|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How concerned is God with what we do in the bedroom?
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Furthermore, if breach of promise is wrong as such regardless of whether it causes identifiable harm, then there is at least one thing that's wrong despite not causing identifiable harm. [/QB]
Well, if the other party to the agreement no longer cares, then I suppose you are right, no harm is done ( or at least no obvious harm). However in MOST cases of adultery the wronged spouse very much cares, and so, clearly harm is done...or are you defining "harm" differently.
I don't give two figs who my ex husband may be banging. It's not harming me at all. The same was true when we were still legally married, but separated. On the other hand, if my current spouse were to be unfaithful...even if it never came to actual sex, I would be very deeply hurt. The same would have been true if the unfaithfulness had happened when we were a couple, but before we actually married.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Indeed, the record among Evangelicals, and in heavily Evangelical parts of he U.S., for staying married is nothing to be proud of. Atheists do better. What went wrong?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Indeed, the record among Evangelicals, and in heavily Evangelical parts of he U.S., for staying married is nothing to be proud of. Atheists do better. What went wrong?
There are things to do besides praying when on your knees.
Obscene images aside, the fear of corrupting children has led evangelicals and fundamentalists to be against sex education, and what is called "healthy lifestyles" education here, and to simply devolve to "don't". So you end up with ill-informed people who have never really addressed simple issues such as being preoccupied with sexuality is common human condition and how to manage that, and they have limited ideas of what might be pleasing to their lovers in the bedroom, if they don't already feel guilty enough.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
of course God is very concerned at what you do in the bedroom. If you don't take your brother's widow as your second wife he'll be very very displeased with you.
To bad it's against the law of the land. You have the choice of being a criminal or a sinner againt the bible.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
If you're going to support your beliefs successfully, you'll need to come on straight.
You did that on purpose. Fess up.
Well, here's the thing; I didn't. I came back to it after an hour and...there it was.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
*Well, for those who are Christians as well ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
God harmed? Fragile, is He? So much for that all-powerful bullshit then?
So the Crucifixion didn't do Him any harm, then?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Paul wasn't God, you know - he was just some bloke who managed to wangle his way to the top of what passed for the church heirarchy in those days and then wrote a few letters. Human. Fallible. Wrong.
Love it. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Can I quote you? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nen - returning to reading and lurking.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the Crucifixion didn't do Him any harm, then?
Only for a couple of days. Spiritual equivalent of gravel rash.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
Love it. Can I quote you?
Sure, knock yourself out
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the Crucifixion didn't do Him any harm, then?
Only for a couple of days. Spiritual equivalent of gravel rash.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh don't look so shocked, Matt. It's in the Bible. Where, Death, is your sting?
We're talking about God's perspective here, not Man's.
[ 29. November 2012, 11:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Joining this a bit late - my reviews have been mostly about whether this might become Horsey. Which it hasn't. Well, not so as you'd notice.
I don't think God is concerned with what we do in the bedroom. My kind of first-principle view is that Christianity encourages faithfulness and keeping your word.
So if you've given your word that you should "forsake all others" in favour of someone else, that's a pretty big thing.
So I reckon if you've promised to keep faithful in that way, that includes the bedroom. What consenting adults get up to in that context strikes me as pretty much a matter for them.
Outside of that kind of faithfulness, the world seems to get a bit blurry. But I've been living inside that sort of faithfulness for a very long time now. I don't point fingers at others. I just think what a lucky man I've been.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Only after the Resurrection. I find the apparent trivialising of the Crucifixion deeply disturbing.
Also in the Bible about how sin affects God, as it happens, is Eph 4:30: "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit." That's really my point: 'harm' is as I have already said perhaps the wrong word. But our sin does hurt God, whether that be physically on Golgotha or 'emotionally' as in grieving Him; I find Leon's 'liberal' reasoning in that regard to be no different really to that of a secularist - where's the need for God in it?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the Crucifixion didn't do Him any harm, then?
Only for a couple of days. Spiritual equivalent of gravel rash.
A little incomplete. We mustn't separate the spiritual from the human. The whole point is that Jesus experienced his crucifixion as a human being. If he experienced it as a non-human god-being, in the spiritual realm alone, then it has limited meaning except symbolically, and he becomes some superman character who can take his own death with equanimity. He didn't though, given what it written about how it was for him.
