Al Mohler has an interesting post up today entitled A Quarter Century of AIDS — What Have We Learned? Of the many interesting points he outlines is that, while AIDS is certainly a regrettable worldwide pandemic, it is unlike previous pandemics in one significant way – it can be almost entirely contained through abstinence from at-risk behaviors.
The 14th-century Black Death killed one-third of Europe’s population, but it was in the air, food and water, so breathing, eating and drinking were risky behaviors. AIDS is much more difficult to acquire. Like other large components of America’s health care costs (e.g., violence, vehicular accidents, coronary artery disease, lung cancer), AIDS is mostly the result of behavior that is by now widely known to be risky.
What are these behaviors? The sins of promiscuity and drug use. Why did this spread through the gay populuation so quickly? Rampant promiscuity, of course. Other ways of catching AIDS are mostly collateral damage due to the sins of others.
The best way to stop AIDS? Sure, in the short run, condoms and medicine are necessary. But rather than merely wasting our resources so far down the chain of events, we should be implementing an ounce of prevention by clearly teaching that if you don’t engage in at-risk behaviors, your chance of getting AIDS is near zero. But sexual virtue is not in vogue these days – it’s a fallen world, for sure, and like lemmings we go after the humanistic teachers who tell us that we can’t control ourselves, and that this type of irresponsibility is normal and acceptable. How far we have fallen.
Mohler ends his article with a summation that we must continue to repeat to the humanists who mistake truth-telling for hate, and who have little appetite for truth in general because it convicts them as well:
Christian compassion is the much-needed response, but so is Christian honesty. Love of neighbor requires that we combine compassion and truth telling.
Hey Seeker,
When did you lose your virginity? On your wedding night like you were supposed to? Because if the answer isn't on your wedding night like you were supposed to, I'd rather not get any lectures from you about virtue. And while I'm at it, can you remind me when virtue was in vogue? Which time period was it, exactly, that you'd like us to return to?
Because if the answer isn't on your wedding night like you were supposed to, I'd rather not get any lectures from you about virtue.
I was not a Christian until I was 21, and even then, I had a hard time maintaining virtue. But I still affirm that it is sin and has consequences. I don't appeal to my own authority when it comes to morality, but scripture, natural law, and ethics. They are the authority. I am not perfect, but I strive towards it. And I don't cheat on my wife.
If you are only wanting moral instruction from the morally blameless, then you'll have to stick to the words of Jesus and ignore everyone else. And of course, I'll have to ignore you ;)
Which time period was it, exactly, that you'd like us to return to?
Your liberal canard of "turning back the clock" is laughable if it were not so brainless. But it comes from the ignorant assumption that whatever we are doing now must be superior to the past.
Of course, this means you approve of our rampant consumerism, violence in the media, and whatever other ills you accept because returning to virtue would be "returning to the past." I understand that, being an unregenerate unbeliever and humanist, you probably have little concept of virtue outside of what you find convenient or immediately expedient, but for thinking humanity, ideas like chastity, fidelity, and self-control have meaning and are part of the development of character.
A. What we are doing now is superior to the past.
B. So in other words, while you yourself, like so many of your Christian brethren, are dirty sinners, you feel it appropriate to lecture everybody else about their sins.
C. If chastity, fidelity and self-control have meaning and are part of the development of character, why on Earth didn't you practice any of that when you were busy screwing before you were married?
D. Hypocrite.
But rather than merely wasting our resources so far down the chain of events, we should be implementing an ounce of prevention by clearly teaching that if you don't engage in at-risk behaviors, your chance of getting AIDS is near zero.
This thinking has proven fatal to thousands in Uganda. It makes me think Mohler, and people with similar mindsets, want people to die, perhaps as a punishment for promiscuity, I don't know. Sick stuff, even if he is just ignorant and not malicious.
While downstream thinking puts many more people at risk of death. That's why we do both/and, not either or. As I said, while emergency intervention will save the "hundreds" today, more upstream thinking, like changing lifestyles through education and moralizing/preaching will save "thousands" tomorrow. Hence the expression "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
A. What we are doing now is superior to the past.
I some aspects, of course, but not universally. As I said, some current moral trends have been away from the virtues that were more common in the recent past.
