Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I've said all I have to say on the subject.

I accept Christians can differ in their views on this matter. It's too serious a matter in terms of the human cost for me as a Christian not to vote my conscience and influence society in this direction where I can. There are plenty of vices that are "legal" including alcohol abuse, porn or anything else one wants to add to the list. Arguing that because we can't construct a perfect society then anything should go, is not an argument that I accept nor can I accept as a rationale Christian. Because we lack the power to change all things does not relieve us of the responsibility to change those things for the better that we can.

I accept that the US, where I live now, is not a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian. People either are, or aren't. Expecting non-Christian's to behave as Christians is an unreasonable expectations and laws are going to be passed or not passed in a democracy.

I'll seek to influence where I can and trust God for the results. I'd rather see one person saved than 10 laws passed.

The problem I see here is the apparent double-talk in condoning one legalization when clearly alcohol has a definite effect on society and yet you remain silent to the issue. You're not promoting such a turn in law. I'm sure it's because if it were illegal to drink any amount of alcohol, you couldn't really stand on the "Jesus made wine..." soap box and continue your vice however minimal it seems to you. The fact of the matter is probably that you do drink alcohol...and making a law against it would have direct affect on you...as a drinker.
.
.

No Bav Wheels. I've given you the rationale upon which I base that position.

It is no more valid to suggest that I am opposed to prohibition of alcohol on the basis on my personal use than it would be to suggest that you're in favor of legalization of prostitution because you plan to use the services.

I suggest you take some time out and cool off.

Cool off? I'm not angry...I'm trying to figure out why one might oppose legalizing prostitution while not promoting making alcohol illegal when both have the same effects (in your estimation and others arguing the same) on society? If I tapped a nerve, I'm sorry.

My argument is not "morality" based. It's on the actual effects on society. Alcohol having a larger and more devistating effect on society yet it seems you have no problem with alcohol remaining legal. Help me understand.
.
.

Cool off? I'm not angry...I'm trying to figure out why one might oppose legalizing prostitution while not promoting making alcohol illegal when both have the same effects (in your estimation and others arguing the same) on society? If I tapped a nerve, I'm sorry.

My argument is not "morality" based. It's on the actual effects on society. Alcohol having a larger and more devistating effect on society yet it seems you have no problem with alcohol remaining legal. Help me understand.

You might start with getting the basis of the argument correct.

The comparison of alcohol to prostitution is, as has been explained and which you are apparently having difficulty grasping or accepting, invalid.

Alcohol is not immoral in all cases. Drunkeness is. There are laws against drunkeness, you might be aware in terms of operating a vehicle, or public drunkenness so the fact is laws do exist and therefore your point is demonstrated to be invalid.

What you are doing is known in logic as a category error.

You're equating laws against prostitution with prohibition. The use of alcohol is not prohibited biblically. The enjoyment of sex is not prohibited biblically.

The use of alcohol to the point of drunkeness is and it has impact upon the person so engaged and that impact can expand to affect others in many ways such as injury, loss of productivity on the job, illness which increases the burden of the health system.

The institution of Prostitution has impact upon the people who engage and it has impact upon society in general in such ways as the diminishing of the family unit upon which society is based.

The solution for the abuse of alcoholism is not solved by prohibition. Alcohol is not immoral in it's proper context not used to excess.

The solution for the existence of Prostitution would not be solved by the prohibition of sex, which is what your argument equates to when it is kept in the proper categories.

Alcohol is the root of alchoholism.

Sex is the root of prostitution.

Neither sex nor alcohol are immoral in and of themselves. It is when they are used outside the proper boundaries and contexts that issues arise.

Comparing the Prohibition of alcohol (because it can lead to alcoholism or drunkeness) with the prohibition of Prostitution is a blatant category error and invalid argument. Alcohol can be used appropriately. Prostitution is a level removed from its root activity and there is no context in which Prostitition can be appropriate morally or in terms of its impact on the lives of those involved and the greater context of society.

Well-put

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Cool off? I'm not angry...I'm trying to figure out why one might oppose legalizing prostitution while not promoting making alcohol illegal when both have the same effects (in your estimation and others arguing the same) on society? If I tapped a nerve, I'm sorry.

