Ok, thanks, that's what I was looking for - the wherefore of your vehemence. I agree that intimacy and loyalty are important and ought be cultivated. — csalisbury

;)

Since modern society no longer links gender identity to anatomy, but instead to personal declaration, the only course would be to allow for a single restroom with individual stalls where each person can decree their own fiefdom. My fiefdom would include all sorts of rules and regulations, but since my jurisdiction is limited to the confines of my stall, there should be no problem. That does seem like where all of this is leading: modern sensibilities make the male/female distinction fluid and subjective. I will withhold my judgments on such developments else be called a traditionalist, or, worse yet, a conservative. Let's at least admit though that a certain amount is lost when we bury our heads to obvious distinctions.

Along BitterCrank's distinctions between gays and transgenders, there is also a fairly profound distinction among many in the transgender community. The narrative we are told is that the typical transgender boy is a girl born in boy's body. As the story goes, he displays female traits early on, plays with the other girls, migrates towards dolls and teacups, prefers dresses and girls' clothing, avoids rough-housing and cops and robbers, and eventually moves on to developing crushes on the little boys. These people certainly exist as do their female counterparts who were men born in women bodies. In fact, these types of people (MtF and FtM) exist in roughly equal numbers, yet they are quite rare.

The truth is that the overwhelming bulk of MtF are men who grew up as typical little boys, playing among the boys, rough housing, avoiding tea parties and girl's dresses. They also developed crushes on little girls. At some point (often much later in life in their 30s or 40s), they began to fetishize about women, wanting to act as and appear as women, first in private and then later in public. The thrill of wearing women's clothing, walking and talking as women, and doing typical women activities eventually escalated into hormone injections and body modifications. Having sex with men is yet another part of the fetish of acting as a woman, but often they are quite heterosexual. There is also often a masochistic side to these folks, with a sexual satisfaction derived from the humiliation of being cast as the weaker sex and performing sexual acts on men. The term describing this type of transsexual is "gynophelia," a lover of women.

I do know that this distinction is controversial within the transsexual community, but there's no denying a substantial difference between homosexual and heterosexual transsexuals.

The point here is that in our fervor to hug everyone and accept them regardless, maybe we should look a bit deeper and figure out if there's a better way to respond than to simply accommodate their peculiarities. Maybe there is something better that we can say and do for Caitlan than telling her she is the best no matter what and building her out her own stall.

Lies lies lies... my comment makes sense so long as sexual conduct affects well-being; it does not have to be equivalent to well-being contrary to your misreading of my comments. You don't care about the well-being of people, because you don't care about at least one factor which affects it. In fact, if you had bothered to read my reply in context, you would have realised that your misrepresentation makes no sense. To wit:

Desire for sex in and of itself, if by that we understand the physical act, is an obsession because sex in and of itself does not deserve that attachement and/or love. — Agustino

But I do care about sex; obviously, we all do. I merely don't care about it in the remarkable manner you do. I don't feel it to be taboo, as it seems you do. You seem to think it's something to be avoided in all but certain, limited circumstances, rather as the Catholic Church and other institutions did and perhaps still do. You think It's something sacred (as opposed to accursed; you appear to think it's permissible in some cases). Are you a priest, by the way?

Most of us desire sex. This is something that shouldn't surprise you, but perhaps it does. The mere existence of desire hardly constitutes an obsession, however.

I personally feel that love is something distinct from sexual activity. The people I love are, for the most part, people I haven't had sex with and would not have sex with. I don't think it's necessary to have sex with someone in order to love him/her. Neither do I think it's necessary to love someone in order to have sex. One is not a prerequisite of the other. For me, love has very little to do with sex.

Though sexual activity isn't a prerequisite to love or the equivalent of it, it is a matter of responsibility, as are other things which don't require the involvement of love. I don't presume to condemn others' sexual conduct, let alone maintain it should be regulated by the state, unless it is irresponsible, which usually means that it is not consensual and so would cause harm. I don't think having sex in and of itself causes harm, nor do I think having sex is harmful even though if it offends your sensibilities. You, though, obviously do condemn others' sexual conduct. I don't think that by doing so you evidence a concern for well being, and not simply because I don't think it's necessary to have sex in order to be well. I think you're just being sanctimonious, Pharisee.

