tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post5650258616557051014..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Adopt That as Our AnthemPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56604716950814085122012-08-21T17:58:29.196-07:002012-08-21T17:58:29.196-07:00Frank, If everyone answered objections like you th... Frank, If everyone answered objections like you then we'd have less jousting more productive conversations and more people willing to listen and learn. You were patient, very pleasant and Christlike... Thank you for taking time out for me from your busy schedule<br /><br />I have a glimpse of how our heavenly father is with us Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90545460246881368912012-08-21T01:16:06.074-07:002012-08-21T01:16:06.074-07:00Linda:
The Pill is a circumstance, not an advocat...Linda:<br /><br />The Pill is a circumstance, not an advocate. The statement I made, which you objected to, was this:<br /><br />[QUOTE]<br />the church is 100% to blame for the state of sexual ethics in the West<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />Because the church was the cause of the sexual ethics in the West, and it gave up its authority on the subject for other things, circumstances like the Pill, or pornography, or divorce as a remedy for marriage, or whatever you may offer as other incidences were about to enter the culture literally uncontested.<br /><br />The first step in overcoming the problem is recognizing it, which I think you now can.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14180411520609443052012-08-20T11:50:58.247-07:002012-08-20T11:50:58.247-07:00One more comment, if I may, regarding the broader ...One more comment, if I may, regarding the broader discussion. The fundamental challenge is not against marriage, per se, but against the Lordship of Christ— His authority, both real and rightful — over His creation. Breaking marriage is like the kid breaking the vase: it isn’t about the vase or the enjoyment that comes with the physical process of breaking the vase; it is about the act of breaking as a symbol, a statement, of rejecting the authority of the one who says “don’t break the vase.” <br /><br />The lifestyle “symbols” that go with progressively greater rejection of the rightful Lordship of the Creator include libertine sexual behavior as described in Romans 1. The lifestyles described there are public statements of a progression away from recognition and toward active and public repudiation of God’s authority. Not only is there progressive public embracing of licentiousness in cultures that abandon God’s authority, but, more importantly, progressive cultural endorsement of these lifestyles by the culture’s representatives (teachers, leaders, entertainers, philosophers). Ultimately, religion itself becomes the culture’s spokesman for autonomy by incorporating these symbols of rejection into its liturgy, turning “worship” into praising the autonomous creature, not the Creator. <br /><br />The fundamental truth of reality is the creature-Creator difference and the marriage dyad and inherent structure of both love and authority is its picture: suppressing the truth entails suppressing — eliminating — its symbol from the public square. Because the challenge is so fundamental and profound, the discussion is, as well, because it grapples with the original issue of ultimate authority and human obligation. That is why “important thinkers” at the most reputable institutions have taken this on — it is not about having some physical fun outside a marriage contract, it is about repudiating God as Creator. The press for “virgin births” discussed in the recent book from Univ. of London is aiming at something more profound than convenient procreation.<br /><br />I’m sorry this got so long. Very profound, even frightening, topic, especially so since it is our culture, the culture to which we are to bear witness.<br />C.T.Tanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610011396935097186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19613081744296604682012-08-20T06:27:40.842-07:002012-08-20T06:27:40.842-07:00Frank: Well, to answer your question because of ho...Frank: Well, to answer your question because of how you've phrased it, I'd have to say the Church..<br /><br />If you didn't ask what "primary institution" and just asked what the primary reason was? I would have said the pill..<br /><br />you ask questions like a chess player~<br /><br /> Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36468231062479071752012-08-20T03:45:38.011-07:002012-08-20T03:45:38.011-07:00CT Tang:
That's good info.CT Tang:<br /><br />That's good info.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23547683776148528472012-08-20T03:44:15.377-07:002012-08-20T03:44:15.377-07:00Linda: That is exactly the answer I was looking fo...Linda: That is exactly the answer I was looking for.<br /><br />What was the primary reason that the sexual revolution was successful? That is: what institution stopped using its role to teach people the difference between right and wrong on this subject?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18909740856247686122012-08-19T11:24:56.443-07:002012-08-19T11:24:56.443-07:00I meant to add (above comment) that these argument...I meant to add (above comment) that these arguments for social arrangements more fluid and flexible than couple-dom (or marriage) are not seen as issues of sexual ethics. The argument is authority. That is, the attack is not focused on gaining sexual freedom, it is on, more fundamentally, rejecting external (God's) authority. The portrait of authority in marriage is an undesired reminder. Sex is not the issue at all.C.T.Tanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610011396935097186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45775322205440132002012-08-19T11:11:54.618-07:002012-08-19T11:11:54.618-07:00Material for the discussion: Philip Johnson's...Material for the discussion: Philip Johnson's (the lawyer) discussion of the fundamental shift when no-fault divorce relegated marriage to a contractual agreement. It's status as a contract meant that it could be anything. The idea of "man and woman" was as arbitrary as the idea of "couple."