In episode #35 of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian address one of the former’s most well-known detractors (a man who is far more concerned about Jason’s Catholicism than he is about Christian’s “agnosticism, or atheism, or whatever”). We then tackle some listener questions about which religions tend to be most progressive, as well as about how to question your faith without rocking the boat (something Jason knows absolutely nothing about). Another voicemail leads to a discussion about whether business owners whose religious convictions preclude them from serving gays are douches, or morally principled douches. Since we wouldn’t be DXPs without veering into theological topics, we then discuss which command is harder for God to get his primitive people to wrap their minds around: “Try to not commit genocide” (whaaa?), or “Chop off part of your wiener” (whew!). The conversation then shifts to the topics of monogamy and divorce (that can be applied with the attorneys help with a divorce claims) at which point Christian, finally discovering something he is passionate about, shares his plans to destroy the American family. Then, after two aborted attempts at explaining what has been biebering him, he finally settles on poor parking lot decorum. Not to be outdone, Jason’s bieber involves living a dreary, nasty, brutal life at the end of which we’re all just food for maggots.
Also, if Chick fil-A didn’t hate queers or encourage their patrons to bring their assault rifles to dinner, would rednecks still like it?
Links from this episode:
- James White’s Comments
- What is a teetotaler?
- Two Years a Catholic
- Trouble Will Find Me
- Extreme Health Radio
- No Fight Left, Or So It Seems
- Don’t Give Up
- What is an Islay?
- Just an Opinion
- Chick fil-A Controversy
- Greenbow, Alabama!
- Comrade Dread’s comment
- I’ll Make You Famous
- Sex at Dawn
- Conscious Uncoupling
- Pandora’s Seed
- Poop Bandit
- BMW Drivers
- The Artist as Foolhearted Masochist
Podcast #444: Slovenliness and “Pro-Life”
Podcast #159: Exorcisms and Beauty Pageants
Podcast #1: The American Work Ethic, ISIS, and Irrelevant Traffic Laws
Podcast #222: College, Kavanaugh, and Political Nihilism
I am beibered by Christian (explicitly) and Jason (tacitly) believing that there is some need for religions to “advance” and get with the times. AS IF American liberal secularism has this outstanding morality. Give me a freaking break.
What is the draw of joining a religion that just does *whatever* is popular at the time? What would that do to the integrity of said religions truth claims? It would make them a joke. IF Pope Francis is as liberal as liberals hope, and IF he is successful in implimenting this modernist agenda, the Roman Catholic Church immediately loses its credibility. In this sense, he will catch the church up with the times, and then the Church will die with the generation it was tailored to fit.
Ha ha! That ship has sailed, my friend.
All religions change. If they didn’t, you’d be meeting every Saturday at the local synagogue with the other followers of Rabbi Jesus studying the Torah and debating with other Jewish traditions about which rabbi was correct and whether or not Rabbi Jesus really is the Messiah, and whether it is okay to eat bacon or be uncircumcised.
The Church you follow has adapted throughout its 1,700 year or so history. All of these adaptations seem normal and right to you, but they weren’t always so.
Even morally, Christianity has changed from a faith that accepted slavery, torture, and summary execution for unrepentant heresy to an institution that (on paper) fights for the dignity of humanity and allows for freedom of conscience.
So I fail to see why allowing priests to marry, welcoming women into the priesthood, letting couples use birth control or being benignly neutral on secular gay marriage would spell doom for the Catholic church in particular and Christianity in general.
Excellent points, Comrade!
Christian,
Ha ha! That ship has sailed, my friend.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wishful+thinking&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&biw=360&bih=615&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=EEsQVfHzGoi1yQTOuoGwAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=4#tbm=isch&q=wishful+thinking+meme&imgrc=ESo1ApXf3N1sKM%253A%3BXz8m-LRJqsJmTM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fassets.diylol.com%252Fhfs%252F0c5%252F438%252Fb40%252Fresized%252Ffry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-can-t-tell-if-crazy-or-wishful-thinking-2acf61.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.sega-16.com%252Fforum%252Fshowthread.php%253F22342-Something-funny-is-going-on-at-Sega%252Fpage15%3B510%3B383
Ha ha! I know it’s difficult to see it as a Catholic. 😉
Comrade,
All religions change. If they didn’t, you’d be meeting every Saturday at the local synagogue with the other followers of Rabbi Jesus studying the Torah and debating with other Jewish traditions about which rabbi was correct and whether or not Rabbi Jesus really is the Messiah, and whether it is okay to eat bacon or be uncircumcised.
Obviously all religions develop. Christianity not excluded.
The Church you follow has adapted throughout its 1,700 year or so history. All of these adaptations seem normal and right to you, but they weren’t always so.
What do you mean by “adapted”. If by that you mean “developed it’s already existing theology to a fuller extent” then I agree. If you mean “changed its theology to fit with whatever the age demanded then no.
Even morally, Christianity has changed from a faith that accepted slavery, torture, and summary execution for unrepentant heresy to an institution that (on paper) fights for the dignity of humanity and allows for freedom of conscience.
This is false. The Catholic religion has never once been proslavery. Ever. Neither has the church ever taught that torture is a good thing. Neither has it ever retracted the idea that the state has the right to execute it’s criminals if the need arises. Christian STATES may have done tortured, enslaved, etc. but they did so ignoring the protests of Pope’s and bishops. (Thinking of the Spanish inquisition and the slavery of Africans and American indians) For an article on the history if Catholics and slavery read here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=PU0QVcupDoGxyASAmAE&url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm&ved=0CC0QFjAF&usg=AFQjCNGtJERnWWMUN-5YR33sSjF3TCJiFQ
So I fail to see why allowing priests to marry, welcoming women into the priesthood, letting couples use birth control or being benignly neutral on secular gay marriage would spell doom for the Catholic church in particular and Christianity in general.
Allowing priests to marry would be fine. We already allow priests to marry in the eastern rite of the rcc and allow minister converts with families to join the priesthood.
We can not allow women to be priests because we do not have the authority to do so. Jesus established the priesthood. We can’t change the systems he put in place.
Letting couples use birth control is immoral. It is a grave and serious sin and violates natural law.
Being “neutral” on secular marriage? How can you be “neutral” on what happens with the building blocks of society?!? That’s just absurd.
Comrade,
What you fail to see is that Catholicism is not as wishy washy as the Protestant world. The whole system is based on the infallibility of the Church to speak on faith and morals. Allowing women to be priests, giving the thumbs up to contraception, and endorsing gay marriage, would contradict established papal teaching. The door is closed on those forever….. unless the religion undermines itself and it’s own claims.
To tag on to the “God of the Old Testament” discussion, I want to ask Jason if it’s Catholic teaching that Christ IS the God of the Old Testament. Meaning, He spoke in the burning bush, Mt Sinai, etc, etc. I think there are a few problems with our condemning the Scriptures and the commandments of God:
We read the Scriptures anachronistically. (ask Jason what that words means, Christian
Oh, on the topic of “Were are the people Jesus interacted with straight?” I read an interesting article by a “gay historian” (that is, an historian who studies gay issues in history) who said people did not self-identify by their sexual inclinations until the late 19th century. So, if a person conducted themselves in that way, it was something they did, it was not their entire identity. They may have been given a societal label, but they way people identify as straight or gay has only Ben around a little over 130 years or so.
Hey now, Jason’s the one that picks on EO, not me!
Hey Kenneth,
I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic, but a point of order about married clergy: a married man can become a priest, but no clergy (from deacon and upwards) can get married once they are ordained. It’s for the witness and propriety of the Church.
No, Catholicism opposed the enslavement of Christians. Non-Christian slavery was tolerated and embraced by at least a few of the officers of the medieval church. And Jesuits and Franciscans were heavily involved in the mission system here in California.
Slavery has divided all of the church for quite a while, with some Catholic and Protestant theologians and leaders condemning it, others arguing for its toleration, others arguing for toleration and regulation, and others arguing for its compatibility with Christianity based on biblical authority (mostly Southern Protestants for the latter.)
And it’s splitting hairs to argue that Catholic states such as France and Spain were responsible for the execution of heretics when it was done, more often than not, at the behest of the church or the Papacy.
Let’s be clear, Rabbi Jesus did no such thing as establish a priesthood, let alone jot down laws governing it. All of that came after his death and resurrection. And if anything, the gospel writers, in making the women the first eyewitnesses and preachers of his resurrection argue more in favor of allowing full equality. But that’s veering off course.
