Evidence for God from Science

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.

Bav wrote:Really...quote me on this plz.

Bav wrote: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.

Canuckster1127 wrote: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.

Your claim that I "reject"... is hardly substanciated on the quote you provide.

Regardless of what reason I have for the argument...the argument stands. In fact, while I believe as you do on the matter, the ARGUMENT is based on EFFECTS on society and NOT ON whether prostitution is moral or immoral.
.
.

And I am simply responding to YOUR argument that a business man can find a mistress and somehow end of worshiping GOd more because he is having such a great sex life.

And of course both women and men are responsible parties. And both should be committed. I was focusing on that example you gave of the man seeking out some woman and keeping her because he just wants to have that intimcy that sex brings.

You seem to have this idea that because sex is so great, this somehow makes it all right (or if I am reading this wrong, please specify....is unmaried sex sinful?). YOur posts seemed to imply that there is some sort of gray area. The caps were not shouting, but merely emphasis. I have no problem saying that it is a black and white issue.

I have no problem with saying that sex is great, wonderful, intimate, incredible and feel no need to euphemize it. It increases intimacy and therefore should be reserved for the most trusted relationship between a man and woman. It is amazing, awesome, wonderful. But it, in itself, does not increase "closeness" to the universe or intimacy with God (I suppose an indirect relationship couldbe made between the health of a married couple, their level of intimacy reflects on the the willingness of the people to be intimate )

charlottecowell wrote: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.

I hear you charlotte. It's apparently so wrong to step back and view things from a philosophical point of view...a worldly view, if you will. They seem to forget that regardless of what the government has deemed legal or not legal, we still have the obligation to follow God's laws as Christians. I guess it's too difficult for some to comprehend and probably their rants of separation of church and state are simply rants...they may NEED these laws to keep themselves in check...and removes their responsibility to feel guilt of not reaching out to the needy...in this case, the prostitute and john. (I was going to use some other adjectives for these...but decided not to) I don't know...just thinking outloud.
.
.

Regardless of what reason I have for the argument...the argument stands. In fact, while I believe as you do on the matter, the ARGUMENT is based on EFFECTS on society and NOT ON whether prostitution is moral or immoral.

Actually, the argument stands or falls based upon the truth of what it is based upon.

For a Christian, morality is germaine. Arguing "hypothetically" while a valuable exercise at times and probably necessary in the context of a society that is not Christian can be valuable in garnering political support. Those are corallary arguments, not primary ones.

However, the fact remains that Prostitution is in fact immoral and also that its impact upon society is negative and therefore it is reasonable for Christians to stand against it and use what power they have to limit it, even if practically it remains beyond their power to eliminate.

Your argument in terms of arguing for similar stricture upon alcohol has been demonstrated to be a category error which your only response has been restating your position.

I can argue that horses would be unable to trot if they didn't have legs. While that may make for an interesting statement (to some) the fact remains that horses do have legs and trot.

You can argue that absent the issue of morality that Prostitution is no worse, or even less worse than alcohol, however that doesn't change the fact as a Christian that the use of alcohol is not immoral in all instances. Prostitution is however. What value you believe you're bringing in making that statement remains something of a mystery to me, but no doubt your reasons, which you decline to share while attributing motives to others, are your own and valid in your own mind.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Regardless of what reason I have for the argument...the argument stands. In fact, while I believe as you do on the matter, the ARGUMENT is based on EFFECTS on society and NOT ON whether prostitution is moral or immoral.

Actually, the argument stands or falls based upon the truth of what it is based upon.

Right...and that basis is effect.

Canuckster1127 wrote:For a Christian, morality is germaine. Arguing "hypothetically" while a valuable exercise at times and probably necessary in the context of a society that is not Christian can be valuable in garnering political support. Those are corallary arguments, not primary ones.

Germaine? I had to look that up and all I found was that it's a girl's name. But I suppose it means that morality is basic in beliefs...?

Anyway, this is certainly not a hypothetical argument. It's an argument in a forum named, "Philosophy"...and thus one would assume a "worldly" view is acceptable. We aren't taking this topic up in "Christian Beliefs"... Garner political support...from ALL the prostitutes and johns that vote?? Laughable...if it were remotely true.

Canuckster1127 wrote:However, the fact remains that Prostitution is in fact immoral

Based on Christian ideas and not on society as a whole else there would be stricter consequences. So if laws and consequence are the measure, society has something against prostitution, but not to the point of ending it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:and also that its impact upon society is negative and therefore it is reasonable for Christians to stand against it and use what power they have to limit it, even if practically it remains beyond their power to eliminate.