<br /><br />A more academic thread is from places like Duke University's school of theology. There has long been a push to abandon the "constraint" of thinking in dyads. More aggressive LBGT groups align with this, too. The fundamental social arrangement is either the tribe or the State or some combination. Martha Nussbaum has pushed argued against the arbitrary authority of traditional family structure in some of her essays. Duke pushes this. Hegel pushed the State as the fundamental hierarchy of association and authority. Several professors at Duke have been successful in gathering support for this social advance, as they see it.<br /><br />Check out Duke's group -- this has been a theme in those areas for some time. It is inevitable that as technology starts to allow "virgin births" (as they are called -- a new book is out from London this past week) in test tubes with synthetic sperm and egg, the idea of pairing will be continued to be attacked. <br /><br />As C.S. Lewis said, it is the picture of creation's relationship to the Creator that is hated, not the institution itself, so every image of it in our world is attacked for what it portrays, not for what it actually is.<br /><br />Anyway, for what it is worth. This is pretty mainstream in many academic circles -- arguing for "pairs" is about as obsolete as arguing for marriage, irrespective of the contractual partners.C.T.Tanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610011396935097186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46851830909749011402012-08-19T10:27:22.190-07:002012-08-19T10:27:22.190-07:00Frank, Ethically speaking, I believe the root cau...Frank, Ethically speaking, I believe the root cause for their homogenous belief - of sexual ethics in the West prior to the sexual revolution was because the (majority) of the Church at that time held to and believed that all morals are objective absolute truths and not relative to the individual and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.<br /><br />Whether this is the answer you were looking for I don't know since I'm really not that savvy. <br /><br />I'm listening and learning from you actually. So thanks for your guidance and patience wimmy ignorance...Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79531606809980072502012-08-19T02:24:42.534-07:002012-08-19T02:24:42.534-07:00It seems that Johhny D clarified Linda's answe...It seems that Johhny D clarified Linda's answer, which is a good thing.<br /><br />Linda: why were the sexual ethics of the West prior to the Sexual Revolution of the 60's more or less uniform and different than they are today? That is: what was the root cause?<br /><br />Don;t think I have forgotten the point of this exercise -- but I think you have. The point here is to find out whether or not the Christian church teaches society about sexual ethics or not, bot for good and for ill.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47739942068642537082012-08-18T18:17:56.719-07:002012-08-18T18:17:56.719-07:00Johnny thanks for clarifying
James S-
"God h...Johnny thanks for clarifying<br /><br />James S-<br />"God has already begun to judge the one who says that Homosexuality is really not so bad. Believing that lie is punishment from God already."<br /><br />so true. The saddest and most horrifying, lurid part of it all is that homosexuals actually think they are winning and gaining freedom while actually they are becoming more enslaved. They don't see this as God giving them over to their sinful lusts..-Romans 1:28,and being filled up with every kiind of evil<br /><br />I think we are at the tipping point of God giving them over to "a depraved mind" to Sin coming to full fruition-being "filled up with every kind of wickedness"-vs 29-20 which is conducive of God's wrath..<br /><br />Psa 12:8 "The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men."Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84722878357630252652012-08-18T17:03:56.831-07:002012-08-18T17:03:56.831-07:00Johnny D:
Indeed. The conscience of our society ...Johnny D:<br /><br />Indeed. The conscience of our society is no longer aghast at sexual impropriety.Nonnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02452040267177962781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36710488747256844512012-08-18T08:22:12.319-07:002012-08-18T08:22:12.319-07:00The sexual revolution in the 1960's that follo...The sexual revolution in the 1960's that followed the Vietnam war<br /><br />and the women's liberation movement..<br /><br />Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74855458869364836332012-08-18T08:14:00.929-07:002012-08-18T08:14:00.929-07:00Linda, Frank, Luke: Just to be clear, we are talki...Linda, Frank, Luke: Just to be clear, we <i>are</i> talking about "ethics" and not "nature." Ethics refers to a code, largely agreed upon, i.e. that "governs a group's behavior." There is no question the sexual ethics before the late 1960s were well agreed upon, in popular culture, church, public education, etc.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19504567075262900602012-08-18T07:08:56.918-07:002012-08-18T07:08:56.918-07:00Re: Frank and Linda,
While man has always sinned ...Re: Frank and Linda,<br /><br />While man has always sinned sexually, would you agree that there is a more open reveling publicly in one's sin today compared to the recent past (pre-1960's)?Luke Wolfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13008446915534345777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56064960562850931332012-08-18T07:00:41.001-07:002012-08-18T07:00:41.001-07:0019551955James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58490707904908134762012-08-18T03:59:59.593-07:002012-08-18T03:59:59.593-07:00Linda:
