you can base your faith on, beside pagan myth, besides "I say it is so, therefore it is"?

YOU: "And, in fact, that I'm not as 'immoral' as guys like you like to claim I must be since I'm not of *your* religion."

You can live morally to a certain degree, just as I can, or any atheist can, but on what basis do you have to determine that your morality is anything more than your own social construct? Why should you believe in the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede?

An it harm none, do as thou wilt
Do what you will, so long as it harms none
An it harm none, do what thou will
That it harm none, do as thou wilt
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, / An it harm none do what ye will.

Where does it come from? I contend you borrowed the concept from the Judeo-Christian faith to make sense of why people desire to be treated with dignity and respect.

If you have an absolute good what is your measure? How has your absolute good be revealed that we can know it is something more that wishful thinking, that there is justice out there other than what you choose to make it, since in your belief each persons good can be defined somewhat different and hence good is changing? No absolute equals no moral foundation, just personal opinion. In such a world why should your, or my concept of good be "good" or be the defining concept of what good is?

Druvas: "there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests the Clintons were in the murder business (alla the "suicide" of the perfectly happy Vince Foster)."

1. It is "à la".

2. "perfectly happy"?! What?!

From the NYT: October 11, 1997

"Report by Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth W Starr, concludes that deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster Jr committed suicide in 1993, refuting persistent speculation that he was victim of foul play; says he had shown classic signs of depression and vulnerability from growing pressures of job; traces last days of life and analyzes evidence surrounding his death; findings detailed"

"Like previous investigations into Mr. Foster's death, the 114-page report concludes that he had shown classic signs of depression and vulnerability from the growing pressures of his job. In compelling and often graphic detail, it traces some of his actions in the last days of his life and analyzes the evidence surrounding his death, on July 20, 1993."

3. Neo-con Zombies are HYSTERICAL!

Thanks Druvas!

Going way back to see some early thinking about adultery and marriage:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/ham02.htm
The Code of Hammurabi- 1792–1750 BC

"If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her her dowry.

No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a bad wife, she was drowned. If she were left without maintenance during her husband's involuntary absence, she could cohabit with another man, but must return to her husband if he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adultery. Wilful desertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage, and if he came back he had no claim on her property; possibly not on his own."

Hmmm, there appears to be a lot of Judaism and Islam in this Old Code. Plagiarized? Hmmm, probably!!!

See added comparisons at "Comparing the content of
Hammurabi's Code, Mosaic Law, and Justinian Law"

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw03hammurabijustinlaw.htm

" If a man and woman were caught in adultery, Hammurabi and Moses decreed that both man and woman be put to death. (i.e. "Billy Boys" and "Monica Ls" had short life spans in the good old days!!!!!) Each set of laws also prohibited a man from having more than one wife at a time. In addition, Justinian and Biblical law required parental consent for any marriage. "

Conclusion: A lot of OT, NT and koran thumping and thumpers are actually thumping the rules and codes of the ancients like King Hammurabi who did need revelations from "pwtfft"s or mountain voices to develop needed rules of conduct for us hominids.

Druvas posted: "President Bush did not murder anyone, whereas, as I stated in an earlier post, there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests the Clintons were in the murder business (alla the "suicide" of the perfectly happy Vince Foster). Many people close to the Clintons died suspicious deaths in a fairly short span of time..."

In all seriousness, are you retarded?

My wife and I got married in the month of June. Three months later, in September, her mother died. Then in December my father died.

Is this a "fair amount of evidence" that my wife and I are in the "murder business"? Afterall, they both had life insurance policies, and we were newlyweds with Christmas coming, and it was a "fairly short span of time".

I mean, REALLY!

P.S. We did have a tough first year, but I'd be lying to say I didn't believe it made us even closer. I'm not trying to make light by using it as an example.

Completely off-topic, Druvas, shame on you!

You said:

"This is completely out of scope of this topic, but I will address you. President Bush did not murder anyone, whereas, as I stated in an earlier post, there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests the Clintons were in the murder business (alla the "suicide" of the perfectly happy Vince Foster). Many people close to the Clintons died suspicious deaths in a fairly short span of time..."

If you're going to speculate about the Clintons' alleged involvement in those deaths, do you also speculate about GWB's alleged involvement in JFK Jr's death? There's a fair amount of evidence there, as well. Bottom line: politicians are rats?

If you believe in one conspiracy theory, do you have to believe in them all?

Athena:

And when our current President lied, the part of the world that he murdered was almost 4,000 American servicemen and women. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - none of whom had anything to do with 9/11.

=====

This is completely out of scope of this topic, but I will address you. President Bush did not murder anyone, whereas, as I stated in an earlier post, there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests the Clintons were in the murder business (alla the "suicide" of the perfectly happy Vince Foster). Many people close to the Clintons died suspicious deaths in a fairly short span of time...

But, here is what we do know about Iraq prior to invading it: Saddam had WMD's. If you doubt it, I urge you to go to Google, click on images and type in "gassed Kurds" and tell me what you see. In violation of a whole bunch of UN resolutions, Saddam continued shooting at Allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone over parts of Iraq (to which Saddam agreed as part of the terms of Cease-Fire). Being that the Gulf War never actually ended, only temporarily halted by a cease-fire agreement (with a cease-fire, war may resume if conditions are not met), the US and it's allies had legitimate cause to resume the war. Of course, it is argued that the UN never gave the US permission to resume the war, but in reality, there were several votes authorizing "strong measures" against Saddam. The UN never voted to block the US from resuming the war, which was interpreted by the US as "we don't like it, but we won't stop you either".

As to the 4000 dead US soldiers and "hundreds of thousands" of dead Iraqi's, www.iraqbodycount.org puts the civilian death count between 77,573 and 84,502. A great number of those are from suicide attacks and reprisal murders, not from US military attacks. US soldiers are professional volunteers that know exactly what they could be getting into before they join. War is part of being in the military.

(backtracking to find this from Peter Huff:)

"But my questions are fair questions. Why is what you believe morally right? Because you choose to believe so? Because your special interest group is pushing the latest flavor of the month? What makes your interest group right and mine wrong in your opinion?"

If you think that's a valid question, consider that I could ask the same of you on the same basis: You believe something I don't.

In fact you base your 'morality' on the idea that without your belief, there *is* none. You say:

"Luke does not have the answers, neither do you or I outside of God, because without God your position is not intelligible."

What flavor of the month is *that?*

You really think no one had morals before your religion was on the scene?

Got news for you.

It ain't so.

In *your* world, morality is 'unintelligible' without your God and people telling you what he wants via a contradictory book.

It's just not that complicated in mine.

" If you think so where did morals come from? Why is your view the right view? A rock is not a moral agent. The atheist believes we evolved from matter. How do morals come from matter? Why should logic come from an impersonal, non-thinking, blind, random, chance process?"

Because the world's just that cool? :)

Cause it's *alive?* :)

"When you talk about your "goddess" it is contradictory to the revelation of the Christian God."

That's really your problem, then, isn't it? :)

"How has this "goddess" revealed herself to you?"

In my religion we tend to take a dim view of 'witnessing.'

Suffice it to say She managed it without even a book or anyone screaming about it. :)

" What proof can you offer that is based on historical verifiable information that this "goddess" is anything more than a myth invented in some persons mind? "

Have I said anything which relies on you taking on faith or obeying what I say the Goddess says?

Funny, I thought I was just saying I have a different religion, and a bit about what that means.

And, in fact, that I'm not as 'immoral' as guys like you like to claim I must be since I'm not of *your* religion.

Hey Luke,

You said,

"My argument, Peter, is that "God's Word" (whatever you believe that to be) is not absolute."

First, to make such a statement you would have to believe in absolutes, since you are making one. Since you are limited in your understanding, what is your absolute measure and standard for saying this?

Second, my highest standard is God's Word. There is no higher standard I can appeal to. Our worldviews are opposite and contradictory, therefore they both cannot be true and maintain logical consistence. I appeal to a standard outside myself that is able to make sense of life and is a condition for intelligibility. You appeal to your subjective opinion in which you feel is correct, and there is a myriad of subjective opinions all claiming that they know what is true. What are you going to measure your subjective opinion against as your standard for truth?

"The Bible seems to me like a bunch of metaphors."

It's true the Bible uses all kinds of figures of speech, but before you can have metaphoric or symbolic language you have to have something real/literal to base a figure of speech on. I can't say that "a day is like one thousand years to God" unless I understand what a day or year is ground/built upon, 24 literal hours or 365 literal days in one year times one thousand numerical years. And the language alerts the astute reader to the fact that something is being compared to something else and therefore don't take this particular statement literally. The key word is 'like' which conveys the eternity of God. A thousand years is just a pittance to someone who transcends time, who is eternal, yet to us one thousand years is a vast amount of time that none of us will live to see unless the Lord Jesus Christ returns before our physical bodies die.

If you try to read the Bible as purely metaphoric you are going to grossly misinterpret it. To truly understand the content you need to draw out the Authors meaning, not read your own into the text. That means taking as plain or literal the text that can be taken this way, such as historical narrative, of which Genesis 1-3 is an example.

Just like any other text, you only take from the text what the text plainly permits you to, otherwise you are misinterpreting. Scripture interprets Scripture and there is a correct meaning to be drawn from the text.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)

You said,

"I think that most people pull it out of the sky (literally) as to what the statements mean."

Generally you read the plain meaning of the text unless the text gives you reason to interpret it differently.

You said,

"Thou shalt not kill". Thou shalt not kill what? Is it simply "Thou shalt not murder"?

Yes.

"What about murdering a rapist before he rapes again, or murdering a murderer? Even the Bible is subject to limitation."

God has provided the punishment as well as the definition for rape or murder in His Word.

"Simply having an absolute doesn't make morality more meaningful."

Without an absolute standard morality is nothing more than personal preference or subjective opinion that is determined by force or persuasion. There is no way to judge anything as moral if it is not based on the absolute authority of the Sovereign God. You make sense of it for me without God. What do you base it on? Where did morality come from?

I've been through this discussion on killing numerous times before. Again the plain meaning of Scriptures make it clear what is meant.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Genesis 9:6

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." (Exodus 21:12-14)

"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to Him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

"Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults him and kills him, then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you." (Deuteronomy 19:10-14)

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

You said,

"What if your absolute is wrong?"

How can He be? He always does what is right. (Hosea 14:9; Psalm 19:8; 12:6)

"As Shakespeare wrote: "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world". I refer to this because when the former President lied on the stand, he called into question the integrity of another person that has suffered immensely because of his lie. I do not want someone like that speaking on my behalf to the rest of the world."

And when our current President lied, the part of the world that he murdered was almost 4,000 American servicemen and women. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - none of whom had anything to do with 9/11.

"As Shakespeare wrote: "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world". I refer to this because when the former President lied on the stand, he called into question the integrity of another person that has suffered immensely because of his lie. I do not want someone like that speaking on my behalf to the rest of the world."

And when our current President lied, the part of the world that he murdered was almost 4,000 American servicemen and women. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - none of whom had anything to do with 9/11.

Gee Druvas, I didn't see it that way at all:

To me it was a bunch of dirty sneaky skunks, digging for dirt, to use against Clinton, and there was nothing so low and dispicable that they would not do to accomplish their aims. And then they wonder why everybody is so upset with them. Now, the Republicans have jumped the shark, thank goodness.

I guess different people see the same things differently. America really is split, wide and deep.

Daniel,

You are right - a spouse is not a possession, and either can choose to leave. Been there, done that, it happened to me. That is, my wife left me. It was sad, but with no bitterness, and we are still friends. If you love someone, you have to let them go free.

Arminius

Although it is a little off the subject, Druvas made me think of this:

I am getting older, and older, and older. I have seen more and more things.

Over the years, I have had several friends and aquaintances whose marital partners or signigant others abruptly left them. They just, one day, upped, and left! without a word or even a note.

When this happens it is devastating to the one left behind. They moan and wail their dismay repeating that they did not have an inkling that anything could possibly be wrong. Of course, I feel bad for their suffereing, and try to comfort them.

But come on! How can your relationship have dried up and shrunk up so completely that nothing is left, and you wouldn't even notice? I mean, that is the problem, I think.