It did him incredible harm. It killed him. That it was turned into something else, and a non-death does not mean it was mere "gravel rash" in the human sense. I am having trouble understanding how we can separate human-spiritual.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Only after the Resurrection.
Which is when we're living, yes? And which is a far, far longer period of time than the period before it.
quote:
I find the apparent trivialising of the Crucifixion deeply disturbing.
I'm not attempting to trivialise the Crucifixion, I'm only attempting to trivialise your choice to use it in this context. The Crucifixion is of profound importance, but because of its effect on us, not its effect on God. God could have gone on being God for eternity.
[ 29. November 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It did him incredible harm. It killed him.
You say that like he didn't recover.
EDIT: Are some of us perhaps confusing harm with suffering?
[ 29. November 2012, 12:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It seems obvious to me that God is concerned about 'the bedroom'.
Sex is still the way that most babies are made, babies are still mostly raised in families (i.e. units with whom they have some biological connection), and families are still the most vital factor in how children are nurtured into or away from the life and heart of faith. Some would say that families have an impact on communities and nations too, so it's even more connected!
The point isn't that everyone has kids (I don't), but that sex is a foundational element in the construction of our outlook onto our wider world. Attitudes towards sex influence both family and society, and therefore influence the transmission and context of the Christian faith.
Sociologists often say that increased sexual liberalisation is one of the outcomes of increased secularisation. I'm sure it's possible to argue, theologically, that God is in favour of secularisation, and therefore of sexual liberalisation. But it's rare to hear Christians making such arguments....
In the past, people were often widowed early, and would remarry. But the practice of 'serial monogamy' as we know it would seem (from the research, and also from anecdotal evidence) to work against family stability. Declining family stability seemingly has a negative impact on faith transmission, and it's probably also an element in the fragmentalisation of society, which also has problematic outcomes for faith.
I'm not one of these conservatives who think the state should try to resolve these issues. That's not going to happen, and I don't really think it should. But it seems disingenuous for Christians to claim that sex has no relevance to anything other than itself, and that God is indifferent. We're certainly not indifferent - we wouldn't be takling about it if we were.
Maybe, to coin a phrase, the personal is the theological!
[ 29. November 2012, 12:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But it seems disingenuous for Christians to claim that sex has no relevance to anything other than itself, and that God is indifferent. We're certainly not indifferent - we wouldn't be takling about it if we were.
Who is saying that here? I'm certainly not, my first words on the thread were "Of course it matters!" My point is that we don't have to look back to 1st century to decide where we stand on sexual morals, we can decide for ourselves. We can also decide on the basis that if we act justly, love mercy and care deeply for our fellow wo/men we won't go far wrong. In this area as in any other.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
See previous post. Getting married too young is part of the problem.
I'm not sure age is as big a deal as you make out.
My best friends were married at 22/23.
My parents generations and my grandparents generation people were getting married very young and many remained married until 'death do us part'.
The problem is rather the fact that we treat our relationships as a commodity to own rather one to nurture and work at.
We live more by how we feel rather than making an every day choice to say I will love this person.
It's not a 100% solution but so many couples just get married without proper preparation even those who have been together for years.
Marriage prep if done well should get couples to think about the questions that perhaps they have been assuming the answers to but without properly discussing them.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It did him incredible harm. It killed him.
You say that like he didn't recover.
Cue Monty Python- "Not dead yet!"
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Only after the Resurrection. I find the apparent trivialising of the Crucifixion deeply disturbing.
On the other hand, if he were wholly God and wholly Man he knew all along that for him death would only be a temporary state. And there is an interpretation which reads "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" as evidence that God never actually shared in the death on the cross.
I find the moral carte-blanche that some Christians give God for going through a small part of the system God set up to be disturbing.
quote:
I find Leon's 'liberal' reasoning in that regard to be no different really to that of a secularist - where's the need for God in it?
I'd assume that without God were not all things made which were made?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
There just isn't any mention of God in it. It points towards cutting God and our relationship with Him as Christians out of the equation altogether in a way which I find unacceptable.
@Orfeo: I think it's perfectly legit to mention the Crucifixion as it gives the lie to the assertion that our sin doesn't hurt God. I still find the trivialisation of such a central feature of the Christian faith disturbing.
