SWM 155 – Hookup Culture – When You Take Relationship Out of Sex
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe to the Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Podchaser | Email | TuneIn | Deezer | RSS | More
We live in a world that has learned to separate what God never divided.
Hookup culture is the next stage of sex stripped of meaning – where bodies meet, but no one truly connects.
I’m continuing this series exploring how, when we remove aspects of God’s intent for sex, we end up with all the examples of sexual immorality we see in our world.
Last time, I tackled what removing covenant from sex gets you: sex before marriage, and the fallout from that choice.
Today, we’re going to push that even further and look at hookup culture. At first glance it might seem like sex before marriage taken to the next level – but that expansion comes with new problems.
This isn’t just the removal of covenant – it’s the removal of the relationship itself.
It’s an attempt to deny that sex has both physical and emotional weight, despite that being God’s clear design when He created it.
Sex was designed to unite two whole persons. Hookup culture tries to do the opposite: to have sex without any emotional connection at all, to the point that emotional connection during sex is now treated as a risk to be managed rather than an intended outcome.
Why Sex Without Relationship Defies God’s Design
Sex was never meant to be detached from relationship or emotion.
God designed it to unite two whole persons – not just their bodies, but their lives.
That’s why it affects us so deeply. It bonds us to another person in ways we can’t simply undo.
This is also why Scripture repeatedly warns against fornication and prostitution.
Even when we try to treat sex casually, it never stays casual. Every part of who we are participates – because that’s how God made us.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.
– 1 Corinthians 6:15–20 (NKJV)
Paul doesn’t warn us about sexual sin because God wants to limit pleasure – he warns us because sex touches something sacred.
When we misuse it, we don’t just sin against God; we wound ourselves.
You can try to deny the spiritual and emotional toll, but it will still take effect. God built the system to work that way.
Solomon gave the same warning centuries earlier:
For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, and be embraced in the arms of a seductress? For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths. His own iniquities entrap the wicked man, and he is caught in the cords of his sin. He shall die for lack of instruction, and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.
– Proverbs 5:20–22
Both Paul and Solomon are saying the same thing:
When you join yourself sexually to someone outside God’s design, you create a bond that was never meant to be temporary.
You can’t “unite” and then pretend it never happened – your whole self was involved.
What Hookup Culture Is (and Isn’t)
Now, it’s no wonder our culture is moving in this direction. For the last few decades, our media has been pushing this idea that sex is just sex, nothing more, nothing less. It’s somehow the most important thing in the world but also trivial.
There are now dozens of apps where you can go on and shop for a sex partner in the same way you can order a hamburger. You can see who is close to you, who is available, what they’re interested in and how quickly they can be at your door (or order an uber to bring you to theirs). Now, granted, finding one who is interested in you is not as easy for everyone, but for some, it definitely is.
No dating, no exclusivity, often no last names. This is purely sex, stripped of relationship, expectation or emotional investment.
Alternatively, people have “friends with benefits”, where they were friends, and decided to simply add sex to the relationship – in the same way they might add watching movies together or playing board games together. People now have “situationships” in which they don’t even know what their relationship status is because they don’t talk about it. They’re just “having fun”.
The Reality – What hookup culture produces
However, the problem is that we were designed for sex to affect us deeply – to unite us with a spouse. People engaging in this culture face two problems as a direct result of this. The first is that sometimes their “friends with benefits” or “situationships” get more serious than they intended. Either the other person “catches feeling” or they do, as though it were some sort of sickness. When that happens, the standard protocol is to cut all ties, because a relationship isn’t the intended outcome.
They don’t want the emotional closeness. They don’t want vulnerability. They don’t want intimacy.
The problem with this is that eventually, you train your brain not to bond with your sexual partner. After dozens or even hundreds of partners – their brain no longer knows what to do with all the hormones released during sex. Eventually it stops working as intended. Repeated bonding and breaking teaches the brain that connection is unsafe (McIlhaney & Bush, 2008).
When they do eventually want to settle down with a single partner, they struggle to do so. Their brain fails to bond them sufficiently. People who engage in hookup culture have much higher rates of both divorce and infidelity.
And it’s not just because they fail to bond, but also because this lifestyle encourages bad character traits.
You don’t learn sexual self-control because sex is on-tap. There’s no need to wait when you can broadcast that you want a sexual partner who is interested in exactly what you want when you want it.
You also don’t learn how to deal with conflict in a relationship because as soon as conflict emerges, you can just ghost them and start over again.
They also train themselves to expect and need variety. Some people keep a roster of sexual partners around and rotate through them, constantly adding as opportunities present themselves, or removing as they “catch feelings” or simply move out of each other’s areas.
And ultimately, this leads to an escape of any emotional vulnerability, which is problematic when you one day want to build an intimate relationship with someone – because intimacy requires vulnerability, and if you have no capacity to be patient, to deal with conflict, and have wired your brain to crave variety over monogamy, then marriage is going to be very difficult.
It’s not just a “future” problem either. Studies show participants in frequent hookups report lower happiness and trust (Regnerus & Uecker, 2011), increased rates of depression, anxiety, and regret (Armstrong, Hamilton & England, 2010), and it’s no wonder, because hookup culture is, at its core, a culture of using and being used.
It trains you for loneliness, not love.
This is why the Bible teaches that sex is never “just physical” – we weren’t designed that way. When we violate the way God intended us to have sex, we fail to get the benefits, and bring natural consequences down instead.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
– Romans 1:24-25
Sex was meant to glorify God through faithful union. When we twist it towards self-pleasure, we shift worship from the Creator to the created.
Hookup culture turns the person into a tool of self-gratification rather than self-giving love. And that’s the ultimate consequence of removing relationship from sex – it leaves only the shell of the act, stripped of its purpose.
The Heart of the Matter – False Intimacy
Hookup culture offers the sensation of closeness without the reality of being known, its physical exposure without the intimacy of emotional revelation. It’s pleasure without trust, desire without devotion.
Sex was intended to be with someone who we would open up to completely, to know them and to be known by them, to have someone to share everything we are with and still know that we are loved, despite all of our imperfections, flaws, even outright sins.
Hookup culture sets all that aside, it’s the rejection of intimacy, of vulnerability. They think it will keep them safe, but in reality, they’re losing out on the best part of sex.
It’s pure selfishness while completely avoiding anything approaching love. Hookup culture teaches people to hide behind pleasure instead of being seen in love.
The Biblical Contrast – Sex as Covenant Knowing
Now Adam knew Eve his wife – Genesis 4:1a
Biblical intimacy is about knowing, not merely touching each other’s bodies.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. – Genesis 2:25
True intimacy is exposure without fear – possible only through trust and covenant.
Real intimacy thrives in exclusivity and permanence – what hookup culture rejects.
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God. – 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
Pastoral Path to Healing
Now, if you’ve been a part of hookup culture – are you doomed? Of course not. You may have some struggles others don’t, and you may have to heal some wounds others won’t experience, but there is always hope.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. – 1 John 1:9
You may need to relearn how to engage with real intimacy, and that takes time.
If you’ve spent years teaching yourself that sex doesn’t matter and that vulnerability is unsafe, then opening up again will feel uncomfortable – maybe even frightening.
But the same way you trained your mind to avoid intimacy, you can retrain it to pursue it.
Freedom isn’t found in avoiding bonds, but in forming the right ones. This is what God intended for us, and following that intent is one of the ways we worship Him.
Not everyone naturally experiences sex in an overly romantic, Hallmark Channel way. For some people sex really is just another activity.
Some studies that prove that casual sexual activity is harmless or beneficial.
Study: Harden, K. P. (2014). A Sex-Positive Framework for Research on Adolescent Sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 455–469.
Finding: Teens with consensual, developmentally appropriate sexual debut had better sexual self-efficacy and lower sexual anxiety in adulthood vs. late or non-debutants.
Study: Vrangalova, Z. (2015). Does Casual Sex Harm College Students’ Well-Being? A Longitudinal Investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(4), 945–959.
Finding: Casual sex not associated with increases in depression, anxiety, or life dissatisfaction over 1 year. Autonomy-motivated hookups (for pleasure/exploration) linked to higher well-being.
Study: Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Young Adults’ Emotional Reactions After Hooking Up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 321–330.
Finding: 70%+ of hookups led to positive emotions (excitement, desirability); regret only in 27%, mostly due to partner choice, not the act itself.
Study: Wesche, R., et al. (2021). Psychological Well-Being and Casual Sex: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1035–1063. Finding: No significant association between casual sex and depression, anxiety, or self-esteem (effect size ≈ 0). Positive outcomes when motivated by physical pleasure or autonomy.
Study: Snapp, S., et al. (2015). Casual Sex and Sexual Agency in Young Adulthood. Journal of Sex Research, 52(7), 756–767. Finding: Young adults with casual sex experience reported higher sexual assertiveness, better orgasm consistency, and lower sexual guilt.
Study: Lehmiller, D. J., et al. (2014). Sexual Satisfaction in Friends with Benefits Relationships. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 1–16. Finding: FWB participants reported sexual satisfaction equal to or higher than romantic partners, with low emotional distress when boundaries were clear.
Study: Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2010). Hook-Up Culture: Setting a New Research Agenda. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(4), 323–333. Finding: For many (esp. women), hookups provide sexual agency, body positivity, and freedom from relationship pressure — reframed as empowerment, not harm.
Study: Fielder, R. L., et al. (2014). Sexual Hookups and Adverse Health Outcomes in Women. Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 131–144. Finding: Women who initiated hookups reported higher sexual self-esteem and no increase in mental health issues vs. non-hookup peers.
Study: French, J. E., et al. (2019). Sexual History and Current Relationship Satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 743–754. Finding: Individuals with more casual sex partners before age 25 reported higher sexual satisfaction and communication in committed relationships at age 30.
Study: Armstrong, E. A., & Reissing, E. D. (2021). Hookup Sex and Orgasm Gap Closure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(5), 1987–1999. Finding: Women who engaged in ≥5 hookups were 2.3× more likely to report regular orgasms in both casual and relationship sex vs. low-experience peers.
Study: Katz, J., & Schneider, M. E. (2020). Casual Sex as Sexual Socialization. Sexuality & Culture, 24(3), 789–808. Finding: Emerging adults described casual sex as a “training ground” for learning boundaries, desires, and consent — leading to higher sexual self-efficacy in adulthood
Study: Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2022). Hookup Culture and Gender Equality. Gender & Society, 36(1), 109–133. Finding: Women with high casual sex experience rejected slut-shaming, reported higher body satisfaction, and negotiated better relationship terms later.