But I do care about sex — Ciceronianus the White

I didn't mention sex (an activity) but rather sexual conduct which refers to the way and manner in which the activity, sex, is conducted. Thanks for the additional information though.

I merely don't care about it in the remarkable manner you do. — Ciceronianus the White

What is remarkable about it?

You seem to think it's something to be avoided in all but certain, limited circumstances, rather as the Catholic Church and other institutions did and perhaps still do. — Ciceronianus the White

No, I think it's something that is aimed at fulfilling a two purposes, 1. reproduction, 2. intimacy (one physical, and one spiritual), and failure to fulfil at least one of the two purposes is a misuse of sex, just like, for example, chewing food, and then spitting it out without swallowing it so that you only feel the pleasurable taste is a moral abomination.

You think It's something sacred — Ciceronianus the White

If by sacred you mean that I think it ALSO has a spiritual purpose next to its physical purpose, then I agree.

Are you a priest, by the way? — Ciceronianus the White

No, and in my religion priests are allowed to marry by the way ;)

Most of us desire sex. — Ciceronianus the White

I disagree. However confusedly, most of us desire intimacy, and our desire for sex is just one of its many manifestations, being probably the highest intimacy achievable between two human beings.

The mere existence of desire hardly constitutes an obsession, however. — Ciceronianus the White

Exaggerated desire for something that doesn't deserve that desire is an obsession. In this case, people who desire sex, and are not able to identify that what they really desire through having sex is intimacy, they are obsessed.

I personally feel that love is something distinct from sexual activity. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, neighbourly love (caritas) :) . Eros is a different shade of love though, which presupposes caritas but is something more.

The people I love are, for the most part, people I haven't had sex with and would not have sex with. I don't think it's necessary to have sex with someone in order to love him/her. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, in order to love (caritas) him, no sex is required, nor can sex be a reflection of such a love.

Neither do I think it's necessary to love someone in order to have sex. One is not a prerequisite of the other. For me, love has very little to do with sex. — Ciceronianus the White

Here is an equivocation. Caritas is not the only form of love. Eros is also a spiritual thirst and love for someone else - a desire for intimacy and union with another. Eros is what gives birth to the desire for sex, along with the desire for reproduction - although Eros is always the stronger.

Though sexual activity isn't a prerequisite to love or the equivalent of it, it is a matter of responsibility, as are other things which don't require the involvement of love. — Ciceronianus the White

Right, sexual activity is merely its effect :)

I don't presume to condemn others' sexual conduct, let alone maintain it should be regulated by the state — Ciceronianus the White

Where have I suggested it should be regulated by the state? :-s

which usually means that it is not consensual and so would cause harm — Ciceronianus the White

Sex can cause harm even if it is consensual, the same way that killing someone does cause harm even if it is consensual.

I don't think having sex in and of itself causes harm, nor do I think having sex is harmful even though if it offends your sensibilities. — Ciceronianus the White

It is harmful in-so-far as it prevents human flourishing.

You, though, obviously do condemn others' sexual conduct. — Ciceronianus the White

More like I'm against a certain culture rather than against any individual person.

I don't think that by doing so you evidence a concern for well being, and not simply because I don't think it's necessary to have sex in order to be well. — Ciceronianus the White

Here you are most wrong. I am concerned about sexual activity because many people have destroyed their own well-being through it, and many have been made to despair by it. I am just illustrating a way in which sex can contribute to well-being rather than destroy it, and in-so doing I am concerned about people's well being, in some cases, more than they themselves are, even though they may not realise it.