[ 29. November 2012, 14:05: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It did him incredible harm. It killed him.
You say that like he didn't recover.
EDIT: Are some of us perhaps confusing harm with suffering?
That's a good question. I am not separating the two things. Should I be? This might approach becoming a tangent. I have probably been focussed on the human side, suffering, and as you put it, harm, for an extended period for various personal reasons. To my understanding, the actual experience of death is not a "good", it is a harmful thing. Suffering is part of the human condition, and real suffering is what Jesus experienced. He bled while he suffered, his lungs filled with fluid, it ran out when speared in the side etc. So I see the harm and suffering as conjoint experiences. That the harm was rectified according to the story as we have received it does transform it later, but if it was a human experience, loss of his life (although regained) it is still harm. The bible writings about it suggest to me that it was certainly experienced as harmful by his friends also. I am learning over time the curious fact that death and life are actually the same thing. And I get it for a while and have to revisit it.
Perhaps I could impose on you to expand your thoughts on harm-suffering, particularly if my understanding is far from your's, astray, and under-developed.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
This.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And if two people want to pledge sexual fidelity to each other, as is not uncommon in our society, who are you to say it is not a reasonable promise for them to make to each other? Who defines "reasonable"? What a bizarre comment.
I think sexual fidelity is a value worth promising. But I don't think that the value of sexual fidelity can be reached starting from the position that the only relevant values are to cause no harm and always obtain consent. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can get to, 'sexual fidelity is a reasonable thing to ask,' merely from the claim that things are only wrong if they do harm or aren't consented to.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either way, I don't think one can claim that a prohibition exists merely because for arbitrary reasons it upsets God. Firstly, God is not upset for arbitrary reasons. Secondly, because that's of no help in understanding the prohibition, so as to know what does and doesn't fall under the prohibition.
What he said.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
...I have to say that most men I know have had many partners and casual sex...
Really? Most? Many, yes, but I doubt if its most. Especially bearing in mind that some of those who say they have will be exagerrating to make themselves look good. Maybe most of them. And there are plenty of men who never or hardly ever have any sex at all (and not all of them are married!)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Well, if the other party to the agreement no longer cares, then I suppose you are right, no harm is done ( or at least no obvious harm). However in MOST cases of adultery the wronged spouse very much cares, and so, clearly harm is done...or are you defining "harm" differently.
I think that's the wrong way round.
Suppose two people, Alice and Bill, are married, Bill has an affair, and they divorce. Alice washes Bill out of her hair and has a new happy relationship with Charles. Bill is now extremely jealous.
Bill cares very much about Alice having sex with Charles. But is he harmed? No, he's not harmed. Bill no longer has any right to care what Alice does with Charles. (Technically, he has a right to care in that nobody can stop him. But he no longer has any right that anybody should take any notice.)
Lots of people care about people having premarital sex or same-sex sex or any other kind of sex. That doesn't mean they're harmed, or that they have any rights in the matter.
So if adultery is a harm to the other spouse it can't be simply because the other spouse cares. The other spouse must have a right to care. And you can't establish that right on the basis of the harm principle.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sociologists often say that increased sexual liberalisation is one of the outcomes of increased secularisation. I'm sure it's possible to argue, theologically, that God is in favour of secularisation, and therefore of sexual liberalisation. But it's rare to hear Christians making such arguments....
In the past, people were often widowed early, and would remarry. But the practice of 'serial monogamy' as we know it would seem (from the research, and also from anecdotal evidence) to work against family stability. Declining family stability seemingly has a negative impact on faith transmission, and it's probably also an element in the fragmentalisation of society, which also has problematic outcomes for faith.
Nicely put Svitlana.
"Declining family stability" is a nice way to say "increasing sexual immorality" and it is no surprise that it would be associated with religious decline.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think sexual fidelity is a value worth promising. But I don't think that the value of sexual fidelity can be reached starting from the position that the only relevant values are to cause no harm and always obtain consent. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can get to, 'sexual fidelity is a reasonable thing to ask,' merely from the claim that things are only wrong if they do harm or aren't consented to.
