Comments on: The High Cost of Free Love http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:56:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jim http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-22370 Jim Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:35:55 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-22370 Ah the 60's, There is an old adage that if you can only discuss it you weren't there, it seems to me that many of the comments originate from people who are victims of the results of this age. To truly understand the sexual revolution it is necessary to understand what was happening prior. I was a young man full of tesosterone and willing to share it with any partner that I could find, so I rejoiced when women were given the OK to find gratification in sex. My parent's society truly understood the value of sex and to even kiss a young woman was titillating. I admit that I exprimented, I was searching for willing partners and not a wife. The woman I am happily married to demonstrated to me that she valued the sexual act by her chastity. Marriage is not based on sex only, it is a pleasure that is meant to be shared by two loving people not a quick act designed to fill an immediate need. For a man sex is mainly external and physical whilst to a woman it is mainly internal and emotional. I can assure everyone that there is greater pleasure being with someone that you genuinely love and that you seek their gratification and not your own. Jim Sturla Ah the 60’s, There is an old adage that if you can only discuss it you weren’t there, it seems to me that many of the comments originate from people who are victims of the results of this age.
To truly understand the sexual revolution it is necessary to understand what was happening prior.
I was a young man full of tesosterone and willing to share it with any partner that I could find, so I rejoiced when women were given the OK to find gratification in sex.
My parent’s society truly understood the value of sex and to even kiss a young woman was titillating.
I admit that I exprimented, I was searching for willing partners and not a wife.
The woman I am happily married to demonstrated to me that she valued the sexual act by her chastity.
Marriage is not based on sex only, it is a pleasure that is meant to be shared by two loving people not a quick act designed to fill an immediate need.
For a man sex is mainly external and physical whilst to a woman it is mainly internal and emotional.
I can assure everyone that there is greater pleasure being with someone that you genuinely love and that you seek their gratification and not your own.
Jim Sturla

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-6479 Jonathan Sarfati Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:07:32 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-6479 Lita Cosner points out in <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4851" rel="nofollow">Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women?</a>: <i>There is no reason, under their own belief system, for evolutionists to see males and females as equals. Males and females faced different selection pressures, so natural selection is unlikely to produce sexes of equal worth (if a term like ‘worth’ can even have meaning in this belief system). In fact, many animals show huge differences between the sexes. Indeed, historically, evolutionists have seen females as the inferior sex. ... Conversely, the Bible affirms the value of women, despite the claims to the contrary (see one CMI refutation, ‘Female inferiority’ raises questions). The fact that men and women are both created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–7) disproves a common radical feminist claim that the Bible is anti-women. Jesus’ chosen Apostle, Paul, (maligned by many feminists as being anti-women), affirms that spiritual privileges in the body of Christ come equally to both sexes (Gal. 3:26–29). </i> Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Lita Cosner points out in Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women?:

There is no reason, under their own belief system, for evolutionists to see males and females as equals. Males and females faced different selection pressures, so natural selection is unlikely to produce sexes of equal worth (if a term like ‘worth’ can even have meaning in this belief system). In fact, many animals show huge differences between the sexes. Indeed, historically, evolutionists have seen females as the inferior sex.

…

Conversely, the Bible affirms the value of women, despite the claims to the contrary (see one CMI refutation, ‘Female inferiority’ raises questions). The fact that men and women are both created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–7) disproves a common radical feminist claim that the Bible is anti-women. Jesus’ chosen Apostle, Paul, (maligned by many feminists as being anti-women), affirms that spiritual privileges in the body of Christ come equally to both sexes (Gal. 3:26–29).