I totally agree. I also agree it's impact is negative. However, the negative in relation to alcohol and it's impact on society is another story alltogether.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Your argument in terms of arguing for similar stricture upon alcohol has been demonstrated to be a category error which your only response has been restating your position.

Once again...*SIGH* I'm not categorizing alcohol and prostitution. I'm comparing the difference in effects on society and how that may seem odd in that alcohol has a significantly larger negative effect on society than prostitution, yet alcohol remains legal.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I can argue that horses would be unable to trot if they didn't have legs. While that may make for an interesting statement (to some) the fact remains that horses do have legs and trot.

And this really has no remote similarity on the argument.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You can argue that absent the issue of morality that Prostitution is no worse, or even less worse than alcohol, however that doesn't change the fact as a Christian that the use of alcohol is not immoral in all instances.

Sure...as a Christian I agree with this. (again I do have a different interpretation on "wine" but for the purposes of this discussion I place that aside and agree with you.)

Canuckster1127 wrote:Prostitution is however.

Likewise, sin is shy'd away from too...yet we can't avoid it and there's plan around it or through it...which ever you prefer.

Canuckster1127 wrote:What value you believe you're bringing in making that statement remains something of a mystery to me, but no doubt your reasons, which you decline to share while attributing motives to others, are your own and valid in your own mind.

Wow...I thought my reasons were quite plain for your intelligence gleaning so much from my words to insert your own thoughts and ideas that you promote as mine.

As I've stated for probably at least the third time. It amazes me that any Christian would be against promoting the reinstitution of Prohibition given the large negative impact alcohol has on society (world wide) as a whole. Just because Jesus made "wine" and drank "wine" we would continue to support this problem that can be viewed as at epidemic proportions? Is alcohol THAT important to our lives that we might not be able to live without it? Is "wine" that much a part of Christianity that it has now become a fundamental belief which cannot be "left behind"?

That's how I view this...prostitution being only an insignificant vehicle I thought might point this out. I believe and hold that prostitution should remain illegal. However I stepped outside my Christian box to view it from a different angle...that being comparing the effects prostitution has on society vs. the effects alcohol has on society. Which, if I had to choose, would I pick to legalize given these facts.

I would choose to legalize prostitution on the basis of effects on society in this hypothetical scenario.
.
.

OK. That's clearer. I think we've pretty much exhausted what needs to be said here, so thanks for clarifying .

Canuckster1127 wrote:OK. That's clearer. I think we've pretty much exhausted what needs to be said here, so thanks for clarifying .

Maybe...I'd still be interested in the answer on why alcohol remains "important"...so important that we'd stake a claim on it saying, "Jesus..." while ignoring the devastating effects alcohol has on society. So far the real question's answer has been avoided.

To come full circle and implement my own Adventist beliefs, Jesus staked a claim on the Sabbath, stating He was Lord of it...all Christians agree He made it holy prior to man and says it was made for man...yet surprisingly to me not many "Christians" take Him seriously.

It seems to me that the only reason for holding alcohol as "my right because Jesus..." is because we love it more than we love one another. Isn't there a verse about something done that causes another to sin? Is it too farfetched to include alcohol in this? Is our moderate use of alcohol causing and/or allowing others to abuse it?
.
.

Zoegirl, I have thought about this issue of sex/spirituality a lot since my 'conversion', as it seems to be the crux of so many spiritual and human tests, as well as being (potentially) a source of both joy and pain on a spectrum which extends far and wide in both of those directions. You may find it surprising to hear, but my personal view is that sexuality is seriously abused at all levels of society and amongst a huge cross-section of individuals, in a way that can hamper spiritual development. However - and this is the rub - sex is a very powerful force and if mastering it were that simple we would all be Zen Masters.

I mean that in no facetious sense: the reason, as I see it, for biblical opposition to 'casual' sex (sex without love) is that we are more able to involve as intelligent, spiritually evolved beings, if we allow our sexual energy to move upwards to be directed more through the heart, soul and mind.

You bluntly rephrased the point I made about the rich man and his mistress feeling closer to God, which I admit sounds comical put that way, but really what I was trying to say is that people who are sexually satisfied and in love tend to be happier people and therefore more inclined to be at peace with the world and themselves....in that sense they are closer to God. Jesus himself said that most of all he wanted us to be happy - that is why we love him, because true love does wish for the happiness of the beloved without condition.

