Saturday, January 25, 2014

"The marriage bed is undefiled!" said the coprophiliac

One claim I come into contact with when discussing sexual morality is the biblical quote "the marriage bed is undefiled", interpreted to mean that anything a married couple sexually engages in is A-OK and God-blessed. It amazes me each and every time, because really - it seems like the most transparent 'I am trying to stretch these words to justify things I want justified' move I've ever encountered on the subject of biblical morality. At that point I'm basically being told that there's nothing wrong with coprophilia so long as a husband and wife are involved, and that this is a full-blown biblical teaching - which ends up turning more into an argument that Christians shouldn't really be trusted with informing their faith by reading their own bibles more than anything.


lotharlorraine said...

Hello Crude,

I follow the central teaching of Jesus according to which everything that God wants from us is to love Him and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

For me, our entire sexual ethics should orient itself towards the Golden Rule and the cultivation of love (which means striving for a lifelong committed relationships.

A sexual act becomes sinful if it violates this ground rule.
Needless to say that most relationships of young Westerners are sinful because they are focused on seeking pleasure regardless of sexual orientation.

Pedophilia is a terrible sin because it has demonstrably harmful effects.
If the same could be shown about gay relationships I would certainly view them as sinful as well.

But maybe we should just agree to disagree on that issue ;-)

I am thankful for all your comments and think we should really learn (as Christians) to debate about our disagreements in a spirit of love and mutual respect.
This is what Christ wants for our live, that we become increasingly as loving as Him in every respect .
(This does not mean respecting hateful opponents as He showed us through His interactions with nasty pharisees).

Otherwise, do you have some mathematical background?
I have written a (fairly long) criticism of a probabilistic defense of the Outsider Test for Faith of John Loftus.

I would be extremely interested in your critical opinion, especially if you think it is friendly enough for lay persons to grasp the stuff.

A growing number of atheists use a probabilistic reasoning for arguing against Christianity.
This prompted me to start a series of posts showing that they rely on particular assumptions which are far from being obvious or warranted.

In the meantime I wish you God's blessing for the rest of the day (it is already 1.40 pm. in the UK).

Lovely greetings.

Crude said...


I don't really mind disagreement on this issue. Truly. What riles me is when I get the 'You're a minion of HATE!' response, and emotional barricades which I know better than to be affected by. Then again, you haven't done anything like that with myself.

Either way, I'll drop the issue for the purposes of our conversation.

First, have you seen RD Miksa's evaluation of the OTF? I have no strong math background, but I think Miksa may appeal to you on this front as well.

I'm actually in a conversation with another atheist about probablistic reasoning. I'm highly skeptical of the usual deployments of Bayes about God's existence, and I think the OTF - to be frank - is a pile of dog crap.

lotharlorraine said...

Given your discussion with this atheist,
I think it is worthwhile taking a look at my last post and the section "Probability" and "likelihood" of my blog.

This should equip you with a better understanding of probabilities and help you decide if God's existence cannot be associated αΊƒith a probability (which I believe is indeed the case).

I would be extremely glad if you were to ask me questions about this topic (provided you feel the need, of course).

The Outsider Test of Faith is not completely beyond any hope of salvation, even if many aspects of it are extremely dubious.


Marc Fischer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BenYachov said...

This is where the essential difference lies between Lothar's view and the Catholic & ancient Christian view.

>A sexual act becomes sinful if it violates this ground rule.

Actually a sex act is either being operated according to it's natural final end(which makes it naturally good) or it is not(which is evil).

Sex is primarily for procreation. Both the Rabbis and the Fathers taught pedophilia was wrong because children could not be produce children so it was inherently against nature and the sin of Onanism(mind this does not exclude the abuse factor).

These foundational principles are still true today even if more developed.

It is very essentialist. Lothar's approach is too consequentialist for Catholic tastes IMHO.

Peace be with you.

BenYachov said...

Why the freak did my spell check write "be Produced" instead of "reproduced"?

I hate computers.

Gyan said...

Surely the individual feelings of right and wrong are primary moral data.

That about the final end etc is merely a theory, a framework to understand and systematize the existing moral data.

malcolmthecynic said...

Surely the individual feelings of right and wrong are primary moral data.

Gyan, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you trying to say that if it feels wrong, it probably is?

Eufrosnia D said...


About the OTF, I am not sure why people develop such sophisticated counter-arguments for it. (I might just be wrong here but this is what my mind tells me)

A Catholic is someone who accepted Christianity either through

1. arriving at the Catholic Church through reason and historical facts, Or
2. accepting the authority of the Catholic Church on the basis of another authority (Parents, Teachers, Grandparents etc).

A Catholic belonging to the first case would already have a to think ones religion is true when performing comparison between religions (unless he is met with a religion that has similar claims with equal historical certainty). So the only reason why he will be met with a dilemma is if other religions have similar historical facts with equal historical certainty to establish the authority of its current religious leaders. But with most religions, this is trivially obvious to not be the case.

A Catholic belonging to the second case is also immune to this argument. S/He can always ask the other members of the Church and become a Christian of the first type as well.

So the OTF argument seems to be only effective against those who have no objective reasons and historical facts to think that ones religion as taught by ones religious leaders (or oneself) is true. But then one does not even need such an elaborate argument as the OTF. One can simply say that no one should believe in a religion without an objective reason and facts to think its religious leaders have the true faith. Irony here is that even Atheism itself (as Miksa points out) is not safe from OTF because it presumes a belief that God does not exist with no ability to prove such a thing.