A husband or wife is not a possession, but a human being. They may choose to be faithful or not. Even when people are married, and pledged to each other, they should treat each other with a minimum level of respect, and realize, that that other person, at any time, could choose to be with someone else, and that if they did, you would have to accept it, without throwing tantrums and fits, and without trying to punish them, for choosing to live without you.

Daniel,

President Clinton was put on the stand during a Grand Jury investigation because there were serious accusations over the course of his Presidency from a multitude of women that spanned the gammit of basic, everyday adultury, to unwanted sexual advances in the work place. When the Lewinski affair hit the air, all of his previous denials seemed to lose credibility.

I cannot and will not deny that politics had anything to do with it. That is the nature of "the game". Blame Republican all you will, but please do not blame "Christianity" for what happened. I don't think that even President Clinton would want you to do that, being a devout Baptist and all.

As for the Constitutionality of it all, the President was accused, interviewed by a grand jury, and a majority in the House of Representatives voted to impeach him. How is that unconstitutional? It sounds like they followed the legal process to me. Since there was never a trial, he was allowed to see through his term.

OIC...

Are you kidding?!:

His wife and his daughter. They believed in and stood by thier husband and father and when the truth came out they had to suffer the world-wide media questions.

lepidopteryx:

No, it would have made me angry and vengeful, and in an act of irrational anger, I would have sought legal possession of our house and perhaps other property of joint ownership. It would have fixed nothing but my human desire for vengence, and probably not even that. I would have wanted to see some sort of punishment come to her for destroying what seemed like a great marriage.

Yes, I am a Christian. I am also a human being with the same irrational reactions that everyone has in times of crisis. I am so far from perfect, it is not even funny. Jesus would most certainly not approve of those actions. In fact he would not approve of the divorce at all. But what Jesus would do is understand that I am human and fallible and by my very nature, prone to making poor decisions at times. He would also forgive me and her. I am very sorry about how your ex-husband was irresponsible and angry. I hope he has sought and recieved help. You obviously, have a better hold on your deepest emotions than I have on mine.

As to the history of marriage, Christ never advocated that a man be in ownership of his wife. If you read the most recent post from "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated" above, you will see that Christ in the New Testament described marriage as a joining of two people into one. He also taught men to respect their wives and vice-versa. If fallable MAN fails to live by these standards then it is MAN's fault, not Christ's. Perhaps you are refering to the Islamic version of marriage in which a man may take as many as 4 wives to treat as he wishes?

Yes, but why was President Clinton put on the stand in the first place, and asked embarrassing questions about his sex life, and the state of his marriage, which forced him to lie, or made him feel compelled to lie? If you do not consider all of the ulterior purposes and motivations here, then you are not being honest.

This is an example of conservative Republicans and their Conservative Christian allies, running wild with mean and spitefull pettiness, even to the point of upsetting our whole Constitutional system. So much for Conservative Christian morality.

"I refer to this because when the former President lied on the stand, he called into question the integrity of another person that has suffered immensely because of his lie."

Who suffered immensely because of the lie? I'm genuinely not sure who you are referring to.

Joet,

In the case of President Clinton, not only did he lie about sex on the stand, he tried to redefine the word "is" to escape the judgment of the American people. And this is only the stuff that was proven. Many women have come forward and told of their sexual (wanted and unwanted)encounters with the former President. There is a fair amount of evidence that the Clintons were involved in the death of Vincent Foster. The Whitewater real estate deal certainly points to the poor character of the Clintons.

But to answer your points, A) I will not assign varying degrees to lying. Lying on the stand is perjury. It does not matter about what you lie. B) Since, in my opinion, there are no "degrees" of lying, knowledge of past lying is irrelevant to me.

As Shakespeare wrote: "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world". I refer to this because when the former President lied on the stand, he called into question the integrity of another person that has suffered immensely because of his lie. I do not want someone like that speaking on my behalf to the rest of the world.

Druvas:

So if she had cheated on you, it would have given you claim to possessions and money that you didn't have claim to otherwise? Interesting.
How would taking her to the cleaners fix the damage? I would guess from your posts that you are Christian. Would Jesus recommend taking her to the cleaners? Or simply dissolving the marriage and getting on with your life.
My first husband DID in fact commit adultery. While doing the laundry, I found lipstick on his underpants - not my shade. He was also violent. i decided I had had enough, called a lawyer friend of mine, and told him I wanted out.
When I divorced him, I took what had been mine before we married - nothing else. I didn't want his belongings, I didn't want souvenirs - I just wanted him the hell out of my life.

And the basis for the infidelty argument in the law may be based on the Bible, but the Biblical view of adultery is based in the fact that wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. A wife who committed adultery was, in effect stealing her husband's property and giving it to another man. Marriages were often arranged in order to keep wealth and property in the family - if your wife screwed around and got pregnant, your goods might end up in the possession of someone else's offspring. It wasn't about God, it was just business.

simple logic point of order (or two). 1) of all the things one can lie about, lying about sex probably has the lowest correlation to one's likelihood of lying about anything else. 2) to use it in assessing a politician is dubious because you have no way of knowing whether the politicians you are comparing have lied about sex in the past or would in a heartbeat if given the chance. so you would be using the slimmest of evidence to make the weakest of arguments. I can't think of any campaign in recent memory in which I could imagine a known lie about sex being more important than nearly anything else I managed to learn about a candidate.

Daniel,

I couldn't figure out why I was arguing with you, I usually agree with what you say!

Andrea

I guess I am not aruging with you or your points; I am just making my own.

I agree with you, that hypocrisy is more of a problem than sex.

Among Conservative Christians, the leaders are toppling like dominoes in a succession of sex scandals, which are only scandals because of their judgmental attitude towards others.

They are not using the experience of these multiple scandals to learn the positive lessons about human nature and forgiveness; instead they are retrenching into greater and greater suspicion of us all, and of each other.

That is sort of what I am trying to say. Maybe I get off the point, sometimes.

I have yet to see any comments on Jesus' passage about divorce and adultery. So what do we find??

Mark 10:1-12,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

However with respect to Mark 10: 1-12, it appears to be unique to Jesus. Whether John the Baptizer influenced Jesus' thinking on this matter, we will never know although The Baptizer did lose his head criticizing the adultery of Herod. (see Wikipedia for a JB bio).

See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/015_Against_Divorce

An excerpt:

"Luedemann [Jesus, 67] notes that the form of the tradition in Mark 10 reflects Roman divorce law, not local Jewish practice. He also observes that "the radical repudiation of divroce by Jesus is attested in both the Q tradition (Matt. 5.32/Luke 16.18) and by Paul in 1 Cor. 7.10-11. It follows that according to all the earliest material Jesus emphasizes the indissolubility of marriage." On Matt 19:12, Luedemann [Jesus, 209] suggests that the saying about eunuchs is probably an authentic Jesus tradition growing out of his own practice as a single male."

Daniel,

I never stated that someone's merits for being in a public office should be based soley on how they like their sex, far from it! I've reiterated many times on this discussion and others that for most of us, it has nothing to do with who's sticking what in where and with whom, but with the hypocrisy of telling others that they can't do that very same thing. Not to mention the bad reputation they give our government, and in the case of religious leaders, the bad reputation they are giving their religion.

You're focusing on the actual SEX of the issue, bringing up masterbation and "unusual" sexual experiences. I think that reinforces the topic of this discussion.

to Andrea

I am saying, that if all your judgements of a person, even a Senator or a President, are based on their private sex lives, then how can you ever be certain that you the one you love most is not worse than the one you hate most? You hate someone because you have discovered his "secret." But the one you love may have a worse "secret" that you have not discovered. If this is your criteria of judgement, then you must always be worried and suspicious of other people's private sex lives. Surely, this is not what you are saying?

This way of thinking requires that everyone always be under suspicion until they can prove themselves. And how do people prove their fidelity or their sexual orientation? It is, as I said, a total dead-end. This is a cheerless and sad way to live.

And on top of all of that, there are few of us who do not have some episode or experience which we would like to conceal from others. Just being a human being should not disqualify a person from running for public office.

And if you could produce for me a person, who has never had any illicit or unusual sexual experience in their entire lives, then I am not sure that such an extremly sheltered person should run for, much less, be able to run for, public office.

What is next? The Washington Post will be putting up graphs, showing how much each candidate engages in masturbation? This is silly; this is absurd.

Daniel,

If only it were that easy! Of the three groups you listed, only two really fall under the umbrella of "none of your d*mn business" - neighbors and coworkers. Politicians have chosen to live very public lives, knowing, however unfairly, their lives would be under the microscope. Celebrities are in the same boat, but they don't make decisions everyday that impact their town, county, city, state, or nation. It is true that one bad decision doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person, whether it be an affair, embezzling, bribery, etc. But to say these things shouldn't influence the public is dishonest. When a man like Craig is elected to a political position, and turns out to be less-than-upstanding, it makes us, the voters, look like morons, and it makes a mockery of our political system and leadership. We shouldn't care about this?

It is silly and childish to pry into the private, personal sex lives of other people, whether they are Presidential candidates, your neighbors, or your co-workers.

You hear some juicy gossip about someone, and it is thrilling to think about it, and tell it over, and over again to anyone who will listen. And it gives you a little charge to think you are better than they are.

But who is better than whom? You find out the awful truth about one person, whom you then despise; and admire another person, whose even more awful truth you do not know about.

If you would condemn someone for committing adultery, then it would seem that you would only support people who are faithful, but how can you ever be sure who those people are?

If you condemn gay people, and only love straight people, then how can you ever be sure who might be gay, and how could you ever trust any straight person, not to be closetted? The Conservative Christians have run into this problem quite often.

If all of your judgements of people are to be based on their sex lives, then you would need some kind of test, to prove they are faithful, or to prove their sexual orientation; otherwise, everyone is suspect of bad behavior all of the time; otherwise it becomes the focus of all your thoughts and concerns, the sex lives of other people.

This is a total dead end way of thinking and of living.

Shocker! How about, mind your own business, and let everybody else mind theirs?

Right on Susan!

Tell Em!

Leave Bill the &*^* alone! Concentrate on Hillary. Rememer, if Hillary becomes President, then Bill will be the b**ch!

Do I think that the sex lives of candidates is open to scrutiny? Certainly. The media is going to throw it out there and the public is going to feast on it - that is unavoidable. Do I think that you should write off a man as untrustworthy because he cheated on his wife? Not necessarily. I am much more terrified of the "Revelations-exclusive" style of Biblical thinking that politicians bring to the table that scares me. I'd rather have my President banging an intern than starting WW3 to push Armageddon on the world.

lepidopteryx:

You don't have to be a Christian and yes you can use the "I just don't want to be married to him anymore" reason. But in a contested divorce with assets on the line, infidelity is a valid legal argument. Thus, whether or not your contract says anything about religion or morality is irrelevant. The basis for the infidelity argument is a Christian one (in this country).

I have been divorced before as well. It was a clean, uncontested divorce, and we both walked away with a fair shake. It took a little over a year and there was no mention of "morality" or "religion". But I can assure you if my ex-wife had cheated on me, it would have been a different story. I would have taken her to the "cleaners" and had a perfectly acceptable, legal, basis to do so.

The blizzard of comments about Bill Clinton fascinates me, since I had nothing to say about Bill in my post at all. What I did say was that Hillary Clinton is frequently criticized for not having dumped her unfaithful husband. That almost everyone ignored my comment about Hillary, and started chewing over Bill's transgressions, convinces me more than ever that Hillary is unelectable. She is not seen as an independent politician, however fair or unfair that may be. She is viewed as her husband's wife. This is off the subject of the question, of course, but sometimes replies to one question reveal people's views about another subject entirely. In responding to Hillary as a candidate, no one can get past Bill.

There is no question that the GOP attack dogs exploited Clinton's indiscretions for political advantage. That is what political parties do in their continuous grab for power. To suggest otherwise is simply silly. But that doesn't mean that their grassroots didn't also have an "ick" reaction to his oversexed nature.

I submit that Republicans were as disgusted by his messy, 24/7, boundary-free, pizza-party management style as about the stained dress, because that's not how serious corporate business is done. You take a long lunch and get a hotel room to have your affair if you are a Republican. You pay off your mistress. You compel your housekeeper to buy you your street drugs. You compartmentalize.