And yes, Bavarianwheels, this topic is well and truly within the 'programme' for Ethics!

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:OK. That's clearer. I think we've pretty much exhausted what needs to be said here, so thanks for clarifying .

Maybe...I'd still be interested in the answer on why alcohol remains "important"...so important that we'd stake a claim on it saying, "Jesus..." while ignoring the devastating effects alcohol has on society. So far the real question's answer has been avoided.

To come full circle and implement my own Adventist beliefs, Jesus staked a claim on the Sabbath, stating He was Lord of it...all Christians agree He made it holy prior to man and says it was made for man...yet surprisingly to me not many "Christians" take Him seriously.

It seems to me that the only reason for holding alcohol as "my right because Jesus..." is because we love it more than we love one another. Isn't there a verse about something done that causes another to sin? Is it too farfetched to include alcohol in this? Is our moderate use of alcohol causing others to abuse it?
.
.

Perhaps because Jesus never outright said wine should not be consumed. He participated in the wedding feast and turned the water into wine. It's not the alcohol that's the problem but the abuse of alcohol. And the abuse of alcohol has many legal consequences. we can't stop people from getting drunk but we can place consequences on this drunkeness affecting others. Children can be taken from homes, parents can be denied their children in divorce proceedings based on abuse.

And we do take seriously the meaning of the Sabbath, we do not agree with the day and the legalistic attitude about the sabbath. But to charge that we do not take it seriously is ludicrous (but that is another topic and thread)


Charlotte, what I find most disturbing is the fact the idea of sinning is somehow proposed as a mechanism for drawing one closer to God. And perhaps you aren't meaning this, but that is what ultimately you are saying. Sinful behavior, as nice as it seems, can never draw us closer to God. Sex is great, marvelous, and stunning, but sinful behavior is sinful behavior and does not draw us closer to God. A man or woman for that matter can have the greatest sex life but because this is outside of marriage is still preventing them from drawing closer to God. They can be tremendously satisfied, have the greatest orgasm and yet their spiritual life, their relationship to God, is damaged

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:OK. That's clearer. I think we've pretty much exhausted what needs to be said here, so thanks for clarifying .

Maybe...I'd still be interested in the answer on why alcohol remains "important"...so important that we'd stake a claim on it saying, "Jesus..." while ignoring the devastating effects alcohol has on society. So far the real question's answer has been avoided.

To come full circle and implement my own Adventist beliefs, Jesus staked a claim on the Sabbath, stating He was Lord of it...all Christians agree He made it holy prior to man and says it was made for man...yet surprisingly to me not many "Christians" take Him seriously.

It seems to me that the only reason for holding alcohol as "my right because Jesus..." is because we love it more than we love one another. Isn't there a verse about something done that causes another to sin? Is it too farfetched to include alcohol in this? Is our moderate use of alcohol causing others to abuse it?
.
.

I don't think it's all that difficult.

On a basis of Biblical morality, there's no virtue that I can see on establishing a standard higher than God Himself does.

The use of alcohol is not immoral. The abuse of alcohol is. If someone wants to choose not to use alcohol on the basis that the abuse of alcohol is rampant, or on the basis of not wishing to provide an offense or temptation to other Christians, I respect that position. I've been on both sides of that argument at various points in my life. I don't respect the taking of that position based on personal preference and then elevating a standard above what God Himself does and attempting to legislate it to the point of prohibition. Where God has not declared something sinful and there is freedom, who are we to impose our point of view in that regard upon others whom God has given choice? Are we greater than God?

The enjoyment of sex within the context God intended it, marriage, is a beautiful and completely moral thing. Outside of that context is adultery and fornication. Prostitution is by definition, either one (or both) of those things and further, there's practical reasons (corallary for the Christian, not necessarily primary) in terms of the impact upon individuals and society that make a strong argument against it. Our society no longer practically attempts to regulate most sexual activities through criminal law, although certainly it's still alive and well in terms of civil law and divorce, as it should be.

Sin is often thus. Things are usually not inherently evil but rather something that is good which has been taken to excess or twisted outside of its intended context.