On the other hand the value of conditional consent is a necessity if consent has any meaning. You don't either consent to everything or nothing. And "What is reasonable to ask" isn't a relevant question as long as it is asked and accepted by both in the full knowledge of the consequences and without coercion. Sexual fidelity isn't necessarily good within the bounds of consent and harm but there is a definite place for it.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I think it is reasonable to expect something mutually agreed upon. I think that there is harm done when you reneg on that agreement, regardless of what it is.
I think that in your example, the agreement has been nullified by the divorce.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that being unfaithful, whether i marriage, in business or in any other relationship (by whatever definition of "unfaithful")causes harm, that the person being harmed has every right to feel harmed, and that the harm is what determines whether the act is "good" or "bad". it's not limited to sexual fidelity within a legal contract of marriage. any relationship between two people, where there is an agreement (explicit or implicit) on something, which has not been clearly nullified in some way. I'm sure you could come up with some scenario which tests the boundaries of this definition.. fine. it's not precise. but I think that it is a better explanation than simply "God said it's wrong, for no reason other than that He said so". because in that case we have to answer many other questions, such as "how do we KNOW He said so, what constituted infidelity, what constitutes marriage...
I do think God does not approve of infidelity. I think He does so because of the harm caused, not for any other reason. (but I think harm may be caused in many ways, some of them not initially obvious).
Which leads me back to your example.. what is someone feel harmed in some way by an action which clearly is something another person does which is just part of them living their life (i.e. someone feel harmed because they find something offensive). Clearly this isn't a black and white thing.. and this is where societal attitudes may play a role. There are grey areas in everything. society at one time would have said that the ex husband in your example is perfectly right to feel harmed, since in that society he would still be married to her.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God harmed? Fragile, is He? So much for that all-powerful bullshit then?
So the Crucifixion didn't do Him any harm, then?
God, in his essence, is unchanging. You do believe that, right? How can he be harmed? To say the crucifixion harmed God is patripassionism and is a heresy.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Only after the Resurrection. I find the apparent trivialising of the Crucifixion deeply disturbing.
To say the crucifixion doesn't harm God isn't trivializing it. You are playing the "you don't believe my interpretation of the Bible therefore you don't believe the Bible" game.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sex is still the way that most babies are made, babies are still mostly raised in families (i.e. units with whom they have some biological connection),
This trivializes adoptive parents and step-families. Find a new definition.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
See previous post. Getting married too young is part of the problem.
I'm not sure age is as big a deal as you make out.
My best friends were married at 22/23.
YOu do realize, I hope, that the plural of "anecdote" is not "scientific data"? A handful of exceptions do not disprove a general rule.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There just isn't any mention of God in it.
In "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" there isn't any mention of God?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What I'm saying is that I don't think you can get to, 'sexual fidelity is a reasonable thing to ask,' merely from the claim that things are only wrong if they do harm or aren't consented to.
Not relevant. What I asked was, who gets to decide what's reasonable, and why should couples adhere to somebody else's definition of reasonable? I'm talking about the situation "on the ground" as they say in the newsroom.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So if adultery is a harm to the other spouse it can't be simply because the other spouse cares. The other spouse must have a right to care. And you can't establish that right on the basis of the harm principle.
Bullshit. It's not about caring, unless it's about caring that promises are broken. And caring about promises being broken is inherent in the very idea of making a promise.
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I think it is reasonable to expect something mutually agreed upon. I think that there is harm done when you reneg on that agreement, regardless of what it is.
I think that in your example, the agreement has been nullified by the divorce.
Eggggggzackly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm not advocating any kind of patripassianism - I'm not saying that God the Father died on the Cross. But God the Son clearly did for our sake. Neither am I playing interpretative games with you or anyone else: I would think that pretty much all Christians would agree that the Crucifixion is a fairly central tenet of our faith.
My reference to there being 'no mention of God' was in Leon's 'liberal definition' of sin being that which harms others, so I;m not sure what point you are trying to make here. It just struck me as being very secular, something to which anyone, not just Christians, could cheerfully subscribe. I'm not saying that makes it a Bad Thing™, just that it doesn't make it particularly Christian.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When you put it like that, it does seem odd that some people think Christianity should not be subject to the mores of this age, but subject to the mores of an age that has long since passed.
Huh?