My argument is not "morality" based. It's on the actual effects on society. Alcohol having a larger and more devistating effect on society yet it seems you have no problem with alcohol remaining legal. Help me understand.

You might start with getting the basis of the argument correct.

The comparison of alcohol to prostitution is, as has been explained and which you are apparently having difficulty grasping or accepting, invalid.

Another misinterpretation. I'm not comparing alcohol to prostitution...but the EFFECTS of each on society. Difficulty in grasping or accepting this makes your argument invalid as it is not the argument.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Alcohol is not immoral in all cases. Drunkeness is. There are laws against drunkeness, you might be aware in terms of operating a vehicle, or public drunkenness so the fact is laws do exist and therefore your point is demonstrated to be invalid.

Wrong point you're attributing to my argument.

Canuckster1127 wrote:What you are doing is known in logic as a category error.

What you are doing is misunderstanding the argument...I'm not categorizing alcohol and prostitution as equals...but THE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY. What is this mistake known as in logic?

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're equating laws against prostitution with prohibition. The use of alcohol is not prohibited biblically. The enjoyment of sex is not prohibited biblically.

No...I'm equating THE EFFECTS of prostitution with THE EFFECTS of alcohol on society.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The use of alcohol to the point of drunkeness is and it has impact upon the person so engaged and that impact can expand to affect others in many ways such as injury, loss of productivity on the job, illness which increases the burden of the health system.

We agree...alcohol affects society.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The institution of Prostitution has impact upon the people who engage and it has impact upon society in general in such ways as the diminishing of the family unit upon which society is based.

It diminishes no family who is not affected by it. Prostitution has no effect on those that have no part in it. If a family member takes part and thus causes disention in the family...the whole family is affected because one (or more) family members have taken part. It does not affect the next door neighbor. The "family" has taken part in prostitution. However if one member of a family drinks legal alcohol and gets behind the wheel of a car and unintentionally kills another by his/her illegal actions FROM ALCOHOL, then people that are not involved in drinking the alcohol are affected. The circle of influence multiplies and includes unwilling participants outside the circle of "immediate influence".

Canuckster1127 wrote:The solution for the abuse of alcoholism is not solved by prohibition.

Likewise the solution for prostitution is not prohibition of prostitution...the proof is that prostitution remains a large part of what society accepts.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Alcohol is not immoral in it's proper context not used to excess.

Tell that to it's victims...alcoholics and families who've lost loved ones due to a drunk driver...drunkeness...anger...fights...all the ugly effects of drinking.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The solution for the existence of Prostitution would not be solved by the prohibition of sex,

Never made that claim...don't know where you get this from.

Canuckster1127 wrote:...which is what your argument equates to when it is kept in the proper categories.

Prohibition of prostitution does not do away with sex...I don't know how you come up with this. Neither does prohibition of alcohol do away with alcoholism or deaths as a result of drunkeness.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Alcohol is the root of alchoholism.

Actually...it's not the root...alcoholics don't become alcoholics because alcohol is present...it's because they find no where else to turn and drown their sorrows/problems in something that makes them forget...so you are wrong here...have you ever spoken to an alcoholic and asked this question...I have. Not in so many words though.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Sex is the root of prostitution.

No...Desire and need are the root. I would go out on a limb and say that a VERY small number of prostitutes are in it for sex. In fact some, if not all, can't wait for the sex to finish and the deed be done. Besides, sex is free within almost any relationship. Again...you are wrong.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Neither sex nor alcohol are immoral in and of themselves. It is when they are used outside the proper boundaries and contexts that issues arise.

Then we agree...as alcohol is legal, so should protitution...afterall it's only sex!

Canuckster1127 wrote:Comparing the Prohibition of alcohol (because it can lead to alcoholism or drunkeness) with the prohibition of Prostitution is a blatant category error and invalid argument. Alcohol can be used appropriately. Prostitution is a level removed from its root activity and there is no context in which Prostitition can be appropriate morally or in terms of its impact on the lives of those involved and the greater context of society.

Again...it's not a moral argument...it's an equating of THE EFFECTS on society. As much as I state it, you seem to be banging the aspects between alcohol and prostitution. It's not the argument...can we steer clear of this notion?