What I am telling you is that to call a position "going backwards in time" may be fun in a pejorative sense, but it's not a valid critique of something like chastity, which is an enduring value, not some oppressive, backwards, old-time value that has no application today. In fact, I'd say it is more needed today, with all of the diseases around, not to mention the divorce and infidelity rates, than ever before.
If chastity, fidelity and self-control have meaning and are part of the development of character, why on Earth didn't you practice any of that when you were busy screwing before you were married?
Isn't the answer obvious? It is not because these things are not valuable, but because I lacked character.
I guess for you, there is not such thing as a reformed criminal or sinner, since anyone who has ever been imperfect is now not eligable to teach that such things are wrong. But that's your, um, "logic."
But let me explain the difference between an imperfect person and a hypocrite, and let me use Ghandi as an example.
A woman came to Ghandi and asked him to tell her son to stop eating sugar. Ghandi said to her "come back in two weeks." When they came back, Ghandi said to the boy "stop eating sugar." The woman asked Ghandi "why didn't you tell him that last week?" Ghandi replied, "Because last week I was still eating sugar."
The point? Hypocrisy is not making mistakes or failing to live up to your ideals. Hypocrisy is telling others not to do what you are actively doing at the time.
Did I fail to live up to my ideals in the past? Yes. Am I living up to them now? Yes. Can I now teach the principles of morality? If I have acknowledged my sin, and agree that these laws are good, I most certainly can preach them.
Now, if they were unreasonable and unreachable goals, and I found them so, then perhaps I am guilty of being unrealistic, and therefore, asking people to do the impossible. But my experience and that of others shows that virtue is attainable, and should be encouraged. I'm sorry that you seem to want to discourage the preaching and practice of such virtues as chastity. But I am not surprised anymore.
Seeker,
The point is that, like Bill Bennet, you enjoy the fruits of sin – and incidentally, having sex before marriage is hardly a sin – but now that you're done, now that you've stopped, now that you've squeezed what sin you could, you preach that it is others who shouldn't enjoy themselves.
That strikes me as being incredibly offensive, quite frankly. Here you are, having lived a sinful life (and still, by your accounts, ending up a fine, upstanding, moral human being), and you're going to have the audacity to tell everybody else how they should lead their lives? You don't think that is in the slightest bit offensive? You don't think that it is the slightest bit offensive to tell others to do what you chose not to?
I say this not as bragging on myself, but since I (and my wife) was a virgin until my wedding night, can I preach against sexual sin?
Sam, you know it is ridiculous to say, if you have done something wrong you can't tell someone else that is wrong. Do you want your daughter to make the same mistakes you made? Of course not, it would be horrible parenting to not try to help your child learn from your mistakes.
I have a friend who, despite being a Christian, "did his own thing." He has since changed his life. When he and I talk to our youth, we can come at it from vastly different directions, but still to the same point. He can say, I have done these bad things and I regret them and I don't want you to make the mistake I made. I can say, I am grateful to God that I didn't make those mistakes, you can avoid them as well.
All parents should be grateful that one does not have to be perfect in order to instruct someone else.
My daughter is different than society Aaron, as you well know. Parenting is different than dealing with elements of society that make you uncomfortable. Seeker proposes laws – regressive, bigoted laws that wouldn't in any way affect him – while he goes out and apparently sins his ass off. I find that to be offensive on so many levels because, as we constantly see from Christians in this country (and every other religion in every other country) a firm, "Do as I say, and not as I do" mentality.
The fact of the matter is that I've made mistakes in my life, and there are certainly things I'd do differently. There are lessons I hope to effectively teach my daughter. But what I don't propose to do is legislate my mistakes onto other people, as (Some) Christians seem to do.
Finally, I'd argue that since you followed unnecessary Christian doctrine about sex to the letter, you do have the right to tell others about waiting until marriage. Seeker, on the other hand, does not, because he went out and enjoyed himself, and when he was finished, he decided that nobody else should have any fun.
