Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be

Jesus spent time with the marginalized members of his society because he understood something about them that we -- in our post-modern culture -- don't grasp so well. Many of the sinners of his day were eager to change their ways. They did not luxuriate in their flouting of conventional morality. His most acerbic condemnation was of the hypocritical religious hierarchy -- "you tithe spices but neglect the more important matters, like mercy and charity".

It has been mentioned that he hung out with prostitutes. But he certainly did not approve of their behavior. He understood that his culture begot a certain amount of errancy, as does ours. He wanted people to pursue a way of life that put God at the top of the list of what to honor and obey. He said the greatest moral principles were to love ( and obey ) God and to love your neighbor. His description of who our neighbors really are tore away any pretense on our part that we can be selective as to who is our neighbor. He's everyone/anyone.

And Jesus' message is prescriptive. Behave toward your neighbor as you wish to be treated. It's a pro-active principle. It's not simply: "Don't treat your neighbor badly." Shovel your neighbors driveway when it snows. If your neighbor's trashcan falls over and spills trash on your driveway, don't go bang on your neighbor's door and yell at him. And so on.

 

your view on what?

 

Oh baloney. So you're saying that my sexuality is sinning, and I need to change my ways? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. But it's all a book of myths to me...

Now this is preaching. There are many interpretations over what he said in the bible. But to compare homosexuals to prostitutes (even if you weren't intentionally doing that)... is a bit ridiculous. I guess according to certain interpretations, homosexuals must remain celibate right? Because it's a sin (even though the bible says very little about homosexuality proper)?

 

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. as a Jewish rabbi, he would not have endorsed any sexual activity outside of marriage. he makes clear what marriage is. it's not debatable. he discusses divorce, which is the legal termination of a legal marriage in these terms: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

i didn't compare homosexuals to prostitutes. someone mentioned that Jesus hung around with prostitutes. he did. but he didn't endorse their behavior.

 

not really. and the reason i say this is that the religious hierarchy in Jesus' day was divided into three distinct groups: Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. today there are far more groups and within groups there is often division.

if you want to talk about religious leaders of today, you have to look far beyond televangelists. those are men and women who have gathered a following that will pay money to support ministries that then can broadcast over the air.

within evangelical circles, there are several men who are broadly respected, some more than others. Chuck Swindoll, Chuck Smith, Charles Stanley, John McArthur, David Jeremiah, Alistair Begg, Jack Hayford, and Rick Warren are a few. I think McArthur is probably the most conservative along with Charles Stanley. Hayford and Smith are charismatics, although not ostentatiously so. Begg and Jeremiah are scholarly. Swindoll runs toward "home-spun", but he's not unintellectual.

McArthur is the most tough-minded and outspoken. For example, he doesn't hold Rick Warren in the highest regard.

 

Rubbish. So I can't get married, and my sexuality is wrong because it would be outside of marriage... can't have it both ways. And it certainly is debatable. You're making stuff up at this point. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. And now you're comparing a relationship I have to adultery?

You do know you're reading a certain interpretation of the bible? So everything is up for interpretation and debate. I suggest you watch the movie "Fish Out of Water". It might open your eyes a bit.

And the other problem here is you won't address the issues. You're against homosexuals getting married, so we can't have sex or relationships... so we should just remain celibate? Is that what you're getting at?

Please, you're about 50 years too late.

Yes you did. And you did it indirectly with bringing that up. But I don't expect anything less from you.

 

That's amazingly wrong - they're always the ones screaming about values. In addition, Calvin was never mainstream - he was in the minority. He was a religious zealot in one city.

That's false - its not an acceptable choice for anyone.

 

he didn't say anything about slash and burn deforestation or the import/export business. he didn't say anything about rice milk or eating someone's liver with fava beans and a nice chianti. why? because he dinna have to.

sort of like a doctor doesn't have to tell you not to drink bleach.

you want Jesus to say what would have been completely obvious to everyone who was walking around listening to him.

tell me what i am interpreting. when someone says that someone divorces "his wife" where's the interpretation. to what gender does "his" refer, male or female? what is the most reasonable understanding of what a "wife" is?

it's the Biblical position. unmistakable. black and white. i'm sorry. that's what it says.

nah. it's your issue. you see what you want to see.