Once again...the argument has been made that prostitution shouldn't be made legal. My argument FOR making prostitution legal is on the grounds of it having less EFFECTS on society than alcohol while alcohol remains legal and no one as of yet (except me) have promoted bringing back prohibition because alcohol has MORE DEVISTATING effects on society...no proof needed as it is apparent. Anyone not promoting prohibition is probably a drinker themselves and thus would be affected by such law...thus their "love" for alcohol might outweigh their willingness to comply with "Caeser"...or it could be different. I don't know which category you might fall in...I can only guess.
.
.

You've explained your position. I frankly believe it to be illogical and as I've already gone to the trouble of pointing that out in detail and you choose to repeat your arguments I have to conclude we are speaking past one another and no further benefit is going to come from hashing it.

Your view of law and government appears to be measured by the effect of the activity (which is debatable but not being taken up) relative to other activities and thus tends to the lowest common denominator. If one vice is not prohibited, then no vices are to be prohibited as long as the people engaged are willing volunteers. You reject the idea that Christians have a responsibility to extend the implications of their beliefs as to what is moral and what is not beyond their own lives and practices.

My view is based upon the morality of the issue found within my beliefs as a Christian. As a Christian within a democracy, I believe those values should guide my support of social standards and the laws that surround it. I cannot compartmentalize my Christian beliefs in the manner you describe and for the record, I don't believe I should. I believe we are to influence the society we abide in and not conform to it. Postmodern moral relativism is not an point of view I wish to promote.

I've laid things out as clearly as I know how and you're simply repeating your arguments.

I believe as Christians we are to be salt and light and impact our society in a manner that supports its general health. While I understand the arguments presented, they don't move me because the basis of my conviction is not relative to perceived impact. There's no point in discussing it further.

It's interesting that given our points of view in other realms that the application in a practical matter such as this is as it is.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You've explained your position. I frankly believe it to be illogical and as I've already gone to the trouble of pointing that out in detail and you choose to repeat your arguments I have to conclude we are speaking past one another and no further benefit is going to come from hashing it.

Your view of law and government appears to be measured by the effect of the activity (which is debatable but not being taken up) relative to other activities and thus tends to the lowest common denominator. If one vice is not prohibited, then no vices are to be prohibited as long as the people engaged are willing volunteers. You reject the idea that Christians have a responsibility to extend the implications of their beliefs as to what is moral and what is not beyond their own lives and practices.

My view is based upon the morality of the issue found within my beliefs as a Christian. As a Christian within a democracy, I believe those values should guide my support of social standards and the laws that surround it. I cannot compartmentalize my Christian beliefs in the manner you describe and for the record, I don't believe I should. I believe we are to influence the society we abide in and not conform to it. Postmodern moral relativism is not an point of view I wish to promote.

I've laid things out as clearly as I know how and you're simply repeating your arguments.

I believe as Christians we are to be salt and light and impact our society in a manner that supports its general health. While I understand the arguments presented, they don't move me because the basis of my conviction is not relative to perceived impact. There's no point in discussing it further.

It's interesting that given our points of view in other realms that the application in a practical matter such as this is as it is.

Once again you seem to miss the point of the argument I'm putting forth...this may be the reason all you hear is me repeating myself. So be it. You have neither read nor understood the point. You choose to be oblivious to the facts of the argument.

I agree with your stance, however it is not the arguement. It was the contention of another person in the discussion that prostitution had so many effects on society. My point is that IF the reasoning is based on EFFECTS on society, one need not look much farther than alcohol and/or smoking as other activities that should be outlawed for their EFFECTS on society...more so, it is an act (moral or immoral is irrelevant here) between two consenting adults no different than between two consenting adults with no monetary exchange outside of marriage. (also immoral btw)

You seem to think that because I am pursuing a stance of "Legalize Prostitution" (by your own assumptions and not my stance) I stand in the position that prostitution is moral or within the boundaries of "normal" activity. You then conclude that my position is, "if one vice is allowed, then all vice should be allowed."...you are wrong. Also you insinuate because of my argument that I may be involved in, have been involved in, or want to be involved in prostitution. Again...you assume much from nothing. I guess you're allowed to make such claims...you can afford to. I mention something that trips a nerve and...well...you know.

But you choose to back out of the discussion claiming my inability to have rational thoughts...that's ok...and is your perogative...much like on another subject.