Colorado Kool Aid posted: (Regarding Clinton) "It was a deposition about sexual harrassment and the question about sex with his intern was relevant to the case at hand ."

It was a deposition regarding the Paula Jones claim of sexual harassment when Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. Monica did not arrive on the scene until he was the President. How that was relevant to the Paula Jones case STILL baffles me! PARTICULARLY since Monica was making no claim of sexual harrassment herself.

Hmmm, no mention of the perverted Kennedy family in any of the comments so far.

Hmmm, murder, womanslaughter, adultery and more adultery!!!

Big money trumps honesty, fidelity and truth on too many occasions!!!!

Why is this even under discussion???

OF COURSE a person who lies to a spouse and / or a partner is more likely to lie about other serious issues!

Lies beget further lies...when a person is able to cover up in sexual matters, they have developed the skills and inclination. I would argue, to cover up other "sins" too.

This is all beside American interests in "billboard sex"--mags, TV, etc.

Druvas:
**Actually, you are wrong. If your husband cheats on you and you file for divorce, don't think, that for one minute, that you cannot use his infidelity as a legal argument against him.**

Actually, I can use "I just don't want to be married to him anymore" as a reason, and divorce him. When I divorced my ex, I was never asked for a reason.

**Your marriage contract assumes many things based on Christian morality, and those things are legally defensable.**

My marriage contract says nothing about religion or morality, and I'm not Christian.

I feel that the personal lives of our political figures should be open to scrutiny. It is an integrity issue. For instance, Bill Clinton, was exposed to be a womanizer, adultery and a liar. The implications of his habitual lying indicate to me that he would readily lie to the American people. If a person cannot be faithful to the one person he or she claims to love above all others, he or she will not be faithful to the public. We also see this in sport figures and celebrities. Sports figures and celebrities have caused immense damage to our youth with their outlandish activities. When you are in the public eye and others are watching and looking up to you, there is an obligation. Sadly, our country's moral are deteriorating. The press is also responsible. There was a time when you could count on the news being honest and unbiased, but no any more. Most people that I speak with have a hugh distrust of our media.

I disagree...

When choosing a leader, careful and full perspective is wise. By very little means do I consider myself a devout anything.

The relationship to two married people represents the highest order of trust between two human beings. I am talking about the trust and honesty that shows the core of who the person is in the rest of the world.

The Clintons are both people that do not grasp to importance of that bond. Thus, they carry themselves in a way that is selfish and untrustworthy. Bill has been said to have approved of secrets being leaked to China. The Lobbyist connections to the Clintons run so deep, Hillary can not deny nor say that any time soon she would discontinue those relationships.

Nice try Susan, but softening the Clinton persona is not an easy task... if not impossible.

lepidopteryx:

Actually, you are wrong. If your husband cheats on you and you file for divorce, don't think, that for one minute, that you cannot use his infidelity as a legal argument against him. Your marriage contract assumes many things based on Christian morality, and those things are legally defensable.

This is 90% the doing of the bloated media. The media must fill vast open spaces of air time and empty print pages, so they hound public figures for every private detail. Bill Clinton didn't invent Presidential infidelity, but he had to deal with a media of unprecedented size full of Woodward/Bernstein wannabes. This is why no serious person will seek public office, and we get this collection of clowns in the Presidential race.

This is 90% the doing of the bloated media. The media must fill vast open spaces of air time and empty print pages, so they hound public figures for every private detail. Bill Clinton didn't invent Presidential infidelity, but he had to deal with a media of unprecedented size full of Woodward/Bernstein wannabes. This is why no serious person would ever seek public office, and we get this collection of clowns in the Presidential race.

This is 90% the doing of the bloated media. The media must fill vast open spaces of air time and empty print pages, so they hound public figures for every private detail. Bill Clinton didn't invent Presidential infidelity, but he had to deal with a media of unprecedented size full of Woodward/Bernstein wannabes. This is why no serious person would ever seek public office, and we get this collection of clowns in the Presidential race.

This is 90% the doing of the bloated media. The media must fill vast open spaces of air time and empty print pages, so they hound public figures for every private detail. Bill Clinton didn't invent Presidential infidelity, but he had to deal with a media of unprecedented size full of Woodward/Bernstein wannabes. This is why no serious person would ever seek public office, and we get this collection of clowns in the Presidential race.

Many American believe that, by virtue of their taxe dollars at work, that the White House was:

1. The people's House

2. The center of business for the American People

3. The marital abode, where the matters between husband, wife and daughter remained private.

Jacoby, it is interesting that you consider the the private sexual lives of public officials, even if scandalous, to be of no interest to the public. However, you consider a politician's private religious faith something s/he should be required to answer for publicly. Both involve behaviours that may affect the public good. Both say something about the "whole politician" that may be of interest to voters.

Moreover, you ignore a fundamental socio-historical fact. We Americans aren't Europeans. The distant ancestors of many Americans may have emigrated from Europe. The dominant language we speak is a modern European language. But we stopped calling ourselves Europeans in the late 18th Century. American domestic politics and habits of mind reflect an uniquely American sensibility developed over four centuries of experience. You may not like that sensibility, but it has a logic and history all its own. It is what it is. You might as well complain about compasses pointing north.

How do you surgically separate a public from a private act? Very simple. Focus on how they perform their public duties. Compare the state of the country over the terms of the past two presidents. The public got it - they reversed historical trends and turned some Republicans out of Congress in '98.

How do you surgically separate a public from a private act? Very simple. Focus on how they perform their public duties. Compare the state of the country over the terms of the past two presidents. The public got it - they reversed historical trends and turned some Republicans out of Congress in '98. I

There is no preoccupation or special focus on sex. It is merely a reflection or one example of the character flaws of the person that may not otherwise be revealed. Lying, deception, betrayal, breaking of a commitment, breaking of trust - all these flaws/mistakes come together in one usually pre-meditated or continuously deceptive act. Simple lying or even some criminal act does not involve such a collection failures as cheating on your spouse, where a relationship is expected to be the most trustworthy. If someone can break that most bonded agreement and relationship, you have to think twice about entrusting them with your taxes, lawmaking, and general welfare. I like politicians that stand by their principles and commitmemts and won't betray their word. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's Your Character, Stupid". Who cares about masturbation? - it's not an act that reveals a character flaw. But break a sacred trust? Well, then if/when I put my trust in that politician, I have my eyes wide open.

If someone lies to and betrays his or her spouse and they're in leadership, that matters to me and should matter to anyone because it reflects on their character. And of course sexual relations with a subordinate/intern is wrong and is very relevant to anyone who cares about good leadership of the country.

What have you heard about hillary or obama?

What have you heard about hillary or obama?

Who cares Jacoby says?

She is among the most hateful and narrow-minded bigots I have ever encountered. Unfortunately, the Post doesn'tmind bigotry, as long as it is directed towards Christians.

How can one surgically separate a private from a public act? Impossible!! It is the "whole" man we must understand.

I could not have said it better myself.

Americans believe that venerability to temptation, in all of its forms, is a disqualifier for public office. The fact is that as a culture we would never dare ask any potential employee if they are having extramarital affairs or if they lead a double life as a gay person. The fact is that these traits simply don't matter. All we want from our employees is that they can get the job done. It is unfortunate that we can not appropriately hold our public officials to the same standard.

My argument, Peter, is that "God's Word" (whatever you believe that to be) is not absolute. The Bible seems to me like a bunch of metaphors. I think that most people pull it out of the sky (literally) as to what the statements mean. "Thou shalt not kill". Thou shalt not kill what? Is it simply "Thou shalt not murder"? What about murdering a rapist before he rapes again, or murdering a murderer? Even the Bible is subject to limitation. Simply having an absolute doesn't make morality more meaningful. What if your absolute is wrong?

I find Ms. Jacoby's statement that sex outside of marriage is wrong to be hypocritical. I imagine to an Atheist like herself (and one who mocks religion) should be quite okay with it. Marriage is an institution of religion and has been long before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were around. That's not to say that people of no faith don't get married, obviously. But to an Atheist, why (if there are no spiritual consequences) shouldn't anyone (married or not) have sex with whomever they desire at the drop of a hat? I mean, if sex is purely for A: propegation of the species and B: pleasure, then sex with multiple partners as often as possible would insure a much more vibrant gene pool and lead to a more "fit" human race (not to mention, a whole lot of fun). It's obvious to me that Ms. Jacoby is just bitter at being cheated on. Well, if she were true to her beliefs as an Atheist, then it really shouldn't matter. Go find another hunter to protect your herd (or don't) it doesn't really matter.

Anonymous wrote: "Clinton...dragged the nation through a sordid two-year scandal..." Strictly speaking it was prurient Republicans who did that. But, anyway, that's not the point of this excellent article. Were this a society less concerned with other people's sex-lives and more concerned with their abilities we would not be in the current political mess we are in. Yes Clinton lied (ooooo a politician lying - surely not! I mean Republican presidents NEVER lie do they? ) because this country is so immature about the moral behavior of politicians. The current president publicly lied about Iraq. Nearly 4000 American troops and countless Iraqs are now dead. It's a shame those fine upright politicians who were so quick to condemn Clinton are not pursuing this president about the lies he has told. Were sexual indiscretion off the agenda we might be able to focus more fully on the lies politicians tell us about really serious things.

Our president was being sued for sexual harrassment not having sex with a young intern. He lied to save himself from losing a lawsuit not his reputation. I would think him being disbarred would have been enough to convince people it wasn't about sex.

Muslim "love" as noted by The Jihadist:

"And, as you stated, the sex act must be witnessed by four people. By some jurisprudence school, only when a thread can't go between their bodies will it be regarded as adultery. "

What thickness might be needed for said thread? And who "strings" it? Must be a real hoot in the group love thing!!! Cameras, recorders, strings and wow we have Islamic Porno 101 produced and directed by the head Islamic pwtfft, Gabriel himself!!!!

Susan, Thank you. I substantially agree with your logic. However, a public official's character would be a consideration for me. Therefore, if an official is a pervert, lawbreaker or both, I'd want to know about that to help me determine whether this person had the character to remain in office. In some states, for example, adultery is illegal. Pedophilia is certainly illegal. What Larry Craig did was illegal. Bill Clinton's actions were probably illegal....and then there's the question of Juanita Broadrick. I read somewhere that had the Senators known the Broadrick details, Clinton would have been removed. I wouldn't really care to know who Susan Collins is screwing, for example, but I would want to know about Vitter and the cathouses, a legislator intentionally breaking the law. Where illegality is involved, it becomes a legal and a character issue and it DOES make a difference to me, anyway.

Susan,

Their private sexual lives do belong in public when they are gay-bashing Republicans who want government to intrude into the privacy of our bedrooms. And their raging hypocrisy always belongs to the public debate regardless of its source, and that includes the sexual lives of any Republican who voted to impeach Clinton. Furthermore, when degenerate Republican perverts are found out, that also belongs in public. So there, Susan, those conditions account for about 90% of Republican politicians, so you are wrong.

It makes for juicy reading - more of it.

No. It makes for juicey reading.
I want to know every crumb of what is going on.
Who is diddling who and why and how and where.

If "Secular Europe has the right idea:: unless you're talking about forced sex or sex that involves the betrayal of national security, the erotic lives of political figures generally have no business in the public square," why do the security forces of the former colonial powers of Africa and the Middle East want to know the sexual proclivities of the present rulers of the former European colonies? Why did the FBI and CIA want to know the sexual "weaknesses" of civil rights leaders and black American politicians like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)? Remember President Nixon's "enemies list" in which Nixon described Conyers as having a "known weakness for white women"? ---information gleaned from FBI surveillance of Conyers? Why was that information about Conyers' alleged erotic life anyone's business in the public square? Ms. Jacoby not only puts her head ostrich-like in the sand to avoid answering that question, which is still relevant, but she doesn't have a clue. The Bush domestic security invasions of privacy, illegal wiretaps, and other forms of personal data collection by the government enable the FBI and CIA to continue data mining of our erotic life (whether we watch adult pornography, engage in adulterous affairs, who we date) without any justifiable cause. It's as though J.Edgar Hoover has returned to life to once again assume control of the FBI. After secretly recording the adulterous trysts of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other liberal pols for his amusement and potential political blackmail, Hoover is now trying to get the goods on opponents of the Iraqi war for Bush to use against them. If sexual life between consenting adults is none of the public's business, why is it the business of government? My answer: Information is power!!! And sexual information can be decisive power to control someone politically!!! The media is interested in our celebrity's sex lives because sex sells, and is profitable.