I think you're just being sanctimonious, Pharisee. — Ciceronianus the White

Very interesting that you call me a Pharisee, using Jesus' own language. How Jesus would find this - that you try to keep his wine bottles, but replace the wine. What a sly snake you are. Please cite to me the passage of the Bible where Jesus thinks that so long as sexual activity is consensual it is right, and the only moral question in sex is consent. Then we will see who the fucking Pharisee is. Go on. Common. I'm waiting. Let's hear it. Bring it. Bring it.

"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul." - Proverbs 6:30-32.

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" Matthew 19:3-9

Truth is you simply do not care about the millions and hundreds of millions of people who had their trust broken, who have decieved themselves about sex and have misused it and are now left alone, never having known true intimacy, who have used sex to hurt others and themselves, etc. You simply don't. For you, this is how life is, and you think it should be that way. Their suffering doesn't matter to you. Fine. But these people, as well as all other suffering people, do matter to me, and I will do my best to take care of them.

That particular person X is lesbian, homosexual, transexual, etc. is not a problem to society, it's their freedom to be as they wish. It only becomes a problem when this seeks to become a social NORM or STANDARD. My issue is to ensure that this is contained as a minority position, and not allowed to spread through society, something that I claim is harmful. — Agustino

Then you'll have to explain (1) what the lesbian, homosexual, transsexual, etc. values are, (2) why they are harmful, and (3) how you intend to contain their harmful values. Obviously if your cure (#3) is worse than the disease (#1), then you might want to just allow their values to flourish.

Implicit in your position is also the troublesome idea that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the products of environment as opposed to genetics. It would seem that if their behavior were caused by genetics, it would hardly matter what societal norms might dictate. My eyes will remain blue even should the societal norm be brown. By the same token, if we declare gays the norm, I'm pretty sure I'll remain straight, which means I really couldn't care any less what society says because it would have no meaningful impact. I mean, the gays, lesbians, and transsexuals all seemed to persevere when society vehemently condemned them.

At least admit to your actual position, which is that you find lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and the etcetera morally wrong and you want a society that considers them as such. However, you also realize you've lost that battle and so you're content in allowing society to just absorb their nonsense as long as it doesn't affect you. You believe it does affect you once it reaches the point where you can't point your finger and call them bad without ostracism, so you want to still be able to do that in peace, thus your nuanced position.

That is, you want to sit in your grandpa chair cursing the new fangled world in peace damn it.

But these people, as well as all other suffering people, do matter to me, and I will do my best to take care of them. — Agustino

You are such a caring and loving soul, committed to consoling the broken hearted and nursing them back to health while properly chastising the wicked who lack your compassion.

It's hard to take you seriously. At least present your indignation in a credible way.

(1) what the lesbian, homosexual, transsexual, etc. values are — Hanover

They are not the same "values", lesbian, homosexual, and transsexual. Transexualism is a moral abomination and is most definitely wrong. I'm not sure if homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong, although I do lean towards thinking they are morally wrong. Although, if they are, they are tiny vices, so long as promiscuity (the real vice) is not involved. Why is transexualism wrong? Simply because one does a harm to one's own nature by attempting to alter their own biology - the very desire is evidence of mental illness. A being strives for its self-preservation and flourishing - transsexualism is turning against one's own nature, thus it is equivalent to a moral abomination of high degree. And by this, I do not refer to the DESIRE or CURIOSITY to be the other sex - this in many cases is normal. What is abnormal is when one takes actual, real steps towards this.

(2) why they are harmful — Hanover

Because they are against one's own nature.
Because they encourage a culture of hypersexualisation

(3) how you intend to contain their harmful values — Hanover

Disallow chaotic, and disorganised protests and parades. Prevent publicity of sex-related issues, apart for educational purposes.

Implicit in your position is also the troublesome idea that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the products of environment as opposed to genetics. — Hanover

They are ALSO the product of environment, as well as of genetics. Nowhere in my position do I deny the role of genetics. Although, even if they are the product of genetics, that doesn't mean that their actions are not therefore immoral. A pyschopath is, according to many, the product of genetics. Does that mean that his actions are morally excuseable? Absolutely not. He has a harder road to climb than others - it is more difficult for him to be moral, but not impossible. He must be helped to become moral, rather than facilitated in his immorality and told that there is nothing wrong with what he does.