I've never believed the use of alcohol in all circumstance is immoral. I have however had a significant portion of my life where I was in ministry, and the standards of the denomination I was in, required that as a pastor, I not drink publically or privately. I gave my word and while I was in the context, I kept it. Since that time, I drink very moderately. We're I to re-enter public ministry in that denomination or in some other capacity and that was asked of me, I would have no difficulty with it. Drink is a very minor part of my life and not something that drives or dictates my choices. I can live with it or without it. I enjoy it as a pleasure in life while recognizing that it can be abused. I rarely order alcohol in public just because others who know me might be offended and I respect that voluntarily, not under compulsion.

What you're presenting to my observation is something of a Strawman. I know very few people who would demand "their right" as a Christian to drink. Anyone who would would probably already be at the point where Alcohol was a problem in their life and for many, those who are alcoholics or intemperate, complete abstinence is probably a good and necessary choice for them personally. I wouldn't recommend that someone with a problem with gluttony pass out tracts at the local buffet or that a sex addict make it their ministry to reach prostitutes with the gospel either.

Looking at the perceived sinfulness of extra-marital sex (in every form, either with or without prostitution and regardless of whether both parties are single, simply the fact that it is outside marriage), I have given above my reason for why I think it is denounced in the Bible. (ie, as a stumbling block of spiritual development). I would be intrigued to know the views of others on this as I believe it is of fundamental importance to this debate to determine why, exactly, sex beyond marriage - even if it's between two people in love - is deemed wrong.

I expect you guys will tell me, 'because it says so in the Bible' and I will say back to you: My mind goes beyond the point where I see something written down anywhere and accept it without question. I am not doubting the validity of Biblical statements and teachings, simply asking that we - as free thinking beings with free will bestowed upon us by God - allow ourselves to ask the question: Why? Is it because sex outside marriage makes arranged marriage - a societal not spiritual institution that applied to most marriages for the first several thousand years of civilisation - more problematic? There are also, of course, issues of paternity involved, but maybe other things too that you can tell me?

IMO, if it was purely a matter of spiritual development the indivdiual would either be celibate (ideally) or would have sex only with a person they loved. Personally, I believe love is the many splendoured thing that is the most beautiful emanation of God's grace. It is the hand of God which generates the mystery that is love between human beings, the unknowable, ineffable God who married Adam with Eve....I would appreciate it if people considered this as the answer impacts the way we must view sex and love in relation to sin.

I am probably right in thinking that most people here would consider Jesus to be unmarried (on balance, I believe this myself) and, most likely, was celibate and a 'priest' in his own right. Certainly a master, absolutely the Son and Lamb of God. Were any of the disciples married? (I'm not being deliberately provocative, these are actually the kinds of questions this debate is raising in me...)

germane ..... I always misspell that .......

Canuckster1127 wrote:I don't think it's all that difficult.

On a basis of Biblical morality, there's no virtue that I can see on establishing a standard higher than God Himself does.

I would agree...with reservation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The use of alcohol is not immoral. The abuse of alcohol is. If someone wants to choose not to use alcohol on the basis that the abuse of alcohol is rampant, or on the basis of not wishing to provide an offense or temptation to other Christians, I respect that position. I've been on both sides of that argument at various points in my life. I don't respect the taking of that position based on personal preference and then elevating a standard above what God Himself does and attempting to legislate it to the point of prohibition. Where God has not declared something sinful and there is freedom, who are we to impose our point of view in that regard upon others whom God has given choice? Are we greater than God?

Again, I can agree for the most part. No real argument with this in context of our discussion here.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The enjoyment of sex within the context God intended it, marriage, is a beautiful and completely moral thing. Outside of that context is adultery and fornication. Prostitution is by definition, either one (or both) of those things and further, there's practical reasons (corallary for the Christian, not necessarily primary) in terms of the impact upon individuals and society that make a strong argument against it. Our society no longer practically attempts to regulate most sexual activities through criminal law, although certainly it's still alive and well in terms of civil law and divorce, as it should be.

Wait…in context of the previous paragraph…if immoral sexual contact is sinful and against God…why are we as Christians not pushing for casual sex illegal? Is it that on one hand we like the flow of society and accept it as “the norm” and so ignore the devastating effects (as zoegirl promotes it does) it has on society and on the other hand are so blinded that we can't see the futility of wasting tax money and police time in slapping the hands of prostitutes and johns? This seems to be the thinking here as no one is willing to abstain from alcohol for the good of our fellow man and cling to “Impose “higher” standard than God”? What is that verse…I can't find it. The one about not doing that which causes another to sin…grrr. Maybe I'm thinking it says something different than it does….