If "Secular Europe has the right idea:: unless you're talking about forced sex or sex that involves the betrayal of national security, the erotic lives of political figures generally have no business in the public square," why do the security forces of the former colonial powers of Africa and the Middle East want to know the sexual proclivities of the present rulers of the former European colonies? Why did the FBI and CIA want to know the sexual "weaknesses" of civil rights leaders and black American politicians like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)? Remember President Nixon's "enemies list" in which Nixon described Conyers as having a "known weakness for white women"? ---information gleaned from FBI surveillance of Conyers? Why was that information about Conyers' alleged erotic life anyone's business in the public square? Ms. Jacoby not only puts her head ostrich-like in the sand to avoid answering that question, which is still relevant, but she doesn't have a clue. The Bush domestic security invasions of privacy, illegal wiretaps, and other forms of personal data collection by the government enable the FBI and CIA to continue data mining of our erotic life (whether we watch adult pornography, engage in adulterous affairs, who we date) without any justifiable cause. It's as though J.Edgar Hoover has returned to life to once again assume control of the FBI. After secretly recording the adulterous trysts of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other liberal pols for his amusement and potential political blackmail, Hoover is now trying to get the goods on opponents of the Iraqi war for Bush to use against them. If sexual life between consenting adults is none of the public's business, why is it the business of government? My answer: Information is power!!! And sexual information can be decisive power to control someone politically!!!

I'll grant you "that sexual transgressions are [not] inherently worse than other moral transgressions", if you'll admit that they are no better. When Clinton had a secret affair with Monica, he broke trust with Hillary; and when he lied about it to the American public (rather than keeping silent), he broke trust with the nation. When he lied under oath, he committed a felony, whether he lied about sex or about money or about Chinese goat cheese. We're talking about moral turpitude here, and honor, not just hypocrisy, regardless of the sexual context, and these topics have nothing to do with one's attitude toward same-sex marriage.

The public's prurient interest in Clinton's dalliances diverted the spotlight from the facts that they compromised national security, making a president open to blackmail, and that he chose to commit a felony of perjury rather than working out of his difficulties through some other way.

Sex may distort many things, but you come close to saying that anything which sex distorts must be healthy and right. That's simply not true. Let's remove the distortion and then examine what's left.

How I wish the Post would turn into a front page article with a banner headline!!!

Sex is sex. Of course, it could be much better to consider it that if everyone can exercise it in the way(s) he/she wants it. But, on the other hand, I need to remind myself that it is truly a natural mechanism (once one told me ‘it is like you are hungry, so you have to eat to survive!’. Therefore, I guess it is insane to teach, legislate it, etc. and say “that is the right way it has to be done”. It is your natural human-rights to practise it, the way you find it appropriate. Yet again, as we all may admit, we are not mature enough to deal with it fluently well, mentally or psychologically. Let’s live the judgment to every individual, and then we may begin to understand and appreciate it.

Hi PaganPlace,

I agree with you too. Anytime a politician lies he/she loses credibility. And Andrew (above) sent the point home. Bill Clinton practiced deceit and lied in public office which proves he is not trustworthy. He practiced deceit in his unfaithfulness to his wife as well as perjuring himself when confronted. Regardless of the circumstances that lead to his exposure he got caught with his pants down.

Whether Democrat or Republican, you need trust and integrity in elected officials, not lies and deceit. That is what you should seek when electing a public figure. Let their yes be yes and their no, no, not is "is" is?

The problem is nobody is sure any more of what is morally right. When man sets the standard anything is passed off as truth, no matter how much it contradicts the next persons views.

The forum question stated,

"From Clinton to Craig, from Swaggart to Paulk, America seems obsessed with sex scandals. Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?"

It's a moral issue and behind any moral issue lies the standard for truth. This is the what I try to drive home on these blogs.

Luke disagrees with morality coming from God, but how does he make sense of it? Why is anything wrong in a society that has no absolute measure of values?

And that is why the limit of sexual morality is pushed further every day in your country, and mine. Everybody is pushing for their definition of what is acceptable and permissible, including such organizations as NAMBLA. They have an agenda and they want it implemented. Can you say whether NAMBLA is right or wrong? No one comes to the table neutral.

But my questions are fair questions. Why is what you believe morally right? Because you choose to believe so? Because your special interest group is pushing the latest flavor of the month? What makes your interest group right and mine wrong in your opinion?

Luke does not have the answers, neither do you or I outside of God, because without God your position is not intelligible. If you think so where did morals come from? Why is your view the right view? A rock is not a moral agent. The atheist believes we evolved from matter. How do morals come from matter? Why should logic come from an impersonal, non-thinking, blind, random, chance process?

When you talk about your "goddess" it is contradictory to the revelation of the Christian God. How has this "goddess" revealed herself to you? What proof can you offer that is based on historical verifiable information that this "goddess" is anything more than a myth invented in some persons mind?

And these are the same type of questions to be asked in determining truth in morality. God is or God is not, not both, and either He is the source of morality or He is not. The atheist understands this. That is why they fight tooth and nail against the Christian God. They understand the implications. Either they make the rules or God does. Contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. If they could you would never be able to determine truth. God is beyond reason, but not against reason. When someone says, "That may be true for you but not for me" it is either true or not true, not both, whether you believe that to be the case or not.

This is the issue with sexual immorality. Two opposing morals cannot both be true. God says that there is a way that is right. Sexual relations are honorable within the confines of marriage, period.

We, in North America, are in a mad pursuit to please ourselves in sexual gratification outside of marriage. We are reaping the consequences when we decide what is good outside of God because we do not see the big picture.

John:
"I'm sorry, but since when is marriage a "private religious belief[ ]"? It is not -- it is a legal contract. Many marriages are, of course, performed by officials of various religious and also have a religious content. But if violating this contract is not a matter for public debate, then nor should violations of other contracts be."

My marriage license says nothing about sexual fidelity. That's a personal agreement that my husband and I made. The marriage contract does n not specifically forbid either of us from having sex with other people. What it does is to give us certain rights in terms of income tax filing status, inheritance, and each other's power of attorney.
Adultery is a violation of trust amd a really horrid way to treat someone you claim to love, but it is not a breach of a legal contract.

" chuckmcf:

Re J's much earlier post: The cardinal had a "hard" attack in the apartment of his mistress? Good grief, J, is that a Freudian slip or what??"

Gods, man, whatever it is about this week's topic, I stopped counting. :)

"So when Clinton looked in all of our eyes and said "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THIS WOMAN" maybe he was one of those men who believe that a BJ is not considered sex or cheating."

Actually, if you look in his televised eyes as he actually says that, you can see he's playing out a bad hand and he knows it.

Think that's better than a man who can lie with staged eloquence about his 'God-ordained' war but stutters and can't get the English out right while claiming his social programs are anything but 'something to cut while saying you're doing the opposite.'

"The cardinal had a "hard" attack in the apartment of his mistress?"

Yep. It was a Freudian slip.

Now if she had only followed it with:

"The French gave that a phallic shrug.."

Aww, pleez. Spare me more "witch hunt" garbage. I'm a lifestyle liberal who thinks the Bill Clintons of the world can sleep with anybody they want (even Hillary if it's your thing). Just don't cavort with interns on company time when you KNOW the "hypocrites" are out to get you. It's like walking into a police convention, getting busted for stealing a table centerpiece, and then moaning because everyone is making such a big deal about flowers.

And no, not the Gennifer kind.

Re J's much earlier post: The cardinal had a "hard" attack in the apartment of his mistress? Good grief, J, is that a Freudian slip or what??

.
Agreed. Unless the publc figures brought or exposed their erotic lives in the public square, in which case they're open targets, fair and square.

But you should not be writing this to the general public, Ms. Jacoby. You should aim your sharp comments of disquiet to the mass media. And, aside from the usual suspects, that includes those who use their pulpits and podia--the clergy/religious figures, the social commentators wagging their social, civic, and communitarian organizations, educators banging their "teachers' desks", and the like.

By and large, the American "general public" seldom initiate any vilifying, obssessing, hounding, etc., of even sex-crazed public figures. You know who sic 'em, who start the baying and the snapping of jaws. The publicans (not the public John Q.), otherwise called, the hypocrites, those who get their rocks off by salivating over every lurid details of somebodyelses' sexual escapade...

But, in choosing our leaders, there is also something to be said about what was demanded of Caesar's wife. Rather strainuous, extreme, if you call it so. However, it is a comparative exercise worth doing, if it ends in choosing one over the rest who are not condemned but merely passed over...
.

Are you people ever going to get over the Bill Clinton thing???? It is the most natural thing for a person caught with their pants down to lie. They do that all the time. The fact that he was president does make somewhat of a difference but not much.

I am just going to throw this out there for everyone to throw around. Many men, especially religious (Catholic) have expressed the thought to me that there is a difference between a BJ and sexual intercourse. I have heard this for years. Often from married men. For some sick reason they think that a BJ is not cheating because it is not sexual intercourse. So when Clinton looked in all of our eyes and said "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THIS WOMAN" maybe he was one of those men who believe that a BJ is not considered sex or cheating. Hmmmmm Hillary should take better care of her man!!!

I agree...as long as it don't hurt no one, it is just sex...and I love it.

" Peter Huff:

"For me integrity in a politician is the issue at hand. Any public official that is married and unfaithful sexually to his/her spouse raises the flag that if he/she is being deceitful to their spouse (someone they supposedly love), then what kind of deceit are they capable of perpetrating on the general public"

Well, that would hold more water if the administration which the people so indignant about 'possible deceit' got 'elected' weren't *constantly being exposed* as *lying to our faces about the actual business of governing,* but I generally agree.

It'd also hold more water if it weren't *presumed* that Hillary Clinton wanted her marriage raked over the public coals... so she could then have this used to say she would either be abandoning her family if she got a divorce, or had some vague-but-nefarious ulterior political motive about staying with her husband.

Heck, the investigation was two years into its waste of our time and money for *two years* before the indiscretion even *happened* which is more than can be said for Ken Starr's marriage.

Fact is, Clinton lied, cause he had no choice but to, ...not to excuse anything, but, look at it.

He was a socially-conservative Democrat barely keeping the country from entering the division we saw when his Veep, Gore even *tried* to run for office.

I don't respect the behavior, (though neither am I alarmed just cause it's *sexual.* ...if his opponents were in power, well, *no one* would think oral sex was 'I had sex with that woman' cause *that's what kids think with conservative sex ed policies.*)

...But I respect the witch-hunt a lot less.

Especially in light of the lies those-so-indignant expect us to just-suck-up.

Hypothetical and indirect loss of public trust kind of pales compared to a President who preaches sexual hangups, yet, *actually both lies and ignored the fact that the people he's supposed to represent oppose his policies.*

That's not an indirect and hypothetical possibility of loss of public trust, that's real and present and where it counts, but he waves a Bible and people let it slide.

Ms. Jacoby, your "exception" proves the rule. Sexual sin always involves hypocrisy, because it is the breaking of a promise to another human being. Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are disqualified from leadership in the minds of many because they have proven that they are not trustworthy. End of story. You may choose to overlook the hypocrisy of a politician who demonwstrates by their private behavior they are not worthy of the public's trust, but it is undeniable that that is what's happening.

GP Martin, I also think if a candidate for office can't tell the difference between a homosexual citizen and a child molester, we *definitely* need to know what else he may be confused about.

If a candidate for office is a homosexual. child molester, or engages in or promotes this type of sexual perversion as acceptable; the voters have a right to know.
The only people who think this is an "intrusion" are those who should not be taken seriously themselves.

If a candidate for office is a homosexual. child molester, or engages in or promotes this type of sexual perversion as acceptable; the voters have a right to know.
The only people who think this is an "intrusion" are those who should not be taken seriously themselves.

Ms. Jacoby,

I'm sorry, but since when is marriage a "private religious belief[ ]"? It is not -- it is a legal contract. Many marriages are, of course, performed by officials of various religious and also have a religious content. But if violating this contract is not a matter for public debate, then nor should violations of other contracts be.