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Katherine Fishley http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-5120 Katherine Fishley Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:25:32 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-5120 This discussion seems to have meandered a bit. I just want to pick up on the comment on women being in submission. Everyone wanting to knock it quotes out of context. Wives are to submit to their husbands but husbands are to love as the Lord loved the church and died for it. There is also the reference just before the passage in Ephesians which says "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Abuse in the name of Christianity has usually occurred when people yank verses out of context instead of trying to obey the whole lot. Those who try realize that they cannot do it on their own. Katherine Fishley, Wantirna This discussion seems to have meandered a bit. I just want to pick up on the comment on women being in submission. Everyone wanting to knock it quotes out of context. Wives are to submit to their husbands but husbands are to love as the Lord loved the church and died for it. There is also the reference just before the passage in Ephesians which says “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Abuse in the name of Christianity has usually occurred when people yank verses out of context instead of trying to obey the whole lot. Those who try realize that they cannot do it on their own.
Katherine Fishley, Wantirna

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4978 Bill Muehlenberg Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:50:28 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4978 Thanks Chris It is one thing to argue that universal moral absolutes exist, even though they of course need to be applied to specific situations. It is quite a different thing to argue for moral relativism. Important moral (and Biblical) absolutes such as ‘do not kill’ or ‘do not steal’ are basically clear, but of course nuanced applications of them must be made. Thus a Christian (as well as non-Christian thinkers) will distinguish, for example, between murder and killing, much as modern courts do (killing in self-defence being different from premeditated murder, eg.) But both are based on the moral absolute of the sanctity of human life, a principle of the Judeo/Christian tradition. Modern Western law is built upon such foundations. No moral system of any kind is free from such considerations (application, interpretation, and so on). The fact that there is not “total agreement” is of course understandable given that we are all both finite and fallen. Yet having an objective rule book helps us to escape from the morass of relativism, even though there may be some disagreement on certain applications of general moral principles. But such disagreement neither rules out moral absolutes, nor does it mean moral anarchy is the only remaining option. And of course there is not “total agreement” amongst neo-Darwinists either. As but one example, consider the intramural warfare between Gould and Dawkins over so many years. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Chris

It is one thing to argue that universal moral absolutes exist, even though they of course need to be applied to specific situations. It is quite a different thing to argue for moral relativism. Important moral (and Biblical) absolutes such as ‘do not kill’ or ‘do not steal’ are basically clear, but of course nuanced applications of them must be made. Thus a Christian (as well as non-Christian thinkers) will distinguish, for example, between murder and killing, much as modern courts do (killing in self-defence being different from premeditated murder, eg.)

But both are based on the moral absolute of the sanctity of human life, a principle of the Judeo/Christian tradition. Modern Western law is built upon such foundations. No moral system of any kind is free from such considerations (application, interpretation, and so on).

The fact that there is not “total agreement” is of course understandable given that we are all both finite and fallen. Yet having an objective rule book helps us to escape from the morass of relativism, even though there may be some disagreement on certain applications of general moral principles.

But such disagreement neither rules out moral absolutes, nor does it mean moral anarchy is the only remaining option. And of course there is not “total agreement” amongst neo-Darwinists either. As but one example, consider the intramural warfare between Gould and Dawkins over so many years.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Chris Mayer http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4954 Chris Mayer Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:55:14 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4954 Bill, what gets me confused from reading this site is that many Christians can't agree totally about what the correct morals are from the Bible, so who decides which are? Are you saying you know all the objective morals that there are to know? To move to a more concrete example of morals, lets take a womens swimming 'costume'. Neck-to-knee, one-piece, bikini, topless, nude. Which of these is objectively immoral, and which is not? Have these morals aways been the same since swimming cotumes came in to fashion? If they have changed, why is that? Why do objective morals change? Chris Mayer Bill, what gets me confused from reading this site is that many Christians can’t agree totally about what the correct morals are from the Bible, so who decides which are? Are you saying you know all the objective morals that there are to know?

To move to a more concrete example of morals, lets take a womens swimming ‘costume’. Neck-to-knee, one-piece, bikini, topless, nude.