Letting couples use birth control is immoral.
In your opinion and tradition. There is nothing really biblical to support this. And traditions change.
Being “neutral” on secular marriage? How can you be “neutral” on what happens with the building blocks of society?!? That’s just absurd.
You recognize that Church and State are separate entities and that if the state decides to allow gay people to build their own families, adopt and raise children, and live and shop without fear of discrimination within their communities that it is really none of your business, so long as the State doesn’t try telling you that you must perform the weddings or must give them communion.
And as far as slavery goes, that’s not even really getting into the hair splitting one must do to avoid defining a serf (who belonged to the land and could not leave without his master’s permission) as a slave.
Jeremiah,
Catholic teaching says that Christ is the Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity. So yes, it would be wrong to “condemn the Scriptures and the commands of God.”
But that is different from recognizing the various ways in which God capitulated to Israel’s stubbornness and hardness of heart in times past by allowing certain provisions that fell outside his ultimate will for his people.
Earthly fathers do that stuff all the time.
With regards to discrimination, there are a few reasons why we have Federal, State, and sometimes local laws prohibiting it, and why we decided not to simply leave it up to the free market.
There are some communities where there are limited options and no alternatives for the targets of discrimination. If everyone in a small town refuses to rent or sell property to a gay (or black or interracial) couple, they have no recourse and no redress, but to move to another town. Likewise if the sole pharmacist in town is a Catholic who refuses to dispense birth control, women will have to travel and endure expense to simply exercise a constitutional right. Or the proverbial hospital owned by a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses to allow blood transfusions.
Historically, in towns where white supremacy was practiced, the ‘alternatives’ were often poorer, of lesser quality, and designed to reinforce the unofficial white supremacist policies. (I’d encourage reading up specifically on how local banks and laws created the modern, still mostly segregated ghettos in our cities, while allowing for white flight to the suburbs.)
Which brings up the other reasons why we passed laws: sometimes the local and state communities are in on the discrimination and use the local laws to enforce it and harass citizens. And sometimes the local community enthusiastically supports discrimination and enforces it through both social means and technically illegal (but nearly never prosecuted) means of extra-judicial punishment, like lynching.
At best, you can argue that may be we’ve gone too far in the other direction (I don’t think we have, but it’s a legitimate discussion), but there is a history behind why this country doesn’t let the market decide on matters of discrimination.
And I would say that I think the bible contains the word of God in the person and character of Jesus Christ and commandments that contradict the character and nature of Christ, such as injuctions to genocide or laws governing how the Jews should go about owning people were based in nationalism and the local culture and shouldn’t be seen as divine directives.
I feel like listening to this podcast was like watching the Truman show and watching Jason blossom before our eyes as he realized he was living in a fake world the whole time…like, oh, the OT is dumb…oh, I’ve had to live a double life because of this whole Christianity thing…oh, I wouldn’t want to cut off my weiner…
‘Mauss’ is pronounced ‘moss’, like the stuff that grows on trees…get it right Christian…
Dick. Bush. Out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfw21fmsVC8
Jason, I get the distinction between God’s various ways of capitulating to Israel, and condemning the Scriptures. I was specifically asking if RC theology teaches that Christ spoke in the OT, not the Father, necessarily. As such, it addresses the issue of Jesus sort of assuaging the dickish way the Father did things, as some think. As I’m writing this, I’m thinking that explanation might even better explain how man’s progression allowed for the capitulation at early points in Israel’s history, while Jesus expounds more fully. I don’t think that would contradict Paul’s statement at the beginning of Hebrews.
And Comradedread, Deuteronomistic history encompasses what you just said. The scriptures were written by man, but contain the words of God. It wasn’t dictated like the Book of Mormon claims to be.
Not sure I’m totally following you, Jeremiah, with regard to Christ having spoken in the OT and how that helps assuage its more unseemly sections.
With regard to Deuteronomy, it is very clear that that covenant was given by Moses, and is distinct from God’s law. The text plainly says that these commands were distinct from the law that God gave the previous generation 40 years prior. Also, Ezek. 20:25 refers to these laws as “laws that were not good,” and Jesus distinguishes in Matt. 19 between what God said about marriage and what Moses permitted.
Jeremiah,
I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic, but a point of order about married clergy: a married man can become a priest, but no clergy (from deacon and upwards) can get married once they are ordained. It’s for the witness and propriety of the Church.
Thanks for the correction! I am totally for this discipline. I think that it is only a matter of time before the Latin Rite follows suite…. Or else, its looking like they will be running out of priests!
Comrade,
No, Catholicism opposed the enslavement of Christians. Non-Christian slavery was tolerated and embraced by at least a few of the officers of the medieval church. And Jesuits and Franciscans were heavily involved in the mission system here in California.
Seriously? “At least a few (unnamed people) in the middle ages” tolerated slavery and so therefore it represents this drastic change? W-E-A-K. The Church may not have condemned slavery right from the jump, but it certainly did not have to “change” anything to condemn it. In fact, the only basis for abolishing slavery comes from the Church teaching on the dignity of the human person. Certain inalienable rights remember? Endowed by our Creator? Not so much for people living under Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, and the rest of the societies that were governed by the atheist/agnostic worldview. You guys act like the world discovered slavery was wrong, and the Church had to “change” and catch up with the times. In fact, it was the exact opposite! The whole basis/pillar of western morality comes from the Church. The whole structure of the west as we know it comes from the Catholic religion. Hospitals? Your welcome. Public Universities? Your welcome. The scientific method? Your welcome. The notion of human dignity and inalienable rights? Your welcome. The Church doesn’t get with the times. The times get with the Church.
Let’s be clear, Rabbi Jesus did no such thing as establish a priesthood, let alone jot down laws governing it. All of that came after his death and resurrection. And if anything, the gospel writers, in making the women the first eyewitnesses and preachers of his resurrection argue more in favor of allowing full equality. But that’s veering off course.
To see a complete 7 sec rebuttal of this comment see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjwvc09F6vc
In your opinion and tradition. There is nothing really biblical to support this. And traditions change.
It is not merely my opinion. It is the infallibly defined opinion of the bishop of Rome and the bishops in the world that are in communion with him. Further, it has been taught thus consistently for thousands of years. The papal encyclical “Humani Vitae” condemned forever the use of contraception and made some pretty prophetic statements on what would happen if the world didn’t listen. The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments. 50 years later we can see that he was absolutely spot on. This is the kind of thing that happens when societies built by the Church get too big for their britches. They think they know best and go make a mess of things.
You recognize that Church and State are separate entities and that if the state decides to allow gay people to build their own families, adopt and raise children, and live and shop without fear of discrimination within their communities that it is really none of your business, so long as the State doesn’t try telling you that you must perform the weddings or must give them communion.
It actually is my business so long as I have to live in said society. It actually is the business of the Church if Catholics live in those societies.
I am at work, so I trust you will forgive me for not compiling a list of Catholic popes, bishops, theologians and priests that owned slaves, tolerated slavery, or remained silent in the face of the slave trade.
I’ll be happy to do it later tonight should nothing more interesting compel my attentions.
No. Say it isn’t so! A moralistic organization saying that if we don’t listen to them, society will collapse, we’ll fall down a slippery slope, cats and dogs will live together! Total pandemonium! There is nothing new under the sun. People are as they always were: good, evil, and in-between.
Bull, mate. Bull. People don’t change. People have practiced adultery for so long that a man writing down the Law 3,500 or so years ago (give or take 1,000 years) wrote down a commandment saying stop doing that.
The only difference between old timey humans and modern humans is that old timey humans had to do a better job hiding their indiscretions. I’ll also be happy to put together a list of Popes who fathered children and had many wives and mistresses.
As opposed to the biblical respect for women where:
1. They were property their fathers sold to their future husbands
2. Were assumed to be lying about rape and condemned to death and no one came to their rescue in a city
3. Were sold off to their rapist if they were an unbetrothed virgin and were raped.
4. Were taken as sex slaves by Israeli soldiers if one of the soldiers happened to like the look of the daughter of the family he was killing.
5. Were told to be silent in church
6. Were told they could not teach or have authority in church because a mythological Eve was convinced by a mythological serpent to eat a piece of fruit that she thought would make her a god.