I love the people who go with the "a lie is a lie!" philosophy. I'm sure their kids have always known the truth about Santa Claus, Easter, etc. I mean, if they would lie to -kids-, even their own(!)...

I'm assuming that they've never told a lie. I'm assuming that if they have that they've been disqualified for life from ever running for public office, working with the public in any way, being allowed near anyone's kids...

Peter Huff,
Human Events is a far right wingnut rag.
First off they had no right to ask Clinton about Monica or to bring Monica up in anyway. The case was about Jones...who said she had been kept from advancing in her job because of turning Clinton down. Well it was proven that she was not turned down for any job.

Now why would you ask about consentual sex in a case of sexual harrassment, which is what the Jones case was. Clinton should have said it was none of anyones business and let the su**ers fight for info. Of all the lies and rumors that the GOP and their henchmen told, how many proved true? NONE. But it kept Gore out of office..it made it easier for Bush to lie and cheat his way in. Lieing about sex in the Oval Office or cheating your way into the Oval office? Twice.

When are Americans going to realize that sex is a basic human need...lieing about war and cheating to gain power is criminal.

So many people are bothered that Hillary didn't chuck Bill out the door. She stood by her man...So as the wronged wife, she is hated by the Family Values crowd that wants two parent homes. Lets see..which repub was it that had a wife in the hosbital fighting cancer and he served her with divorce papers? Which candidate was it that claimed the black child in his repub oppondent's family was a love child from a black hooker...Oh yes George Bush. It lost McCain the nomination. The child was adopted. It should have been a macaca moment for Bush, but people were too happy Bush was not involved with sex, drugs do that I am told.

Lieing only counts when its about sex with Repubs.
And Craig? He played footsies in June...was told to get a lawyer...pled guilty in Aug. But when it was all found out said he didn't know what he was doing. Really? A Senator did not know what to do about getting a lawyer?or that he was forced to pleade guilty? Is he smart enough to be in Congress?

Chris, Disgusting? what was disgusting? That sounds like a 9 year old saying Eeeewwww when the thought of his parents doing that comes up.

terra

Susan Jacoby has hit the nail on the head. I have always found it curious that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair that really did not effect the nation as a whole, however, there has never even been sufficient investigation on the buildup to attacking Iraq, torture and illegal jailing and the Plame leak.

People's love lives may be sexier news that more people are interested in following, however, private lives can only distract from successes, failures and transgressions in a political figures public life.

Susan Jacoby has hit the nail on the head. I have always found it curious that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair that really did not effect the nation as a whole, however, there has never even been sufficient investigation on the buildup to attacking Iraq, torture and illegal jailing and the Plame leak.

People's love lives may be sexier news that more people are interested in following, however, private lives can only distract from successes, failures and transgressions in a political figures public life.

Susan Jacoby has hit the nail on the head. I have always found it curious that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair that really did not effect the nation as a whole, however, there has never even been sufficient investigation on the buildup to attacking Iraq, torture and illegal jailing and the Plame leak.

People's love lives may be sexier news that more people are interested in following, however, private lives can only distract from successes, failures and transgressions in a political figures public life.

None of the public's business, eh? Au contraire, Susan. Our interest in our politician's sex lives reflect our inherent mistrust and low expectations of the moral character of our leaders.
Really, Susan! Have you ever considered the implications of your argument about sex as it relates to racial politics in this country? No, you wouldn't, I suppose, since you have no reason to be aware of racism and sex in our political history. Do you mean that no one ought to care that the late Senator Strom Thurmond, Rep.-S.C., fathered a mixed race daughter in a liaison with his family's black American maid, at a time when he was running on a platform promoting white supremacy, ranting about the dangers of miscegenation, and denouncing black males as the biggest danger to white women and white supremcay? It isn't just the politicians' lying about sexual indiscretions. It's the hypocrisy, the betrayal of public trust, and the sheer corruption of power. George Bush Senior ran against Michael Dukakis for president in 1988 using a convicted black rapist as a symbol of what would happen if Dukakis was elected president. And all the while, according to biographer Kitty Kelly, Bush Sr. had a roaring affair with a female CIA agent while he had been the CIA Director. In the black community in and around Boston, a black female White House Staffer from the Bay State was alleged to be one of Bush Sr.'s mistresses. The staffer declined comment to the black press at the time in response to queries about her relationship with Bush Sr. If the sexual lives of our political leaders shouldn't matter to their performance in office, then the FBI ought not to report on the sexual liaisons of Presidential nominees to cabinet positions and White House staff when the FBI are vetting the persons for their potential risks to our national security. Clearly, the sexual lives of our politicians, as well as the sex lives of our other leaders (such as Martin Luther King, Jr.,) matter a great deal to the FBI and the CIA. And they shouldn't be the only ones having that information, especially when it has racial political implications.

It's amazing that the Republicans want to pull the trigger on the "abortionists and gays", yet have no problem throwing them in a foreign war as cannon fodder. So, the Democrats are the backwards ones?

If you get a BJ, the terrorists wins. Only anal with a reacharound is the key to victory. According to the priests, peace is won through the virginity of little boys.

Peter, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Morality doesn't come from God. Religion doesn't help people with anti-social personality disorder - who are much less capable of empathy or sympathy. What you are saying when you claim that morality doesn't make sense without God, you say that morality isn't possible without fear.

Sexual Sin: A Private, Not Public, Affair

Spoken like a true pinhead. The President of the United States (Clinton) compromised his position as Commander, In Chief, when he decided to have sex with an employee (fraternization). Never mind his marriage, that was Hillary's issue (to which she has benefited), he compromised national security by his poor judgment. What on earth was going on in your mind? This is not Europe. But, you are free to relocate if you wish.

Colorado Cool Aid,

Clinton's impeachment was a political power play by the Republicans, pure and simple. It was NOT, repeat NOT about sexual harassment. Monica went into that affair with eyes wide open, intent on doing what she did.

Here is proof: Yes, Clinton's impeachment was power politics at its worst. When the talk of impeachment in the House was really getting underway, Newt Gingrich was asked by a reporter if there was any real legal basis for impeachment. His answer: No. Later, when impeachment was certain to happen, a reporter asked him why the House would impeach the President when he, Newt, had said there was no basis. Newt's answer: Because we can.

Sounds good, except when the personal life is financed by public goods. Giuliani and his trysts on the Governments dime, Kennedy and his, and Clinton and his, all fall into this category. If they want to do disgusting things -- they should have to do it on their own money and their own time -- not on our public dime.

It seems to me that public concern about sexual behavior is appropriate when the behavior in question includes breaking the trust of someone else (typically a spouse).

If trust is broken relative to sexual behavior, it seems reasonable to be quite concerned that other trusts (stewardship of public funds, political decisions to benefit the individual rather than the general public, etc.) will also be broken.

This then seems to be the criteria to use in determining whether our mass media should investigate and diseminate information about an individuals sexual behavior. It really is a very simple criteria to apply.

It seems to me that public concern about sexual behavior is appropriate when the behavior in question includes breaking the trust of someone else (typically a spouse).

If trust is broken relative to sexual behavior, it seems reasonable to be quite concerned that other trusts (stewardship of public funds, political decisions to benefit the individual rather than the general public, etc.) will also be broken.

This then seems to be the criteria to use in determining whether our mass media should investigate and diseminate information about an individuals sexual behavior. It really is a very simple criteria to apply.

It seems to me that public concern about sexual behavior is appropriate when the behavior in question includes breaking the trust of someone else (typically a spouse).

If trust is broken relative to sexual behavior, it seems reasonable to be quite concerned that other trusts (stewardship of public funds, political decisions to benefit the individual rather than the general public, etc.) will also be broken.

This then seems to be the criteria to use in determining whether our mass media should investigate and diseminate information about an individuals sexual behavior. It really is a very simple criteria to apply.

"Immaturity" is a silly charge. Our constitution places enormous power in the hands of one person and the scrutiny to which presidents are subjected is proper. Americans have always tried to assess the personal qualities of candidates (previous to the primary system and television, delegates did the vetting). Sexuality is an enormous part of human nature and certainly says something about each person. While the judgments made have varied over time, sexual questions have long played a role in our politics.

These are public officials that we are talking about and the angry reactions about Clinton, Craig, Gingrich, etc. show that the commenters agree with what I've said.

Also, those who pretend that France is exempt from these issues are wrong: Sarkozy has suffered from the infidelity of his wife; French expect husbands but not wives to be unfaithful.

Bush indeed lied. Members of his own staff stated that he wanted war with Iraq the very first day he took office. 9/11 was his excuse to send this nation and it's brave soldiers into this never-ending tragedy in Iraq. The deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, 4.2 million Iraqi refugees, nearly 4,000 US soldiers, and 32,000 US wounded are all on Bush's conscience. This is George Walker Bush's War. No attempt at revisionist history will change that FACT.

By the way Clinton didn't drag the country through the impeachment mess for two years. It was the Republican Hypocrites that did that. The same hypocrites that gleefully released the uncensored Starr Report out on the internet including all the pornographic details between Lowinsky and Clinton, for any child to read on the Internet. My then 12 year old nephew snickered endlessly reading the report, he loved all the dirty parts.

By the way Clinton didn't drag the country through the impeachment mess for two years. It was the Republican Hypocrites that did that. The same hypocrites that gleefully released the uncensored Starr Report out on the internet including all the pornographic details between Lowinsky and Clinton, for any child to read on the Internet. My then 12 year old nephew snickered endlessly reading the report, he loved all the dirty parts.

A good post by Ms. Jacoby . . . but

The defense of Bill Clinton response:

"Having lied is not right, but being asked the irrelevant question that he lied to was not approprate either."

The question was NOT irrelevant. It was a deposition about sexual harrassment and the question about sex with his intern was relevant to the case at hand . . . that was why it was perjury.

That was NOT a GOP witchhung -- it was the constitutional/statutory right of the plaintiff in question, a woman who felt she suffered repurcusions in the workplace as a result of an incident of Clinton sexual harrassment. This was a right of action conferred onto her mostly by Democratic legislatures, not the GOP. People, you need to get your facts straight!

Now his other sexual liasons outside of his marriage should have been between him and his wife and his liasons . . . his sex "on the job", in the oval office, with an intern is a different matter. That is what got him in trouble. That "lie" was perjury and perjury for the nation's chief law enforcement officer cannot be condoned.

Finally, the only lie about "Bush lied about WMD" is that assertion that he lied. He didn't and you do when you repeat that canard.

I find it amazingly hypocritical that Clinton haters (faith-based haters) are so unforgiving about his adultery, yet so quiet about all those who stood in judgment (impeachment) and yet were also adulterers ... Hyde, Livingston, Gingrich, Craig, Vitter, etc,etc.. Does God forgive the sins of Repubs only?

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

I am quite aware of what I am saying and I will continue to say it to whomever and wherever on a number of subjects to include the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major contemporary religions, "pwtfft"s and the significant stupidity of Muslim "chitter chatterers" when members of their "faith" continue to use the significantly flawed koran as the bases to kill and mutiliate on a 24/7 basis.

For me integrity in a politician is the issue at hand. Any public official that is married and unfaithful sexually to his/her spouse raises the flag that if he/she is being deceitful to their spouse (someone they supposedly love), then what kind of deceit are they capable of perpetrating on the general public?

In President Clinton's case, the sexual indiscretion led to lying to the general public and trying to wrangle out of the issue by reinventing the word "is." Lying over such a matter makes me wonder over what other issues he would be willing to deceive others on.

Once the voting public lowers the standard of what is morally acceptable, soon integrity is an issue of no concern and anything becomes acceptable for a condition of public office.

Power without moral accountability can lead to tyranny and anarchy where the dictator or oligarchy call the shots and make the rules.

This brings up the next point that without an absolute standard how is morality to be determined? Who makes the rules and why should/ought their rules be binding? How do you make sense of what is right and "rights" in such a case?

Promiscuousness in society teaches that anything goes. Men and women are wired differently, and since so much of the media output is geared to promoting a sexual message, especially to men, put a woman in an office who is dressed promiscuously (i.e. a mini skirt or hanging boobs) and temptation is a distinct possibility. I think part of the onus in a working relationship is for both parties to dress modestly.