Hey Aaron,
There is, of course, no reasonable prohibition against giving advice to people based on your own mistakes. That's the basis of a cautionary tale. Sam's objection to Seeker, however, illuminates the fundamental disagreement that our two sides have about this issue.
Abstaining from sex, especially in adolescence, is grotesquely difficult. Surely no one here would suggest otherwise. Seeker's own experience, as well as Sam and my own — and the majority of the world, in fact — testifies to this fact. Our disagreement, then, stems from the fact that people such as Sam and I are much more pessimistic (and I believe rightly so) about the ability of people to refrain from doing something that they are so biologically driven to do. Especially when we believe that such restraint isn't ethically mandated.
Since we categorically deny any kind of religious commandment to abstain from sex, the only reason left for abstainance is that of common sense. And I'll emphatically agree that, in places like sub-Saharan Africa, abstaining from potentially-dangerous sex is common sense. But it's not dogmatic. And it's certainly not the case that marriage somehow alleviates the potential dangers. Demanding abstainance is a largely unsuccessful tactic, whereas condom use (along with a bit of common sense about sexual partners) is proven in its effectiveness in combatting AIDS.
The point is that, like Bill Bennet, you enjoy the fruits of sin – and incidentally, having sex before marriage is hardly a sin – but now that you're done, now that you've stopped, now that you've squeezed what sin you could, you preach that it is others who shouldn't enjoy themselves.
That strikes me as being incredibly offensive, quite frankly. Here you are, having lived a sinful life (and still, by your accounts, ending up a fine, upstanding, moral human being), and you're going to have the audacity to tell everybody else how they should lead their lives? You don't think that is in the slightest bit offensive? You don't think that it is the slightest bit offensive to tell others to do what you chose not to?
Not the slightest. I mean, not even a little. I mean, I think it is totally acceptible to preach the truth, that sin has consquences, that God forgives, and that we all need to repent and return to God, and that none of us are perfect, not even the preacher.
Now, if we practice sin without any concern about it and say we are Christians, of course, we "are liars and the truth is not in us." And leaders should be not be doing major sinning while professing to be examples. But if we strive to do good and encourage others to do so, and warn others of the consequences that we too have suffered due to our own sins in the past, that is not only acceptable, it is laudable.
You should be glad that I didn't suffer more because of my stupidity, and along with me, should seek to forsake the stupidity of sin and tell others to do the same. You should get up on a box and cheer for me and say "Amen!" You should send me MONEY to help me spread the word. Got it? I am being only a little facetious.
Do as I say, and not as I do
Actually, here you are mistaken. As I tried to communciate, there is a distinct difference between hypocrisy and imperfection.
Hypocrisy is saying one thing while actively doing another, and not even making an attempt to do what you say. That is "do as I say, not as I do." Imperfection is "I used to so this, and it was wrong, and I suffered for it. It is wrong and you should not do it."
What you expect is that moral preachers must be perfect. So I guess that limits you to… Jesus. But the apostle Paul didn't look at it that way.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Seeker,
Facetious or otherwise, you had your fun. You're just suggesting that nobody else should; or, in other cases, you've gotten your wedding. You're just counseling that certain others shouldn't.
Abstaining from sex, especially in adolescence, is grotesquely difficult.
Many of us do it. I did it througout my 20's and into my 30's.
But you are right. Albert Mohler, who advocates abstinence until marriage, also decries the late age of marriage in our society, and says we should be less materialistic, more mature, and marry in our 20's so that we are NOT tempted to sin.
"During those lingering years of unmarried adulthood, young people may not be getting married, but they're still falling in love. They fall in love, and break up, and undergo terrible pain, but find that with time they get over it. This is true even if they remain chaste. By the time these young people marry, they may have had many opportunities to learn how to walk away from a promise. They've been training for divorce."
Even Paul the apostle says something similar:
1 Corinthians 7:9
But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Screw it Seeker; why don't we become Mormons and marry at 18? Or 15? Let's get these marriages out of the way. When you advocate this sort of lunacy, it is really quite telling. And where's Aaron? I'm interested in his response.
Our disagreement, then, stems from the fact that people such as Sam and I are much more pessimistic (and I believe rightly so) about the ability of people to refrain from doing something that they are so biologically driven to do. Especially when we believe that such restraint isn't ethically mandated.