Study: van den Berg, N., et al. (2023). Casual Sex and Subjective Well-Being in Secular Societies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(4), 567–578. Finding: In Canada, Netherlands, and Sweden, casual sex was positively correlated with life satisfaction (β = .18), especially for women.
Study: Machin, A., et al. (2024). Friends with Benefits as Emotional Skill-Building. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(2), 301–320. Finding: FWB participants developed better emotion regulation and attachment security over time — predicting healthier future romances.
Study: Walsh, J. L., et al. (2021). Hookup Experience and Sexual Health Protective Behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 69(7), 789–797. Finding: Students with ≥3 hookups were 1.8× more likely to get regular STI tests and use condoms consistently in all sexual contexts.
Study: Milhausen, R. R., et al. (2020). Canadian Sexual Health Survey: Hookup Edition. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 29(2), 145–158. Finding: 62% of Canadian 18–29-year-olds reported positive hookup outcomes (fun, confidence, no regret). Only 11% cited emotional harm.
Study: Mark, K. P., et al. (2023). Casual Sex as a Predictor of Sexual Competence in Committed Relationships. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(6), 789–801. Finding: Adults with 3–10 casual partners before age 25 were rated higher by future spouses on sexual communication, responsiveness, and creativity (β = .31)
Study: Jonason, P. K., et al. (2024). Hookup Culture and Mate Value Calibration. Personality and Individual Differences, 218, 112489. Finding: Individuals with ≥5 hookups were 40% faster at detecting dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism) in potential partners — reducing future toxic relationships.
Study: Meltzer, A. L., et al. (2022). Neuroendocrine Responses to Casual vs. Relational Sex.
– Finding: Casual sex triggered equal or higher oxytocin release than relationship sex when consent and pleasure were high — linked to post-coital euphoria and stress reduction.
Study: Claxton, S. E., et al. (2025). Friends with Benefits as Attachment Reconsolidation. Attachment & Human Development, 27(1), 45–62. Finding: Anxious-attachers in FWB arrangements showed significant drops in attachment anxiety after 6 months — moving toward secure attachment.
Study: Herbenick, D., et al. (2023). Sexual Variety and Health-Seeking Behavior. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(10), 1234–1245. Finding: People with diverse casual partners were 2.1× more likely to seek medical help for issues like erectile dysfunction or pain during sex — due to comparison awareness.
Study: Byers, E. S., & Shaughnessy, K. (2024). Hookup Scripts and Sexual Assertiveness in Canadian Youth. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 33(1), 56–68. Finding: Canadian 18–24-year-olds with ≥3 hookups scored 28% higher on sexual assertiveness scales (e.g., asking for consent, stating preferences).
Yes – that was the point of the post. There are people doing it wrong.
None of them prove it’s harmless, let alone a net benefit. They look at some metrics and see there are some potential benefits.
For example, does it help you figure out narcissistic partners? Absolutely … by having sex with narcissistic partners. Now, if the sole goal is to become a great detector of people you should never have sex with, then obviously you should have sex with a ton of people you should never have sex with. That’s not a good idea though – it’s just the best way to score high on that one metric.
It’s a bit like saying “Well, if I get shot, then I get jello at the hospital, ergo, getting shot isn’t bad for you, it might even be good for you.” If your metric is “free jello is good”, then that seems like a perfectly good approach – you know, as long as you’re okay with all the side effects of getting shot. In the case of hookup culture, those side effects are depression, anxiety, higher divorce and infidelity in later relationships, STIs/STDs, and so on. Not to mention the spiritual ramifications.
So, while there may be some small benefits to engaging in hookup culture, the long term costs far outweigh them.
They aren’t doing it wrong. They just aren’t wired that way.
When it comes to learning how to detect narcissists, hooking up with one is better than unknowingly marrying one.
The studies listed demonstrate that there is not an increased risk of “depression, anxiety, higher divorce and infidelity in later relationships, STIs/STDs”. I suppose it technically true that you won’t get any STDs if you never engage in sex, in the same way that if you never leave your house you’ll never get in a traffic accident. Doesn’t mean that it’s a realistic way to live.
Get tested often, don’t hookup with complete strangers if you can avoid it, don’t do intravenous drugs. The chance of contracting HIV for a heterosexual male who doesn’t use intravenous drugs is something like 1 in over 20,000.
Yeah, we have radically different worldviews, goals, timelines and calculations when it comes to whether or not this is considered a net benefit or not.
If you treat sex like an activity and only measure the outcomes days, weeks or months later – then, yeah, that might look like a positive interaction. However a lot of the time, these things take years, even decades to come to the realization that it did more harm than they realized.
You keep saying people are “wired” to treat sex casualty – I don’t think so. I think people have managed to train against their biology based on societal cues to detach bonding from sex by repeatedly trying to suppress the emotions that their biology is attempting to create. Now, if you believe we are merely the products of evolution, you may think this is a good thing – we can evolve not to need to bond during sex. Though that seems more like a de-evolution as that’s what animals are like already… From an intelligent-design perspective though – this is folly – you are attempting to subvert your maker.
The studies you provided mainly measure short-term reactions. They don’t tell us what happens in the long term when it comes to trust, faithfulness, bonding capacity or marital health. I completely get feeling excited and positive after a hookup that went well – hormones are high, you feel confident, you got a release, etc, but that doesn’t mean the pattern produces wisdom, intimacy or the ability to love sacrificially – which I think are more important long term goals. Christians shouldn’t pursue in-the-moment happiness, we seek life-long (longer actually) contentment. Hookup culture trains people to avoid those things that lead to long term contentment. Patience, commitment, conflict resolution, and more. Those habits don’t magically appear as soon as you finally want to “settle down”.
As well, you just argued on the other post that those who have more than 1 partner prior to marriage have increased adultery – however that time you were arguing that 1 is okay, more is problematic. Now you’re arguing more is okay, 1 is problematic. You’re inconsistent with your arguments.
Now, if you’re not a Christian, then I get it – why bother? It’s a lot of work and you miss out on a lot of stuff. If you don’t care about a relationship with God, or the kind of relationship God wants us to have with a spouse, then this will all seem like nonsense. But, if you are interested in that – if you want that “love that lasts a lifetime”, if you want to build a character that will be happy in heaven – well, then hookup culture is counterproductive.
You understand nothing about what I actually believe.
The Wille Zum Leben does not care if you are single or married. That much is observable. Unlike others, I do believe in God and thus I conclude that the Wille Zum Leben is part of our design. It’s not something we should struggle against through a sort of Buddhist renunciation. So we should listen to the call and act on it, tempered by moderation and reason.
The “drive” is not just a mechanism to make us have children, because the “drive” is fulfilled (until the next time anyway) whether or not conception occurs.
That’s where we fundamentally differ. This is Life vs Life Denial.
(I don’t know what you mean by “you just argued on the other post that those who have more than 1 partner prior to marriage have increased adultery – however that time you were arguing that 1 is okay, more is problematic. Now you’re arguing more is okay, 1 is problematic. You’re inconsistent with your arguments”. The link between adultery and cohabitation and/or hookups is a correlation not a causation. People who are willing to transgress taboos on adultery are also willing to transgress taboos on cohabitation and casual sex. That correlation has slowly gone away over time as the stigmas against cohabitation and casual sex have gone away)
The “Wille zum Leben” doesn’t care about whether you’re single or married, because it’s generated by a sinful nature within a fallen world. That’s not proof of what God wants at all – quite the opposite. We will constantly be at war between the sinful desires we crave and relationship with God we know we need.
“Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary to one another.”
Galatians 5:16–17 (NKJV)
“Those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”
Galatians 5:24 (NKJV)
“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.”
Luke 9:23–24 (NKJV)
Now, this is not the same as Buddhist renunciation. They preach a life of killing desire so that you feel nothing. Rather, we should direct our desires towards the abundant life Jesus promises – what they were originally intended to pull us towards – not the twisted sinful version that leads to immorality (sexual and otherwise). God doesn’t ask us to empty ourselves, but rather to fill ourselves with His intent rather than our own. God created sexual desire – but He also created the covenant structure to keep it productive rather than destructive.
“Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul.”
1 Peter 2:11 (NKJV)
You call this a “life denial”, but we don’t see it that way. We think what you’re doing leads to death – not life. Our rejection of us is our pursuing an abundant life, without death.
“For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.”
Romans 8:6 (NKJV)
“If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”
Romans 8:13 (NKJV)
This is not life denial. This is choosing the kind of life we were intended to have by an all-knowing all-loving God. I would choose that over my own selfish, sinful and destructive desires.
As for your clarification on the adultery argument: you are shifting between “correlation only” and “it is fine as long as it is intentional” depending on which conclusion you want to defend. But even if we pretend all of this is only correlation, the pattern still stands. Repeated casual sex correlates with weaker long-term bonds, lower marital stability, and higher infidelity. Covenant-first sex correlates with the opposite. That is the observable fruit, and Jesus taught us to judge a tree by its fruit.
That is why I hold to God’s design – not because it denies life, but because it produces the kind of life Scripture calls good, holy, joyful and lasting.
“It’s generated by a sinful nature within a fallen world”.
No it isn’t. The Will Zum Leben, which includes but is not limited to the sexual drive, is God’s design. “The struggle in itself must be the goal”.
Your assertion otherwise is very speculative. Even if you want to solely use the Bible to argue that then you have to do a lot of reading between the lines.
The sexual drive does not care if you are single or married, you cannot turn it off, and all of us will experience sexual attraction to are countless people in our lifetime. And you want to argue that you are only supposed to act on it with one person in your whole life? How absurd. “Energy is the only life and is from the Body”.
Do you think that prelapsarian humans would have only ever experienced sexual desire toward one person in their life? Would sex have been perfunctory and passionless like Augustine speculated? Would Adam have been able to simply will an erection into being, as Augustine also speculated?
The mere existence of a desire is not proof of its intended use. It is pretty ludicrous to suggest that it is. This is why there are Bible verses against adultery, incest, bestiality, fornication, and more. People have desires that run against God’s will, and Scripture calls us to test our desires, not obey them blindly.
If you choose to prioritize your desires over what the Bible teaches, then yes, we land in completely different worldviews. At that point we are not even arguing the same foundation. We just will not see eye to eye on this, because I am starting from God’s design and you are starting from personal desire – placing yourself as god.
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts.”
Proverbs 21:2 (NKJV)
No, I’m the one starting from God’s design here.
You’re also presenting a false dichotomy. There is a vast gulf between acting on every desire and relegating sexuality to a tiny box like you do. I have outright stated that desire needs to be tempered by moderation and reason, whether it’s sexual or some other pursuit.