 

I just wanted to add something about prostitution here because its being thrown around a bit as example without real understanding of what is really going on in prostitution.

Yes, it is true that certain cultures will view prostitution and porn differently. In some segments of even the "christianized" west there is a sense of normalcy about these things. In the city in Spain I live in the largest brothel is right across the street from Toys R Us. And while many people from "christian" cultures take part in these enterprises, I think we can all agree that Christianity per se is against prostitution and porn.

What is a bit troubling about the discussion is that is really misses an understanding about prosititution and by extension porn, and why Christians and secularists should be against it. There is unfortunately a myth that prostitution is somehow victimless. Christians and the secular world have often seen women involved in prostitution as independent and free agents in the sexual marketplace, gaining condemnation from the former and applause from the latter. The reality is that prostitution is almost always coercive. Now I do think that there is a tiny majority of high end prostitution where the women involved are free and independent and actually make good money, but the reality is that most women in the world are in highly coercive situation selling their body for $50 a pop and often less. The reality is that people don't go into prostitution because they like it, but because they are on the wrong end of the socio-economic totem pole. I think this one reason you do see Jesus spending time with prostitutes, he knew that they were involved in immoral behavoir often beyond their control. The world has been and is still a very hard place for women, especially in the 1st century, and Jesus identified with those on the margins more than anything.

Prostitution is quite common place in much of the developed world, but most of the women involved fit a certain profile: poor, immigrant, abused, and drugs. Most of them have trafficked illegally, at best they have been coerced into sex work, at worst they are sexual slaves. In Spain the Guardia Civil are constantly busting brothels that keep 30 women in a steady rotation of non-stop sex, keeping them locked up and using cocaine to keep them working. Drug abuse is extremely high among prostitutes. Yet, under the surface of much of the Western society, prostitution is flourishing. Some women get into the business knowing what they are doing, but many are tricked into it, promised work in the West, they are then forced into sex work. Some of course jump in full well knowing what they are doing, but they do it because they are poor, and it is the only option for them. This sets up a very coercive-economical situation between clients and prostitutes. In effect prostitution is misogyny and sexism at its worst. Its abusive to women, and whether Asian or European culture or whatever accepts it as normal and ok, it still means that many, many women are essentially put into horrible situations. Most of the women working legally in Amsterdam are from poor nations in Asia and Eastern Europe. Bangkok has large number of girls trafficked from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. For the most part middle class Thai and Dutch girls are not involved. There could be some exceptions, but the exceptions prove the rule. All of this ties into lack of education and opportunity available to most women in the world.

I would assume that this profile would also fit women in the first century. People go into prostitution mainly out of lack of equality and economic stability.

 

Interestingly there are a lot of Christian ministries that reach out and try to serve the sex industry. XXXchurch.com being one of the more well known.

From a Christian point of view, it is a tricky situation, I want to accept and love and help the people involved, but I also feel that what they are involved in is harmful to themselves and to the society at large.

 

But from many cultural perspectives, certain Christian values are either bizarre or even offensive.

I do agree that its possible that Western values (even the ones that I see as specifically Christian) are more a process of evolution and design by committee than just pure Judeo-Christian hegemony.

Still, if you look at Roman paganism and the values of that culture you see that Judeo Christian values greatly changed and or replaced those values. Infanticide, sexual mores, watching people murder each other for entertainment (ok we still like this, but now its just pretend). All these things eventually became unacceptable to Christian peoples, and from a reading of the Bible its clear to see why.

The question is had Christianity never appeared on the scene, would we still be killing baby girls, feeding people to lions, and think that it was all okee-dokee?

I dunno.

 

What a very thin argument. You keep making fake arguments and you can't seem to address my point. Why can't you? Because red herrings are the backing of your argument.

So homosexuality is like drinking bleach?

You see, you make no sense at all.

Even the story of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with consensual homosexuality.

Are you really this incapable of listening to other views? The bible has a variety of interpretations. It's not black and white. I've studied the bible myself extensively. What you say is based on certain interpretation. Nothing is black and white in the bible. Absolutely nothing. If it was black and white there would be only one translations. So it's not "what it says". Seriously, get help man. You really need it.