Which of these is objectively immoral, and which is not? Have these morals aways been the same since swimming cotumes came in to fashion? If they have changed, why is that? Why do objective morals change?
Chris Mayer

]]> By: Tom Wise http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4946 Tom Wise Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:33:40 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4946 Some interesting views. Many people are ignorant of Christianity, or just want to do what pleases them, or don't know the consequences of their actions. Forty years ago, as a nominal christiian, I might have agreed with some of the views. I know one family whose children co-habited, and they are now all divorced, and the children all suffer. It is a serious form of child abuse. I have three married children, similar age to the above. All practiced abstinence and are happily married. I have spent forty years examining christianity. and I am convinced that believing and living by the teaching of Christ will always have good results, and this is supported by statistics. Christians are human, and they are free to choose who they will obey, and enjoy or suffer the cosequences. Tom Wise Some interesting views. Many people are ignorant of Christianity, or just want to do what pleases them, or don’t know the consequences of their actions. Forty years ago, as a nominal christiian, I might have agreed with some of the views. I know one family whose children co-habited, and they are now all divorced, and the children all suffer. It is a serious form of child abuse. I have three married children, similar age to the above. All practiced abstinence and are happily married. I have spent forty years examining christianity. and I am convinced that believing and living by the teaching of Christ will always have good results, and this is supported by statistics. Christians are human, and they are free to choose who they will obey, and enjoy or suffer the cosequences.
Tom Wise

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4945 Bill Muehlenberg Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:27:09 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4945 Thanks Ben Green You offer various justifications for morality, but none seem convincing, all because your worldview does not allow for objective morality. Indeed, you say “Morality cannot be absolute or stationary”. You argue that it is common sense to say upskirting is wrong. But the fellow doing it obviously did not think it was wrong. How, under your system of moral relativism, can you say you are right and he is wrong on this issue? Many people find racism to be a matter of common sense. Even Darwin could speak of “the preservation of favoured races”. And Hitler, following suit, also thought racial superiority to be the stuff of common sense. Cheating on exams or fleecing the tax department also seems like common sense to many. Common sense is obviously a poor basis for universal morality. You imply that Nazism was somehow allowable before laws on genocide were introduced. With or without genocide laws, an entire nation or two felt that genocide was morally justifiable. Yet you even admit to moral relativism between societies, and that “as a society, we must decide what is best and fair for us”. But that is exactly what the Germans did in the 1930s. You still have no sound basis to condemn what Hitler did by your own understanding of how morality works. You say we learn from our mistakes, implying that we are getting better with morality. But I remind you that Germany in the 1930s was among the most civilised, sophisticated and advanced cultures of the day. Why do you presume that cultures are getting better? It can more accurately be argued that in many ways we seem to be getting worse. But if morality is relative, as you insist, there is simply no way to judge. We just put up with what our genes determine. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Ben Green

You offer various justifications for morality, but none seem convincing, all because your worldview does not allow for objective morality. Indeed, you say “Morality cannot be absolute or stationary”.

You argue that it is common sense to say upskirting is wrong. But the fellow doing it obviously did not think it was wrong. How, under your system of moral relativism, can you say you are right and he is wrong on this issue?

Many people find racism to be a matter of common sense. Even Darwin could speak of “the preservation of favoured races”. And Hitler, following suit, also thought racial superiority to be the stuff of common sense.

Cheating on exams or fleecing the tax department also seems like common sense to many. Common sense is obviously a poor basis for universal morality.

You imply that Nazism was somehow allowable before laws on genocide were introduced. With or without genocide laws, an entire nation or two felt that genocide was morally justifiable. Yet you even admit to moral relativism between societies, and that “as a society, we must decide what is best and fair for us”. But that is exactly what the Germans did in the 1930s.

You still have no sound basis to condemn what Hitler did by your own understanding of how morality works. You say we learn from our mistakes, implying that we are getting better with morality. But I remind you that Germany in the 1930s was among the most civilised, sophisticated and advanced cultures of the day.