You additionally didn’t answer my question about prelapsarian sexuality.
You are not starting with God’s design. You are starting with human desire in a fallen world and then declaring that desire to be God’s intent. Scripture never does that. It tells us that desires must be tested and brought under God’s authority, not treated as the blueprint.
I am not putting sexuality in a “tiny box.” I am taking God at His word when He said, “This is the box I intended for this so you will flourish.” One man, one woman, one flesh, for life (Matthew 19:4–6). Jesus pointed back to creation and affirmed that design. We do not have to guess.
Moderation is not the way the Bible talks about temptation. Scripture uses words like flee, put to death, cast off, and abstain. The call is not moderation of sinful impulses but obedience to God’s revealed will.
As for prelapsarian sexuality, Scripture gives us what we need. God made one woman for one man and called that union very good. There is nothing in the text that suggests Adam was meant to act on sexual desire toward anyone else. Building a doctrine on imagined scenarios that contradict God’s stated design is not theology. It is speculation.
There is also nothing in the text to suggest that Adam would have only experienced sexual attraction toward Eve and toward no other woman. So what’s the point of creating a sexual drive that drives us toward countless different people in this life?
I’m basing my views on observable reality. Yours are based on between-the-lines speculations about a lost Eden.
Sexuality is not a sinful desire. I concur with one early theologian who asserted, contra the crypto-Gnostic Augustine that “lust – or natural appetite – is simply one of the bodily senses that we are given as part of our human endowment; hence, we cannot believe that it originated from human sinfulness”.
Biologically speaking , “monogamous marriage and total abstinence outside of it” is unnatural. It’s a social technology that was meant to reduce competition and jealousy, ensure paternity, provide a stable upbringing for children, and other things. But now we have paternity tests and reliable birth control. Some of the reasons for the adoption of monogamous marriage are no longer a factor. Technology always brings social changes. You can’t un-invent the Pill.
You need to study philosophy and literature because you are woefully unlearned. Until you do, you will continue to be a Philistine who is peddling dangerous quackery.
To all people: listen to the call of the Will To Life that God has placed within you. Live, create, “struggle and have faith”.
You are drawing conclusions about God’s design by looking at human desire in a fallen world. That is not reliable data. Scripture gives us the design directly. You keep assuming that whatever people feel now must reflect Eden. That is speculation, not revelation.
You are also collapsing several categories into one. There is a difference between recognizing beauty, feeling attraction, facing temptation, and acting on that temptation. Scripture never teaches that each step inevitably produces the next. Your argument is basically, “If Adam saw a beautiful woman, he must have wanted her, therefore he must have been meant to sleep with her.” That is a long chain of assumptions built on silence.
You are also conflating sexuality with sexual temptation. The Bible treats sexual desire as good, but it does not treat every expression of that desire as good. Jesus, Paul, and the entire moral law distinguish between desire and temptation, and between temptation and sin.
On top of that, you are treating morality as a social construct that shifts whenever technology changes. If the Pill alters what is right and wrong, then morality comes from culture, not God. That alone shows we are operating from entirely different foundations.
Finally, the ad hominem comments tell me we are no longer in a serious exchange of ideas. When the argument moves from Scripture to personal insults, the conversation has stopped being productive.
I will hold to what Jesus defined as God’s design: one man, one woman, one flesh, for life. Everything outside of that is outside what God called good.
“That’s an ad hominem, therefore your entire argument is invalid” is itself a fallacy. Ad hominem is when someone impugns your character instead of making an argument. I’ve made plenty of arguments and I’m judging your character because of how you’ve responded to those arguments.
You have yet to demonstrate you have read any books besides the Bible, and then only in a facile childish manner.
You agressively and wilfully fail to understand my arguments and basic philosophical concepts.
“That is speculation, not revelation”. Observation is a form of revelation. You’re the one speculating.
Biologically, monogamous marriage isn’t “natural” and you have to be blind to deny that. In a purely biological state of nature, the natural thing to do is for males to spread their seed to as many women as possible and for women to choose males with the most resources and physical fitness.
Monogamous marriage is an overcoming and constraining of pure biology. But it may not have the same utility that it once had.
I just know you are going to pull the “but we aren’t animals” card. And yes, that’s right.
The Will To Life includes the biological drive for procreation but isn’t reducible to it. It includes sexuality in general but also isn’t reducible to it. But we are talking about sexuality here , so when I mention the Will To Life it means I am mentioning it inasmuch as it includes sexuality. Sexuality, beyond just a drive for animal procreation, is also a drive to reach outside our self and connect with another in a physical, embodied way. The “mission” that the drive sends us on is fulfilled whether or not conception occurs. Therefore, it isn’t simply reducible to conception.
Again, people will experience sexual attraction toward countless people in our lives. Should we act on every impulse? Of course not.
But what is the point of designing humans like that, if sexuality is only meant to be acted upon with one person in our whole life? That’s an extremely inefficient design, not to mention a recipe for failure.
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one-James 1:13
Your view of sexuality does inevitably lead to the conclusion that God is tempting or testing us by putting the Drive within us, which does not care if you are single, married, or otherwise. Either that or God is a sadist. Take your pick. Those are the two logical conclusions of your own view.
If I’m wrong then tell me what the purpose of sexuality is, in its totality. The purpose is clearly not just marriage, because it exists independently of marriage. We do not experience sexual attraction for the first time on our wedding night.
I am not calling your whole argument invalid because of your insults. I am saying insults show the tone of the discussion has shifted. That is all. You’ve run out of “gotchas” and are just rehashing now and now adding in insults. You believe human desire reveals God’s design. You conflated attractive/attraction/temptation/action/moral permission. You believe biology = morality and that covenant is a social construct, not designed by God. You think desire = permission and believe “Will to life”/energy/drive over the Bible. And then more insults. Just repetition at this point.
The only vaguely new point is “Your view makes God a tempter” – but this is simply James 1:13 misunderstood and misapplied – and really it’s the same claim as above: “I feel desire, ergo God wants me to have sex with lots of people”. You just have read two more verses…
James 1:13-15 – Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Your sinful desires aren’t from God – you are being drawn away from God by your sinful desires, which were born in you and are growing in you – this is what causes you to hold to tightly to this belief. Sadly, it will lead to death. I hope you see that before it does.
As for the purpose of sex, I think the Bible is clear:
1) Procreation – Genesis 1:28
2) Recreation – Proverbs 5:18-19
3) Comfort – Genesis 24:67
4) Bonding – Genesis 2:24
5) Fleeing sexual temptation – 1 Corinthians 7:2-5
Note – every one of these specifically says sex with a spouse.
Sex is a good and wonderful thing with many benefits and a lifelong covenant relationship is the safe container to experience to benefits.
“But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed”.
Who created the Drive in the first place? Did the Drive not exist before Adam sinned? You have to actually prove that.
It’s very clear that your view of morality is somewhere in the Divine Command or Deontological sector. Mine are in the Teleological or Consequentialist.
The Drive is not a sinful desire. If God created it then, by definition it’s not sinful.
Insults? No I’m making an honest assessment of your character. This isn’t even about convincing you anymore. It’s about warning anyone else who reads this conversation. People need to know that you are a life denying lunatic. A New England Puritan/Quaker busybody (you’re a Seventh Day Adventist, your beliefs come from the Second Great Awakening).
Aside from the subject of sexuality, you should read the book Albion’s Seed. Very informative.
You’re just repeating the same baseless assertion – that if a desire exists, then God must have designed it to be used in the way you prefer.
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. – Proverbs 14:12
God created sexuality. Sin distorted it. You’re defending the distortion.
You have not given any biblical support for your view. You have only repeated your philosophy. I have offered Scripture. You dismiss Scripture in favor of the “will to life.” and seem to make the claim that other writings are more authoritative than the Bible. That is your prerogative, but it is not Christianity.
To the law and to the testimony. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. – Isaiah 8:20
I’ve read the Bible a lot. I just end up having a different interpretation than you do. I already know all of your arguments and I already rejected your facile interpretation of the Bible years ago. You are the one repeating the same arguments over and over again.
You, have not demonstrated that you’ve read anything besides the Bible. You have not cited a single piece of philosophy, literature, theology, history to back up your myopic reading of the Bible. You have not read the books that I have read.
As I said, this is not a Christian approach. You are treating outside modern philosophy as the key that unlocks the real meaning of Scripture. That is a Gnostic approach. Christianity has always held that Scripture interprets Scripture, not that Scripture must be reframed by external systems.
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it. – Deuteronomy 4:2
As for the authors you’re reading, if I had to make a guess:
Schopenhauer – “Wille zum Leben” is directly from him, especially the belief that sexual desire is the clearest expression of will.
Nietzsche – Said Christianity is life-denying, that Christian sexual ethics are slave morality. That Biblical morality is outdated and that Christian sexual ethics are repression.
Reich – sex is life energy, repression is harm.
Marcuse – sexual liberation is human flourishing.
Paglia – sexual desire is amoral and beyond religious restriction
Dawkins – Popularized Darwinism as a framework for rejecting God – believes that monogamy is unnatural
Pinker – desires are adaptations of evolution, nothing more – that morals are merely societal constructs to reduce harm, and thus should change as society changes
Buss – sexual attraction to multiple partners is biological, sexual behaviour isn’t innately moral or immoral.
And lastly Pagels of course. I mean, you’re basically just repeating her entire body of work in your arguments.
-Scripture is insufficient on its own — you need outside sources to reinterpret it correctly
-Biblical ethics should be reinterpreted through other wisdom traditions
-Desire is not inherently sinful
-The body is not the main problem; ignorance is
-Authority structures (like apostolic teaching) are often power plays
But primarily, I’d say Dawkins, Pinker, Buss and Pagels, which mixed together give you: desire = design, biology = morality, revelation = observation and lastly philosophy > scripture.
Now, that said, you don’t seem to have synthesized them into a coherent worldview (which is unsurprising, because they contradict reality). You flip between them, including their contradictions.
For example:
You argued that desire itself reveals God’s design (Schopenhauer).
But you also said desire must be “tempered by moderation and reason” (Nietzsche, Paglia). Those are opposite claims.
Either desire is trustworthy or it’s not.
You argued biology determines sexual morality (Buss, Dawkins).
But then you said monogamy is a “social technology” — which contradicts strict biological determinism.
Either morality follows biology or it doesn’t.
You argued that Christianity is “life-denying” (Nietzsche).
Yet you also claim you are defending God’s design and are a Christian.
You cannot adopt Nietzsche’s view of Christian morality and still call it Christian.
You said Scripture is insufficient without outside philosophical insight (Pagels).