It would seem that if their behavior were caused by genetics, it would hardly matter what societal norms might dictate. — Hanover

This is not an excuse in and of itself. More is required. In the case of your eyes, there is nothing immoral about eye color, since eye color involves nothing of a moral nature in it.

By the same token, if we declare gays the norm, I'm pretty sure I'll remain straight, which means I really couldn't care any less what society says because it would have no meaningful impact. — Hanover

What if your son decided to be gay after he saw that this was what was required to be "the cool kid"? Or what if your daughter came to you "daddy, daddy I think I really am a guy, my spirit is that of a man..." because she was pressured into it by her friends?

At least admit to your actual position, which is that you find lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and the etcetera morally wrong and you want a society that considers them as such. — Hanover

Not THEM, but rather their actions. And again, remove lesbian/homosexual from that.

However, you also realize you've lost that battle and so you're content in allowing society to just absorb their nonsense as long as it doesn't affect you. — Hanover

No I don't actually. I think I, and the other good people, will win the battle in the next 50 years.

You believe it does affect you once it reaches the point where you can't point your finger and call them bad without ostracism — Hanover

No one should point a finger and call people bad, only their actions.

so you want to still be able to do that in peace, thus your nuanced position. — Hanover

Nope. I want a society with a strong culture, which encourages people towards the virtues, and makes the virtues respected and desired. Such a culture is the only culture which guides people towards the flourishing of human nature.

You are such a caring and loving soul, committed to consoling the broken hearted and nursing them back to health while properly chastising the wicked who lack your compassion.

It's hard to take you seriously. At least present your indignation in a credible way. — Hanover

:s

Very interesting that you call me a Pharisee, using Jesus' own language. How Jesus would find this - that you try to keep his wine bottles, but replace the wine. What a sly snake you are. Please cite to me the passage of the Bible where Jesus thinks that so long as sexual activity is consensual it is right, and the only moral question in sex is consent. Then we will see who the fucking Pharisee is. Go on. Common. I'm waiting. Let's hear it. Bring it. Bring it.

"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul." - Proverbs 6:30-32.

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" Matthew 19:3-9

Truth is you simply do not care about the millions and hundreds of millions of people who had their trust broken, who have decieved themselves about sex and have misused it and are now left alone, never having known true intimacy, who have used sex to hurt others and themselves, etc. You simply don't. For you, this is how life is, and you think it should be that way. Their suffering doesn't matter to you. Fine. But these people, as well as all other suffering people, do matter to me, and I will do my best to take care of them. — Agustino

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Luke 18:11. KIng James version.

This was, as you'll recall, a parable Jesus told to those who held themselves righteous and others in contempt for their failings. It seems a pertinent parable in these circumstances.

It's interesting that according to the Gospels Jesus speaks merely of divorce and adultery. He says nothing about sexual conduct--the act of having sex. He says nothing about homosexuality, even. There is of course that bit about lusting in the heart being adultery, but even that doesn't address physical sexual conduct. And as to adultery, let's not forget the woman caught in it, and his statement that those without sin should throw the first stone.

The concern about divorce and adultery seem a bit odd given the statement that those who leave their families and follow him will be rewarded. Apparently, abandonment is appropriate at least in some instances, although adultery and divorce generally are not.

Regardless, it would seem Jesus didn't share your fascination with sexual activity and wasn't so eager to lecture those listening to him on its ills as you are to lecture us. He had no occasion to address sexual assault or rape, as far as we can know, and so the concept of consent to sex didn't arise, also as far as we can tell. I think he may have had other things in mind beyond the sexual habits of humanity, which he considered more important. Sadly, many calling themselves Christians think of those sexual habits almost exclusively.

