GeorgeW

Paul, I agree that many of us could and should do more regardless of what Jesus may have said. C.S. Lewis (although I am not a fan of apologetics including his), wrote something to the effect that we should give to the point that it is uncomfortable. Few of us, including me, do that. George

Joseph, thanks for the kind comment. What I intended to imply about education is that the rich can/should help raise the level of education of the poor. However, I would not suggest this as an alternative to feeding someone who is starving. A hungry person is not a candidate for quality education. I have no idea what it would require to eradicate world hunger through education and assistance, but I suspect that half of our military budget would make a huge big dent. This would still leave us with the greatest military force in the world (roughly equal to half the rest of the world combined including our allies). George

Although we give to local charities, I am personally more inclined to give to those in foreign, poor countries. Although our safety net here is, IMO, too low and has too many holes in it, there are millions around the world with no safety net whatsoever. It is a natural inclination to care for those closer by; we have expressions such as 'charity begins at home' to rationalize it. But, I question if proximity is a better determiner of our benevolence than need. I am personally inclined to favor need. I am not suggesting that anyone else is wrong or less charitable, just stating my personal view. George

Of course, there is the biological/evolutionary reason for this. Were it not pleasurable, we would just watch more TV and there would be no reproduction and the species would quickly die out. George

Yes, it is deeper than that. One answer is - education, education, education. There is a clear correlation between education, fertility and poverty. And, the key is education of women. George

Paul, You pose a difficult question. A simple and practical answer is that if we all declared poverty and dedicated our lives to serving the poor, there would be no one to grow the food, process it and transport it to feed the hungry. Are most of us more comfortable than we need be? Yes, I know that I am. I think it is incumbent on us to do whatever we can to solve these problems. In addition to contributions and volunteer activities, I think voting for candidates who are concerned with these issues is an important thing to do. George

Yes, that could well be a motive behind the proscription. George

I think prayer is a useful way of expressing our concerns. It also gives us a sense of doing something in situations over which we otherwise have little or no control. One cannot physically control the path of a hurricane, but one can express the desire that it do no harm. Prayer, I think, is more powerful than simply thinking, 'gee, I hope no one is harmed.' George

Then why allow the rhythm method? George

Yes, I think it is related, but they only prohibit artificial birth control. Doesn't the 'rhythm method' tacitly acknowledge recreational (but highly restricted) sexual activity? George

Yeah, that makes some sense. Maybe it is related to the idea of non-interference with the death process. But, couldn't this be extended to medical non-intervention in any situation; let nature/God take its course. George

What is the theological basis for abstaining from birth control other than the 'rhythm method?' This question is prompted by the recent dust up over the government mandate that health insurance must include birth-control services. The Catholic church and many conservatives vehemently objected. So, why, what's the issue? It cannot be about protecting life, as in abortion, since there is no life to protect. It cannot be about promoting procreation as abstinence is permitted. So what's the basis for this proscription? George

Yes, this is an important fact - NT references to scriptures are references to the OT, principally the Torah (Pentateuch). George

I don't think that innateness is itself a good test of moral acceptability. The standard I would apply is harm. If no one is harmed by any behavior, why should anyone object? Hypothetically, what if homosexuality were a conscious choice (which it isn't)? Would that make it immoral? I say no. So, even if pedophilia is innate (and I don’t pretend to know whether it is or not), that cannot be a moral justification because of the harm that results. George

WS, The problem I have with this point of view is that it places psychiatric disorders in the same category as normal variation. The only difference seems to be in whether society decides to tolerate it or not. George

Jim, Well said. George

Jenell, it is not what "I call them," it is what they are called in the field of linguistics. Yes, they can be said capriciously with no effect, but without being said by a person in authority, one cannot become legally married, president, baptized or whatever. George

FWIW, I don't think that homosexuality is, as is often claimed, an acceptable behavior because it is innate or 'normal.' There are innate behaviors (i.e. genetically based) which cannot be tolerated by society. No one decides to be heterosexual and no one decides to be a pedophile. So, innateness vs. voluntary decidedness is not a good criterion. Ancient religious texts like the Bible or Qur'an are not, IMO, good arbiters as well. Texts, like these, written thousands of years ago in very different cultures cannot be literally applied to a modern, urban, industrial society. The morality or acceptability of a behavior should, IMO, be based on other criteria. I propose the no-harm, no-foul rule. A behavior that harms no one should be morally acceptable. If we apply this test to pedophilia, it fails. If we apply the test to homosexuality it passes. Even if someone were to 'decide' to be gay, why should I care: No harm, no foul. George

There is a whole category of actions called 'speech acts' in which the saying of certain words actually does something. Examples: "I pronounce you man and wife," "I do solemnly swear I will faithfully execute the office . . .," " I baptize you in the name of the father . . ." George

Frankly, I am uncomfortable even discussing rape and pedophilia in the same discussion as homosexuality. This implies some equivalence that does not exist and is demeaning to gay people. George

I think there is a huge difference between sexual orientation and psychological pathologies. Further, homosexuality harms no one while the others do with the possible exception of incest among consenting adults unless it results in child birth. The incest taboo which exists in every culture has a biological basis. George

Syncretism doesn't work? Hmm, but Christianity is loaded with syncretism. George

Matt, Would you recommend this approach to people of other faiths (i.e. reading up on their own faith rather than Christianity)? George

Matt, I have a somewhat different view. First, 'tolerance' implies recognition that there are differences and respect for these differences. However, I don't think tolerance entails acceptance differences that are harmful, threatening or dangerous. Further, the differences, at least in religion, are often in the details not the broad principles. Also, it seems to me that one can focus on our differences or our similarities. I think the world would a better place if the focus is on the similarities rather than the differences. George

Since baptism is symbolic in all cases (even with fundamentalists), I suppose one could assign any meaning they wish to it. As long as the meaning is benign, why would anyone object? George