But then you appealed to “God’s design” as though Scripture defines it.
Either Scripture is authoritative or outside philosophy is. It cannot be both.
You claimed desire cannot be sinful because “God created it.”
But you also said evolution shaped our impulses (Pinker, Dawkins).
Those two foundations are mutually exclusive.
This is why the worldview feels unstable — you are borrowing whichever idea helps your point in the moment, even when those ideas mutually cancel each other out.
Every system you’re drawing from rejects the Bible’s authority, and when you combine them, your conclusions inevitably reject it too. In short – it makes you claim to Christianity unbelievable, because everyone you quoted (directly or indirectly) doesn’t believe in the tenants of Christianity – yet you promote their worldviews as your own (however jumbled).
Anyways, point is, as I keep saying – you are not arguing a Christian perspective. The above are not only not Christian, many are openly anti-Christian. They intentionally set out to reject God and set up an alternative to Christianity. And you are using that to “interpret” the Bible.
It’s a bit like trying to use Marx to “interpret” Smith. The framework you are using is designed to dismantle the very thing you are trying to apply it to.
So, yes, I use scripture a lot – not because it’s the only thing I’ve read – but because it’s the only thing I’ve read that has a coherent and non-contradictory worldview that also matches reality.
Grading your guesses:
Schopenhauer: of course. But I don’t share his atheism or pessimism, so depart from him by concluding that God instituted the Wille Zum Leben and that perpetual striving is a feature not a bug. “You are not required to finish the work, but neither may you cease from it”. So we shouldn’t seek to escape the Wille Zum Leben through Buddhist renunciation.
Nietzsche: barely. Haven’t read much of him yet. There’s valid critique of Christianity as actually practiced but he goes too far. I’ve read plenty of authors who he influenced, so I guess you call it second hand influence. In opposition to those who reduce Christianity to Ned Flanders, Church Lady moralizing on one side and mere altruism on the other I cite Oswald Spengler: “Jesus was no moralizer, and to see in moralizing the final aim of religion is to be ignorant of what religion is. Moralizing is nineteenth-century Enlightenment, humane Philistinism. To ascribe social purposes to Jesus is a blasphemy”.
Reich: I chuckled at this one a bit. You won’t catch me collecting Orgone or trying to bust clouds anytime soon.
Marcuse: haha no.
Instead of Reich or Marcuse try William Blake. Life energy isn’t just sex but it definitely includes sex.
Paglia: have read some brief passages and seen some interview clips. Enjoyed her quip about how the reason why there’s no female Mozart is because there is no female Jack The Ripper. Have heard some positive things about Sexual Personae. Otherwise little contact with her work.
No, the notion that sexual desire is amoral is a pretty intuitive one that I didn’t need to read anybody to figure out. There have been various Christian theologians who have argued much the same. Historian Peter Brown summarizing the view of Augustine’s opponent Julian of Eclanum: Julian spoke boldly of the sexual instinct as a sixth sense of the body, as a [morally] neutral energy that might be used well…delicately poised between reason and animal feeling.” In Julian’s own words Julian “We say that the sexual impulse—that is, that the virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse—is ordained by God.”.
Dawkins: a brilliant scientist and a terrible philosopher. Otherwise, no. It’s an observable fact that, biologically speaking, in the state of nature monogamy is unnatural.
Pinker: no.
For the notion of monogamy as social technology, read F Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia In Power. I depart from him in that I don’t think it will be so easy to bring strict monogamy back. Technology always has social changes that come with it. The Industrial Revolution changed the institution of the family and marriage. There are lots of history books which demonstrate that. The Pill wasn’t even the decisive event in that process, it was merely the final one (Houellebecq). The Post-Industrial world is also changing the nature of marriage and family. The Sexual Revolution has already fully occured. There will be no Counter-Revolution. Best we can do is learn to love within it.
Buss: never even heard of them before. It’s just observable reality that all of us will be started toward countless people in our lifetimes. If, as we’ve concluded already, sexual desire is amoral then so is that.
Pagels: no.
It’s observable fact that you need outside sources to be able to understand the Bible. Unless you are a native speaker of Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek then you needed the work of outside translators just to be able to read the text in English.
There is no such thing as a self-contained text. All texts refer to other texts to some degree or another. All readers have a priori assumptions that they bring with them when they read a text. “You shouldn’t use outside ideas to interpret the Bible” is itself an outside idea.
A few important ones you missed:
Hegel: I haven’t actually say down and read his work yet. But I’ve gotten secondhand influence, mostly from the Right Hegelians. Carlyle is a particular favourite of mine. More importantly is the concept of the Hegelian dialectic. You’re complaining that I’m using contradictory ideas. But I’m actually taking Thesis and Antithesis to make Synthesis. I’m also not pretending I have all the answers yet, in regards to the Sexuality Question. What we’re doing here is how those answers are discovered.
Schmitt: all political questions are just theological questions and vice versa. All laws are based on a decision. The law can’t cover every possible situation that may emerge. Law always has exceptions and, in an emergency, someone makes a decision to declare a state of exception. Schmitt primarily wrote about law as it pertains to legal governance. But if all political questions are theological questions then that also applies to biblical law and moral law. “Man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man”. And so the People were not made for the Law, the Law was made for the People. Books can’t make decisions. Not even the Bible.
There are definitely others I can think of, but that’s plenty to chew on for now.
On Hegel – it makes sense that you believe what you are doing is Hegelian if you have not read his work yet because you’re repeating the pop-culture internet version of Hegel. Taking Thesis and Antithesis to make Synthesis is not Hegel’s dialectic. That is Fichte, and then those who opposed Hegel used it to dumb Hegel down. Hegel himself never used that formula. Most importantly, Hegel’s dialectic requires a single unified starting point. You’re mixing systems that don’t share foundations, which Hegel explicitly warns against. You are not following Hegelian dialectic. You are performing what he would call “eclectic contradiction-collecting”, which Hegel would be appalled at, and what I’ve been saying all along. You cannot form a coherent system, because you are attempting to mix systems that have no shared foundation.
You are doing exactly what he warned people not to do:
– eclecticism
– cherry picking ideas from opposing systems
– mixing concepts that have different foundations
and his warning is that it would produce:
– inconsistency
– contradiction
– “patchwork philosophy”
– systems that collapse under their own weight
– conclusions that do not follow from the premises
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing in your attempt to do what he said not to do. You are trying to mix Christianity with those who would kill Christianity if they could – they cannot form a coherent worldview. You will continue to run into the problems you are having defending it.
Yes, I’m well aware that the Hegelian Dialectic is an extremely watered down pop-philosophu concept.
You believe that books can make decisions, which also isn’t a coherent worldview.
You have misunderstood my position. I do not believe in relativistic morality. Because of that, there is no need for a book to “make a decision.” God has already made the decision, and Scripture records it. My role is not to invent morality from shifting human desire, but to obey what God has revealed.
As for coherence, a worldview is not judged by a single statement. It is judged by whether all of its claims fit together without contradiction. My point is simply that your system does not have a consistent foundation. You are drawing from sources that contradict one another at the level of first principles. That is what makes the worldview incoherent, not any one isolated claim.
A finite text cannot address emergencies. Emergencies are, by definition, unforeseen. They emerge. In an emergency, someone has to make a decision on what is to be done. In short, books can’t make decisions.
The Industrial Revolution (and now the Post-Industrial economy) caused massive changes to the family and the institution of marriage, culminating in the Sexual Revolution.
The Bible doesn’t address any of this. Whenever it addresses marriage or sexuality, it only addresses it in light of pre-industrial family structures where the extended family was the basic unit of society and no reliable contraception or paternity testing existed. The Industrial Revolution shrunk the basic unit to the Nuclear Family. Now, in post-industrial society the individual is the basic unit. This is an emergency.
So, who decides? Well that’s what we have to find out. I think the Church as a collective body has to make the decision on how best to practice healthy sexuality under the conditions in which young people now find themselves.
Your problem is that you do believe that books can make decisions even though that is axiomatically false.
Again, if you stuck with the Bible, you would not have this problem. God is good – not just good in the moment – good period. He is also eternal, as He exists out of time. Therefore He can foresee (from our perspective) what will happen. From His perspective, emergencies do not emerge. They have already happened. He has already made the decision. The book doesn’t need to. Morality doesn’t change. As I said, I do not believe in a relativistic morality – that is not a biblical concept.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. – 1 Peter 1:24-25
Finite texts are limited by the fact that they cannot mention everything. I see absolutely no mention of post-industrial marriage/family or the Sexual Revolution in the Bible.
God created us. God created our drives, from basic survival drives to more abstract ones. No same person believes that we should blindly follow our drives to our own detriment or the detriment of others. Multiple principles can be true and can be held in proper balance.
I don’t see why this is so hard for you to comprehend.
I comprehend your position, I just disagree with it.
You believe the Bible is basically a list of rules and that those rules do not account for every permutation of life. That is a legalistic and reductionistic view of Scripture that I do not share. Scripture does not only give rules. It teaches principles, patterns, and a way of life. Those principles absolutely do account for changing cultures because they deal with the heart of human nature, which has not changed.
That which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done. There is nothing new under the sun. – Ecclesiastes 1:9
There is no moral or relational situation that is fundamentally new. The technologies are new, the packaging is new, but the underlying temptations, fractures and desires are ancient. Scripture addresses those categories directly.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17
My worldview assumes moral continuity because God is unchanging. Yours assumes moral novelty because culture changes. That is why we keep talking past each other.
No, you don’t comprehend it. Because you clearly have no knowledge of a basic philosophical concept like the Golden Mean. It is not contradictory at all to say “follow your drives but not to your own detriment or the detriment of others”.
You are the legalist here, not me. You believe that the People were created for the Law instead of the Law being created for the People.
My historical readings on marriage and family as they were understood in the ancient world and how they are now understood in the post-industrial world have lead me to conclude that they are no longer the same institutions. Post-industrial marriage and family are so radically different that it is almost a misnomer to even call them marriage and family.
I have observed with my own two eyes a situation that is fundamentally new. When the Bible says anything about marriage and family, it is of only limited applicability.
“No norm is applicable to chaos”.