The sexual morality articulated in the NT was no less counter-cultural in relation to Greek and Roman mores than to ours.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
YOu do realize, I hope, that the plural of "anecdote" is not "scientific data"? A handful of exceptions do not disprove a general rule.
@Mousethief
But its not a handful of exceptions. The trend was in generations past to get married younger rather than later and people generally did stay together.
In the last 20-30 years attitudes to life, relationships and marriage has changed but that doesn't mean that getting married at X age is now wrong (as long as its over the legal age limit!).
My point is that if two people want to get married then some good marriage prep should not be underestimated as it will help those concerned build a good foundation for their relationship.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God harmed? Fragile, is He? So much for that all-powerful bullshit then?
So the Crucifixion didn't do Him any harm, then?
God, in his essence, is unchanging. You do believe that, right? How can he be harmed? To say the crucifixion harmed God is patripassionism and is a heresy.
It's not heresy to say that the crucifixion caused God the Father immense pain and grief. I agree that he didn't experience the physical torment of being nailed to the cross but he did experience the torment of forsaking and being separated from his only begotten son who he loved.
If we see harm as only being physical we have a very narrow understanding of it.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
It was also a way of Jesus upping the ante - as he often did in quite hyperbolic ways in order to challenges the prevailing status quo - 'You have heard that it was said ... but I say ...'
So what he was effectively doing was suggesting that the intention to sin was a no-no as well as the actual committing of it - adultery in this case.
I agree-- as long as we give Jesus the respect of taking Him at His word. If He was talking about adultery (or imagined adultery), then the problem is adultery, not horniness. The thing about adultery is that it involves breaking a promise and compromising an existing relationship. To equate the two is not upping the ante, but moral obtuseness, as if the marital status of the fantasier or the one fantasied about were irrelevant.
[ 29. November 2012, 17:00: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Go on then, let me in on the secret of how you know whether God is going to be harmed by a sexual misdemeanor yet isn't harmed by some crazy fool running around killing people with a donkey jawbone.
How does anyone know for sure that God is/isn't giving them a pass on this particular sexual misdemeanor?
Well, Samson was fighting against the Philistines, who are portrayed in the OT as enemies of Israel and of God. So there's that.
And the Book of the Judges contains a number of stories about otherwise-righteous leaders who fell into sin--see also Jephtha & Gideon, for example. That the text doesn't condemn their behavior outright isn't evidence that their behavior wasn't wrong.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think sexual fidelity is a value worth promising. But I don't think that the value of sexual fidelity can be reached starting from the position that the only relevant values are to cause no harm and always obtain consent. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can get to, 'sexual fidelity is a reasonable thing to ask,' merely from the claim that things are only wrong if they do harm or aren't consented to.
On the other hand the value of conditional consent is a necessity if consent has any meaning. You don't either consent to everything or nothing.
I'm sorry - I don't see what this has to do with my argument. Could you expand a bit please?
(Consent isn't a value. Autonomy is a value, and acting without consent is a violation of autonomy.)
I would agree that certain kinds of consent are limited of necessity. For example, you can't consent to alienate certain of your rights. You can't sell yourself into slavery. An employer cannot make it a condition of your employment that you refrain from sexual activity outside the hours of employment. Et cetera.
Pledging permanent fidelity seems to me to look an awful lot like an alienation of your right to sexual activity. You need to be able to justify why you can't consent to such a contract with your employer but you can with another person.
quote:
And "What is reasonable to ask" isn't a relevant question as long as it is asked and accepted by both in the full knowledge of the consequences and without coercion. Sexual fidelity isn't necessarily good within the bounds of consent and harm but there is a definite place for it.
My previous example: a husband asks his wife not to leave the house ever without his company. (Suppose they're members of some conservative religious group.) Are you really saying that as long as the wife consents to that she is then morally bound?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So if adultery is a harm to the other spouse it can't be simply because the other spouse cares. The other spouse must have a right to care. And you can't establish that right on the basis of the harm principle.
Bullshit. It's not about caring, unless it's about caring that promises are broken. And caring about promises being broken is inherent in the very idea of making a promise.
I am not sure that you're responding to the argument that I think I was making.
(Anyuta brought up caring. I was trying to argue that it's not about caring.)