So if anyone else wants to chime in on why the effects of prostitution on society are so grave that it should be kept illegal while the effects of alcohol, also grave and more so exponentially, keep it legal...chime in. Proof being the sheer numbers of people that take part in drinking whether in "moderation" or not far outnumbers those as prostitutes or involved with prostitution...facts are in the numbers.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You reject the idea that Christians have a responsibility to extend the implications of their beliefs as to what is moral and what is not beyond their own lives and practices.

Really...quote me on this plz.
.
.

Canuckster, you raised one of the points that intrigues me most (mainly from a philosophical point of view, I admit) which is the issue of 'the enjoyment' of sex in comparison with prostiution, which is generally taken to debase human sexuality. Given the moral nature of the argument, it is also a very pertinent issue. Certainly for the men (or Johns) involved, the enjoyment of sex - in many cases, I understand not all - is a large part of the reason why they use prostitutes. (never mind the legions of middle-aged women who go on holiday to find youthful 'lovers', who certainly would not be there without a financial incentive, but nevertheless are able to take pleasure in the sexual act).

A significant proportion of prostitutes - anything up to 99% - probably loathe their job, partially depending on the amount of money they make and type of clients they're forced to - or choose to - take on. However, there are women - and men - who will sell their bodies for sex and love almost every minute of it, and others who find the hiring of a prostitute to be far more satisfying than an empty relationship. Some people cannot commit easily, especially if they're divorced, very busy and so forth, and for them prostitution perhaps allows them the pleasure of intimacy and sex without the pressures of a full-time relationship which they know they aren't able to 'afford' in terms of time and emotional commitment. Better that than a failed marriage. I am not saying it is ideal or what I would choose, but the point I'm making is that in many cases the exchange of sex for money is a mutually satisfying one where both parties get what they want and have fun along the way. In some cases they even fall in love and marry.

Not all rich, powerful men in a position to pay fortunes for the company of beautiful women are gross ogres and it doesn't take a genius to work out that some very enjoyable arrangements can be made between people. If a man is rich and wants to support multiple mistresses, is that morally wrong, even if they're all happy as larry and praising God night and day because they're enjoying life so much? The man is paying for the womens' upkeep and they are expected to entertain him. They are essentially prostitutes - so what is the acutal issue? Is it the paying for sex that we're saying is wrong, or is it the cheap sex that looks dirtier and involves one-sided - or zero - pleasure?

In that case, is sex only godly if it's 'pleasurable' for both people or is sex never godly? Is any kind of 'pleasure' godly or is it simply human? (I don't mean 'joy' I do mean pleasure)

I am not being sarcastic or facetious with all of this, or treating the issue lightly, I guess I am trying to highlight what, for me, is the crux of the 'moral dilemma' - the line where 'good sex' ends and prostitution begins...

In the ancient Greek world prostitutes and priestesses had more freedom than any other women in society and also the best educations. All in all, I have to say that I think there are worse things you can do for money than sleep with someone but - and it's a big BUT - to actually HAVE to do it is a nightmare scenario and the question is, does the currently law effectively protect those who ARE forced into prostitution or could we do better?

However, there are women - and men - who will sell their bodies for sex and love almost every minute of it, and others who find the hiring of a prostitute to be far more satisfying than an empty relationship. Some people cannot commit easily, especially if they're divorced, very busy and so forth, and for them prostitution perhaps allows them the pleasure of intimacy and sex without the pressures of a full-time relationship which they know they aren't able to 'afford' in terms of time and emotional commitment. Better that than a failed marriage. I am not saying it is ideal or what I would choose, but the point I'm making is that in many cases the exchange of sex for money is a mutually satisfying one where both parties get what they want and have fun along the way. In some cases they even fall in love and marry.

Not all rich, powerful men in a position to pay fortunes for the company of beautiful women are gross ogres and it doesn't take a genius to work out that some very enjoyable arrangements can be made between people. If a man is rich and wants to support multiple mistresses, is that morally wrong,

YES!

even if they're all happy as larry and praising God night and day because they're enjoying life so much?

So the enjoyment of a sinful life, sexual immorality, leads to praising GOd!?!?!?!?!? YES IT's SIN

The man is paying for the womens' upkeep and they are expected to entertain him. They are essentially prostitutes - so what is the acutal issue? Is it the paying for sex that we're saying is wrong, or is it the cheap sex that looks dirtier and involves one-sided - or zero - pleasure?