And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath-Mark 2:27
If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that?-James 2:16
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them-Matthew 23:4
He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ -Matthew 25:24-25
Let me leave you with a story:
The Moriori people once lived on the Chatham Islands in modern day New Zealand. They practiced a strict code of pacifism which they attributed to their ancestors Nanuku-whenua. In 1835 and alliance of 2 Maori tribes from the New Zealand mainland invaded. The Moriori convened a council to decide on what to do. I’ll directly quote from a book on the subject:
“The younger men spoke first. They argued that the prohibitions on killing devised by Rongomaiwhenua, Pakehau and Nunuku were intended to prevent a small population of related people destroying themselves in a chain of blood feuds. Such principles did not envisage, nor were they appropriate for, an outright invasion by people who were prepared to kill on a large scale. Did not the Moriori already know the New Zealanders by reputation in their own wars as “karaoke”, flesh-eaters? To do nothing in this instance would be suicidal. ‘It was proposed to make a combined assault on the intruders [whom, after all, they outnumbered two to one] and even though many of the Moriori might fall, they would [ultimately] succeed. There was little doubt the Moriori could have killed them all, Hirawanu Tapu told surveyor Percy Smith over thirty years later.
The Owenga chiefs Tapata and Torea put the contrary case: the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative. They reiterated the old maxims: ‘For now and forever, never again let there be war From today, forget the taste of human flesh May your bowels rot the day you disobey this injunction.’ That covenant envisaged and permitted of no exceptions; to maintain it was to maintain their mana as a people.
The argument moved both ways over three days, with all the chiefs taking part along with as many of the other men who wanted to speak. Ironically, while discussions were in progress, two solitary Maori arrived, the Ngati Tama chiefs Meremere and Nga Pe, travelling about five miles ahead of a party that was formally taking possession of the east coast. Again, the younger men advocated killing more vehemently now, because the Maori had become aware of the nature of Moriori deliberations. Again Torea and Tapata argued that that was not the Moriori way. Finally, because it was the wish of all the elders, the view of Torea prevailed. There would be no killing from the Moriori side. They would return to their villages from Te Awapatiki and offer the New Zealanders peace and friendship and an opportunity to share the resources of Rekohu in partnership, without rancour or resentment. That was the manner in which they had always greeted outsiders; they would do so again, although the number was greater than any they had encountered previously. If their offer was not accepted, then they would take whatever consequences followed. What mattered above all else, Torea stressed, was that they did not compromise their mana”.
And thus the Moriori were cannibalized, enslaved, and effectively wiped out by the invading Maori.
This story illustrates the nature of our disagreement quite well. You think that following biblical law is a moral imperative, a matter of maintaining some abstract notion of spiritual purity. I recognize that the law is a strategy of survival.
You are not using the “Golden Mean” correctly. Aristotle explicitly said the Golden Mean does not apply to actions that are wrong in themselves — and the first example he gives is sexual sin. So appealing to Aristotle to justify sexual sin is no more accurate than appealing to Hegel earlier. You haven’t read philosophy – you have watched TikTok videos of people who have watched YouTube videos of a university student who read a couple paragraphs of philosophy in his Intro to Psychology course and then failed his exam.
You violated the cardinal rule of Hegel while claiming to follow his dialectic, while also admitting you haven’t read him.
You violated the cardinal rule of Aristotle’s Golden Mean – so, I’m willing to bet you haven’t read him either.
You use Schopenhauer “Will to live” to justify indulging desire, but he taught that our will to live enslaves us and must be resisted and overcome.
You invoke Nietzsche (which you also admit you haven’t read) while claiming to be a Christian when he thought that Christianity as a whole was an error.
You appeal to Blake’s idea of “life energy”, but Blake was talking about spiritual liberation, not sexual liberation and that indulgence in desire destroys a person.
You cite Julian of Eclanum’s (through Peter Brown) view that desire is neutral – but Julian didn’t believe sin affected humans – that’s why he was rejected as a heretic.
You constantly refer to Schmitt’s view that law is a decision, but Schmitt believed all law was simply man-made – he rejected the idea of God, so you can’t use it to determine God’s will.
The biological model you’re using (Dawinian) is based on people who rejected the idea of any divine being, so using it to redefine Christianity makes no sense.
And this is all predicted by Hegel – which you’d know if you read him. You mixed philosophies that don’t share foundational principles and ended up with a mess.
Your argument that culture changes therefore morality changes is not Christian. Jesus grounded sexual ethics in creation, not culture: “From the beginning God made them male and female… the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4–6). If Jesus roots ethics in creation, not history, then no amount of post-industrial change overturns that.
Michael King’s Moriori story from doesn’t illustrate biblical morality. They followed a man-made code – just as you are trying to do, not God’s law. That is not an argument against Christianity, only against misapplied human tradition. I would say this is an argument on my side – they should have followed God’s laws, not their own because God’s laws are perfect and eternal.
At this point you have openly affirmed a worldview where desire is amoral, Scripture is limited, morality evolves with culture, and law is just a survival strategy. That is not Christianity. It is a mix of Schopenhauer, Schmitt, and modern philosophy with Bible verses sprinkled in. You believe you have outgrown God it seems and surpassed Him because you understand better than He does.
The Bible warns plainly about this exact approach:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil… who are wise in their own eyes.” Isaiah 5:20–21
Yawn. I told you.
In regards to Aristotle and the Golden Mean, your point is only valid if you beg the question. It’s not sexual sin.
I agreed with Schopenhauer but only so far. He was right about the Will To Life but wrong about God. If you accept both then, well, you have to figure out how they fit together don’t you.
Nietzsche’s term of “life denial” is a nice simple way to characterize not following the Will To Life. I am aware that Nietzsche thought Schopenhauer didn’t go far enough and posited a Will To Power. I’m not a Nietzschean. Its purview of edgy teenagers. Insert joke about beating a horse, dead or otherwise.
Blake: yes, Blake was talking about spiritual liberation. As evidenced by his writings, that sometimes included sex. “The lust of the goat is the bounty of God”, and “The nakedness of woman is the work of God”.
Julian of Eclanum: you’re a Seventh Day Adventist; since when did you care about who gets labeled a heretic? Julian was officially a heretic because of being a Pelagian, not because of his views on sex. He happened to be right about sexuality as “bodily sense” and part of God’s design while I believe Augustine was wrong about the subject. I cited to him as a counterexample to a lot of the sex negativity in the early Church. As for Pelagianism, a little too optimistic about willpower I think.
Schmitt: what part of “all political questions are just secularized theological questions” don’t you understand? The book Political Theology compellingly argued that point. I really doubt you have actually read the whole thing. He was a lapsed Catholic in later life, by the way. Not an atheist.
Darwinism: “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” is biological fact, so you kind of have to come up with an explanation for that. It’s also quite easily observable that without out any constraints human sexuality usually involves a few successful males mating with the majority of the females. It’s like that in the most primitive societies and also resembles that in the post-Sexual Revolution world. You can argue that this is somehow the result of Adam’s sin, but that’s speculation. It doesn’t actually say that in the biblical text.
Your mind is seemingly incapable of grasping that you can read a philosopher, even one with a radically different worldview from your own, and recognize a valid point while only agreeing with them so far.
If I told you my top 10 favourite writers of fiction, you’d get an odd mix of both Christians and irreligious pessimists. I guess I enjoy the duality of comedy and tragedy.
I am pretty sure that for at least some of the writers I’ve cited you are relying on either a cursory Wikipedia skim or using AI to summarize them for you. That’s how you get information that’s only partially true, like what you claimed about Blake. There is no way you were familiar with Julian of Eclanum before I mentioned him.
I’ll grant that you seemed to have read Hegel, while I haven’t yet. I’ll take the L on that one. I read some writers he influenced and figured he’d be on my “side” so to speak”.
I suspect that for at least some of these, you either relied on a cursory glance of Wikipedia or used AI to summarize them.
None of this answers the core issue. You are repeating the same claims, shifting terms, and accusing me of not reading enough – despite me not only being able to guess at almost all of your influences, but also point out how you’re misunderstanding their base worldviews and in so doing, dismantling every since one of your arguments, and showing how you’re attempts to use Hegelian dialectic are not only flawed, but so fundamentally flawed that they brought about exactly what he warned would be brought about by attempting them. You claim to be a Christian, but cannot quite a single verse in context – only proof texts that, when you read a few sentences more, disprove your theory. Ultimately, your real authority is not the Bible, which means you are not Christian – because a Christian is a follower of Christ, not philosophy, as the primary authority. I think as I’ve proven, that doesn’t mean Christians can’t know philosophy. It just means that if the philosophy contradicts the Bible (as yours does), it should ultimately be rejected. You have chosen to go the other way. I would not suspect that I would have much common ground with anyone who has made that choice.
And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? – 2 Corinthians 6:15 NKJV
You correctly guessed maybe half of the authors I’d read. Most of the ones you got right were dead giveaways because I directly name dropped them or used terms that originated in their work. Don’t be so impressed with yourself.
The story of the Moriori is not a category error. The Moriori were definitely convinced the “fire extinguisher” was real job at as you are convinced your understanding of moral law is correct. So if you were a Moriori in 1835, which of the two courses of action (or inaction) would you have advocated? A clear answer please.
If you like another lesson, here’s one slightly paraphrased from Josephus’ account of what sparked the Roman-Jewish War of 63AD. You can read about the whole thing in Josephus, but this paraphrase I found explains the story in modern terms, which helps drive the point. The reader can miss it in Josephus’ occasionally dry text:
“Jews [got] so fussed about the commandment on contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, they coveted and seized the land that the landlord had leased to a Greek, and when the Roman cops came to restore order and respect for property rights, they got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilt blood of a Roman cop who was impartially doing his duty to enforce a fair and necessary law that protected Jew and Greek alike. And thus it came to pass that for holiness spiraling the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit, the Jews got expelled. As prophesied, they were expelled for violating the Lord’s commandments. The spirit and intent of the law on contamination by blood refers to kind of contamination by blood that contaminated Lady Macbeth. References in the Old Testament to this law, as for example: “their heads were covered in blood” are in context referring to the kind of blood that Lady Macbeth had on her, the kind of blood you get on you by killing a cop who is performing his duty in the face of danger, not the kind of blood that gets spilled on the ground when you kill a chicken”.
Going back to Josephus original text, you’ll eventually come to the point where the bickering Jewish factions are killing each other on the grounds of the temple in Jerusalem. Holiness spiraling has caused them to go from rioting over a chicken’s blood being spilled at a synagogue to themselves spilling human blood at the temple.
The lesson about holiness spiraling isn’t doesn’t just apply to the debate over sexuality. It also applies to your objection to the writers I’ve cited and impugning my faith over it. Do you have any idea how many theologians or artists have cited non-Christian writers to make one point or another? Any idea how much, for instance, Aquinas relies on Aristotle? Or how much Dante relies on Virgil?
You should repent. Blockheadedness will damn you almost as fast as malice will.
Now, answer the question about the Moriori.
Should the Moriori have resisted the Maori? Yes or no.