Why do you presume that cultures are getting better? It can more accurately be argued that in many ways we seem to be getting worse. But if morality is relative, as you insist, there is simply no way to judge. We just put up with what our genes determine.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Graeme Rule http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4929 Graeme Rule Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:07:47 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4929 The discussion is most interestingl. Amanda, last Saturday we attended a wedding of a young couple. The groom is a clever engineer, the bride a graduate nurse, we became aware months ago that they had agreed not to even kiss before their wedding day! Hundreds of friends and family attended the service and reception.The music was bright and noisy, the whole event well organised yet relaxed. It seems there is another way, with strong prospects of a succesful marriage. Their parents have been married for around thirty years despite all the challenges. Go the way of mutual love and respect, its challenging but its exciting and rewarding. Graeme Rule, Melbourne The discussion is most interestingl. Amanda, last Saturday we attended a wedding of a young couple. The groom is a clever engineer, the bride a graduate nurse, we became aware months ago that they had agreed not to even kiss before their wedding day! Hundreds of friends and family attended the service and reception.The music was bright and noisy, the whole event well organised yet relaxed. It seems there is another way, with strong prospects of a succesful marriage. Their parents have been married for around thirty years despite all the challenges. Go the way of mutual love and respect, its challenging but its exciting and rewarding.
Graeme Rule, Melbourne

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4865 Jonathan Sarfati Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:45:43 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4865 Those who advocate "try before you buy" should try that at a cafeteria and see how they get on. Of course, the manager would insist that they bought what they tried, because trying it spoils it for someone else. Much of this comes from the evolutionary nonsense that we are just animals who are incapable of controlling our desires. Not surprisingly, this mentality doesn't stop at fornication. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Those who advocate “try before you buy” should try that at a cafeteria and see how they get on. Of course, the manager would insist that they bought what they tried, because trying it spoils it for someone else.

Much of this comes from the evolutionary nonsense that we are just animals who are incapable of controlling our desires. Not surprisingly, this mentality doesn’t stop at fornication.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Michael Dawson http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/comment-page-1/#comment-4821 Michael Dawson Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:07:55 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/15/the-high-cost-of-free-love/#comment-4821 'Wisdom is the principle thing' learning from the mistakes of the past generations and taking decisive, conscious and strong action against making the same mistakes is what is needed today. If you have a will to live, you will learn. God designed sex to be in the constitution of marriage, lest an individual suffer the same consequences (diseases and emotional/ mental/ spiritual pains), as people through out all of history. Every person must acknowledge the fact that we all have physical desires, and we need to all learn to discipline them. For the students and grow-ups alike, if we sow (in our minds) pornography and lusting, we will reap (in our minds and bodies) a great struggle to control our desires. For those who call themselves Christians (followers of Christ), and think that they can live a double life. Christ says, “Be not deceived: fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind … shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Col. 3:5-10). But the ‘good news’ is that God demonstrated his great love for us in that while we were yet still sinners, Christ died in our place; Taking the punishment for the many sins of the world, including the sin of fornication. So now there is forgiveness from the past, new life for now and hope for the future. Your response to such love is you are to repent from your sins (turn from sinning) and place your trust in Christ Jesus. Michael Dawson ‘Wisdom is the principle thing’ learning from the mistakes of the past generations and taking decisive, conscious and strong action against making the same mistakes is what is needed today. If you have a will to live, you will learn.

God designed sex to be in the constitution of marriage, lest an individual suffer the same consequences (diseases and emotional/ mental/ spiritual pains), as people through out all of history.

Every person must acknowledge the fact that we all have physical desires, and we need to all learn to discipline them. For the students and grow-ups alike, if we sow (in our minds) pornography and lusting, we will reap (in our minds and bodies) a great struggle to control our desires.
For those who call themselves Christians (followers of Christ), and think that they can live a double life. Christ says, “Be not deceived: fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind … shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Col. 3:5-10).
But the ‘good news’ is that God demonstrated his great love for us in that while we were yet still sinners, Christ died in our place; Taking the punishment for the many sins of the world, including the sin of fornication.

So now there is forgiveness from the past, new life for now and hope for the future. Your response to such love is you are to repent from your sins (turn from sinning) and place your trust in Christ Jesus.

Michael Dawson

]]>