Um, how about the fact that it is sexdual immorality....it is not a GOdly committed realtinoship!!! ANy sex outside of marriage is wonrg!!!

se, is sex only godly if it's 'pleasurable' for both people or is sex never godly? Is any kind of 'pleasure' godly or is it simply human? (I don't mean 'joy' I do mean pleasure)

Sex is right and proper and best between committed monogamous married couples. Sex was created by God. It is the most intimate, physically vulnerable, emotionally vulnerable acts between people, designed for committed, Godly relationships.

I am not being sarcastic or facetious with all of this, or treating the issue lightly, I guess I am trying to highlight what, for me, is the crux of the 'moral dilemma' - the line where 'good sex' ends and prostitution begins...

good sex is in marriage

sexual immorality, all else.

Prostitution in a society provides EASY acces to that immorality

In the ancient Greek world prostitutes and priestesses had more freedom than any other women in society and also the best educations. All in all, I have to say that I think there are worse things you can do for money than sleep with someone

Uh, except for the fact that ITS SINFUL!!!! YES IT"S WRONG. YOu are creating a morally relativistic scale. "Are there worse things" It doesn't matter if you could find a worse thing. Sin is sin.

but - and it's a big BUT - to actually HAVE to do it is a nightmare scenario and the question is, does the currently law effectively protect those who ARE forced into prostitution or could we do better?

Hey I'd gladly support tougher laws and programs designed to help those who want out.

Paul says it best
FLEE sexual immoral;ity....not..."gee unless it is a mutually satisying arrangment"....flee!...not just "avoid unless you have commitment issues or have trouble expressing yourself.

.
.
Leaving morality out of the equation, how is it wrong or how is it more wrong than what I've mentioned already. I agree with zoegirl that prostitution is morally wrong and should be shy'd away from...avoided. However, no one has took a stab at the issue of the effect(s) on society and if the cons outweigh the pros...what is the basis for any Christian person standing behind the legalization of alcohol...or even taking part in alcohol "in moderation" knowing it's effects on society far outnumber prostitutions?
.
.

BW wrote:How do I know drug laws don't affect me?.but let's not argue the point to make alcohol illegal. *smirk*

Smirk all you want. This is a “strawman” argument at best… Again, you can't compare the legalization of alcohol with legalizing prostitution… Prostitution is a MORAL issue. Black or white. Period… Alcohol consumption is ONLY a moral issue when it comes to drunkenness (like Bart said). Its NOT a black or white issue… Other than that, drinking alcohol is actually encouraged in the Bible (1 Timothy 5:23). Alcohol consumption has also been found to lower risk of heart attack (because alcohol increases 'good' cholesterol and decreases the 'bad' cholesterol), lower risk of Alzheimer's disease, lower risk of diabetes, reduced risk of stroke, and an increase in overall longevity.

Prostitution, on the other hand, has a FAR greater impact on society than alcohol ever will…. Not only is it immoral and utterly condemned by God, it is known to be the cause of the following such as diseases like AIDS, serial murders of prostitutes, violence, organized crime, and hatred against woman. This website sums it up pretty well..

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution:

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.
2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.
3. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not control the sex industry.It expands it.
4. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex Industry increases child prostitution.
6. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.
7. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.
8. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not promote women's health.
9. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not enhance women's choice.
10. Women in systems of Prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized.

Source: http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issu ... izing.html

In Human trafficking an "estimated 600,000 to 820,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders each year, approximately 70 percent are women and girls and up to 50 percent are minors. The data also illustrates that the majority of transnational victims are trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking

BW wrote:What "proof" do you want me to show that I'm not affected by laws against prostitution? Are you affected by the law? If so...

Everyone is affected by the law. And when we have breakers of the law it effects everyone..

BW wrote:Yes...

I would try and "save" them. They have no right killing themselves in a manner that puts others in danger.

Again...I see you can afford to be concescending.

So you would try to “save” them? And what do you think our current laws are for?

BW wrote:We aren't talking about the persons being illegal...we are talking about the act...if you can't understand that maybe you should bow out of the conversation.