This question is irrelevant. The Moriori story has nothing to do with God or biblical morality. For your point to matter, you would need to show that biblical law is man-made. You have not shown that, so the example does not connect to the discussion at all, except as another case where following man-made laws instead of God’s is harmful.
You are arguing from human tradition. I am arguing from Scripture. Until we share the same authority, your story does not apply and cannot move the conversation forward.
This is how Hegelian dialectic actually works. You cannot start with conclusions that come from a worldview I do not share. You have to go back, find the points where our frameworks overlap, and build from there. You are trying to begin at the end, and that is why you are not persuading anyone. There is simply too much distance between your worldview and mine for your approach to work. If you want a real conversation, you need to tighten the frame and start with common ground.
So let me ask a basic starting point. Do you believe in the God of Scripture? I am honestly not sure anymore. You speak of God as though He designed humanity poorly, set morality incorrectly, and left His creation to be corrected by philosophers. That is not the God described in the Bible. That sounds far more like a belief that God is either incompetent or irrelevant.
If we cannot agree on who God is, then of course we will not agree on what God commands.
“‘You argued that desire itself reveals God’s design.
But you also said desire must be “tempered by moderation and reason'”.
Desire by itself is amoral, especially biological desires. Animals act according to blind biological instinct. As humans, the Will To Life also includes the desire to achieve, to create, to make our mark on the world, to reach outside of ourselves, to connect with others. Sometimes the drive to achieve proves more powerful than biological drives. Think of the explorer who endures hunger, thirst,disease, etc. Sexual desire includes the biological drive for procreation but isn’t reducible to it. We humans also have a sense of morality, unlike animals.
“You argued biology determines sexual morality.
But then you said monogamy is a ‘social technology’ — which contradicts strict biological determinism.”
Biology is amoral. Monogamy is indeed a social technology. In the state of nature, we wouldn’t be monogamous that is for sure. Monogamy reduced competition (everyone gets a partner, more or less), ensured paternity, and provided a stable upbring for children by keeping both parents in the picture. I’m not a biological determinist. Sometimes we have to restrain or overcome biology.
“You argued that Christianity is “life-denying'”
Some forms of it are. If we want to talk about sexuality then, sadly, arguably most historical forms of it have been.
“You said Scripture is insufficient without outside philosophical insight”.
There is no such thing as a completely stand alone text. We all have a philosophical lense that we are reading the text through, either consciously or unconsciously. We also understand the biblical text a lot better if we understand the history of the times the texts were written in.
So, no there’s nothing actually contradictory about any of that. To the charge of eclecticism I plead guilty. But that is the beauty of philosophy. You don’t have to accept every conclusion that a philosopher makes, and you can find valid points in the work of philosophers you otherwise don’t align with.
You are still shifting categories as if they do not have consequences.
You say desire is amoral, but earlier you argued that desire reveals God’s design. Those two statements cannot both be true. If desire is genuinely amoral, then it cannot function as a theological guide to what God intended.
Likewise, you say biology is amoral, yet you treat observations from the state of nature as meaningful for Christian ethics when it helps your point, and then set biology aside when it does not. You cannot appeal to biology as evidence for one argument and treat it as irrelevant for the next.
Your claim that Christianity is sometimes life denying shows that you are judging Scripture through an external philosophical lens. That is fine, but it is not a Christian method of interpretation.
You also said Scripture is insufficient without outside philosophical insight. Christians use language tools and historical context, but that is not the same thing as using outside philosophy to redefine what the text means. You are not talking about translation. You are talking about authority. Those are very different things.
You appealed to eclecticism as if it were a virtue, but eclecticism only works when the sources share the same foundations. The philosophies you are drawing from do not share foundations with Scripture. They begin with different definitions of humanity, of morality, and of God. You cannot combine incompatible foundations and then claim coherence.
So the contradictions remain. You are switching frameworks depending on the point you want to make, which is why the conclusions do not fit together.
At the end of the day, we simply have different authorities. You are comfortable letting anti-Christian philosophy “reinterpret” Scripture. I am not. That is the core difference between us and it is irreconcilable.
The Moriori thought that their laws were a covenant with their gods and that to break them would have been a great sin.
So answer the question. Should the Moriori have resisted?
Again, it’s irrelevant – whether they should or shouldn’t have has no bearing on the discussion. If they should have resisted – it says nothing about Biblical counsel. If they shouldn’t have – it says nothing about Biblical counsel. You are attempting to substitute Biblical guidance for man-made guidance in a story so that if the guidance failed, you can then assert that Biblical guidance is faulty – that is a logical error. It’s like arguing that a fake fire extinguisher failed to put out a fire, therefore fire extinguishers are useless. This is a category error + a false analogy fallacy mixed with an appeal to emotion and a straw man.
You aren’t even arguing from the Bible . You’re waving around verses like talismans. It’s amusing that you accuse me of treating the Bible like a book of rules when that’s exactly what you’re doing. The biblical verses I’ve cited are illustrations of general principles. In case you missed it, when I say that the Sabbath was created for man I am not just talking about the Sabbath.
I simply believe that every text has limits. Every finite thing has limits. My copy of the Bible is about 1000 pages long. It’s a collection of texts that were written in a particular time and place. In the case of the OT, the agrarian Ancient Near East. For the NT, the agrarian 1st century Eastern Mediterranean.
If we’re talking about category errors, it is a category error to argue from the Bible when discussing the state of marriage and sexuality in post-industrial 21st century North America and Europe. It makes about as much sense as trying to insist on only arguments from Scripture in a discussion about math.
If we want to talk about design:
If you think that humans were designed to practice “one man one woman for life” then how do you explain the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive principle”? The “natural” mating strategy of human males is to try and spread his seed to as many females as possible. And under conditions with few restraints, eg primitive societies and the Sexual Revolution, that’s what ends up happening. Males try and mate with as many women as possible. Try. Success, well, that’s often a different story.
The usual Christian line is that the male reproductive strategy is perverted and a result of sin.
On the other hand, I’ve never heard of a preacher attributing the female reproductive strategy (select the male with the most resources and/or physical fitness) to sin or call it perverted. On the contrary it’s lauded. Funny how that goes.
But, the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” principle strongly suggests that our physical biology works with the two different strategies “in mind”. Men, after all produce sperm plentifully and easily and they continue to produce viable sperm their whole lives. Men are also mentally “wired” to want sexual variety.
You might be able to argue that pre-fall Adam would never have found any other woman but Eve attractive in his whole lifetime. But you are going to have a much harder time arguing that the physical properties of Adam’s sperm production changed after he sinned. Either way, we don’t live in Eden so the only thing you can assess is actually existing human biology.
“You speak of God as though He designed humanity poorly, set morality incorrectly, and left His creation to be corrected by philosophers”.
Deus Absconditus hasn’t seen fit to make Himself available for further questioning , to provide new rulings on emergent issues, or to provide clarifications on old rulings. The Bible, as a finite text, has limits by it’s very nature. So it seems the work is up to us. The Church body has to decide, to “bind and loose”.
You may say you do not read Nietzsche, but your conclusions are exactly what he argued. That is not Christianity. Since we no longer share the same authority or even the same definition of God, there is nothing left to debate. I follow the living God. You are following thinkers who would dethrone Him if they could. “What fellowship has light with darkness?” 2 Corinthians 6:14.
That ain’t Nietzsche. To begin with, the term Deus Absconditus comes from the Latin Vulgate translation of Isaiah 45:15. “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior”. That should clue you in that theologians have been wrestling with the fact that God, rarely, if ever communicates with us and you can’t just directly ask him to clarify a point of doctrine. Several parts of the Bible itself are even about that.
Rabbinic Judaism has spent thousands of years arguing and deciding minute points instead of trying to ask God directly. There’s a story in the Talmud where rabbis are arguing about whether a new kind of oven is ritualistically pure. One rabbi argues in favour, the other rabbis present argue against. The rabbi arguing in favour tries to prove his point by invoking a series of miracles. If he’s right a tree will move, a canal will flow backward, and the walls of the study hall will fall. All three of those happen but the other rabbis are unimpressed. To them, that proves nothing. Finally the rabbi calls on God. God Himself appears and says to the other rabbis that the first rabbi is correct; the oven is kosher.
The other rabbis reply by quoting a verse from Deuteronomy: the Torah is not in heaven. In other words, the Torah is to be interpreted by human decision making and deliberation, not by prophets or miracles. Not even by appearances from God Himself.
God’s response? He’s pleased with them, happily exclaiming “my children have defeated me!”.
You read that right. The rabbis defeat God in an argument and that’s presented as laudable. Miracles and even direct appearances from God prove nothing. It’s kind of an appalling story but it reveals an awful lot about Jewish psychology. Explains why Christ’s miracles and resurrection don’t impress them very much. It’s also an illustration of what happens when you take “all law is based on a decision” a little too far.
Anyway point is, the observation that God doesn’t really communicate with us that often is one that’s been made and wrestled with for almost the entire existence of both Christianity and Judaism. It’s even wrestled with in the Bible itself!
So I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that it originates with the Nietzsche.
I said your ethics are Nietzschean, not that you quoted him. Arguing that God is silent, Scripture is limited, revelation has effectively ended, and humans must now determine morality through debate is the exact conclusion Nietzsche said would happen after rejecting biblical authority. You may get it from rabbis or Schmitt instead of Nietzsche, but the result is the same. Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27). You say God is silent and we must improvise. We do not share the same God or the same source of truth.
Most orthodox Christians would agree that God generally doesn’t directly communicate with us. Even ones that do recognize things like miracles and apparitions acknowledge that they are very rare.
Same with the agreeing that revelation has ended. There are Mormons and other sects who believe that newer writings are on par with the Bible. There’s also various Pentecostals and Charismatics who think God still regularly imparts prophecies and words of knowledge. My family was/is involved in that scene but I found such prophecies to be either subjective and vague or, when they are more detailed, often wrong. “The calls are coming from inside the house”, so to speak. I don’t know what you believe about that, but that certainly isn’t a majority view within Christianity that we are getting fresh revelation on a regular basis.
Everyone believes that the Bible is limited, the only debate is how limited. The Bible doesn’t contain the sum total of knowledge nor is it supposed to. Nobody thinks the Bible will teach you how to repair your car or how to do math.
So, once again ,I fail to see what’s so Nietzschean about any of this.
Are you talking about the whole “God is dead” thing?