When were they different? You could answe...Linda:<br /><br />When were they different? You could answer with a historical age, a rough estimation of how long ago, or with reference to some major event in the history of Western Civ.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18023784674514297462012-08-17T21:19:53.856-07:002012-08-17T21:19:53.856-07:00What I see happening in America (and the world ove...What I see happening in America (and the world over) is that slowly but surely, The Lord, in His wrath, is giving people over to their evil-heart desires.<br /><br />We don't know how evil the heart of mankind really is because The Holy Spirit has kept evil at bay to a large degree. But as He slowly raise His hands and backs away, we see the truth of what evils mankind is capable of, and has been kept from doing.<br /><br />God's active real-time wrath is seen clearly when men & women are allowed to have the evil they so desire. It is not that they will be punished for this in the future (though they will in the future also), but it is the allowing of mankind to have their evil desires which is real-time punishment.<br /><br />God has already begun to judge the one who says that Homosexuality is really not so bad. Believing that lie is punishment from God already.<br /><br />I always say beware when you are allowed to believe evil is not so bad afterall, or have & do things which the bible warns against, because it means that God has stopped protecting you and your judgment has begun. When He allows you to believe a lie, BEWARE!James Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701856303572677206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88607050026242821852012-08-17T19:16:39.362-07:002012-08-17T19:16:39.362-07:00~well Frank, your picture doesn't help with th...~well Frank, your picture doesn't help with that intimidating look at me...<br /><br />I'm honestly not sure how to answer your question in the broader scheme of things since it's a bit loaded and requires a much bigger argument.<br /><br />But to answer this <br /><br />"were the sexual ethics of the West ever any different than they are today"<br /><br />Yes<br /><br />Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79725667013929561322012-08-17T18:32:24.579-07:002012-08-17T18:32:24.579-07:00Linda:
were the sexual ethics of the West ever an...Linda:<br /><br />were the sexual ethics of the West ever any different than they are today?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83374266959580221162012-08-17T17:44:09.913-07:002012-08-17T17:44:09.913-07:00Could it also be just Deut 12:8, Judges 17:6 et al...Could it also be just Deut 12:8, Judges 17:6 et al happening again (admittedly there is a sense in which we have one who thinks he's king). Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148051372220453729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7557758565880717342012-08-17T16:58:09.243-07:002012-08-17T16:58:09.243-07:00"My opinion, which is not at all new, express..."My opinion, which is not at all new, expressed at this blog at least as early as the Newsweek piece I linked to in this post, is that the church is 100% to blame for the state of sexual ethics in the West"<br /><br />I agree that the Church is mostly at fault but not 100%...<br /><br />Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49648305781684203732012-08-17T13:07:24.604-07:002012-08-17T13:07:24.604-07:00Trogdor
Thanks. I really have only been seeking cl...Trogdor<br />Thanks. I really have only been seeking clarification on exactly what was being maintained about the church's responsibility for the actions of those around us. If the idea is that the church in the West could be doing a whole lot better at modeling the Christian ideals for {marriage, life in general, etc} to the unsaved around us, then I agree absolutely. Who could disagree with that? <br /><br />I guess where I had gotten hung up is the way Frank had phrased it, which to me sounded like he was saying we were responsible for the sins of those around us. I just think that is a much stronger statement and if it can be defended Biblically, I'm not sure how. Currently I'm reading Ezekiel's prophecies and am reminded that sometimes people are just Hell-bent on self destruction as Israel was at the time, no matter what role models are around them. Now, if there were NO good role models of Christian marriage in the church, that would be one thing, but there are SOME, even if they are not in the majority. <br /><br />I thank you for your answer and don't want to derail the thread further by getting into ever finer levels of detail on a subject that others don't seem to be that interested in, so I'll just leave it as-is. Thanks Trog.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90929131459735321442012-08-17T13:03:00.724-07:002012-08-17T13:03:00.724-07:00I honestly used to think that slippery-slope argum...I honestly used to think that slippery-slope arguments re: "gay marriage" were somewhat bogus, but quotes like the one you give from HuffPo keep proving my former attitude wrong; the same logical move that leads to an acceptance of "gay marriage" does-- practically speaking-- seem to lead to an 'absolutely anything goes' position.Andrew Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543222209236040112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80606612468527460772012-08-17T12:50:19.805-07:002012-08-17T12:50:19.805-07:00I don't write because I read Frank Turk, and I...I don't write because I read Frank Turk, and I can't write like that.<br /><br />Trogdor, that's a blog post all in itself.ANiMaL (richard)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13287425636361514559noreply@blogger.com