That's right we are talking about the act… And it's clearly wrong if you can't understand that. Not only does it break the laws against our country, it breaks God's commandments too. A far greater penalty...

BW wrote:I can't help but notice the deafening silence on naming an honest politician.

So vote for a corrupt politician that supports the "death infested" legalization of prostitution then...

Bart wrote:I believe as Christians we are to be salt and light and impact our society in a manner that supports its general health.

As usual, another beautiful statement by Bart…

so ALL sex outside marriage is considered sinful - now we see the grey area of 'good sex' v 'bad sex' expanding into the solar system....

and Zoegirl, don't sound so horrified when I talk about the joy of sex leading to more joy in life and (possibly, this was only an example) an inclination to feel more at 'One' with God and the universe - I don't want to spell this out any more but please don't tell me I'm the only person on here who can see this might be possible? It is disingenuous not to admit it - does not the feeling of being 'in love' (a lot of which, especially in the early stages of a relationship) is related to chemical attraction. I am not a promiscuous person, but I do know that being in love with a man in this way affects every part of you, body, mind and soul and having someone effectively worship your body is not necessarily a sinful feeling....don't make me say any more than this!

As for the ancient Greek world, how could they have known it was sinful if Christianity only came along 500 years later? The point I was making is that in this democratic society prostitutes actually had a high status and were not the worse for it. Sorry, it just happens to be true, doesn't mean I'm saying prostitution is a wonder of the world (can't believe I have to keep saying that part, please guys, give me a break on this one!)

And Gman, I think one of the points Bavarianwheels (and myself) have been making is that we understand the horrors of prostitution but it doesn't seem that the present law is tackling them effectively - making it illegal makes it a part of the underworld, ie, darker and more dangerous than perhaps it need be.

charlottecowell wrote:so ALL sex outside marriage is considered sinful - now we see the grey area of 'good sex' v 'bad sex' expanding into the solar system....

and Zoegirl, don't sound so horrified when I talk about the joy of sex leading to more joy in life and (possibly, this was only an example) an inclination to feel more at 'One' with God and the universe - I don't want to spell this out any more but please don't tell me I'm the only person on here who can see this might be possible?

YOu compeltely missed the point. I am not arguing that sex isn't great or that it doesn't affect moods. Good grief, absolutely!!....My point was simply that ILLICIT, SINFUL sex could in some way increase sanctification, lead to an increase in intimacy with God. IF WE SIN, THAT SIN AFFECTS OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD...PERIOD...

THAT MAN WHO SLEEPS WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT OFFERING HER A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP IS SINNING. NO GRAY AREAS. NONE. IF A MAN LOVES A WOMAN, HE OFFERS HER COMMITMENT. IF A MAN LOVES A WOMAN, HE CARES FOR HER ENOUGH TO OFFER HER HIS LIFE, HIS HEART, HIM!! ANYTHING LESS IS WRONG.

It is disingenuous not to admit it - does not the feeling of being 'in love' (a lot of which, especially in the early stages of a relationship) is related to chemical attraction. I am not a promiscuous person, but I do know that being in love with a man in this way affects every part of you, body, mind and soul and having someone effectively worship your body is not necessarily a sinful feeling....don't make me say any more than this!

not denying any of this, but I will refer to above. You can feel all the emotional attraction you want, all the physical attration, all the spiritual attraction. But real love, the love that leads to sacrifice, means that the man should care enough for the woman to commit to her.

It is scary that we as a society have been influenced by the secular idea of "love", that we are susceptible to condoning this. Believe me, I understand the temptation!! And I would be that last person to deny the importance of sexual attraction. But I refuse to take this understanding of the temptation to say it is right, or to encourage and maintain that people should avoid premarital sex

As for the ancient Greek world, how could they have known it was sinful if Christianity only came along 500 years later? The point I was making is that in this democratic society prostitutes actually had a high status and were not the worse for it. Sorry, it just happens to be true, doesn't mean I'm saying prostitution is a wonder of the world (can't believe I have to keep saying that part, please guys, give me a break on this one!)

By wonder of the world, what are you saying?

And Gman, I think one of the points Bavarianwheels (and myself) have been making is that we understand the horrors of prostitution but it doesn't seem that the present law is tackling them effectively - making it illegal makes it a part of the underworld, ie, darker and more dangerous than perhaps it need be.