Since we categorically deny any kind of religious commandment to abstain from sex, the only reason left for abstainance is that of common sense. And I'll emphatically agree that, in places like sub-Saharan Africa, abstaining from potentially-dangerous sex is common sense.
Well said. But where we disagre is that common sense does dictate abstinence, not just in Africa, but in all human experience. The risks of extra-marital sex are not just disease (and don't forget, 1 in 4 people in the US have an STD, so even kissing is risky if you don't want herpes), but also of pregnancy, and emotional damage from broken itimacies. I'd say the biblical warning against such activities is not just religious, but eminently practical in human experience.
And ultimately, this is why the bible condemns sin – not because it offends religious sensibilities, but because it "leads to death." Physical, emotional, spiritual death. Sometimes it takes a while for the seeds to sprout after we've sown them, and this is why the bible calls sin "deceitful" – because it can often appear that there are no consequences. God condemns sin because it is bad for us. Promiscuity is bad. Virtues such as chastity are hard, but we should not be pessimistic.
As I love to say, the difference between a pessimist and a realist is that a pessimist has lost hope.
why don't we become Mormons and marry at 18? Or 15? Let's get these marriages out of the way.
Part of the problem that Mohler outlines is that due to our virtueless society that encourages childishness even late into the adult years, is that maturity and character can form much earlier than it does today. He argues that one reason we marry later is because we are less mature.
I don't totally agree with this, and think it good to wait until at least your mid 20's to marry. However, I think we should wait till then for sex also.
But it is an interesting argument to say that our bodies are ready for sex at 13, but our emotional readiness for marriage probably doesn't arrive until later. So your solution would be to promote "safe" sexual activity until you fall in love and are mature enough for marriage.
My suggestion would be to exercise self-control until you marry.
And yet Seeker, common sense apparently didn't dictate abstinence for you, and it didn't dictate you hold out on your own sexual gratification until you mid-20's. It just seems strange that you get to go out and have fun and do whatever in the hell you want to, and everybody else ought to lean cloistered, punished, monastic lives. Sort of like Bill Bennett and gambling.
I think most of us here agree more than we think. I don't think seeker wants to establish "regressive, bigoted laws" in terms of abstinance. I'm not sure how you could do any legislation on that issue.
I think abstinence should be stressed because it is an attainable goal – one that I and millions like me were able to achieve. I am thankful that I was able to do that and would encourage others to do likewise. Not only because of the physical risks, but because of the emotional bond that I am able to have with my wife with nothing to interfer. Unfortunately, many of my friends only wish they could have this same experience.
At the same time, I also recognize that many will not wait until they are married and the use of condoms is better than nothing.
There is a balance here to be had. Recognizing that the best (abstinence) should be stressed and emphasized, while acknowledging that some (many) will not choose that path and they need to do the next best thing (condoms).
And yet Seeker, common sense apparently didn't dictate abstinence for you, and it didn't dictate you hold out on your own sexual gratification until you mid-20's.
Actually, it DID dictate abstinence for me, and I practiced it from age 21 (when I became a xian) to about 34, at which time I left xianity, and did some things I should not have. Having returned to xianity, I am now married, so my task is not to resist having sex, but to resist having sex outside of marriage even if my biology might "drive me to do so."
The things I did "away from God" were sinful, and I paid an emotional and physical price for them, as did my partners. Now that I have returned to my senses, I will warn others. I can relate my experience of entirely successful abstinence during my 20's and early 30's, the reasons for my leaving those virtues and what it cost me, and my current successful commitment to fidelity in marriage.
Contrary to your contention, I didn't just "enjoy sin for myself" and then tell everyone else not to do it. Rather, I successfully practiced virtue in my 20's, made a short period of mistakes in my 30's, and am now back on track.
But of course, you don't buy that. You think that my fall from grace in my 30's invalidates my pre-christian experience, my entire celibate experience in my 20's, and my return to my senses in my late 30's. But of course, you can not take any other position because you are committed to resisting the chastity movement, probably because it is Christian, which you obviously misunderstand and despise. Pitiable.