I think the problems you refer to and so nobly promise to do your best to banish from the earth are caused by many things, not merely by the act of having sex. Some people may have sex only to reproduce and in order to have physical and spiritual intimacy and yet still be untrustworthy, jealous, vindictive, intolerant, cruel, confused, irresponsible, and even self-righteous. All these can cause a relationship or marriage to go sour, and many other things which don't involve sexual conduct. We hurt each other for many reasons.

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Luke 18:11. KIng James version. — Ciceronianus the White

I do recall the parable; fortunately it is part of the Gospel of Luke, which I've read, took notes on every page and read many commentaries on in my self-study about 6-7 years ago (I've read the other Gospels apart from Mark too, but not in such detail). In that story, from memory, the Pharisee in question is contrasted to the outwardly sinful man, who sits far away from the altar, towards the entrance of the temple, and on his knees prays "Lord, forgive me my sins". The man is outwardly sinful, but his heart is pure because it thirsts for the Lord and regrets his sins, while the Pharisee, while outwardly clean, is inwardly sinful, because he does not perceive his need of God, nor does he regret his sins, rather he only takes pride in his righteousness. This relates to the other parable Jesus gave, of the cup which is outwardly clean, but inwardly dirty.

What the meaning of this parable is, is that inward sin (pride) is more dangerous than outward sin because one generally remains blind to it and hence cannot repent. That is why, paraphrasing, the prostitutes will enter the Kingdom before you, the Pharisees. In the culture of that time, outward sin was heavily punished, and everyone knew it was wrong. There was no question about the terribleness of adultery for example. But there was a risk - because often the people who had been immoral outwardly would be punished and disconsidered forever - given no chance to repent. Jesus encouraged them to repent, and showed that repenting will enable them to be forgiven through parables such as these. He also showed that it was wrong for others to demonise them, and not forgive them for their sins if and when they repented. This is not the case in today's world. In today's world, the problem is different - people do not know that adultery, etc. are wrong. Many see it as totally fine, so long as there is consent. These people are sinners, and they would be treated just as the Pharisee in the story, because their moral blindness prevents them from repenting.

This was, as you'll recall, a parable Jesus told to those who held themselves righteous and others in contempt for their failings. It seems a pertinent parable in these circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

It was a warning to those who were proud for being superior to others, and were not interested in helping others become righteous as well. At the same time it was praise and encouragement for the man who has sinned, that he can and will find forgiveness so long as he repents.

It's interesting that according to the Gospels Jesus speaks merely of divorce and adultery. He says nothing about sexual conduct--the act of having sex. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes he does - numerous times about adultery, lusting, fornication, etc.

There is of course that bit about lusting in the heart being adultery, but even that doesn't address physical sexual conduct — Ciceronianus the White

Yes it does - it says that even if you avoid the physical sexual misconduct, you will still sin if you commit it in your mind (lust).

And as to adultery, let's not forget the woman caught in it, and his statement that those without sin should throw the first stone. — Ciceronianus the White

Jewish law states that both the woman and the man have to be stoned. Just the woman was brought to Jesus by the Pharisees (ask yourself why!). So the Pharisees tried to tempt Jesus because if he had said "kill her", he would have broken the law and been like them, partial and discriminating between the man and the woman, and if he had said "let her live", he would have licensed her behaviour. Instead what Jesus did was admit that what she did was wrong: "let them who have no sin throw the first stone" - but the stone had to be thrown. And he said let them who have no sin throw the first stone because in the act of bringing only HER the Pharisees had sinned - because they disrespected the law and treated the man and the woman differently. That's why he said they who have no sin - ie look at yourselves, you say that she has sinned? But what have you done when you attempt to punish her only?! Seeing that she regretted what she had done, he forgive her, and told her to go and sin no more (ie, DONT commit adultery again). Jesus in this way taught his disciples that by forgiving one's sins when they honestly and truly repent, they will learn to be better persons.

EDIT: I admit the explanation of this parable is complex (although it strikes as so clear once you find it!), and the parable at first made me meditate on it for long hours, not understanding the words of Jesus. But then I studied the Torah in this context, and realised how the Pharisees were actually tempting Jesus, and provoking him to break the law, and now Jesus's reaction makes perfect sense! It is amazing how complicated Scripture can sometimes be, people just don't realise. But try taking notes on every page and really understanding every sentence that is being said - it's just so rich!