Or the current church, where women are free to offer their opinions on morality, politics, and current events and the men in leadership are free to completely ignore them.
Much as any other technological advancement can be misused. Doesn’t mean we should abolish medicine because some people use it recreationally or because some folks have poisoned others with it.
blog “first things” documenting the scary accurate predictions of humanie vitae as discovered by secular studies and nonchristian sociologists.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/002-the-vindication-of-ihumanae-vitaei
Comrade,
This comment:
1. Presupposes the prediction is false due to the source of the information. Which falls victim to the genetic fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
2. presupposes that people “are as they always were” regardless of each societies culture and circumstances. This is false. Ideas have consequences. Many societies have been more inclined towards the good, or the evil, or the in-between, depending on their given worldview.
Yes, I realize that adultery existed before contraception. The question is has it increased? The answer to that question is a definite “yes”. What was so “revolutionary” about the “sexual revolution” if it only represented more of the same? Speaking from personal experience, I can think of numerous girls that I never would have slept with if not for contraception. Not just because I thought I might get a disease, but also because I would never want to risk them mothering my children. I think it’s just self-evident that if people have access to sex without consequences, there will be more sex. How much easier is it to cheat on a spouse today? Pretty low odds that you will come home with an STD or a new baby in your arms. Even if contraception fails you can always just abort. It’s easier than ever, and we have more failed marriages, failed families, and failed COMMUNITIES, because of contraception and abortion.
1-4 are just silly little straw men. Neither 5 nor 6 imply a low level of respect for women. The fact is that the way women are viewed and treated today is far worse than what they could have accomplished without the sexual revolution. The thought of women having the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to think for themselves, while maintaining their sexual dignity is a ship that has long sailed. Any father knows what is in store for his daughter in our culture. Check out this political cartoon that shows how Muslim women view American girls.
https://quirkycats.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/phpkw2ep7.png
1. Either way the Pope nailed it on the head.
2. The “medicine” is immoral when used for either purpose.
Sorry if the points I make here are addressed above, but wanted to pen down my thoughts before I forget:
1. If it weren’t for the name “drunk ex pastors” I probably would have never added this podcast to my rotation.
2. In terms of progressive religions, I think you guys got it right, except for conservative Islam, there probably isn’t a religion that is more repressive than Christianity. And maybe Judaism. And isn’t it interesting that all three are basically the same religions.
3. Jordan is actually a very progressive Muslim country. A hijab is not required for women there — much like Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
4. Christian’s bieber about shopping carts at costco and inconsiderate parkers are actually the same thing: research has shown that the more affluent you are (and costco shoppers tend to be), the more you are at being a. bad drivers, b. more accepting of cheating for your benefit. Basically that society’s rules are for “those” people but not you.
A few more things which I remembered that I wanted to comment on:
– Comraderead put it quite well regarding discrimination. And I suppose it’s not surprising that the two of you (Jason & Christian) gloss over the obvious example of discrimination against minorities or bi-racial couples. I agree that in a perfect world, it would be great for the market to sort out and shun the bigots but you yourselves point out the perfect counter example of Chic-Fil-A.
– The part about non-traditional families is an interesting one and one that I would be very interested to hear more about. For me, I am curious about how the thought process applies to step children. What motivation would there be for a step father or mother to care about the wellbeing of their step children?
No, Kenneth, I simply reject the false ‘slippery slope’ argument that churches drag out any time there is a social change of which they do not approve. It’s a tired, bullshit argument usually designed to maintain the status quo at the expense of the freedom of a group of oppressed individuals.
Seeing as how it would be impossible to gather historically accurate and honest information about people’s sexual habits throughout history, this is something that simply cannot be proved or disproved. We have no way of knowing if people living in the 16th century were more chaste and faithful or were screwing one another like bunnies and simply being more careful to hide it.
It may seem self-evident, but it doesn’t carry over in real life.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-contraceptives-sex-promiscuity-20140306-story.html
Most women do not go bonkers and start shagging everything they can once they get a pill or an implant.
And, I would say, that if the only thing keeping you in a marriage and faithful to your spouse is the fear of getting caught, then you’ve already got problems. I don’t want to cheat on my spouse because I love her. I trust she will not cheat on me because she loves me.
And considering we have a mention of prostitution going back to the patriarch’s time, I’d say that cheating has always been fairly easy. You know… at least for us guys.
I disagree. Women have been treated as property for millennia. They have been seen as less than men for as long. They had no freedom. No prospects for work outside of the home. They had no legal standing under many cultures. They could not file for divorce. They had to endure abusive spouses. They had to endure rape. They had to endure being valued solely for the amount of children (male children in particular) they could push out. They had no say in politics. They were ignored in medical research.
Today, women are doing far better than they’ve done in the past, and when they aren’t, the causes can generally be traced to: culture, poverty, politics, war, or religion.
Well, that’s just, like… your opinion, man.
Greg,
Good point, although Chic-Fil-A doesn’t actually refuse service to anyone. I’d be interested to see what the difference would be if they did. I think they would lose a lot of support. (Then again, perhaps I have too much faith in humanity.)
And I’m not sure they would be able to refuse service to anyone if they lease space in commercially-zoned areas, would they?
(I love doing the research after we weigh in with our opinions.)
Comrade,
That’s very interesting, but it has nothing to do with our conversation. This particular “slippery slope” argument was given over 50 years ago. All of its predictions have been accurate.
We don’t need to know what people were doing in the 16th century. We can track what they have been doing from the 1940s until the present day. This is the immediate historical context of the Popes prophetic encyclical. There have been many studies. The data is in, and the Pope was right. Deal with it. 🙂
That study is useless. It tracks if people who receive *free* contraceptives have more sexual partners than they did before hand. It doesn’t even touch upon someones sexual activity before and after contraceptive use.
So, prostitution has always existed, therefore cheating on a spouse has always been easy? So you really believe that men are just as apprehensive as they ever were of sleeping with a stranger? The possible pros and cons scale of adultery was just the same? Thats just silly. Don’t forget adultery goes both ways. If you were a woman, would you be as willing to sleep around on your husband without contraception and abortion? The answer to these questions is so obvious that they are almost hypothetical. Almost.
1. If you want to set the bar so low then fine. (golf clap) Women are better off today than they were as rape victims and slaves.
2. The question is how are they doing today as opposed to how *they could be doing* without contraception and the sexual revolution. The signature metaphors of modern feminism say everything we need to know about how happy sexual liberation has been making these women: the suburban home as concentration camp, men as rapists, children as intolerable burdens, fetuses as parasites, and so on. These are the sounds of liberation? Doesnt sound like it. However, it does remind me of a certain scripture in Genesis. “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you…
Yup! Mine, Martin Luthers, John Calvins, every single protestant denomination in the worlds (just 50 years ago) and two thousand years of christians before me. My view has a pretty consistent presence on the planet. Because you have abandoned the traditional faith, you get to enjoy the same temporal, fad-like, time table as so many other ages…But while you are here! Might as well enjoy this tune….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN2ILcAHYOE
We don’t need to know what people were doing in the 16th century. We can track what they have been doing from the 1940s until the present day.
So things have just been getting progressively worse all through history? That’s silly. Even in the Bible, certain times and places were described as much worse than they are today. “The thoughts and intents of their heart were only evil continually.” Or what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Much worse places (sexually) than you can find anywhere today. Did things got progressively better from 1940 to 4000 BC?
No, you have made a claim that adultery is now rampant since contraception became available. I have said that people have always been screwing around with one another. We have historical examples of that. We have no concrete data on historical adultery trends.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/22/how-common-is-cheating-infidelity-really/
“Taken together, in any given year, it looks like the actual likelihood of your relationship suffering from cheating is low — probably less than a 6 percent chance.
But over the course of your entire relationship, the chances of infidelity may rise to as much as 25 percent. Twenty-five percent — over the course of an entire relationship — is a far cry from the 50 percent number we hear from many so-called professionals and services trying to sell you something.”
Furthermore, you made a claim that contraception increased sexual promiscuity because it removed a ‘hazard’ of sexual intercourse. That also appears to be untrue as referenced in the previous link which you reject for spurious reasons. I’m sure you’ll find a reason to continue arguing that adultery is now rampant and more so than it ever was prior to the invention of female contraception.