At the same time, I also recognize that many will not wait until they are married and the use of condoms is better than nothing.
There is a balance here to be had. Recognizing that the best (abstinence) should be stressed and emphasized, while acknowledging that some (many) will not choose that path and they need to do the next best thing (condoms).
Aaron, very well said, that is exactly what I have been trying to say.
Funny thing. My wife has been reading these threads, and she said to me "Aaron is much mellower and nicer than you. You should be nicer to those who attack and oppose you." I hate when she is right. Keep setting the good example for interaction.
Like Sam, I get easily riled and can't resist snide remarks. I notice that I like to insult his intelligence, while he likes to insult my motives. I wonder why that is? Hmmm.
I reject chastity because I don't hate sex Seeker. I like to have sex, and I don't feel guilty when I do. I don't apologize for that, and you're not going to shame me into feeling badly about any of this. I won't be one of the many Americans who is regularly made to feel badly for enjoying allegedly "unChristian" activities.
I insult your motives because your motives are wrong. They are fine for yourself, but not for everybody, and certainly not written in law. You are free to dislike and abstain from whatever you wish; I object to you making that decision for everybody else.
I reject chastity because I don't hate sex Seeker. I like to have sex, and I don't feel guilty when I do. I don't apologize for that, and you're not going to shame me into feeling badly about any of this.
I like sex too. However, sex outside of marriage is immoral and unethical. It is harmful. You should feel shame for doing such damaging, selfish things.
You reject chastity for more reasons than liking sex – I think you do so because you reject the morality behind it, and you reject the concept of sexual virtue. Right?
I reject your view of sex because I value responsibility, and because I am not ruled by my passions and pleasures, but have learned self control, and to keep them in perspective rather than let them determine my outlook on life, and overrule reason as you seem to have.
You are free to dislike and abstain from whatever you wish; I object to you making that decision for everybody else.
And you are free to practice and promote sin, and I am free to let you know that it is sinful, selfish, and damaging.
You, however, not only hate such criticism, but try to stifle it by making bogus claims that I am trying to force you to stop having anal, bestial, oral, extra-marital, or whatever other kind of sex you enjoy.
I make no such demands. You only accuse me of that because you are blinded by your rage at anyone criticizing your sinful, ungodly perspective, and perceive every criticism as a pogrom by religious fanatics.
I have constantly supported legislative restraint, encouraging government neutrality on such questionable issues as homosexuality. You, however, would allow our courts to make it the law of the land. The only reason the FMA is coming to the fore is because of gay activists who are overstepping the bounds of reason, trying to get the government to support their lifestyle as normative.
Why don't we agree (so we can build on this) that none of us wants to government telling consenting adults what they can do in their bedrooms?
Christians may encourage chastity until marriage, but that does not mean that we argue for government mandating what we encourage.
Seeker, that is funny that your wife said that. Has she read the posts on illegal immigration? She may not be as lenient toward my writing then.
No, she only has time to read my posts and the comments on them. You're doing a decent job of peacemaker here.
Seeker,
Read this very carefully: for somebody who dislikes anal so much, you sure are a raging asshole.
Well, that takes the conversation forward. Wow.
Life is too short to abstain from sex. Sex is part of the human condition. Just be responsible and mature when you have sex. Don't deprive yourself of a good thing before you get married.
Well, I was with you until the last sentence.
No conversation can go forward with you Seeker, because you're busy calling anybody who has sex outside of marriage a degenerate sinner. Err, I'm sorry, "You should feel shame for doing such damaging, selfish things."
I don't feel an ounce of shame, and if I ever did, it certainly would be because a basketcase shamed me into it. That's what you Christians really want; you want people to be embarrassed about who they are, and what they enjoy. You want people living closeted, horrible lives. You want people suffering if suffering means they aren't doing anything to offend Jesus. And that, ultimately, is why Christianity is world's biggest waste of time.
Your misunderstanding of Christianity is truly astounding – but perhaps it is because people like me aren't commumicating clearly – but I'm sure you wouldn't blame others for your own decisions – far be it from you to make your decisions based on hypocrites like me. I'm sure you've examimed Christianity for yourself and rejected it. That's your (foolish) choice, but you are free to make it.