EDIT2: Refer to Leviticus 20:10 for the Torah's law regarding adultery + punishments! :)

The concern about divorce and adultery seem a bit odd given the statement that those who leave their families and follow him will be rewarded. — Ciceronianus the White

No it's not odd at all. Leaving their family for the sake of God is right, because without God, nothing, not even their families, wives, children - nothing has any value. That's why "seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, and ALL else shall be added unto you". I often replace God with virtue, and say that, virtue being that in virtue of which everything else is good for man (as Socrates said in Plato's Apologia) is first in line as a priority. Namely, if I have to sacrifice virtue in order to be with the woman I love, I cannot do that, for if I sacrifice virtue, than the woman I love herself will be worth nothing. So the only way to hold her value is to hold fast unto virtue, or God.

Apparently, abandonment is appropriate at least in some instances, although adultery and divorce generally are not. — Ciceronianus the White

Priority of values.

Regardless, it would seem Jesus didn't share your fascination with sexual activity and wasn't so eager to lecture those listening to him on its ills as you are to lecture us. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes he was - through the New Testament he took multiple occasions to teach about it, teaching against promiscuity, adultery, fornication and lust.

I think he may have had other things in mind beyond the sexual habits of humanity, which he considered more important. Sadly, many calling themselves Christians think of those sexual habits almost exclusively. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes of course he did. Sex isn't the only important thing in morality, BUT in today's world, it is SURELY the most neglected. We have become very good with the soft virtues - acceptance, tolerance, etc. and very bad with the hard virtue: courage, loyalty, integrity, etc.

I think the problems you refer to and so nobly promise to do your best to banish from the earth are caused by many things, not merely by the act of having sex — Ciceronianus the White

I don't disagree, but sexual misconduct is a major cause, and it is only becoming larger.

Some people may have sex only to reproduce and in order to have physical and spiritual intimacy and yet still be untrustworthy, jealous, vindictive, intolerant, cruel, confused, irresponsible, and even self-righteous. — Ciceronianus the White

Indeed. Then they will lose, in this life, all the rewards that their good sexual behaviour could have provided - although I doubt they could be intimate if they do not also trust, if they are not also caring, etc.

All these can cause a relationship or marriage to go sour, and many other things which don't involve sexual conduct. We hurt each other for many reasons. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

At the close of this passage, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." Presumably he had bigger fish to fry than every run of the mill sexual sin.

John 8:3-12

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst They said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, [...as I was saying, before these sex-obsessed scribes and Pharisees rudely interrupted me] “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

true intimacy — Agustino

You have used this term many times; I have in my mind several definitions of "intimate" or "intimacy". A sitting room can be "intimate" and intimacy can mean" sharing privileged information" or "sharing deep feelings." Of course it can also mean sex and/or love. I presume you mean something along the lines of sex, love, and tender nurturing". But... maybe not.

Different topic:

I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity. Greek, Russian, Serbian... whatever. I was raised in a Protestant milieu, but am casually familiar with some Roman Catholic doctrine. A lot of what you say about sex does sound very Roman Catholic to my ears. Yours and the RC's formulations seem similar. I'm not raising that as a criticism; just noting it. (I'll raise it as a criticism at such time as you're being got ready to burn at the stake.)

Another topic:

Why is transexualism wrong?

Simply because one does a harm to one's own nature by attempting to alter their own biology - the very desire is evidence of mental illness. — Agustino

The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology. Nature here is the guilty party. There is no normal body to violate. Changing the body (procedures not performed prior to WWII, as far as I know) is an effort to undo nature's error. The hermaphrodite isn't a woman trapped in a man's body, he/she is a mix of male and female body forms.