IF I were a woman, my moral compass and love for my spouse and fidelity aren’t going to do a 180 degree turn simply because now I can ‘get away with it.’ Do you really need punishment or the threat of punishment to keep your word? To do what is right? To remain faithful to your spouse? I assume you don’t. And if you don’t, then why do you assume everyone else is worse of a human being than you are?
People have said the same thing about drugs. Yet in Portugal where they’ve been decriminalized, you don’t see a massive flock of people running out to buy and get addicted to crack.
By all means, please post the quotes by Luther and Calvin and the apostles dealing with the pill and I will be silent on the topic forever.
Yes, yes, I am aware angry Catholic Vengeance Jesus will be sending me off to hell to be tortured for all eternity for not believing in the Papacy. What can I say? It’s hard to take them seriously with the funny hats. Maybe if they walked around in peasant robes and healed more sick people, it’d be different.
Also, it should be noted that, no, many Protestant denominations support and allow for the use of contraception, and many evangelical denominations supported Roe v. Wade at the time of the decision.
They made their U-turn on abortion a few years later when some conservative political operators decided to utilize the issue as a means of energizing evangelical Christians to engage in politics.
@jason & @christian –
I think therein lies part of the problem. We should not have faith that people will stop oppressing others. In an ideal world, we ought to allow people to practice what they believe (and be applauded or condemned for it) but we live in an imperfect world where we need to protect minorities’ rights. I agree that a cake shop is kind of a iffy example but what about things like Hobby Lobby where they don’t believe in contraception and therefore don’t want to offer their employees health plans that cover contraception?
@comraderead & @kenneth –
a report came out last year that teen pregnancy has been falling, and in some instances significantly, much to the surprise and puzzlement of organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Christian,
I’m sorry for not being clear. The context of the Popes warning in contraception was that society would see an increase in the four things mentioned. He did not mean that there would be an increase so great as to eclipse any other society or tribe in all of history.
Kenneth, my point is that all of those things have increased in societies before as well.
Christian,
Yes that’s true. Depending on varying factors, ideas, culture, etc. The thing is, this particular idea is infecting the culture on a global scale, and the consequences are following each culture that pucks it up.
Comrade,
No, you have made a claim that adultery is now rampant since contraception became available. I have said that people have always been screwing around with one another. We have historical examples of that. We have no concrete data on historical adultery trends.
Yes we do. We have data from the time period immediately preceding contraception and the sexual revolution, and decades of data from afterwards. Whatever happened in the thousands of years of human history before then is really irrelevant. Obviously adultery has always existed. That’s not the issue.
Furthermore, you made a claim that contraception increased sexual promiscuity because it removed a ‘hazard’ of sexual intercourse. That also appears to be untrue as referenced in the previous link which you reject for spurious reasons. I’m sure you’ll find a reason to continue arguing that adultery is now rampant and more so than it ever was prior to the invention of female contraception.
Spurious reasons?!? The study you provided only tracks what happens when people receive FREE contraception. It doesn’t take into account whether or not the control group had been taking contraception already before hand (and paying for it). Thus, the data is completely useless to our conversation.
IF I were a woman, my moral compass and love for my spouse and fidelity aren’t going to do a 180 degree turn simply because now I can ‘get away with it.’ Do you really need punishment or the threat of punishment to keep your word? To do what is right? To remain faithful to your spouse? I assume you don’t. And if you don’t, then why do you assume everyone else is worse of a human being than you are?
People are generally pretty shitty. That’s just the way it is. Maybe you hail from some kind of Utopia where everyone is faithful, honest, and full of love. I live in the real world. I know MANY couples who have had to deal with a spouse cheating. Even in my own family! Climb down from your moral high horse already. We get it, your a great guy and wouldn’t cheat on your wife. That’s fantastic. Most guys would like to be the same wayy…. but they just arent.
By all means, please post the quotes by Luther and Calvin and the apostles dealing with the pill and I will be silent on the topic forever.
I live to serve!
Relevant biblical proof text
Let’s first look at Martin Luthers interpretation of this verse
Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.
(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21)
John Calvin, in his Commentary on Genesis
I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.
There you have it. As a bonus you were also incorrect about the time of the Protestant “uturn” on abortion and contraception. Every single protestant denomination *without exception* was against contraception and abortion until 1930. Then, all of a sudden, having nothing to do with pressures from secularism I’m sure, they all started caving. Starting with the Anglicans and then ticking down the line from there.
Yes, yes, I am aware angry Catholic Vengeance Jesus will be sending me off to hell to be tortured for all eternity for not believing in the Papacy. What can I say? It’s hard to take them seriously with the funny hats. Maybe if they walked around in peasant robes and healed more sick people, it’d be different.
I would rather see them wear something like Neo in the matrix. That would be bad ass.
I am not a Marcionite, but….
If the OT was dictated by God or even remotely close to paraphrasing Him, in particular to the Law….
…why circumcision? Why was it at the top of the list and one of the first laws imparted? Recent studies show the circumcised to be 20% less likely to get STDs. Did God not want Abe to transmit something from that dirty gypsy Hagar to Sarah that might mess with conceiving or birthing Isaac? Why not just perform more miracles if need be, or tell Abe to keep his asp under-tunic.
…why condemn male homosexuality and give lesbians carte blanche? Seems fishy. Jesus had no problem healing the Centurion’s adolescent “cabin boy”. Surely gay penguins and bisexually swinging bonobo chimps are not a result of humanity falling from grace.
…why animal sacrifice? Seems wasteful and wholly unoriginal particularly to that region. Plus, the authors or editors of the Pentateuch want us to believe Moses got this revelation in the wilderness when they were struggling for food so bad that God had them on the dole with manna? Correct me if I’m wrong… but it seems from reading the Law that there are a lot of animal sacrifices that we individually would have to make. The Israelites certainly didn’t have the resources to perform industrial husbandry in the desert to supply this. Doing symbolic sacrifices on everyone else’s behalf would scale down the bloodshed considerably, which it sounds like they did but I’ve never seen that listed as an option.
…why sexual purity which gives dudes way more “wiggle room” than the ladies?
On the other hand Jesus dying for our sins does seem original and divine to me. Chill out with your religious ideas, Humanity. All of the abstinence, self-mutilation, and animal sacrifice is a waste. Communing with God is as easy as giving to the needy, caring for the infirm, and loving your enemy. “God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Why would Jesus teach us that? Is he a socialist? That’s one for all of the TeaBagging Republicrats to wrestle with.
Greg,
I guess if someone whose conscience is violated by contraception owns a company, he has the right to choose to offer a health plan that doesn’t provide it (or offer no health plan at all). I am not all that familiar with the HL case in particular, so I don’t know if it is a huge chain or just a mom & pop type place. If the former, it’s a bit trickier.
Another thing to consider is the whole thing of whether not being given a privilege is tantamount to persecution. Not being granted a specific kind of health care from your place of employment is hardly suffering, especially when you can just get a job at almost any other place and get the coverage they want.
Under the ACA, contraception is considered “preventive care” and health care providers are required to provide it just like blood pressure medication or cancer treatment. HL is a huge chain and they can’t choose to not cover contraception any more than they can choose to not cover cancer. I think it’s great, and you would too if you weren’t Catholic.
Was that directed to me?
Yes. I was clarifying the things you were unfamiliar with in your comment above mine.
Interesting. I should have figured that Calvin and Luther as ex-Catholics would have adhered to the whole story of Onan’s ‘crime’ being contraception instead of the far more culturally relevant crime of denying his brother a legacy through children.
But you failed to include a quote by one of the apostles, so I will continue to comment on the subject.
Drawing an anti-contraception conclusion from the story of Onan is like drawing an anti-hair cutting conclusion from the story of Samson. Gotta give credit to the Catholic church for sticking with their silly interpretations no matter how ridiculous they obviously are though.
If you believe Kinsey’s studies from the 40’s, then about 40% of men and 25% of women in his day were adulterers. His studies are not considered extremely reliable.
Yeah. If God was pissed off about spilling seed on the ground (or in a tissue) to the point where He killed people for doing it, there wouldn’t be any men around.
Geez, someone’s grumpy today.
Christian –
That as it may be, the Supreme Court did rule in favor of Hobby Lobby (Jason, HL is a privately owned national chain). CS Monitor had a good write up here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0710/Hobby-Lobby-101-explaining-the-Supreme-Court-s-birth-control-ruling
This is the sort of arguments that Libertarians love to make. “I’m not imposing on your freedom to go somewhere to work.” And yes, this is true, we are all free to go work somewhere else but it’s a pretty dickish attitude.