Then why keep making fallacious comparisons/examples?

 

Seems like he would have enough money for her to do something else with her life.

 

I was in Cuba, and a man in the market offered me his rather young daughter for money.


I have a friend in Ethiopia whose father in order to pay a debt gave her as a teen to the man for a night. She contracted AIDS that way.

In much of the world, women are essentially property, just a few notches above a slave or a cow. I think that the Roman world had a similar perspective.

 

Why should we secularists be against either? I'm not against porn at all. In fact, people get into it knowing what they are doing. Why the archaic viewpoints? Prostitution can be victimless if it is regulated and monitored by the government. Pornography can be an expression of free speech (in certain senses). You shouldn't be telling what secularists should or shouldn't be against. If prostitution is legalized, monitored, and those who partake in it are given routine STD tests... it isn't a problem.

I know someone working in porn, and it is fully their right... and they can leave at any point in time! They only use condoms. There was recently a big stir about a porn star getting HIV (several cases), so there has been more emphasis on safe sex in porn. As well as more stringent testing.

Actually if prostitution is legalized, monitored and regulated by the government it can be a good thing. Take for example in the Netherlands. If it is regulated, women wouldn't get forced into it. And the authorities would be nearby if one would want to leave the industry.

Yes, it is true that people go into porn and prostitution because of lack of opportunity... but that points to a bigger problem within society.

 

Well it wouldn't be the first time you made wildly contradictory statements.

I said that homosexual marriage is a moral issue, and atheists saying that homosexuals should be allowed to be married was a moral statement.

I think in your haste to contradict me at all costs you tried to say that in fact it isn't a question of morality, which of course is absurd, but it kicked off the entire thread, at least in an interesting direction.

 

I never said anything contradictory. I'll leave that to you.

Homosexual marriage is a civil state issue, not a moral one. Lets not splice hairs here.

I look at it in a pure legal view. Your argument is rather absurd. I think you're just going up against what I'm saying because you don't really like me. I get that... some on here do it all the time.

 

That is bit of a myth, as I pointed out. While there are certainly some people in the high end who make good money and can get out, and are free basically. The global demand for sex, especially in Western Europe facillitates the need for cheap prostitution. Most Dutch women aren't going to spend the week making 60 bucks a pop with 50 johns. Its just not appealing, nor healthy. So, you have to import your workforce and take advantage of other people's poverty and misfortune. So yeah, they get free health care and STD checks, but they also send all their money back to their poor kids in Romania, use cocaine to make it through each week, and when they finally burn out, they return to the life of poverty that they had before.

Almost all the women working the brothels in Europe are from developing countries and they are from poor families in these countries. Many are coerced into the work and pay a very high price. The few people who actually make good money at this and get out and make a successful life afterwards is miniscule.

 

It is a civil state issue, sure. But, the argument is also one of civil rights, which is an inherently moral discussion.

 

It's a myth because... you say so? Sure. People have the right to do what they want with their bodies. I'm not so libertarian in the sense of drug legalization (medical marijuana is fine), but in this sense I see no problem with prostitution. And if you really want to address why it exists, making it illegal and forcing it under ground (where it becomes far more dangerous) isn't the solution. You think that by passing laws against prostitution will solve the problems of its existence? And eradicate it? Absolutely not.

When we continue down the same viewpoints, we will continue to fail. We need to make it legal, and at the same time improve economic opportunities for the poor. Hence why I'm a leftist. The poor are being neglected in the system and need to stand up. In Bangladesh, there are cases of microbanking for WOMEN, to help them start small businesses... this is not even enough to begin to address poverty in women, but it is a start!

And we need to start at their countries... we need to help lift the poor. Brazil is doing it quite well (30 million out of poverty).

And I should take your word because...?

And why nothing on my point about pornography?

 

You like to argue in circles... and you seem to be very assertive... thinking people should accept your claims.

You can't force your weak viewpoints onto me or anyone else.

 

I think you just described how capitalism really works.

 

This guy loves to talk about certain problems, but he doesn't even talk about any solutions to the problems. He just says "we should be against it"... and make it illegal. Hmm.

That's the problem. It's a reactionary standpoint that doesn't address the real problems!