The simplest way to ensure that no promises are broken is not to make promises. There's no point in making a promise unless some value is gained from it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
It was also a way of Jesus upping the ante - as he often did in quite hyperbolic ways in order to challenges the prevailing status quo - 'You have heard that it was said ... but I say ...'
So what he was effectively doing was suggesting that the intention to sin was a no-no as well as the actual committing of it - adultery in this case.
I agree-- as long as we give Jesus the respect of taking Him at His word. If He was talking about adultery (or imagined adultery), then the problem is adultery, not horniness. The thing about adultery is that it involves breaking a promise and compromising an existing relationship. To equate the two is not upping the ante, but moral obtuseness, as if the marital status of the fantasier or the one fantasied about were irrelevant.
Confused. I didn't say this. But I did quote it. Who are you agreeing with?
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Pledging permanent fidelity seems to me to look an awful lot like an alienation of your right to sexual activity. You need to be able to justify why you can't consent to such a contract with your employer but you can with another person.
You mean I really need to be able to justify why equals can consent to mutual things that people in an automatically unequal and coercive relationship need to be protected from?
quote:
My previous example: a husband asks his wife not to leave the house ever without his company. (Suppose they're members of some conservative religious group.) Are you really saying that as long as the wife consents to that she is then morally bound?
Yes I am. I am also saying that it's a moral factor rather than a categorical imperative. And there are much, much worse things she can do than leave.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
See previous post. Getting married too young is part of the problem.
I'm not sure age is as big a deal as you make out.
My best friends were married at 22/23.
My parents generations and my grandparents generation people were getting married very young and many remained married until 'death do us part'.
The problem is rather the fact that we treat our relationships as a commodity to own rather one to nurture and work at.
We live more by how we feel rather than making an every day choice to say I will love this person.
It's not a 100% solution but so many couples just get married without proper preparation even those who have been together for years.
Marriage prep if done well should get couples to think about the questions that perhaps they have been assuming the answers to but without properly discussing them.
Well, we need statistics, don't we? Just because previous generations didn't get divorced doesn't mean that they were good marriages. And fidelity was certainly not a widespread practice. I love the idea of making the choice every day to love this person. This is exactly my point. So, is there a choice or not? Can a couple have a choice if divorce is not an option?
Good marriage prep needs time.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
"Declining family stability" is a nice way to say "increasing sexual immorality" and it is no surprise that it would be associated with religious decline.
Wot?? That is an interpretation you CAN put on it, for sure, but the fact that you automatically read that between the lines says more about the mindset you bring to the table than anything else, I think. It is my understanding that the majority of relationships which fail do not do so because one of the parties is or has been cheating, or thinking about cheating.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I think it is reasonable to expect something mutually agreed upon. I think that there is harm done when you reneg on that agreement, regardless of what it is.
As I said to mousethief, the simplest way to avoid that is to not make mutual agreements.
I think the above argument is a circular definition. That is, you're saying that breaking a mutual agreement is wrong because it causes harm. Why does it cause harm? Because it's breaking a mutual agreement.
I can think of a number of ways in which breaking a mutual agreement can cause genuine harm: the other person may have altered their behaviour because they thought they could rely on the agreement being met. But I don't think you can say that breaking a mutual agreement causes harm as such. Mutual agreements can serve good purposes. But unless a particular mutual agreement serves a particular good purpose, I'd say there's no value in that particular mutual agreement.
quote:
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that being unfaithful, whether i marriage, in business or in any other relationship (by whatever definition of "unfaithful")causes harm, that the person being harmed has every right to feel harmed, and that the harm is what determines whether the act is "good" or "bad".
Suppose Starbucks announce that in order to buy coffee from them I must agree never to buy coffee from any other coffee company. Is that reasonable? Can they reasonably say that they are harmed if I buy coffee from another coffee company? That they then have every right to feel harmed? That this harm determines whether the act (buying coffee from another company) is good or bad? I don't see how that can be reasonable.
The harm of breaking a business contract is that the other party to a contract is now planning their future actions and expenditure on the assumption of the fulfilment of the contract. If the other party hasn't incurred any costs in time or money no harm is done.
quote:
I think that it is a better explanation than simply "God said it's wrong, for no reason other than that He said so".