I don't know for sure (100%) whether most transsexuals are one gender trapped in the body of the opposite gender, or whether they are suffering from a complex delusion. If people say they hear voices, or see people who aren't there, Believe them. If people say they have to count all the tiles on the floor of a bathroom, I believe them. If somebody says "I am a man trapped in a woman's body" why should I not believe them?***

Transsexualism, hermaphroditism, and other forms of corporeal dysphoria, are very challenging conditions. Challenging, because it is first difficult to tell whether all their claims are genuine.

Are you opposed to breast and buttocks augmentation? Liposuction? Face lifts? Nose jobs? Organ transplants? Facial transplants? Very obese people who lose a lot of weight often wish to be "re-upholstered" afterwards, because they have so much extra skin. All bad?

***Jack (2005) and John (1980) both claimed to be women in men's bodies. Dora (1976) claimed to be a man in a woman's body. Each of these people completed transsexual therapy (including hormones, counseling, and surgery). They all seemed to benefit from the experience. Jack was a tall, large-framed man who had very strong masculine features (heavy brow, for instance). John and Dora were both on the petite side, and for both of them, the desired appearance was relatively achievable before they began therapy, and was more convincing afterwards.

If each of them were successful in obtaining an authentic body-spirit combo, it is also true that all of them were at least somewhat neurotic, quite apart from gender issues. Their "case histories' were all very different.

If one could buy the necessary hormone therapy over the counter, skip the counseling, and of course, do without gender reassignment surgery, there would be a much stronger case for these people being complicated lunatics. But none of that is the case. Gender reassignment programs are run by psychotherapists, sexologists, and surgeons. They are subject to institutional overview. It seems highly unlikely that Joe Blow, who was equipped with enough money to pay for reassignment services, could get them just by walking through the door and signing up. He probably wouldn't make it through screening, even if he had worked up a good cover story.

At the close of this passage, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." Presumably he had bigger fish to fry than every run of the mill sexual sin. — Bitter Crank

That's your presumption, which is clearly not the likely interpretation of the story given the rest of the Bible and teachings of Jesus and the context in which it happened. Sin is sin, whether sexual or otherwise - thus Jesus combatted all forms of sin, including the sexual. There is no "bigger fish to fry".

The challenge for Jesus in the passage, is that the Pharisees, as at other points in the Gospels, tried to catch him out - to show that he (1) does not know the Law, and (2) does not uphold the Law. As I have explained, they thought that there was no sensible answer that Jesus could give when put in that situation, and thus any answer he would give would disqualify himself and show that he isn't the Ha-Mashiach - something that they could use against him. If Jesus said "Let's stone her" he would break the law of Moses by showing partiality and justifying stoning just the woman, and not also the man involved in the adultery. If he had said "let her go", he would have licensed her sin, and thus also broken the Law of Moses. But Jesus outsmarted them, in a way that, with one stone, he hit multiple targets. First, he shames the Pharisees with his knowledge of the Law, and shows that they have sinned first by bringing only the woman to be judged, and are merely tempting him - they should also be judged if they want to judge her, because in trying to judge her, they too have sinned. Thus he avoids the first horn of the apparent dilemma "Neither do I condemn thee [to be stoned]". Second, he avoids the second horn of the dilemma through the next words: "and from now on sin no more", which acknowledges that adultery was a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance. Third, he teaches all the people that repentance can and will result in forgiveness regardless of the gravity of the sin. Fourth, he shows how forgiveness can be used as a way to change someone forever. That woman was forever changed because in an impossible situation, she was forgiven. In truth, her FAITH saved her - she was alike Kierkegaard's knight of faith, who believed that she would be saved, despite KNOWING that she had sinned and deserved death. Fifth, he uses this as an opportunity to show people that "I am the light of the world [I am the guidance of the world - I am that which dispels the darkness [the confusion that the Pharisees tried to place him in]. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life [even sinners like this woman]".