On an entirely different subject, this is something that I’ve never been able to wrap my head around. The idea that Jesus sacrificed himself for man. How could he sacrifice himself when Jesus is already God (or at least once facet of God) and the son of God and God is omniscient. The whole Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins of man seems like an incredibly awkward workaround to God simply being a good guy. After all, if God loves us so much, why did his son/himself had to come down to Earth to be sacrificed simply to atone for Adam’s sins?
Reminds me of the meme where Jesus is knocking on the door and he says, “Let me in. I’m here to save you from what I’ll do to you if you don’t let me in.”
Greg,
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be a dick or anything.
The Catholic view is pretty different than the Protestant one in that there is no “God was punishing Jesus for our sins” idea anywhere. Rather, Jesus offered a sacrifice of love to his Father that was more pleasing than our sins are displeasing.
Hope that helps.
The existing sacrificial system in Judaism was something that the apostles were familiar with. When you sinned, you felt guilty and to reconcile to God or your brother, you had to say sorry to God and you had to pay restitution.
So, in that context, I prefer to think of it as God saying, “Look. You don’t need to kill things to appease me or assuage your sense of guilt. I took care of it. We’re good. Just come home, be a part of the family, and love one another and love Me.”
And related to this, I think the atonement is also about reconciling us to each other. Humanity has committed some pretty horrible deeds that have hurt a lot of people. People who would have undying enmity with one another for which reconciliation would be impossible. But in the atonement, God reaches out to us and says, “I felt the pain. I took it upon myself. If you’re going to blame someone and be angry with someone, blame Me and be angry with Me.”
Of course, it’s just as easy to imagine that in trying to make sense of Jesus’ death and their belief in his Messianic destiny that they fit the death narrative into the existing sacrificial system.
Also, I think the act of becoming human and taking death upon himself was a way of Christ sharing His own eternal nature and eternal being with us. Death is the natural end for all of us. But Christ conquered death, and in doing so, He shares that victory with us, so that while in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live.
Jason – No worries, I didn’t mean to imply that you were being dickish but that that line of thinking (especially extrapolated to the essential Libertarian one) is kind of dickish.
LOL@Jesus meme. I’ve actually never heard that one.
On the Jesus thing, let me be a little more clear. God is all-knowing. So, even though we have “free will”, to God, he already knows which way we’re going to go; therefore, he always knew that man was going to fall. Rather than simply forgiving man (which is kind of like saying I’m going to forgive the ants for coming to steal the picnic that I laid out), he cooked up this elaborate plan wherein a part of himself is going to come down to earth and make the ultimately sacrifice. When in reality, it was never that much of a sacrifice because God knew what Jesus (admittedly as a man) was going to do. I am still not really understanding how Jesus’s office of sacrifice outweighed the displeasures that our sins caused. Hell, if God is that displeased about our sins, then why did him make man capable of sinning in the first place? Again, see above about ants.
er.. that was offer of sacrifice, not office.
Perhaps instead of trying to harmonize the Bible, or contrary ideas in the Bible, or contrary portrayals of God…. it would be advantageous to look at the canon as revered scripture in lieu of the infallible word. That revered scripture was authored by people who, for the most part, were doing their best to walk with God.
In the case of Onan, obviously his seed truly wasn’t important. After all it was Judah impregnating his daughter-in-law personally that resulted in the line to David and later to Jesus. God striking Onan down seems unjust and certainly merciless. How does this story not register blasphemous? Why isn’t it easier to write this story off as a mistaken interpretation of something that did happen? It seems less of a struggle to consider it as written by a faithful but fallible author than to go through theological hurdles trying to harmonize it. I like when preachers go on to explain that Onan was breaking the law. There was no written law then! His father was the one who told him to do it. smh
Comrade,
Interesting. I should have figured that Calvin and Luther as ex-Catholics would have adhered to the whole story of Onan’s ‘crime’ being contraception instead of the far more culturally relevant crime of denying his brother a legacy through children.
But you failed to include a quote by one of the apostles, so I will continue to comment on the subject.
Fair enough! 🙂
Dr. Robert Michaels of Stanford University found a direct, positive correlation between the growing rate of divorce and the rate of contraception. (Interestingly, couples who use Natural Family Planning have a much lower divorce rate: 0.6 percent according to the Couple to Couple League, and 2-5 percent according to research conducted by California State University.) You can see the results of his findings here
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wils/wils_01naturalfamilyplanning2.html
Christian,
Those quotes were from John Calvin and Martin Luther. I could also add to that list John Wesley, Knox, Matthew Henry, etc. etc. Is it more likely that the Catholic interpretation is “silly” or that the rest of the christian world caved in to secular pressures? See what i mean about losing credibility? Here today, gone tomorrow.
PS,
You could always just start up your own church! I’m sure your “maybe, maybe not” biblical commentary would sell in droves. You could also write a self-help book entitled “Christians answers to lifes toughest questions”, and then just have all the pages be blank! For the youngsters maybe a “Kingery guide the the SATs” would sell? Subtitle would read “when in doubt, just dont give any answer whatsoever”. Haha! I could do this all day 🙂
Kingery guide *to* the SAT’s. We can’t have any auto correct errors in the title of a best seller
Kenneth,
Is it more likely that the Catholic interpretation is “silly” or that the rest of the christian world caved in to secular pressures?
Based on the clear reading of the only passage in the Bible that even could be misconstrued to speak about contraception (a couple quick sentences about Onan) and the history of the Catholic church to be wrong about things (like how it eventually “caved” into heliocentrism) and simply silly about other things (do I really need to provide you a list here?), yeah, it’s pretty likely that this is a silly interpretation that the Catholic church stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as such.
And this is what I’m saying about credibility. The majority of Catholics use contraception, and nearly all non-Catholics think the Catholic teaching about contraception is ridiculous. Yet another reason why I said that ship has sailed.
You know, Kenneth, I’ve found I respect people a lot more who give careful thought to an idea and say, “I don’t know” than people who believe shit that doesn’t make sense just because they’re afraid to acknowledge they may not have all the answers.
The Winsmann guide to the SATs: We Answer Every Question, Mainly with Wrong Answers.
I think this is worth posting:
http://www.tylervigen.com/
just to point out how the divorce rate in Maine declined as the use or margarine declined.
In all seriousness, shouldn’t I be surprised that Catholic couples that are more conservative and take the Church’s teachings on contraception more seriously also take the Church’s teachings on divorce, cohabitation, and extra-marital sex more seriously as well?
And wouldn’t it make more sense to blame the rise in divorce rates in the 1970’s on the liberalization of divorce laws started in California under Ronald Reagan who signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law? With mutual consent and/or proof of infidelity no longer required to divorce a spouse, wouldn’t I expect more people to take advantage of the option?
Christian,
Based on the clear reading of the only passage in the Bible that even could be misconstrued to speak about contraception (a couple quick sentences about Onan) and the history of the Catholic church to be wrong about things (like how it eventually “caved” into heliocentrism) and simply silly about other things (do I really need to provide you a list here?), yeah, it’s pretty likely that this is a silly interpretation that the Catholic church stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as such.
The Catholic Church has never dogmatically taught error in 2000 years. Although many people have hand wavingly dismissed the Church, much like you just did without presenting a single argument or shred of evidence, those people are now dead in their coffins while the Church marches on century after century. Once you are gone and the secular BS that you have bought into fades into history, we will still be here 🙂 its really not so bad to play for the Yankees.
And this is what I’m saying about credibility. The majority of Catholics use contraception, and nearly all non-Catholics think the Catholic teaching about contraception is ridiculous. Yet another reason why I said that ship has sailed.
Ha! Except all of the muslims in the world who agree that it’s wrong. Not just from scripture, but also from common sense and philosophy. Most RCs probably do use contraception. Most probably also take the Lord’s name in vain, miss church on sundays, masterbate weekly, etc etc. What has that got to do with anything?
You know, Kenneth, I’ve found I respect people a lot more who give careful thought to an idea and say, “I don’t know” than people who believe shit that doesn’t make sense just because they’re afraid to acknowledge they may not have all the answers.