I’ve read just enough to know that “God is dead” isn’t as literal as many people think. It’s descriptive of how religion in Western societies isn’t the social force that it once was. Our society is now secularized and religion is considered a private matter. Whether or not you think that’s a good thing, it’s obviously true and it’s even more true now than it was in the 19th century. Of course, now that Islam is establishing itself more and more in Europe we will see how long that trend holds out…
Whether other Christians agree with you or not is irrelevant here. But you are also wrong in your claim. Every major Christian tradition affirms that God communicates directly with believers who are open to hearing Him. The only thing that has ceased is new Scripture, not God’s ongoing communication.
(Oh, I see I have pass through moderation now instead of the comments auto-posting)
At that point it probably is time to end this.
I’ll leave off by saying that your style of argumentation is incredibly wooden. Even if we were to confine the argument entirely to the biblical text, your idea of biblical argumentation is to copy and paste all of the isolated verses that mention the word fornication instead of doing something more interesting.
I suppose my argument ultimately boils down to saying that “the rain falls upon the just and the unjust”-Matthew 5:45 but also “Which of you whose son or ox falls into a pit on the Sabbath day will not immediately pull him out?”-Luke 14:5. In other words, we’ll all experience suffering and misfortune but we also don’t have to passively accept the suffering if we can do something about it.
In response to that, I expect you to use one of your favourite words, “irrelevant”.
Read the Book Of Job lately? In an ancient Rodney Dangerfield joke, Job loses everything…except his shrewish wife. He demands, at length, that God tell him why he’s suffering. God finally does show up, only to tell Job “Your’re just a tiny human, what do you know about anything?” Job’s suffering gets lifted and he gets back more than what he had lost. But the one thing he never does get is an answer to why he was suffering.
Every time I used a historical or fictional story to illustrate a point, you brushed it off as “irrelevant”. Which tells me you don’t understand analogical reasoning. And you certainly weren’t able to use any of your own stories to make a point.
You were unable to cite a single historical fact to refute my point that 1st century Greco-Roman sexual ethics were fundamentally and radically different than Post-Sexual Revolution 21st century sexual ethics.
You guessed a few of the writers I relied on but didn’t cite any of your own to make a point (except Hegel to make a side point but only after I mentioned him first).
Seemingly the only line of argumentation you would have even been receptive to would have been to have a pedantic debate over the meaning of porneia or for me to fire back with an isolated verse every time you used one. Even if I did, you would have no doubt handwaved it away as “irrelevant”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you’ve mentioned somewhere on this site that you’re on the autism spectrum. If I’m remembering correctly, then your preferred method of argumentation certainly reflects that. Your arguments are very wooden, overly literal, and have a poor theory of mind for your opponent.
I’m tired now.
Go back to your Baby Boomer fantasy world and go back to answering peoples’ petty questions about their spouse’s unsexy night clothes.
After reading through this entire thread I have come to multiple conclusions that make me quite sad.
1.) I am pretty certain every scripture verse you quoted was either taken out of context or has questionable interpretation.
2.) the reality that you feel the need to comment so repeatedly and viciously on someone’s blog instead of just saying “we agree to disagree”.
I say this with all sincerity – I am praying that the true Almighty God will open your eyes to your blindness and confusion.
Nope the website did that all on its own – for some reason, it decided you needed to be moderated. Perhaps I should have listened to it as you have now moved fully into personal attacks, so yes, it is time to end this as the rest of your comment is just more repetition and insults.
The last statement in this reply is how you lose any credibility in an argument.
I don’t understand your fixation on Jay Dee’s “not reading other books besides the Bible”. Why is that relevant? If approaching life from a Christian perspective is the goal, how does reading philosophical texts written by unbelievers assist in that endeavour?
Every reader has philosophical priors that they bring with them when they read the biblical text. That includes you, whether you realize it or not. Your philosophical assumptions may have come directly from reading philosophy, they could have come from the cultural values you were raised, from what simply “felt” intuitive to you, or from one of countless different sources.
For instance, Western readers usually read the Bible through the lense of a modern Western worldview, even though the Ancient Near East world view was often shockingly different. There is a book about this called Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes.
I’m at least aware of my philosophical priors and open about having them.
I think that Carl Trueman’s book, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self” would be informative reading for both of you. It has certainly helped me see how reasoning around this topic has evolved over the last few centuries.
Thank you both for this enlightening dialogue. I endured to the end and was aptly reminded of a wise king’s admonition…
“Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
Eccl. 12:12–13
(I’m done bickering with Jay but some audience Q&A might be fun)
I’ve read Carl Trueman’s book. In fact, I once recommended it to our esteemed host as evidence that the Sexual Revolution is individualist, consumerist, and a radical break from anything that came before it. Our host refused to read it and also deleted the comment in which I recommended it along with some other books. The book has its weaknesses but it’s a good starting point for the general reader who may not want to wade through more academic texts and for the squeamish church lady audience who may be scared off by some more edgy authors I’ve cited who make much the same point.
It was deleted because you recommended erotica in the comment as well, and I won’t tolerate links to that on my site. You were making the argument that the Christian church should provide temple prostitutes to men who could not find mates – you thought that was the fair and equitable way to “the current sexual market” as I believe you put it.
Congrats, you successfully got me angry enough to respond to you again.
I argued for no such thing. I made a sardonic comment about how prostitution is at least honest about what it is, unlike a lot of what happens in the current sexual marketplace. You massively misinterpreted that.
I am also totally unaware of recommending any erotica. If you are getting turned on by any of the books I’ve recommended then you are missing the point, my friend. I think I know which books you’re trying to refer to, but that’s an absurd claim.
It definitely read that way to me, and it still raises the same question: within your worldview, why would it be wrong? You argue that sex is purely biological, morally neutral, detached from covenant, and that the church can adjust moral boundaries to fit cultural needs. If that is true, then on what basis would you object to the church providing sex workers who are willing and tested? You reject marriage as a boundary for sex, so what boundary remains? If sex is just biology and desire is morally instructive, then why is prostitution off the table in your system? I’m asking because your framework has no clear stopping point, and I’m trying to understand where you think the line is. Mine is very clear – a life-long covenantal marriage. Where is yours?
Most people are ultimately looking for a permanent partner and they should strive for that. Along the way, though, it’s ok to have sex with someone you’re dating and it’s ok to have some casual encounters as well. In order to get married nowadays it’s almost a requirement to “play the market” a little. For better or worse, the Sexual Revolution is here to stay. We have to learn to live with that.
If someone does want to do it the old way and wait for marriage, then that is their choice. I wish them luck because they are going to need it.
If someone does “play the market” then the church should not shame or condemn them for it.
Prostitution should be legal (its already de facto legal where I come from) but it’s not something I’d resort to. Too transactional for me; I don’t like being used. Yes, the buyer is being used just as much as the seller. “I’ve successfully trained the humans to give me fish”, thought the performing dolphin.
How would a church-run prostitution service even work? Would the workers be paid, would it be a volunteer position? (Pun intended). The closest thing I can think of to this scenario is the instances of medieval clergymen who owned brothels. Even then they didn’t actually run them out of the church building. Wooden pews aren’t a very sexy environment.
On the other hand, I don’t see what is wrong for two people who know and respect each other to engage in some embodied connection.
(I always shake my head when people suggest praying and Bible reading as a solution for horniness. Those activities are disembodied; they aren’t the same thing at all) .
People should be free to openly express sexual interest in each other without having to go through a bunch of stupid rituals and games.
People should consider it an honor if someone expresses interest in them.
People are always free to say no (and the no shouldn’t be held against them), but should also be willing to give most people a chance.
The only thing I really want the Church to do you is get out of peoples’ way. Its hard enough out there without being shamed and condemned from the pulpit.
What is your definition of erotica? Should we put clothes on naked statues? Should we paint clothes on paintings that depict nude figures or sexual scenarios?
Is every visual or literary depiction of a sexual act automatically erotica?
Just so I’m clear – you do think a church-run brothel is a viable solution to what you consider a problem with the current sexual market.
No, and its absurd to even imagine such a thing existing. I thought I made that clear.
You said you weren’t sure how the logistics would work and that you yourself prefer something more personal, but that’s a preference. You have no moral concerns with a church run brothel then? Only logistical concerns and a personal preference not to use them yourself if they existed.
Where I come from, privately selling sex is de facto legal but running a brothel isn’t. Which is more or less the right legal approach to that. You understand that you can think that something should be legal while also thinking it’s immoral and/or personally distasteful, yes? If two adults want to privately use each other, then I don’t think the state needs to concern itself with that.
I say again, how would it even work if running a brothel were legal? Are the workers paid, is this a volunteer position? What church would set something like that up? Not even the most progressive Unitarian Church is crazy enough to try that. How many workers could you possibly recruit for that insane idea.
Before you start asking me my moral opinion on a scenario, make sure that the scenario is within the realm of possibility.
Define erotica. Should we put clothes on statues and paint over nudity in paintings?
Let’s try to stay on topic. We’re not discussing legality or logistics, but moral authority.
So, you’re morally okay with prostitution (whether it’s legal or not in the country you come from is irrelevant), so long as it’s individuals, not organized, is that correct?
What are you actually trying to get at here?
Secular prostitution (but not temple prostitution) was legal in Ancient Israel, but being a prostitute was considered shameful. Throughout most of Christian history, prostitution was legal even though the church preached that it was a sin.
All considered, no I don’t think purely transactional sex is morally praiseworthy even though it do think it should be legal.
I’m trying to see where your line is and what it’s anchored to. So far I have no idea where it is. You’re okay with prostitution it seems – but only if it’s individual. If they want to become more efficient and form into an organization, that’s immoral for some reason? Why? You want the church to be okay with prostitution, but not to run it, because of the logistical and public perception problems? But not because of any moral issue. Do I have that correct? So, if the public was okay with the church running a brothel, then would it be morally okay? After all, you believe morals can be altered and the church can decide what is moral or not in response to public opinion – is that right? I’m trying to figure out your worldview. So, if I’m wrong, tell me why and what you actually believe instead of just insults and deflection. I’m trying to understand – this is your opportunity to show me that your worldview is coherent.
Null. The question itself is absurd.
The Combination Brothel And Church is a ridiculous idea. If anyone was actually crazy enough to try it then I certainly wouldn’t be able to stop them no matter what I think. But that “if” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting here.
I don’t think prostitution is good because sex isn’t just a service. It’s a personal interaction. Sexual interaction for money is artificial and purely transactional.
I wouldn’t want to have a friendship with someone who is only there for the money either. The whole point of it is that both parties are freely and mutually interacting for its own sake.
I wouldn’t even want to play chess with someone who’s only doing it because I’m paying them.
But if other people want to do that then I won’t stop them and neither should the state.
Define erotica. Should we clothe naked statues? Is a medical textbook erotica?