Quote from Sam: "The point is that, like Bill Bennet, you enjoy the fruits of sin."
So what? Sinners by nature enjoy sin.
Quote from Sam: "and incidentally, having sex before marriage is hardly a sin"
Thats quite a leap there…why do you believe this?
Quote from Sam: "now that you're done, now that you've stopped, now that you've squeezed what sin you could, you preach that it is others who shouldn't enjoy themselves."
First, nobody said that people shouldn't enjoy themselves. What is being said that there is proper context in which to enjoy sex because it entails more than just mere enjoyment but has actual meaning and value. Why do you think so little of sex?
Second even if you right about Seeker's position, so what? Are you saying members of AA shouldn't "preach" against alcohol abuse because they used to enjoy alcohol? Guess so…
Quote from Sam: "That strikes me as being incredibly offensive, quite frankly."
Well that's your problem not Seeker's.
Quote: "Here you are, having lived a sinful life (and still, by your accounts, ending up a fine, upstanding, moral human being), and you're going to have the audacity to tell everybody else how they should lead their lives?"
What is audacious about that? Most normal people call that wisdom from experience….
Quote from Sam: "You don't think that is in the slightest bit offensive? You don't think that it is the slightest bit offensive to tell others to do what you chose not to?"
Not in the least. What sane person is offended by sage advice?
Quote from Sam: "I reject chastity because I don't hate sex Seeker."
Actually Sam, you do hate sex which is why you refuse to place natural boundaries on the way you practice it. You are out of control and sex controls you which proves that you do not properly respect the value of sex should in have your life because you see it as merely a means of gaining pleasure. I feel sorry that you think so little of your body and seuxal relationships.
Quote from Sam: "I like to have sex, and I don't feel guilty when I do. I don't apologize for that, and you're not going to shame me into feeling badly about any of this."
Why would you think there would be any basis for us thinking to shame you unless you already felt ashamed?
Quote from Sam: "I won't be one of the many Americans who is regularly made to feel badly for enjoying allegedly "unChristian" activities."
That fact you think that you could be made to feel this way to proof that you already do feel that way. If you didn't feel guilty in the least then wouldn't be here attacking Seeker and feeling all offended about what that mean old xian said. You simply wouldn't care nor feel the need to go to a xian website and vent. Can't you see that? It is a plain a day.
Quote from Sam: "I insult your motives because your motives are wrong. They are fine for yourself, but not for everybody, and certainly not written in law. You are free to dislike and abstain from whatever you wish; I object to you making that decision for everybody else."
Seeker never made a decision for anyone else let alone "everybody." That fact that you feel the need to impute motives and feelings to him such as "he hates sex" so everbody ignore his arguments tell us that is you who is the authoritarian here otherwise you won't feel the need to lie about what he is saying about sex.
You want to shut down any discussion over what are the proper boundaries to sex activity by force of deception
and you are so out of control that you wish censor any discussion of sexual morality as "limit others to what you like."
Then why weren’t they (relationships) worth keeping?
Septeus7, You can be in a relationship and love each other and still that relationship does not work out:(
The why don’t they want to “hangout” (sexually) with you now?
When it does not work out, you don’t go back, at least if you know whats good for you.
You claim to promote responsibilty but define responsible as acting as if there aren’t suppose to be consequences to sexual activity which is the definition of irresponsible.
It’obvious you don’t understand “responsible” in the context I placed it in.
I object to you making that decision for everybody else
And how did I accomplish this feat?
Quote from Lecher: Life is too short to abstain from sex. Sex is part of the human condition….Don’t deprive yourself of a good thing before you get married.
You are depriving yourself of an incredible experience until you get married if you wait. Like I said, the right time for marriage will come and you can enjoy that as well. In the meantime, as long as you are mature, act responsibly and with integrity, enjoy sex. It is part of the human condition, like it or not :)
Septeus7, I think you are either too young or too inexperienced to comment on this subject. As far as calling me names like lecher, liar and hypocrite I forgive you for you know not what you say. Peace.