Well, duh. But you wouldn’t pay money to hear a lecture from someone who was only going to offer a question mark. You wouldn’t pay tuition to go to university only to be told “I don’t know” over and over again. Modesty only gets you so much respect bud. It’s the truth we are all after, and that’s exactly what an agnostic can’t offer.
Kenneth,
The Catholic Church has never dogmatically taught error in 2000 years.
Right. And I’ve never lied. Because by my own rules, in order for me to lie, I have to state before the lie the following, “What I’m about to say is completely the truth. There will be no falsehood in what I’m saying.” If I don’t repeat those exact words before what I say, then I haven’t lied. If what I was saying turns out to be a lie, I was just kidding, as long as I didn’t repeat those exact words. According to those rules, I’ve never lied, just like the Catholic church has never “dogmatically” taught error.
Besides, it kind of all remains to be seen, don’t you think?
…those people are now dead in their coffins while the Church marches on century after century.
Yeah, and there will still be genocidal regimes in power after I die. Does that make them more correct? What a ridiculous proof for “truth.”
What has that got to do with anything?
Credibility.
But you wouldn’t pay money to hear a lecture from someone who was only going to offer a question mark.
Weird. I thought Bart Ehrman was actually making a living.
It’s the truth we are all after, and that’s exactly what an agnostic can’t offer.
Let me ask you a question. If you turn out to be wrong, which is what I believe, then who had more “truth?” You or me? If your whole system is just a creation of man, which I believe it to be, it sure seems like the agnostic had more truth than the Catholic. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings, my friend, so dial it down a notch.
The keyword in there is dogma, isn’t it?
See, the Church can change its mind on the torture of heretics, the enslavement of non-Christians, a geocentric universe, the necessity of the Latin mass, or eating meat on Fridays and it’s okay because it’s not ‘dogma’.
Therefore the Church is never wrong because anything it was wrong about automatically becomes redefined as outside of the realm of dogma so it doesn’t count as being wrong.
I’m still working through podcasts and have not listened to this one yet so please excuse me if I’m repeating anything. I do find the discussion interesting. Some irony in a church lead by celibates following a man generally considered to be a virgin at the time of his death and revering another figure who was was claimed to be a virgin when she conceived placing such an emphasis against contraception. Abstenance is generally the most certain form of contraception when applied consistently.
I did the maths once on numbers of sperm produced by the average man during his lifetime compared to the utilisation rate. Estimates as I understand it are around 1500 sperm produced per second, I have had one child so even against 1 seconds sperm production my utilisation rate is pretty bad. Even a proliffic breeder such as Ismail Ibn Sharif with an estimated 867 children used less than 1 second of his lifetime sperm production. Hard to see how a sane God could be all that concerned by spilled seed.
Bob
Ha! That’s a funny (and interesting) way to look at it, Bob. Thanks!
Thanks Christian, contraception in my view such a weird thing to object to that interesting ways of looking at it seem about the only way to address it.
Have you seen Monty Python’s Every Sperm is Sacred song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk if you have not. I listened to the discussion earlier about cultural common knowledge that’s not as universal as we assume so decided not to assume you had seen it.
Given the comments made by critics about dick jokes on the show you might also enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM
Bob
Bob,
It’s not the waste of sperm that makes contraception immoral. (Although I do love Monty Python) Rather, the problem lies with the frustration of the natural end, or final cause, of sexual intercourse.
Sigmund Freud himself noted matter-of-factly that:
Oral sex, masturbation, homosexuality, etc. would also fall into the same category. Gluttony is another example. Eating until you are as fat as a whale abuses and perverts what our mouths and digestive systems were given to us for in the first place. An extremely obese person trests the pleasure that comes from eating as its natural end, or final cause. This is an error because nutrition is the proper natural end of consuming food. The reason why we hunger, and the reason why food is delicious, is for the purpose of driving us to the natural end of nutrition. It encourages the behavior necessary for our survival and health as a species. In the same way, our sexual urges, and the pleasure of sex, are natural phenomena that drive us to fulfilling the natural ends of procreation, spousal bonding, etc.
There are always consequences when these kinds of mistakes are made on a large scale. When we pervert our natural ends, society as a whole suffers. I have outlined already just a few of those consequences.
Hope that’s helpful.
Kenneth,
In your paradigm, is there anything that you are allowed to do simply because it is pleasurable?
Ha ha, Bob! Thanks for the laughs. I love Monty Python, but I hadn’t seen those!
Bob,
the more pertinent link is this one but then again, I hold my head up high, and say in a loud steady voice, “harry, i would like you to sell me a condom, in fact, i think i’ll have a french tickler, for I AM A PROTESTANT.
But I don’t think protestants are allowed at this blog anymore. Hence, I don’t listen to this podcast. Just sayin’ jason..
muggle out
Christian,
Yeah, sure! Check out this good old fashioned Roman Catholic rager!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=3TkUVYXlJofEgwSk1oGYDQ&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D3bJ1DYG-r2A&ved=0CBwQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNEaUmBX-_1SGe-5m6ljK8eqVhsaSg
AB,
But I don’t think protestants are allowed at this blog anymore.
Huh???
Kenneth,
Yeah, sure! Check out this good old fashioned Roman Catholic rager!
Ha ha! That link was exactly what I expected it to be. Funny.
I’m a Protestant and I feel welcome here.
And even if I didn’t, I’d still stay because what else am I going to do with an associate’s degree from an unaccredited bible college except debate about God on the internet?
I think Catholics can have fun, they just have to feel really, really huge amounts of soul-crushing guilt and misery afterwards. 🙂
Christian,
According to Jason, Protestants are atheists:
You guys are recycling material, and that’s fine. Those of us who follow can see the patterns. Don’t worry, I’m happy sitting in the corner just watching you guys do the show. No hurt feelings, for reals.
Peace, my fellow atheist. (facepalm)
Haha! No, of course we can do things for fun. Life is supposed to be good after all. Sports, fishing, exercising, enjoying a beer, socializing, blogging, whatever. All the things any normal person would feel happy doing. So long as it doesn’t frustrate a natural end (drunkenness, abortion, suicide, murder, masterbation, etc) these truths are accessible through reason and especially illuminated by divine revelation. The two go hand in hand.
Comrade,
I speak in hyperbole at times, it gets a reaction. I hope you’ll forgive me, fellow protestant.
I don’t feel “unwelcome.” It’s a website after all, the sense of community brought about in such mediums is much more imagined than real, which I why I eschew almost all forms of social media (except which I must be engaged in, such as the FB admin of my church, our church website, etc).
If I ran a podcast, I would be biased towards reformed protestantism, so I don’t fault Jason for taking the approach he does, and indeed, I’m welcome here as anyone else is (my posting privelages aren’t revoked, and I can make an argument for my beliefs here as anyone else can).
This isn’t my equivocation, rather, it’s just a response to you directing your thoughts my way. Your sauron avatar rocks – been a Hobbit fan since freshman year of college when I could first start reading that stuff without the guilt from my fundy upbringing.
Enjoy the podcast and the warm welcome the hosts afford you.
Peace.
AB,
According to Jason, Protestants are atheists…
Wow. That’s a pretty interesting conclusion you’re exhibiting there. Might wanna get that checked.
You guys are recycling material, and that’s fine.
No shit. 99.9% of all entertainment and discussion is recycling material. The successful ones are just better at it.
I can’t wait until I’m too senile to realize that I’m repeating myself.
I can’t wait until I’m too senile to realize that I’m repeating myself.
So long as it doesn’t frustrate a natural end (drunkenness, abortion, suicide, murder, masterbation, etc) these truths are accessible through reason
I was OK with your line of reasoning until you threw masturbation in there next to abortion, suicide, and murder. LOL! (Jason, what Braveheart line am I thinking of?) Dude, it must be so awful being a Catholic! At least you’ll have great rewards from the God of the Universe since you didn’t play with your pee pee too much.
Christian and Jason,
If you guys like long comments and long comment threads, then yeah, I totally spoke out of turn. Seriously, I think these religious discussions more often then not just create more problems than they solve, so if I contributed to that, mea culpa. Christian, I’ll check out my assumptions, I don’t have a boeuf with you or anyone on this site, I was just expressing myself.
Grace and peace.