Let’s try to stay on topic here.
You don’t think prostitution is a good idea, you wouldn’t want it, and you couldn’t stop them – that’s personal preference and a question of power. Not relevant to the question.
Do you think prostitution is moral, immoral, or morally neutral? Or am I asking the wrong question? Do you no longer believe in morality? That choices are merely a combination of preference, logistics and power in your worldview?
“You believe morals can be altered and the church can decide what is moral or not in response to public opinion”.
Not even close, partner. I give not one whit for public opinion.
It’s almost impressive how much of your argument is just you pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.
Do you understand the distinction between illegal and immoral? Do you understand that you can believe something is wrong but shouldn’t be criminalized by the state?
I don’t think private exchange of sex for money is right but I don’t think it should be criminalized. Public brothels shouldn’t be allowed, for various practical reasons.
Jesus grounded sexual ethics in creation, not culture: “From the beginning God made them male and female… the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4–6). Bottom line.
Private prostitution is morally wrong but it should not be criminalized by the state. Period full stop. I don’t know what else you want me to say.
You aren’t “taking my views to their logical conclusion by presenting me with a hypothetical scenario that is so unlikely as to be absurd.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I can’t fix someone else’s wilful blockheadedness. That’s beyond any human’s powers.
Here’s a scenario that actually has happened many times and will continue to happen. A man and a woman marry. The woman marries the man purely for his money. The man marries the woman purely because he wants a trophy wife and sees the woman as a sexual object. (For a famous example that actually happening, see the case of Anna Nicole Smith marrying a rich man in his 80’s). Is sex between them moral? After all, they are married. If the answer is no, then marriage alone isn’t what makes sex moral. If the answer is yes, then I have a very dim view of your moral judgement.
Define erotica. I know what it means but I’d like to know what YOU think it means. It seems like you think that ANY depiction or nudity or sexuality counts as erotica and/or pornography. That view is risible. However, I’d like to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. Tell me, are all depictions of sex and nudity automatically erotica?
Alright, good – that’s the first time you’ve actually said you find it morally wrong – so now at least we know you believe in morality – it was quite unclear before. Now – why is it wrong? You’ve listed personal preference, but unless you believe that morality is based on your personal preference (which I don’t think you do), then it must be tied to something else. What is it? Why is prostitution wrong?
Again, let’s stay on topic – you wanted to share your worldview – this is your chance.
Your own view of morality seems to be some kind of Divine Command theory. It’s moral simply because God declared it to be. The problem with that is that it makes morality totally arbitrary. Would it be moral if God commanded us to do something cruel or suicidal? I already gave you a real world example of people who thought they were being divinely commanded to do something that ended up having suicidal consequences.
My own view on morality is somewhere in the teleological/consequentialist zone.
Why do I think prostitution is wrong? Because using people is wrong, whether you’re using them for money or using them to obtain an orgasm. And its an artificial, transactional simulacrum of something that should be a genuine human interaction. Using people is dehumanizing. In the Grand scheme of things it’s a low-level form of dehumanization though.
I already know you are going to ask “how do you know that using people is wrong?”. So in anticipation of that: everyone has moral axioms that they assume from the beginning. That includes you.
Now answer my two questions. In the scenario about the rich man and the trophy wife, is sexual activity moral between them?
And, what is your definition of erotica?
You’re deflecting and trying to redirect the conversation. Let’s try to stay on track here.
So if prostitution is immoral because it’s using them for money (even if it’s with their consent) – then is labor also immoral? If not, why not? It’s using them for money (even if it’s with their consent).
No, I’m not redirecting. I’ve answered you already. I actually have seen sex work advocates try to make that same argument, that prostitution is no different from any other kind of labour. But they don’t seem to get that fixing someone’s car is a lot different from sexual interaction. Labour is, by definition, transactional. It’s a free exchange of money for goods or services. That is how economic activity works. Got any alternate economic ideas?
If I tried to pay someone to be my friend, that would be a sham friendship. Sex would be much the same. I imagine there are some people out there who’ve tried to buy friendship but they are really missing the point of the whole thing. “Can’t buy me love” goes the old song. You can’t buy friendship or sex either.
Now answer my questions.
I’m not done asking my question, because I still don’t have an answer, and you are easily distracted, so we’re going to stay on track.
Ok, you say it’s different – so why is sex different from labor in your worldview? What is the principle that separated sex from every other bodily service?
I repeat: It’s almost impressive how much of your argument is just you pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.
Sex is not just a service, it’s a form of interpersonal connection. Yes, so is talking or any other kind of communication. Talking is very trivial, unlike sex. If anything most people do too much of this. Sex isn’t trivial. How do I know that? Through reason and observation. That’s also how I found out that talking is often trivial. This conversation is good evidence of that, for instance.
I’ve answered you already. If you still don’t get it, then that’s your problem .
How do YOU know that prostitution is wrong?
Want to know my opinions on the questions I’ve been asking you? Yes, when the trophy wife and rich man have sex it’s immoral. Erotica is a cheap bodice ripper with no literary or artistic value. The author that you have been objecting to has won major literary awards and has been considered a frontrunner for a Nobel prize in Literature. That is a far cry from erotica.
Ok, so we have some agreements here:
1) Sex is not trivial.
2) Sex creates interpersonal connection
3) Sex is morally meaningful
4) Sex involves the whole person
5) Sex cannot be reduced to a transaction
Do we agree on these? I’m asking because while you think I’m intentionally being obtuse, I’m not. I simply am struggling to pick out your actual views between the sidelines, deflections, insults and red herrings and every time I think I understand something that you believe, I’m wrong.
I have more questions based on the rest you said, but one at a time, as I said, you get sidetracked easily and I’m trying to understand one step at a time without jumping too far ahead.
Ok, and you assert that this is due to “observation and reason”. So, this boils down to personal interpretation, correct? You hold that there is no absolute moral authority – that it’s up to each individual’s interpretation to determine was is moral and not. This is why you think prostitution is immoral, but should be legal, because someone else’s interpretation might be different, and so it is moral for them. Am I right in that?
No I think prostitution is wrong but shouldn’t be criminalized because it isn’t the state’s business.
You, for instance, think that premarital sex is a sin. But, as far as I know, you don’t think the state should ban it. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.
Some people think it’s a sin to drink alcohol but don’t think it should be prohibited. Ditto for drugs. Ditto homosexuality. I don’t see many Christians who are calling for gay people to be put in prison even though they believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. I could list an awful lot of things that are immoral but not illegal.
Ok, so you believe prostitution is immoral, regardless of circumstance – why? What gives you the right to determine it’s immoral?
What gives anyone the right to make a moral judgment about anything?
I know exactly what you’re doing here. I could just as easily do the same to you.
” How do you know X?”
“Because of Y”
“How do you know Y?”
And so on. If you go down the chain of reasoning far enough you’ll eventually find one or more ideas that are assumed as axioms.
To quote Mickey Mouse, “all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove”.
I think being eternal, all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing does – that’s why my reasons go back to “because God said…” and then I refer to the Bible.
But you don’t like that answer – you don’t believe the Bible is an authority. So, what do you base your moral judgements on? That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out for … 79 comments now.
So, again – if you don’t place your trust in God and the Bible – where do you place your trust and why do you give it more authority than the God you claim to serve?
Sure, I can agree to the 5 points you listed there.
But one big difference between us is that you think that the dividing line between moral and immoral sex is marriage. I believe that a sexual interaction outside of marriage can be moral and sex within marriage can be immoral. You obviously think that sex is always immoral outside of marriage but I don’t know whether or not you think that sex is always moral in marriage. That’s why I’d actually like to know your response to the Anna Nicole Smith scenario I gave you. Is that a morally praiseworthy situation?
Even if you believe that your morality was received directly from God, you still had to use your own mind to read/hear the words in the biblical text, understand them, interpret them, and assent to them.
So I can ask you:
How do you know that the Bible contains the true and correct system of morality?
How do you know that you’re correctly interpreting it and understanding what God’s moral commands even are?
How do you know that the book you’re reading is even the Bible?
How do you know you can even read properly?
To paraphrase another statement by the philosopher M. Mouse, “hypocrite that you are, for you trust in your own reasoning to convince yourself that you don’t trust in your own reasoning”.
At this point we are getting to basic epistemology, which is pretty far off topic.
You’re avoiding the question or got distracted, I’m not sure which.
Every worldview requires basic starting points. The difference is that Christianity grounds moral weight in God’s design. You reject that foundation, yet you still claim sex carries moral significance.
What gives sex its moral weight in your system?
Why is it more than biology or labor?
What objective principle are you grounding that claim in?
The actual disagreement between us comes back around full circle to where we started. Both of us relied on our own reasoning about how to correctly interpret and apply biblical advice regarding sex.
I’ll put the burden of proof on you. Explain your reasoning for concluding that sex outside of 1st century agrarian marriage is always a sin.
Same answer – God said so. This is what a coherent worldview looks like – the answers don’t change.
So, what objective principle are you grounding your claims in?
That’s not actually an answer, that’s a cop-out.
And how did you conclude that God said so?
Is there a reason why God said so, or did He just arbitrarily decide that?
See, you’re relying on a lot of assumptions here.
Anyone who says they are reading the Bible without philosophical priors is either lying or doesn’t realize they have them.
Still dodging the question…
“God said so” is neither an answer nor an objective standard on its own. If God said so, then please tell me exactly what God’s statements on this subject are. You actually have to justify your own beliefs instead of trying to fob it off on God. I’m not talking to God here, I’m talking to you!
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is an old saying, which is usually repeated as a joke. It’s a joke because there are a LOT of unspoken assumptions within that statement.
I’m not feeding you any more distractions. Take some time, think about it, come back when you have something. No rush.
Wow. That Bruno-Jay Dee dialogue proved to me that Jay Dee was truly graceful and patient in his replies. incredible debate and sharp wit.
As much as I am a sinner wanting to throw in my two cents, I wouldn’t dare tangle with this type of dialigue.
That said, I’ve stumbled upon some truths in the argument made by God’s inspired Word and voiced by Jay Dee.
These truths do not relate to the points offered by Bruno. However, I’m still left empty from the backnforth between the two sides.
Their debate did strike a chord of doubt in my recent biblical revelation… which makes me curious now about rethinking my decision to become celebate. I’ve battle the age old sin of bitterness that poisons many marriages & causes disharmony.
Looking to replace or substitute spiritual faith for human intimacy.
Very challenging.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by your decision to become celibate.
If you’re married, that doesn’t seem like a wise decision, baring some extreme circumstances or very late in life.
If you’re single, then celibacy is the only biblical option.