How did our ideas on sexuality come to be what they are today? I think one man in particular is largely responsible for the current sexual revolution - Alfred Kinsey. His books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female changed the way we view sexuality, based on fraudulent "scientific" research that promoted his lifestyle commitments.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=1565

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2135

To believe something, an individual is committed to certain foundational ideas that are non-negotiable. Ideas have consequences. Find out what/who influences a person and you find out what kind of thinking and ethics they are committed to and why they view things the way they do.

Without God and without an absolute standard all things become permissible or possible somewhere at some time. Without God morals (for one) are not something that can be made sense of, for morals become personal preference or popular opinion, but whose and why should the opinion be binding?

Despite the author's ultimate conclusion that sexual immorality is no worse than other human failings, there is a contradiction in this post. The author admits that certain sexual actions are wrong--e.g., child molestation, rape, etc.--and that some of these actions are not only wrong but are also criminal. Presumably, she would agree that whether a candidate was, say, a child molestator or a rapist was very relevant to a voter's decision.

But the author does not identify on what basis she concludes that these particular behaviors are wrong. Illegality only gets us so far, and I assume--altough I could be wrong--that the author would conclude that a candidate's homesexuality was immateral despite the fact that before 2004, sodomy was a crime in several states.

Thus, the relevance of a candidate's sexual behavior turns on the "wrongness" of the act. I understand that the author believes that certain actions are not sufficiently wrong to justify public scrutiny. But without identifying the standard that she is relying on and the basis of that standard (i.e., first principles), there is no basis to conclude that her standard is any more legitimate than anyone else's.

Ultimately, as a personal matter, I largely agree with the author. Although I think that a candidate's personal life does affect his or her actions while in office, it is a much smaller factor to me. But there is nothing in this post that convinces me that a voter who emphasizes a candidate's "morality" over other aspects of the candidate's past is irrational. Consequently, I won't care much if Mayor Guiliana's current marriage falls apart or if Senator Clinton divorces President Clinton or even if Senator Thompson's wife plays any role on her husband's campaign, feel free if that matters to you.

Andrea -- and in that cheater/liar column, it would be good to distinguish between sexual and other types of cheating/lying - e.g. embezzeling, sending soldiers to an uncalled for war, etc.

With sex, cheating and lying pretty much go together. People really, really want the sex and lying is the only way they can figure to get it.

Luckily, most people don't want money that badly, or there would be a lot more bank robbing and embezzelment going on -- and probably a lot more people getting caught!

"unless you're talking about forced sex or sex that involves the betrayal of national security, the erotic lives of political figures generally have no business in the public square."

Exactly. A sexual act or other act is immoral only if it causes harm to others.

Since the "Larry Craig" thing has come up, I thought I would say a little more on it. He plead guilty to "disorderly conduct." This disorderly conduct consisted of tapping his foot alone, in a closed stall, (with a wide stance) and possibly touching the tips of his fingers to the bottom of the stall partition, so they could be visible underneath. If he had not plead guilty, but had asked for a trial, the judge would have undoubtedly dismissed the charges, because they were absurd. But he did not want a trial, because he was afraid. He was afraid of the publicity and notoriety of being caught in a sex sting, even though he did not really commit any crime, nor break any law.

He was pressured by the undercover cops and the justice authorities to plead guilty; he plead guilty because he could not face or reconcile his own inner sexual conflicts; now that he has plead guilty, it is done, and cannot be undone. And he is found out, as well. It would have been better to ask for a trial, and have the charges dismissed, and accept the embarrassment.

It is hard for me to articulate how twisted and demented this whole episode was. The repressed prude seeking sex in the bathroom, is trapped in a sting orchestrated by his politcal allies, who then extort a confession from him, of things that he is not even guilty of, which he accepts because he is shamed and embarrassed to challenge them.

Oh my God!

E Favorite,

I know it's not that strong of an argument, and I never meant it to be. Just something to consider. As for me, I'd put "cheater" or "liar" in the con column of my list when considering a public official. But it would be considerably low in priority, trumped by things like, government spending, health care, war, haircut...you know, important things.

Hypocrisy gets a bad rap here and elsewhere. We *all* talk a better ethic than we walk. So one can't just say sexual peccadillos are ok unless they involve hypocrisy. Isn't it hypocritical to play around w/ young interns after having made a promise of fidelity to one's spouse?

Andrea - I've heard your cheating argument before. All I can say is that, luckily, it doesn't hold up in real life -- otherwise, there'd be a whole lot more bad things happening, because a lot of people who cheat on their spouses are otherwise upstanding citizens.

I can think of a couple of examples where a husband and father screwed up his family because of his sexual escapades, but was a wonderful humanitarian in his work - respected and admired by all. Some people can really compartmentalize. I don't condone it. I don't even understand it, but I've seen it.

The charge against Larry Craig was not for soliciting; it was "disorderly conduct." So this Lillipution scandal gets even smaller and smaller, almost microscopic.

Concerned,

Actually, I'm pleased to tell you, there is a libido-killing pill available now. It's called "female birth control" and when not being used to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it's used to chemically castrate sex offenders. It also kills the libido in some women who take it. Two birds, man!

The forum's consensus on the hierarchy of "badness" regarding the incidents discussed seems to be:

1. Bush's war lies: Bad and dangerous, but borderline irrelevant to this conversation.

2. The GOP witch hint of Bill Clinton--publicly compelling him to spill his guts about a sexual affair between consenting adults by means of a grand jury testimony.

3. Larry Craig plays footsie in the potty after publicly calling gay people icky for a long time.

4. Bill Clinton lies under oath during Monicagate, but this was prompted by a bulls**t inquiry in the first place.

5. Bill gets some in the Oval Office. Kind of inappropriate and duplicitous.

Agreed. The conclusions are good as well: Larry Craig should be ridiculed by th epublic but not sought after by the authorities on the grounds of being gay, or even a hypocrite (the charge was for soliciting). Also, no one seems to give Clinton a free pass on the weak-willed lie under oath. The disbarring was definitely warranted. But, since removal from office is predicated on a cost benefit analysis, the Congress made the right choice in measuring the benefits of keeping him greater than the cost of letting him finish his term.

Daniel, aka Anonymous,

Yes, Clinton's impeachment was power politics at its worst. Here's proof. When the talk of impeachment in the House was really getting underway, Newt Gingrich was asked by a reporter if there was any real legal basis for impeachment. His answer: No. Later, when impeachment was certain to happen, a reporter asked him why the House would impeach the President when he, Newt, had said there was no basis. Newt's answer: Because we can.

Arminius

TO: CCNL

The bigotry and hatred that you direct personally to some of the commenters here seems a little threatening and even a little scarey. Are you aware that your "comments" appear that way to others? Perhaps you are not.

Personal intimidation is not necessary here. Why do you engage in it? This isn't a war; we're not on a battle field.

Instead of answering me, reflexively, with "more of the same," I do really wish you would pause a moment and think about it. Perhaps you are not used to writing your thoughts out for other people to read, and do not realize that you are being threatening and intimidating.

I do not think that you would have the nerve to speak face to face, these words which you write here.

Recently I have been ridiculed for studying metaphysics online. Apparently my annonymity and privacy was violated by third parties. It's a certain scientific inquiry that shallow minds don't understand. Those who have contempt prior to investigation must feel some satisfaction voyuering into my personal life. I think it's a form of rape, virtually speaking of course. Takes sick and twisted individuals to label one a nutjob and golddigger to cover up incompetence or embarrassment.

Galelio himself was an alechemist. Viewing things from outside the dots must be an exercise enhancing scientific discovery.

My anaylsis through participating in metaphysical disscussions and exercises is that many people are just searching for a reason to believe. Is my opinion there are many paths leading to believing and that the road we are on is the road that leads to where we are going as long as we move on. While on that road there may just be certain things unexplainable to our point of reference or have yet to be explained by science. I think that all knowing by man is the revelation we know very little in the scope of our universe.

Of course where science meets the unknown is the point whereby contempt prior investigation prevents discovery. Can see it while Congress is in action or inaction, making accusations that politics is motivation for discovery. And that could be true. There are the basic ego needs of individuals and entities which tend to defocus objectives. And so as the case with religion or metaphysics, I see that individual needs or egos gone amuck tend to disturb reality perverting meaning of knoweledge or wisdom. The truth itself does not lie, silly but something to think about, if you were to ask me.

One line in the bible always bothered me, "Let the dead bury their own". From an early age, I asked myself if man's intervention into "The Word" created such a statement ? Would an all loving God make such a statement through one of his sons ? And then I discovered that J.C. was made lower than angels being born of flesh. And that he certainly experienced anger, frustration and sadness. But in the course of his life a samaritan or roman soldier would transverse his path reaffirming convictions that he was not alone while on this planet with his belief system. And so the lesson of the ressurecton was sort of an amends through my eyes, "If you love me, then feed my sheep". And that it is much easier to sit with believers than with tax collectors. And that sometimes, on this earth, pearls fed to sheep is in fact waste considering rejection properities of certain individuals and/or groups of people.

Yes, some of us take the long road and walk it with or without fellow travellers. My advice is that if one meets Buddha along the road less travelled, steal his chicken noodle soup for your own soul (if you are hungry) and if you are cold, take his cloak as he should be more than willing to give it to you.

If voyeurists or perverts are peering into our personal lives deriving some kind of sick or twisted ego need, I say let the dead bury their own.

(That was me).

The whole Bill-Clinton-had-sex-with-an-intern-so-let's-impeach-him-for-it episode was not about sex; it was about Machiavellian power politics, in its most naked and brutal form, and any prim and proper Christian or Republican who denies it is not being honest, which is also immoral, isn't it? The whole sorry episode was a cynical exploitation of the Christian ethos of prudery, for dark and malevolent purposes, far supassing in immorality any "sin" that may have been committed, in the first place.

On questions of morality, human sexuality and behavior is just a small subset. Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews simply do not "get it" but focus, compulsively, and obsessively, on this small subset category of sex, and do not see any of the rest.

The problem with Susan's essays is that they are reasonable and provide little red meat. That's why the posts drift off in random directions.

Back on topic, however, Ms. Jacoby has hit the nail right on the head. No need for further discussion.

"'Abstinence Only' sex education is to real sex education as military music is to music."

I protest, as this statement is unfair to military music, which is real music, whereas "Abstinence Only" sex education is not education: it is dogma, delusional dogma at that, IMHO.

Andrea,

There would appear to be a commonly held hierarchy of lies. Not to say that this is right or moral, but that it exists. It has even been codified by some religious authorities, to wit, from an RC site:

Following St. Augustine and St. Thomas, Catholic divines and ethical writers commonly make a distinction between (1) injurious, or hurtful, (2) officious, and (3) jocose lies. Jocose lies are told for the purpose of affording amusement. Of course what is said merely and obviously in joke cannot be a lie: in order to have any malice in it, what is said must be naturally capable of deceiving others and must be said with the intention of saying what is false. An officious, or white, lie is such that it does nobody any injury: it is a lie of excuse, or a lie told to benefit somebody. An injurious lie is one which does harm.

Does anybody remember what this forum started out as????

Arminius

Andrea,

"I'm concerned with how they are using their positions of power, either as religious leaders or as politicians, to cause oppression to others, while getting the very thing they're fighting against on the side."

Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.

I guess what I ultimately was trying (in a verbose manner) to express was that if personal details become the tie breaker it's one thing. I am just concerned that ALL the REAL issues that should be weighed first are being disregarded for bad reasons.

If I could personally interview a candidate myself, FOR myself, "Do you believe in evolution" or "What are your views on marital fidelity" would be so low on the list...if I even asked them at all.

?????,

Agreed.

Politicians have become celebrities, somewhat. I guess it can't be helped with these events making the news in ever-increasing numbers. I'm not sure if it's because these events are happening more frequently, or these guys have just gotten sloppy, but it's hard to ignore. Like I stated before, I'm not raising a stink about how these guys like their eggs. I'm concerned with how they are using their positions of power, either as religious leaders or as politicians, to cause oppression to others, while getting the very thing they're fighting against on the side.

Andrea,

Absolutely. I didn't mean to misconstrue your point.