Kenneth is a riot. Can you guys get him on an upcoming podcast? If it goes well, maybe have a re-occurring segment called “Kenneth’s Korner”? I think everyone needs to hear the truth he speaks…
Christian,
I was OK with your line of reasoning until you threw masturbation in there next to abortion, suicide, and murder. LOL! (Jason, what Braveheartline am I thinking of?) Dude, it must be so awful being a Catholic! At least you’ll have great rewards from the God of the Universe since you didn’t play with your pee pee too much.
Haha! Well, not playing with the pee-pee was certainly an adjustment. Honestly the ban on contraception was a more difficult pill to swallow (get it?!?). I’m young, and my wife is hot, so we mostly just have more sex now…. downside is we also have three kids and counting lol did I say that was a downside? I meant blessing. They are a blessing….. They are a blessing…. They are a blessing…..
Kenneth,
Rather, the problem lies with the frustration of the natural end, or final cause, of sexual intercourse.
Paul seemed to think that one of the natural ends of sex was the fulfillment of “burning with passion” as he put it.
Christian,
Do you mean this verse in corinthians?
I read this as speaking to chastity and ministry. Paul says it is better to be single, but if you can’t handle it, you need to get married. Otherwise, you might find yourself in sin and causing scandal.
Yeah, the one where he says that it’s better to get married so you can have sex than to lust. Sex in that context is clearly not for procreation or “spousal bonding” (although they may be side-effects). It’s for pleasure, which the participant was “burning” for. Does it really matter though? As long as the pope interprets it differently, you ain’t gonna read it any other way than the way you already do.
Christian,
I don’t think Paul is inferring that sex is for pleasure. I think he is speaking to the challenges of living a chaste life. He says “if you don’t have self control” better to just get married. Otherwise, without self control, you would just find yourself in serious sin. Whether through masterbation, sex outside of marriage, or even just by nursing lust in your heart 24/7.
PS,
The Church doesn’t offer an infallible interpretation of this verse so I’m free to play 🙂
Kenneth, I was running with the spilled seed part of the argument which I do find really weird.
I don’t see a logically consistant version of the not frustrating the natural end of things argument. As a human being most of the adult decisions I make seem to be about frustrating the natural end of things. Difficult to argue specific points because I think it’s about patterns but from your other posts I get the impression you play fair so I will go there in the hope it makes sense. I’ll try a couple of points, one pretty trivial but for me it gets to a flaw in the natural end argument. The other is closer to the main discussion. I can’t format this in one post so will post a second time with the comments.
Bob
There are in my view way too many arbitrary decisions about what the natural end of things should be and which activities are OK for pleasure and which are ones where the natural end should matter. Is mowing my lawn frustrating a natural end?
You mentioned nutrition as the natural end of eating food but also enjoying a beer (which I’d consider in the broad category of eating in the same way that masturbation is in the broad category of sex). No or very little nutritional value in having a beer, most do it for the pleasure alone. Hope I’m not spoiling having a beer for you but why a difference between alcohol consumption for pleasure (without credible nutritional outcomes) and sexual activity for pleasure?
AB thanks, I’ll have a look at that one later. My memory is of the protestant who has the freedom to do lots of sexual stuff for pleasure but does not do it (much to his wifes frustration). Brilliant stuff. Digging up the first youtube link last night cost me a lot of time on youtube looking at other Monty Python skits.
The Church doesn’t offer an infallible interpretation of this verse so I’m free to play
Right, but I assume it’s infallible interpretations in other places wouldn’t allow you to interpret the verse as I believe it should be interpreted, with the most plain reading that makes the most sense. (i.e. If you have an issue with lust, get married. Then you can have sex, which will take care of the lust.)
Hey Jason! Regarding your bieber: i know the struggle… i am in the same boat…Being authentic and real meanwhile / in return: life comes at me and fucks me up…
Read a few books on the topic which kinda helped: Boundaries by dr. henry cloud.
Also there is a very challenging ted talk on this exact topic:
http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability
she has wrote also a book on this with the same title.
In her second ted talk on this she talks about this quote as well:
Daring Greatly:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
however… most of the time i am resounding with the lines from Trash by Korn:
I don’t know why I’m so fucking cold?
I don’t know why it hurts me.
All I wanna do is get with you.
And make the pain go away.
=> Why do I have a conscience?
All it does is fuck with me.
Why do I have this torment?
All I want to do is fuck it away.
to sum it up: i just don’t know… …I guess life is fucked up…
Endre,
Dude, I think you just gave me the title for my next book. . . .
Christian,
Right, but I assume it’s infallible interpretations in other places wouldn’t allow you to interpret the verse as I believe it should be interpreted, with the most plain reading that makes the most sense. (i.e. If you have an issue with lust, get married. Then you can have sex, which will take care of the lust.)
I agree with that interpretation! Paul is giving advice on how best to deal with lust. That doesn’t entail that the natural end of sex is relief from lust. It only means that said relief is one potential benefit of marriage. Even if someone got married just to avoid their lack of self control that would still not entail that the natural end of sex is relief from lust. That would only be a bonus side effect.
…that would still not entail that the natural end of sex is relief from lust. That would only be a bonus side effect.
Why does sex just have to have one purpose? Can’t it have multiple purposes? Procreation as well as bonding as well as pleasure? I’m not trying to take away from procreation, but the Catholic church is taking away from sex, in my opinion.
As an aside, does the Catholic church not believe in overpopulation?
Bob,
Is mowing my lawn frustrating a natural end?
Why would it be? What natural end would that frustrate?
You mentioned nutrition as the natural end of eating food but also enjoying a beer (which I’d consider in the broad category of eating in the same way that masturbation is in the broad category of sex). No or very little nutritional value in having a beer, most do it for the pleasure alone. Hope I’m not spoiling having a beer for you but why a difference between alcohol consumption for pleasure (without credible nutritional outcomes) and sexual activity for pleasure?
1. A married couple certainly can have sex because they find it pleasurable! I don’t want to give the impression that we should divorce any sense of enjoyment from sex. I’m not saying married couples should ONLY have sex during times when the woman is ovulating. Or that when a woman hits menopause the bedroom goes on lockdown. The argument is that we should enjoy sex in a way that is in accordance with our nature.
2. Beer does have some nutritional value. Carbs, vitamin B, potassium, etc. Therefore, it would not be frustrating our natural ends to consume it for pleasure. If you want a 1 to 1 correlation between contraception and food I would suggest bulimia. People who throw up after meals have now eaten purely for the taste and then frustrate the natural end of nutrition. Very similar to contraception.
Kenneth,
I’m not saying married couples should ONLY have sex during times when the woman is ovulating.
But the man should not ejaculate anywhere except inside the woman, right? Even when she’s not ovulating? “Spilling his seed” would be a sin, correct? Please explain the logic.
Beer does have some nutritional value.
Oh, please. You eat tons of shit that doesn’t have any nutritional value and is even harmful to you.
Christian,
Yes! Sex can, and does, have multiple ends. I don’t think any of them should be frustrated.
The Catholic Church has not spoken to overpopulation. Humanae vitae mentions a global concern for overpopulation, but stresses that contraception and abortion are not exceptable solutions. The Church recommends natural family planning.
However, I personally don’t believe it’s a legitimate issue.
I just wanna make sure I understand this in case it comes up tonight while we’re recording. It’s OK to have sex and ejaculate inside of your wife while she’s not ovulating, but it’s not OK to pull out and ejaculate outside of her body?
Kenneth, left to it’s natural course grass grows to some length based on it’s genetic characteristics and prevaling environmental conditions. Sometimes it’s kept short by grazing by animals that eat grass (of which humans rarely play a significant role). A neatly trimmed expanse of grass around a building not covered by animal crap is hardly a natural end, rather it’s the result of deliberate frustration of the natural end to suit a human preference. Who gets to decide that the natural end of long grass or cow (or grasshopper) food for grass is less important as a natural end than unwanted pregnancies.
As for the nutritional value of beer as a justification for drinking it compared to it’s downsides and the nutritional alternatives seems to be clutching at straws. Where does having a beer after a full meal fit into that?
Bob
Christian,
Bah! Sorry, man. I’m afraid I missed the opportunity to explain before you recorded. If you are still curious the answer to your question is found here
http://www.academia.edu/4575504/Why_Homosexual_Sex_is_Immoral
You can just scroll down to section 3 and 4 for a quick read of the most relevant section (about out 2 min of reading). Or, if you would like a more full understanding, you could read the entire article (about 10 minutes of reading).