And making it legal would legitimacize this darkness

quote="Canuckster1127"]You reject the idea that Christians have a responsibility to extend the implications of their beliefs as to what is moral and what is not beyond their own lives and practices.[/quote]

Really...quote me on this plz.

My argument is not "morality" based. It's on the actual effects on society. Alcohol having a larger and more devistating effect on society yet it seems you have no problem with alcohol remaining legal. Help me understand.

Are you now representing yourself as taking a devil's advocate role on this matter? You should make that clear otherwise it's reasonable to assume you believe what you are arguing.

Zoegirl, I am not being deliberately obtuse or trying to wind people up, I genuinely have another point of view so there is no need to 'shout' and feel frustrated....

When I read your post the overriding point which comes out is the idea that men and women are unequal because the onus is on the man to commit to the woman if sexual relations are involved. I have a problem with this. Men and women are equal and have the capacity to both enjoy sex equally or - as has been pointed out frequently in this thread - to be exploited through it. A lot of my male friends would love to have a serious girlfriend but can't get one, and I have some female friends who are quite capable of breaking hearts by remaining non-committal, so I'm not buying this 'it's the man's responsibility to make an honest woman' side of your argument.

by 'wonder of the world' - and I hoped you might have read between the lines a little - I meant (I reiterated for the umpteenth time) that I don't think prostitution is a brilliant, godly or otherwise superb thing as many of you seem to think I'm saying. I am trying to look at it rationally and from a stable, non-hypocritical, realistic but 'moral' perspective....much as I suppose everyone else is trying to do.

No-one is trying to slander Christian beliefs here - I am a Christian myself don't forget - it is about having a rational debate about laws, which in so many quarters of society prove incompatible with spiritual beliefs. It is my view that Church and State need to be governed separately, as one is about the personal, inner, spiritual beliefs of the person with free will, and the other is about the political/economic and cosmopolitan society we all have to live in. The intermingling of religious with political beliefs has been a source of dissension, violence and confusion for several thousand years, and fundamentalism on all sides is a life-threatening danger to the human race at this point in time. I'm astonished so few people can spot this fact.

It is admirable to have courage in your convictions but sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

.
.
Uh...GMAN...I'm not arguing that prostitution is moral...I'm not even arguing that the Bible may encourage light alcohol consumption (I have an interpretation, but for the point I'll stick with your interpretation)

Are you saying, Gman, that the actual effects of alcohol on society are LESS than the effects of prostitution on society? Simple to look up these days with the internet and all...Alcohol related deaths is the number three...cancer being number one...I couldn't find "number two" off hand...but I'll place a small wager it's not prostitution. One website listed a few facts...

The CDC's list of leading causes of death: CDC leading causes of death - 2005

CDC - Alcohol-Attributable Deaths where they claim 75k deaths attributed to alcohol in 2001...and we know that these statistics only go up every year. At the bottom of this page is a list of health conditions as a result of alcohol consumption...pretty long list.

Even if we were to separate those deaths that may've been related to prostitution...the number is lessened.

Now I'm only talking deaths here...what about non-death related injuries, fights, spousal abuse, property damage, delinquency, vandalism,...the list goes on and on.

Prostitution is condemned by God...no argument there...of course that is not the basis of the argument...and oddly enough, I agree with you.

You say everyone is affected by law...yet I've not been affected by the law against prostitution yet...hmm. In fact I would dare say that 100% of my immediate family has not been affected by this law. If you'd like, I could start my own poll in my neighborhood and among my friends and come back with some data on your claim. The question will be, "Have you been directly affected by laws against prostitution?"

I've given only two links...and only within the CDC. There are many more to comb through. Your "10 reasons"...are simply a rant against prostitution. No real data. Percentages on how many men will or will not wear condoms. Percentages of men that will use condoms for felatio...all very interesting data, but no bearing on the topic here.

Human trafficking? What a joke (as it relates to our topic). Prostitution is but ONE of the reasons for human trafficking...not THE reason for human trafficking. Maybe you should read your own links...

Still silent on the "honest politician" thing so you sling mud...very nice for your position...
If you want to start slinging mud around, Gman...I'm sure I can accomodate you, but I value my stay here at E4GFS.
.
.