I can't remember who to credit with the quote, but I once heard someone say; "Politics is show business for ugly people".

The way the media has taken to reporting on the private lives of public officials, and the way that the public has positively responded to it have really done the country a disservice. Even political news has come to resemble E.

If the media had focused on the actual ON-THE-JOB performance of elected officials the last couple of decades, instead of only being perched and ready for personal scandals, the personal would seem so insignificant in comparison.

OK, so Bush hasn't been busted for lying about a BJ, but he also hasn't been busted for lying about WMD's AND isn't going to leave office with a surplus.

9/11 wasn't planned in the first nine months that Bush was in office, it was planned while we were wasting TONS of time and energy waiting for Reader's Digest to condense the Starr Report.

Besides, Bush's drinking and drug use and failed business ventures all seem to have been swept under the rug. They weren't THAT important evidently.

Those, to me would be the more important personal issues that would affect his performance as President, but really if he had quarterly performance reviews on his job the way I do on mine...his personal life wouldn't EVEN be a tie breaker.

A lie is a lie just as breaking the law is breaking the law.

Context matters. Obviously I was stretching the contexts for effect, but the comparison is fundamentally sound.

Hmmm, as noted above, it is all about the sex drive aka libido.

I believe 1.6 million Plan B prescriptions were given last year in the USA alone. To say the least, sexual drive/activity/libido is out of control.

There are pills to increase libido, prevent
pregancies and to kill babies. Since this is all about biology, there should be no reason that an anti-libido pill could not be developed. What should the pill be called: "Save Us from Bill "Out of Control" Clintons" ????

And "Save Us from Bill Clinton" pills should be quite useful for Muslim women/men in eliminating the need for those other three wives.

Since the pharmaceutical companies are not about to do this, the major religions should join forces and do it. I apologize for being blunt, but considering the number of over-sexed, "celibate" clergy we have, these pills would also solve another problem.

Not interested in taking a pill? Then follow the many masterbation techniques readily available via Google- Safe, inexpensive and definitely efficient in eliminating "partner required" libido- Published statistics show "55 vs 38 percent of men vs women (aged 18-59) masturbated on a regular basis" , http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=26798.

The Catholic/Christian churches simply need to upgrade wet dreams to approved sexual drive control. And again another method to assist hard to control "celibate" clergy.

Chris,

A better analogy would be, if you're willing to break the law by going over the speed limit in a 55mph zone, what's to stop you from going over the speed limit in a 65mph zone. You're trying to make your point by comparing two completely different crimes. A lie is a lie, but speeding vs. war or a shooting spree? Come on!

DANIEL:

You had me until "...relgious credibility in all other areas." What credibility? What other areas? Science? Philosophy? Law? Ethics?

Well, I guess Susan Jacoby couldn't say it, because if she did, the Conservative Christians would freak out and call her an anti-Christian hate-monger; so I will say it:

When it comes to human sexuality, all of the world's main religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, are gigantic, honking failures. Christians, Moslems, and Jews are really, really twisted up and contorted in their interpretations and characterizations of human sexuality. They mostly promote sexual repression and prudishness, and consider any manifestation of human sexuality approaching good mental health to be sinful.

This attitude towards sexuality, more than any other aspect of religion, is what gives religion such a bad reputation, which makes it appear primitive to many people, and is what undermines relgious credibility in all other areas.

Quoting from the Torah, or the Bible, or the Koran in defense of sexual repression and prudishness only makes it worse, and does not persuade or convince anybody.

Little was known or understood about human sexuality until the twentieth century. Even today, it is not well understood. I think that, of all the destructive tendencies of religion to make people unhappy and to ruin people's lives, this has got to be the number one issue.

If Craig wanted to forgo the media circus, he should have just went to a Gay hotel like the rest of the closet cases. There he could be as gay as he wanted.

ANDREA:

Not to beat a dead horse, but if someone is willing to break the law by driving over 55 mph on the highway, what's to stop them from breaking the law by leading the nation into an unprovoked war, or going on a shooting spree?

It's DISTRACTION! There are ALWAYS much more relevant predictors of performance in office. Why are we interested in sexual issues? Because we're interested in sex itself. Because the moralism associated with sex in America gives us a (false) basis for being comforatable with our judgments of other people. Because REAL issues require REAL thought, are seldom clear cut, and often require access to information that is difficult for the average voter to obtain.

But SEX?! We all know that SEX, the way HE did it, is BAAAAAD!

?????,

I'm not saying to use their fidelity as a measuring stick to determine their worthiness to be in office. But one should certainly consider that lie (to the spouse, or in the named politicians' cases, their lies to the public) together with other issues when deciding how to cast their vote. The point I was trying to make in my previous post was if these people can lie to the very person they chose to spend their lives with, the person they presumably love and respect, what's to stop them from lying to the rest of us, people they've never met?

Andrea,

While I see your point, I must point out that there are many people who are much more loyal to their careers than their spouses. Basing a candidate's worth on that one issue is not balanced enough to determine their ability to successfully use the array of skills needed to be an executive. Besides, guilt of infidelity may not surface until it is too late anyway. So even if the candiate is not guilty "to the best of our knowledge" at the time we elect him does not mean that he really is innocent of it. It just seems like an irrational measuring stick for a candidate for public office.

?????,

True, however, if they cannot be trusted to keep a promise/vow to someone they love, how can they be trusted to keep promises to constituents?

Russell D.,

Nice.

"Anyone that cheats on their significant other will cheat on the voting public. Simple analogy."

Respectfully, I disagree.

Cheating on the voting public is not the same as sexual infidelity at all. Cheating on one's significant other is powered by olack of control over the sex drive. Cheating on the voting public is not.

Apples and oranges.

WTF? Seriously?

Wanna know why sex is bad to a Republican? Cause they are bad at it. Ask their wives.

Chris Everett, you said:

Sex is used in politics as a weapon of mass distraction.

My reply: Does that make Monica a weapon of mass seduction?

(Couldn't resist....)

Arminius

A focus on sex indicates immaturity in nature. Any politician that is not mature enough to hold themself responsible for their own actions should be removed from office.

When it is Democrat, America is ready to go. However, when it is a Republican, excuses are made. Cheap politics.

Anyone that cheats on their significant other will cheat on the voting public. Simple analogy.

Why trust an untrustworthy person, and politics is all about trust.

Patrick

Sex is used in politics as a weapon of mass distraction.

Clinton lied about sex...SO WHAT?
My hubby said that if he was asked that question by a moron, that had no right to ask the question to begin with, and I was going to get wind of it...he would lie too. I care that he lied, not that it was about sex, but he broke his oath to his wife. Monica was not used, she set her cap for a powerful man. She was not an innocent, nor was Clinton her first married man. She has to share the blame.

Star blackmailed Monica with a threat against her mother and a promise of prison for 20 years if she did not talk. Goldburg and Tripp working for the republican party manuvered and broke the law to get the goods...Star was a hitman for the GOP.Jones got a nose job and Clinton is still a better man then Bush...

I don't care that Clinton got BJ's in the oval office. He never claimed to be the man of the family values...he never claimed to be on the same side as Jesus...he was a lier, but not a hypocrite. And I would give my right hand to have him in that office getting BJ's now./ Better a few sexual encounters then what has been happening with this administration. I hate this president! Yes Hate...I have been saying it on the telephone, in email...and to others. I hope with all the breaking of the Fourth Amendment someone hears this! Well heck that family values president that talks to god and gets messages back has done more damage then any of the precedeing presidents since George Washington.

As far as Impeachment..ok so take it that Bush gets impeached...Cheney is President...He appoints another Veep..maybe Rummy or his old friend Libby...after all he was let off scott free. Or say Cheney is impeached and Bush puts in a new Veep. So exactly what good would the rest of the time being taken up with the hell this country went through for a oval office BJ?I would much rather spend it writing my congress critter about childrens health care getting passed...or a breaking up of the menopolies in radio and TV broadcasting. Or about some judge saying it was ok for a "news"(Faux) station to lie.

And I am counting on the International Criminal Court to snag Bush and Cheney after they leave office. I want a front row seat and I will be there with my gris gris.

We can blame ourselves for Bush...we are lazy and ignorant of how to look further then our pocketbooks. So look into history and find out the truth of history, what are the past records of the candidates? What are the real past histories of the parties? Republicans will lie and lie again knowing if they lie enough the lazy and jaded will believe them.

But gee, it's so much more fun to worry about lieing about sex then it is lieing about war and crusades. It's time America grew up...
terra

and of course we found out that Gingrich was cheating on his wife with choir girl while he was impeaching Clinton. and all that happened to him was being ridiculed in the Post for buying a ridiculously expensive but not very good value wine at the Angler's Inn to impress her. Ah the irony of it all.

New rule: After this Bush lied about what brought us to *war,* no one can act indignant about Clinton getting some. That's just tired and silly, *especially* considering the total lack of perspective on the matter in the first place.

What made it a national embarrassment was the media and Congress being *fixated on it for years so as to obstruct progress on important issues like the environment and health care and foreign policy... the legacy of which obstruction is coming home to roost, now.

Fact is, the 'scandal' and 'investigation' was underway long before the incident in question ever happened, being pursued by people who were cheating on their own wives at the time, ...and it's hard to be sympathetic to people who feel traumatized about Clinton 'lying' when it was ridiculous to make a federal case out of a marital problem in the first place.

Bush lied about WMDs and now we have the trillion-dollar Iraq mess and a lot of dead and injured Americans, not to mention a world turned against us. But no impeachment, there, no, ...but point at a peccadillo by a former President, of which way too much was made as it was, and people are still flipping out.

Yes, lying is bad, but we really do seem to have a lack of perspective and maturity whenever sex is involved, as opposed to, say, violence.

A little more on track: I think that the American attitude toward sex is actually QUITE ridiculous. Sex is the main topic of TV, Movies, Music and Advertising in this country. Sex sells advertising slots on TV, and sex sells the products advertised in the slots that sex sells on TV. Pre-marital and extra-marital sex are depicted everywhere...open relationships, one night stands. My favorite (maybe because I just don't get it) is naked people selling over-priced CLOTHES!

Then everyone walks around acting like they are digusted by it all, despite the obvious proof of hypocracy in the profitiability of it. Hotels reporting record sales of pay-per-view porn during religius conventions. Then the nerve of neo-cons to hypocritically create wedge issues out of it...ridiculous! Gingrich, Foley, Vitter, horrible. Then the hypocrites who buy into it are just as bad.

The skills required to be a good Husband/Father are not at all the same as those required to be a good "Leader of the Free World".

When my bathroom is flooding which is more important; "My plumber is the best plumber available", or "My plumber still hasn't told his wife that he got his mistress pregnant"?

As much as I think the Electoral College is flawed, I find with every election cycle I live through that The People certainly can't be trusted to elect the President directly either.

Reasonable,

Maybe Clinton didn't lie afterall. Maybe he didn't view oral sex and sex. Possibly the result of abstinence-only education? Thus the need for honest, real sexual education for our young persons, so all our future presidents can know that oral sex is sex.

Regarding Clinton's crotch crisis: the bad thing was that he lied. I voted for him, but remember hearing his statement, "I did not have sex with that woman!"; and I said to myself, "He's lying!". If he had come out with the truth at once, it would have been a two week media circus, replete with shrieking republicans, and then would have blown over. Oh, well, one of my favorite bumper stickers is "Somebody give Bush a BJ so we can impeach him".

Regarding that hysterically funny classic, Monty Python's Life of Brian: it is not a slam on religion per se, but a grand slam on how people screw religion up.

Arminius

Ok. Enough about Clinton. He cheated on his wife. He lied about it. Tom DEE-Lay sought to have him removed from office for lying, while the terrorists silently skulked about, planning 9/11. Okay. There is more to Susan's essay than rehashing the Clinton years. So, has anybody got anything to say along a different line? Why squander this forum on regrets and recriminations about Clinton? Huh? Why?

Jeez "Are you kidding"

Clinton lied in FEDERAL COURT , took a oath not only in court to tell the truth but as President to uphold the constitution and everything it stands for.

He lost his law license over this.

He SHOULD have been impeached and convicted of it.

His sin of covering up was what I did not like even more than his pandering to someone much younger than himself in the office that WE pay for.