Bob,
Really interesting questions!
left to it’s natural course grass grows to some length based on it’s genetic characteristics and prevaling environmental conditions. Sometimes it’s kept short by grazing by animals that eat grass (of which humans rarely play a significant role). A neatly trimmed expanse of grass around a building not covered by animal crap is hardly a natural end, rather it’s the result of deliberate frustration of the natural end to suit a human preference. Who gets to decide that the natural end of long grass or cow (or grasshopper) food for grass is less important as a natural end than unwanted pregnancies.
You are presupposing that the natural end of grass is to grow tall. This is not necessarily the case. The natural end of grass might be to provide oxygen, and therefore stabilize the planet. It might also be to provide a source of nutrition to animals. These things can still be achieved whether the grass is freshly cut, or if it is over grown.
As for the nutritional value of beer as a justification for drinking it compared to it’s downsides and the nutritional alternatives seems to be clutching at straws. Where does having a beer after a full meal fit into that?
Drinking a beer does not frustrate the natural end of nutrition. It simply fulfills that end to a lesser extent than a healthier choice of beverage would. If one continues to eat or drink after all their nutritional needs have been met that would be wrong. We shouldn’t all just go around over eating and being gluttonous. That doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a nice treat every now and then. It also doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a nice brew or whiskey. Everything in moderation. At least, that would be the goal.
I still enjoy a nice buzz from time to time. I over eat every thanksgiving. Is this some horrible and damnable sin? No. But it’s not ideal either.
I’m afraid I missed the opportunity to explain before you recorded. If you are still curious the answer to your question is found here
That’s OK. We just decided to talk about the topic without any real research or education like normal. Why ruin a good thing? 😉
Kennith – “You are presupposing that the natural end of grass is to grow tall. This is not necessarily the case.” Thanks for the response.
I also mentioned food for animals. Carbon soak, oxygen release etc, soil stabilisation are also natural ends of grass in the same way that sex has more than one natural end, didn’t want to be too verbose.
I’ve not seen anything on relative rates of carbon soak/oxygen release for cut and uncut but suspect that the longer the grass the more of both should occur. I did find some research indicating that the process of maintaining a highly manicured lawn releases around the same level of carbon emissions as the lawn can absorb http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/keep-off-the-grass-research-confirms-that-highly-manicured-lawns-produce-more-greenhouse-gases-than-they-soak-up-9985720.html
Very few grass eaters get to graze on urban lawns unmolested, fences, poisons etc definately intefer with that natural end. Most of the possible natural ends of grass except human pleasure and some soil stabilisation are either stopped completely or badly hindered by the way we grow lawns. Does that make lawn maintenance a sin.
The problem with making ‘natural law’ or the nature of a thing the basis for morality is that we run into these types of unknowable questions.
You assume that the natural function or purpose of sex is reproduction, but that isn’t even always the case in nature. Dolphins have sex for pleasure. Other primates trade sex for food. And there are many examples of homosexual sex within the animal kingdom. Saying that sex’s natural purpose is procreation means ignoring how the world works for some animal species.
Bob, you are right. That’s the Monty Python skit. You are right – it’s brilliant!
Here’s more if you have time:
“Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside.”
Bob,
Thanks for the response! Now that I have more time, consider these points
We are morally responsible for fulfilling our own natural ends. That’s not to say that we should never frustrate the natural ends of other creatures or things in the universe. Otherwise, it would be immoral for me to prevent a bear from eating me! Which is absurd. Therefore, the issue at hand is not what ends the grass fulfills, but what OUR relation is to said grass. Are we frustrating our natural end or final cause by mowing the lawn? I dont see how we would be.
Are we morally responsible for caring for the world around us? Would protecting the environment be one of man’s natural ends? If the answer is yes, the only remaining question is: does mowing the lawn frustrate the goal of caring for the environment? I personally believe the answer to that question is “no”. For the following reasons
1. The grass is still producing oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide just as it is supposed to do. We have not divorced the grass from its final cause by cutting it weekly.
2. Even if we had to kill off an entire field of grass, to build a shopping mall for example, we would still be OK. Humans naturally desire fellowship and require access to goods for the community to thrive. So long as we can make our net effect on the planet balance out, we would still be acting in accordance with our nature.
On the other hand, I think that natural law theorist would be comfortable condemning the random burning of rain forests or pointless chopping down of trees as immoral.
Comrade,
Any philosophy of morality inevitably meets challenging hypotheticals. That’s what makes philosophy and ethics so enjoyable. The challenge of learning and exploring ideas. Would you dismiss physics and cosmology because it runs into all types of difficult questions?
The are classified as “reproductive organs” for a reason. I think that it’s very obvious what the biological purpose of these reproductive organs are.
I think that there may be a difference in the way that we are both using the term “natural end”. Dr. Feser explains
So even if dolphins do have sex for fun, or even if some people are “born gay”, this would be considered a defect and not a rule. These would be failing to realize the ends that help them to flourish as the mammals that they are.
Hope that helps.
I should rephrase that you presuppose that the most important aspect on which to make a moral judgment regarding an act of sex is reproduction.
Likewise I find it absurd to assert that if one wears a condom while having sex it is morally wrong, but if one does natural family planning and goes bareback with their spouse deliberately when she’s not ovulating that this would kosher. In both cases, you are trying to have sex without creating a child. In both actions, you are shooting seed in a field where you know it’s unlikely to plant.
Now, you may object that in the case of the condom or the pill, you remove the possibility of a pregnancy entirely, but that isn’t the case. No method of contraception is 100% effective. If God really wants to bless you with another child, He can make sure the condom breaks or your spouse ovulates even while taking the pill.
So I think a better sexual ethic than saying ‘only reproduction, nothing more’ would be to ask if one is engaging in sex as an expression of love, mutual consent, and a desire to deepen a relationship with your partner or whether one is using their partner selfishly as an object for personal gratification to satisfy lust.
That is, are my actions doing good to a person or causing harm? And am I using a person as an object for my own selfish gain.
Likewise I find it absurd to assert that if one wears a condom while having sex it is morally wrong, but if one does natural family planning and goes bareback with their spouse deliberately when she’s not ovulating that this would kosher. In both cases, you are trying to have sex without creating a child. In both actions, you are shooting seed in a field where you know it’s unlikely to plant.
Now, you may object that in the case of the condom or the pill, you remove the possibility of a pregnancy entirely, but that isn’t the case. No method of contraception is 100% effective.
Ha! This is what we talk about in the next podcast!
Although it’s possible our terminology was a little more…vulgar.
source
Your welcome.
So looking forward to that next podcast. Should be very interesting.
Kenneth my natural end in this is the pleasure of consentual sexual activity without conceiving children that I will be to old to parent effectively or support financially in their teen years.
Finally listed to all the pod casts from 8 to 35. A couple of points about safe places to talk about topics around doubt of faith seem to have been part of recent pod casts (including the one where someone referred to you guy’s playing a bit of a pastoral role). Many years after my own change of beliefs I’m still feeling like there is unfinished business in that space, that I’ve never really had a chance to address any of that in a safe way other than in my own head. Discussing serious doubts about the character of the evangelical christian god or even worse a view that that character is deeply flawed with current evangelical christians is not a discussion that I’ve learned to do in a healthy manner. Those who have not been there just don’t seem to relate enough to get it.
So for me a big part of the appeal is hearing others who have been through some of the same journey talking about that. Knowing that there are others who get it.
Love your work thanks.
Christian & Jason, thought you guys might enjoy this joke:
The whole article is well worth a read too.
I’ll try to sign off with a funny, I did listen to your segment with that man.
Until the next podcast,
AB
Bob,
So for me a big part of the appeal is hearing others who have been through some of the same journey talking about that. Knowing that there are others who get it.
Thanks for the kind words. We’re glad you’re here to have the conversation with us!
regarding circumcision:
just found a really fucked up site (landoverbaptist) where amazingly fucked up products can be bought:
Do it Yourself Circumcision: tshirs, cups, greeting cars, thongs…
http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/33514
enjoy browsing throught 😀 😉
Endre,
I’ve seen that before. It’s a fake organization I believe. Funny though.
Christian, I just want to say that I care about your soul.
The article is very nice and impressive I am very thankful for your sharing always follow up to get the next interesting information from you.
http://douongngoainhap.com