I agree. But these surely aren't our only two options?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I didn't say this. But I did quote it. Who are you agreeing with?
My apologies, I see it was Gamaliel who originally said it. I agree with both of you as long as the concept of "adultery" isn't overextended-- which it arguably has been at times, even if not among present company.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
See previous post. Getting married too young is part of the problem.
I'm not sure age is as big a deal as you make out.
My best friends were married at 22/23.
My parents generations and my grandparents generation people were getting married very young and many remained married until 'death do us part'.
I'd like to speak to this some more. I agree with Fool on the Hill that getting married too young is a problem. But what exactly is too young? I suspect this is contextual.
Yes, people in our grandparents (or perhaps great-grandparents) generation got married at ages that seem young to us, and yes, we can look back and say that it seemed to work out okay. But, quite apart from the fact that in most cases, we wouldn't know just how 'okay' these marriages were, in a society where divorce carried stigma and jobs for women were scarce, getting married at 22 or 23 in a world where a.) this is a common and standard age for marriage, and b.) both parties* have been considered adults for some time, is a different thing to getting married at this sort of age today.
I got married at 22. My husband was 23. We were both still at university, and had spent our whole lives up to that point wrapped up in study and the end-goal of our respective degrees. We didn't have much life experience. We hadn't thought much about what we wanted to do 'after that'. And the bald fact is that we got married at that age, way before most of our friends, because we subscribed to a view that we had both been brought up with, that it was wrong to have sex before marriage. I am not saying that we got married merely because we were keen on the idea of banging one another - our relationship was and is much more and deeper than that - but if you have been taught that it would be a catastrophe if you were not a virgin at marriage, then you do take the 'marry or burn' thing into account when dealing with the timing of things.
I must say, I hope my children go about their decision-making slightly differently. If you are not properly grown-up when you get married and then the two of you 'grow up' in slightly different directions, well, that is difficult. There is a possibility of this happening regardless of the ages of the participants, I know, but I strongly suspect it is correlated with age.
*We can have an argument about whether societies in which roles and choices for women are heavily proscriptive lead to infantilisation of half the population some other time...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Marrying young is a problem now because it means missing out on other options, not just for different partners but different lifestyles. And people today are well aware of what they're missing, because the world is so small.
However, in the past that great range of options didn't really exist. If you married a man of the same class, background and culture as yourself, which was normal, your lifestyle and trajectory were going to be more or the less the same whether you married Bob, Tim or Fred. Ideally, you'd avoid the drunkard, the wife-beater and the spendthrift, but most couples weren't banking on living a life of unbridled romantic bliss, because for most people life was going to be hard whoever they decided to marry.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
"Declining family stability" is a nice way to say "increasing sexual immorality" and it is no surprise that it would be associated with religious decline.
Wot?? That is an interpretation you CAN put on it, for sure, but the fact that you automatically read that between the lines says more about the mindset you bring to the table than anything else, I think.
Good point.
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
It is my understanding that the majority of relationships which fail do not do so because one of the parties is or has been cheating, or thinking about cheating.
I wasn't thinking about cheating so much as not being married. But cheating is often a factor.
I was thinking especially about the strong statistical association between living together before marriage and future divorce. It is not only accepted, but advocated as a way to ensure compatibility - even though people know that the numbers are against it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My reference to there being 'no mention of God' was in Leon's 'liberal definition' of sin being that which harms others, so I;m not sure what point you are trying to make here. It just struck me as being very secular, something to which anyone, not just Christians, could cheerfully subscribe. I'm not saying that makes it a Bad Thing™, just that it doesn't make it particularly Christian.
As St. Clive points out, Christianity didn't present a new concept of sin, but of its remedy.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The simplest way to ensure that no promises are broken is not to make promises. There's no point in making a promise unless some value is gained from it.
Indeed. And the fact that so many make this promise, and feel very strongly about it, is pretty strong prima facie evidence that they must be deriving some value from it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My previous example: a husband asks his wife not to leave the house ever without his company. (Suppose they're members of some conservative religious group.) Are you really saying that as long as the wife consents to that she is then morally bound?
If this is a promise she undertook willingly and without coercion, then yes. Why not? Just because you don't think it's reasonable? What makes your judgments as to reasonableness the arbiter of anything?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