Canuckster1127 wrote:Sin is often thus. Things are usually not inherently evil but rather something that is good which has been taken to excess or twisted outside of its intended context.

I find some contention with this. While “wine” is inherently not evil, I believe the fermentation part of “wine” is…as that is the part that leads to drunkenness…I'd have to think more on this though.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I've never believed the use of alcohol in all circumstance is immoral. I have however had a significant portion of my life where I was in ministry, and the standards of the denomination I was in, required that as a pastor, I not drink publically or privately. I gave my word and while I was in the context, I kept it.

Interesting don't you think? That you would put something aside that not only does the Bible “condone”, but not to stand up to your belief which is Biblically sound? What does it say of someone putting drinking aside 100% “for God and/or His church” and in the next instant back to the act once “the coast is clear”? Did this exhalt God in any form at all? Did God think to Himself, "What a great guy Canuckster1127 is. He abstained from drink to keep a job in my service even though I never told Him abstaining from drink was necessary or part of my law."

Canuckster1127 wrote:Since that time, I drink very moderately. We're I to re-enter public ministry in that denomination or in some other capacity and that was asked of me, I would have no difficulty with it. Drink is a very minor part of my life and not something that drives or dictates my choices. I can live with it or without it. I enjoy it as a pleasure in life while recognizing that it can be abused. I rarely order alcohol in public just because others who know me might be offended and I respect that voluntarily, not under compulsion.

Same thought as above.

Canuckster1127 wrote:What you're presenting to my observation is something of a Strawman. I know very few people who would demand "their right" as a Christian to drink. Anyone who would would probably already be at the point where Alcohol was a problem in their life and for many, those who are alcoholics or intemperate, complete abstinence is probably a good and necessary choice for them personally. I wouldn't recommend that someone with a problem with gluttony pass out tracts at the local buffet or that a sex addict make it their ministry to reach prostitutes with the gospel either.

Strawman? I've not hid my beliefs…you know my background and my stance on many things. I've not come out of nowhere, argued for legalizing prostitution and then dropped a bomb on you…?

You wouldn't demand your right to drink EVEN as a Christian having told me all you have about “Jesus…” and that it's not forbidden by God, we shouldn't make higher standards,…?? You wouldn't defend your God-given right? Believe me…if I believed as you do, I would. The fact of the matter is this: There are many with a problem with alcohol and in my own head, by continuing to drink “moderately” and thus remain legal, allows, affords, and encourages them and others to drink as well. Their “choice” of complete abstinence is made difficult by your “right” to drink.
.
.

Well, I believe that because first and foremost it DOES say so in the bible. Really, you say that almost with derision. I'm all for looking and examining why that is, but it isn't bad at all to trust in the statment from the Bible. FLEE sexual immorality. Strong words that.

However, the reasons why the Bible proclaims that:

1) Sexual intercourse needs intimacy and trust...a committed relationship allows for trust and intimacy. Sex was established at the beginning with Adam and Eve for pleasure and procreation and to deepen their bond. They are to be ONE flesh.
2) Sexual intercourse is physcially intimate....outside of marriage one risks disease. A MOnogamous relationship is protected and safe. More than one partner risks disease.
3) Sexual intercourse is more enjoyable with emotional intimacy, an intimacy brought about by committed loving (and loving I mean commited to loving and cherishing the person, regardless of that emotional feeling).


For why a committed MARRIED relationship....marriage is more permanent. It is a public display for that committment. It is also a legal document that allows for consequences for breaking that committment. Notice in the Old Testament laws there are many legal consequences for men and women who break that commitment.

Partenrs can be as loving as they want, but without that committment there is no protection for either partner. Either one can change their mind without consequences.

You wouldn't demand your right to drink EVEN as a Christian having told me all you have about “Jesus…” and that it's not forbidden by God, we shouldn't make higher standards,…?? You wouldn't defend your God-given right? Believe me…if I believed as you do, I would. The fact of the matter is this: There are many with a problem with alcohol and in my own head, by continuing to drink “moderately” and thus remain legal, allows, affords, and encourages them and others to drink as well. Their “choice” of complete abstinence is made difficult by your “right” to drink.

Bavarian Wheels,

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

When you can present a Biblical position that is consistent logically that supports the standard you are advocating, I'll be delighted to consider it.

In the meantime, I'll follow the scriptural admonition,

II Cor 2:16-17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

It's nice of you to offer to be the judge. I choose not to accept your invitation.

Regards,

Bart