Bring Bush into the picture is a whole different pandora's box and does not address what Clinton did.

Anon was me - forgot to sign.

Anonymous,

HA! Touché!

CCNL:

You are totally out of line. Shame on you!!!

CCNL:

You have me wondering if you're really NL with your personal attack on J.

Love the believer, hate the belief.

Are You Kidding?
"Having lied is not right, but being asked the irrelevant question that he lied to was not approprate either."

True. But the correct response to an inappropriate question is "That question is inappropriate and I refuse to dignify it with an answer." Lying in response to an inappropriate question just makes the situation worse and ruins your credibility.

And don't even get me started on the lies that Shrubya and Co have spun - he should have been impeached long ago. I guess his crimes are okay because he committed them with this Underoos on and his fly zipped. Maybe Pelosi feels sorry for him because there isn't enough tequila in all of Mexico to get a woman drunk enough to sleep with him if he had had a 10-inch tool that shot hundred dollar bills.

Wow, The Jihadist does ramble on and surprising she said nothing about the Muslims cheating on their wives. Of course, having four wives helps in the area of "not" cheating on, lying to or having disrespect.

And The Jihadist's "typo" was indeed funny.

"I remember a French cardinal who had a hard attack when he was in the Paris apartment of his mistress. The French gave that news a gallic shrug - no questions, no speculations, just straight reporting, and that was that."

We can only hope The Jihadist's husband is not cheating on her. One wonders when she gets time for "wife functions" being a banker, PR person for the warmongering, terror and torture theocracy of the Third Axis of Evil, and defender of the hallucinating, womanizing, illiterate and warmongering founder of Islam. Maybe his other wives serve his needs?

JOET:

I think this sentence in Susan's essay answers your question perfectly: "Our preoccupation with the sex lives of public figures is simply one more manifestation of America's broader cultural immaturity."

Although I would like to point out that it is not only the sex lives of public figures that Americans are preoccupied with. It's sex altogether.

I'm with Andrea: Clinton's lying about having sex isn't in the same ballpark as Craig's offense, which is hypocrisy (and thinking we are morons to listen to his "wide stance" and toilet paper stories). apart from the abuse of power issue, which is legit in any employment setting including the white house, I can't get that excited.

I just returned from a vacation in France. no one has the slightest problem with topless beaches. I think the adolescents grow up with a much healthier attitude than here. I didn't see 12 year old boys even paying attention.

Can you imagine the masturbation question? Hey, if you preach it, it's your problem.

and if it isn't the Puritans (and apparently it isn't) would someone explain how we got like this and the rest of the world managed to avoid it?

Anonymous: "At least Craig didn't perjure himself."

Well...not that anyone can pin down yet, but he did at least once.

He pleaded guilty, then later claimed he wasn't and wanted to retract it and went to court to do so. He perjured himself one of those times...and I'm inclined to believe it was the second.

Still, if the LEAST he did was not perjure himself...it would be just that, THE LEAST! What a hypocrite!!!!

As for Clinton having "dragged the nation through a sordid two-year scandal". He certainly did not do that himself. Having lied is not right, but being asked the irrelevant question that he lied to was not approprate either. Notice this President has and his administration have told some real whoppers and NOTHING is happening to them. Thanks Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi!

As far as being "ACCUSED of using his office in Arkansas to coax sexual favors from a low-level employee" (emphasis mine), accusations are just accusations.

Susan,

You write:

"[T]he elevation of private religious beliefs to a public mandate certainly does influence American attitudes about sex."

That hits the nail on the head. Religious moralism concerning sex is a dominant factor in American attitudes towards sex. Religion has turned a natural and wonderful aspect of the human experience into a perversion. In return, it gains the smug self-satisfaction of moral rightousness, the power due a moral arbiter, and domination over a population ashamed at having been born naked.

Let's pause and reflect on Christopher Hitchens' thesis: Religion poisons everything.

And don't forget Monty Python's Life of Brian!

I can't speak for the author, but in my view Craig and his ilk are hypocrites, Clinton...not so much. Dishonest...yes. The others make it their life's work to prohibit certain people the right to live (legally) as they please and deny their basic sexual needs. So, basically it goes like this:

You can't have sex, but I can. Or, you can't be homosexual, but I can, etc. To my knowledge, Clinton never said, "you can't get a bj, but I can." And I agree with Lepi above. It's the gross abuse of power and lying that offends me about all these "scandals". Not the sex. As long as it's legal and legally consensual, I don't care.

Jihadist,

Wow! You have a gift for satire; that was almost the equal of your views on baseball a month or so ago. Keep it up! And if you have not checked out OORT's recommendation to view 'Every Sperm is Sacred', do so. And see the movie, 'Monty Python's The Meaning of Life'.

Arminius

If lying about sex is the issue with Larry Craig, why was Clinton allowed to remain President? At least Craig didn't perjure himself.

Clinton, who the writer studiously avoids discussing in detail, dragged the nation through a sordid two-year scandal because he wouldn't own up to his crimes and numerous infidelities. He proved he wasn't an honorable man, that his interests in becomeing President were entirely selfish and had nothing to do with the best interests of the American people.

Furthermore, Clinton was accused of using his office in Arkansas to coax sexual favors from a low-level employee. In other words, his duplicity is exactly as bad, if not worse, than Craig's.

J,

Actually there is an old C&W song called "I'm a Stand By My Woman Man" by Ronnie Milsap. I don't know if it was written as a response to the Tammy Wynette song or not. Neither is on my Top 500 Favorite Songs list.

I had to laugh at your "rules" - of course, now I have to wipe cocoa off my monitor. But you made your point quite well.

As far as I'm concerned, the only sex that is wrong is that which does not occur among consenting adults, and/or involves betrayal of trust.
That includes rape (no consent), statutory rape (minors cannot consent), bestiality (animals cannot consent), and adultery (if you promise monogamy, whether with a marriage license or without one, you should honor that promise).

What bothered me about Jimmy Swaggart was not that he paid a prostitute for sex. I don't really get why prostitution should be a crime. As George Carlin so astutely points out in one of his stand-up routines, "It's legal to buy stuff. It's legal to f---." So why should it be illegal to buy a f---?"

What bothered me about Jimmy Swaggart was that he had made such a BIG stink about Jim Bakker's affair with Jessica Hahn, and how there was no excuse for such behavior, and a minister had to be a paragon of virtue, to the point of influencing the AoG to defrock Bakker, and he was doing the same basic thing, and then pled "the devil made me doi it" when he got caught. I don't care that he was boinking a pro - I care that he's a hypocrite and a liar, and I do not for the life of me understand why he still has a church and people still send him money.

What bothered me about Larry Craig was not that he's gay. It wasn't that he tried to pick up a stranger in a restroom - although why anyone would want to have sex in a public restroom is beyond me. It was the hypocrisy, the dishonesty, and the abuse of power that he attempted to engage in when he was arrested.

I don't care that Bill Clinton got a bj in the Oval Office. I care that he lied. I care that engaging in a sexual relationship with a subordinate is an abuse of power, even if the subordinate consents.
And while I would boot my husband out the door in a heartbeat if he had an affair, if Hillary chooses to forgive Bill, that's between them, and not any of my concern.

I really couldn't care less who Anna Nicole Smith's baby-daddy is. I'm glad they found out for the sake of the child and her upkeep and support, but it's not something I was losing sleep over.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002085385040727366

Surely, it can't be said better than Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred.

J,

Thanks for that response. When I was reading the "guidelines" you provided, my reaction went something like this:

-What?
-What?
-Are you serious?
-giggle

and so on. Are these proposals straight out of your creative mind, or has someone else actually suggested these?

Rev. Thistlethwaite brought up the subject of power on her post on the topic, and I think that's applicable in this discussion as well. When we (the people) give men, and sometimes women (though the restrictions you propose for women in power were mainly so their husbands wouldn't stray) power, do we automatically think they will abuse it? Do we need to place restrictions on activities and employment opportunities because if we don't say "you need to piss in this empty water bottle I brought along so you don't have gay sex in that bathroom," or "you need to have an ugly old male assistant so your husband doesn't stray and give you a bad name," those very things will happen? We sure don't place a lot of trust in our elected officials. We don't trust them enough to let them pee in a toilet or hire a person qualified to be an assistant. Yikes!

Best wishes to you for a great weekend. Hope you make it back on here later in the week!

Hello Andrea,

Ms Jacoby also wrote : 'A generation ago, women who "stood by their man" were praised for keeping their marriages together.'

I can hear Tammy Wynette's wail - "Stand By Your Man". Any male country singer singing, "Stand By Your Woman"?

As a moral minority of one on sex, and as ad hoc member of People Against Sexual Indiscretions by Public Official here, I would like to submit to you some observations and proposals for you to thrash on its obvious gender biases and stereotypes:

- All public figures are not to be given cigars, have cigars in their homes or offices in case these innocent cigars be accused of being an accessory or instrument or facilitator for "non-sex" sex.

- All straight male public figures are to have only male secretaries over 60 years of age to reduce their chances of being tempted and be led astray. Straight female public figures can have female secretaries, but those over 50 years of age in case the young attractive ones distrated her spouse and staff leading her to distraction and fits of time and mind consuming jealousies.

- All public figures who are sexually ambiguous, have undetermined or unknown real sexual inclinations/preferences are to have both male and female secretaries who must be over 50 years old and physically unattractive so they would be free from temptation leading to sin and and distract from full focus on public issues that voters voted them for.

- No public figures should be allowed to within 10 feet of both male and female interns without another adult staffer present at all times to ensure the public figure will not be weakened and distracted of his resolve to serve the public.

- All public figures should be discouraged from using public restrooms/bathrooms, and their staffers to carry along mini-portable toilets when out in the world for official functions.

- All public figures are to be reminded that just because George Micheal and a couple of pro-football cheerleaders, among others, were caught engaging in sex in public restrooms does not mean that public restrooms/bathrooms are the trendiest, hippest, coolest and best place to have great sex.

- All public figures should be discouraged from making spot checks on public utilities, including public restrooms/bathrooms, as they may be propositioned by preying sexual vultures, deviants and perverts who lusted after his innocent and unknowing person.

Frankly, it made me laugh everytime a public official is caught for having sex with people they should not in places they should not.

Then comes the press conference when they look sober, subdued, seemingly chastened and repentent, to issue either an explanation, or make a statement that may or may not tell why. The sad part is their wives (if any) standing bravely alongside, sometimes affirming how they love and supported their husbands.

Any official who says his private life is private when caught in a sex scandal, does make my eyes roll up. After all he is in "public service" for "public good" and "naked" in the public square after he sought to lead people and initiate policies, and people expect him to lead by example and by an examplary life and such.

Sex scandals of public figures - be they politicians, athletes, movie and music stars, writers etc, are the stuff of real life soap operas. Very entertaining for us, but embarassing for the ones caught. Or not. Inquiring minds wants to know and the National Enquirer, among others, is happy to oblige with the latest scoop.

I remember a French cardinal who had a hard attack when he was in the Paris apartment of his mistress. The French gave that news a gallic shrug - no questions, no speculations, just straight reporting, and that was that.

No amount of sex scandals is going to lead to the collapse of a political party, political system or religious entity. Wrong policies, persistent incompetent governance, widespread financial mismanagement and corruption may.

Best regards and to a good weekend.

"J"

Great post, Susan. I find myself getting caught up in the controversy of such politicians getting flushed out as fiends, not because of the sexual nature, but because of their hypocrisy. Is there a little self-loathing and over-correcting in how they reconcile their sexual preferences to their political agendas? I was musing over this as I read your post; glad you addressed it in your final paragraph.

Regarding the rest of your post, I agree. Why the heck are sexual issues at the forefront of most people's minds? What does that say about us, besides immaturity? Why is sex and how candidates for office view sexual matters, and hell, how and how often they have sex themselves determining factors for whether or not they get someone's vote? Contrary to many people's beliefs, homosexuality is not going to bring about the end of the world. War and global warming, however, do come to mind as two very real possible causes to some major catastrophe. How does a politician's name appearing on some Madame’s client list measure up to the war in Iraq, inadequate health care, the downturn in the economy, and trampled on civil rights? I mean, WHA? (*insert Jon Stewart eye-rub and shocked face here*)