The problem with interpretations like yours, and most modern interpretations of Jesus, is that they discard parts of who Jesus was, mutilate him, and preferentially accept only a certain part. I've said we have become very good at the soft virtues - tolerance, forgiveness, etc. We all praise the Jesus who turns the other cheek. But what about the Jesus who took the whip and turned the tables on the money changers in the temple and drove them out in anger and by force? What about the Jesus who came not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword? What about the Jesus who came to divide father and son, etc? What about the Jesus who comes in glory during the Revelation crushing, and utterly destroying the forces of evil and immorality? That Jesus we don't like - we pretend he doesn't exist, and interpret him through our favorite prejudices - we are Pharisees. The point of Scripture, and the way truth is achieved in Scripture is by finding the most coherent interpretation, which can account for most of the facts. Not interpretations which require eliminating facts.

I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity. — Bitter Crank

Only Marxists are products of systems ;)

Yours and the RC's formulations seem similar. I'm not raising that as a criticism; just noting it. (I'll raise it as a criticism at such time as you're being got ready to burn at the stake.) — Bitter Crank

:D go ahead, immortalise me! ;)

The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology. — Bitter Crank

Most transexuals are not hermaphrodites, so this is a falsification of facts.
http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-transgender-and-hermaphrodite

Nature here is the guilty party. There is no normal body to violate. Changing the body (procedures not performed prior to WWII, as far as I know) is an effort to undo nature's error. The hermaphrodite isn't a woman trapped in a man's body, he/she is a mix of male and female body forms. — Bitter Crank

Yes but this is NOT the case for transexuals. A hermaphrodite is NOT a transexual, nor does a hermaphrodite become a transexual by surgery.

I don't know for sure (100%) whether most transsexuals are one gender trapped in the body of the opposite gender, or whether they are suffering from a complex delusion. — Bitter Crank

Fortunately many doctors do know.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

Are you opposed to breast and buttocks augmentation? Liposuction? Face lifts? Nose jobs? Organ transplants? Facial transplants? — Bitter Crank

Yes, when there's this young girl wanting a breast augmentation surgery because she thinks men don't fuck her because she has small breasts or some stupid reason like this, absolutely opposed (why would I not be opposed, does it seem to you that I want to license promiscuity and facilitate it? ;) ). When it is someone who has suffered an accident, etc. that's different.

If each of them were successful in obtaining an authentic body-spirit combo, it is also true that all of them were at least somewhat neurotic, quite apart from gender issues. — Bitter Crank

BINGO! They are suffering of mental illness. They need treatment, not accomodation and praise for being who they are.

He probably wouldn't make it through screening, even if he had worked up a good cover story. — Bitter Crank

Maybe in the US ;) .

Yes, when there's this young girl wanting a breast augmentation surgery because she thinks men don't fuck her because she has small breasts or some stupid reason like this, absolutely opposed (why would I not be opposed, does it seem to you that I want to license promiscuity and facilitate it? ;) ). When it is someone who has suffered an accident, etc. that's different. — Agustino

I don't think it's any more likely that a young woman gets new breasts, a new nose, or liposuction because she's not getting enough sex as it is that she wears certain clothes or make-up to get more sex. It's obvious that women want to look nice (as do men) and that one reason for that is to be attractive to the opposite sex, but that is but one reason.

The point that you've refused to address is why you believe that modification of appearance is a moral wrong, considering it occurs on all sorts of levels, from sexual reassignment surgery to mascara on one's eye lashes. Instead, you answered the question of whether you were opposed to young women who wanted larger breasts only in order to get fucked more often. To that, you were opposed, but that wasn't the question.

Do you oppose women wearing dresses, high heels, make up, and coloring their hair? If not, why? Suppose a man does the same thing? Are you opposed to people modifying their appearance generally, or are you really just opposed to men modifying their appearance to appear as women? I suspect it's really the latter, meaning your opposition is in the blurring of arbitrary societal norms. You don't want it to be acceptable for men to wear skirts, unless it's a Scottish guy in a kilt, because that's a societal norm already, right?

Sin is sin, whether sexual or otherwise - thus Jesus combatted all forms of sin, including the sexual. There is no "bigger fish to fry". — Agustino

The "bigger fish to fry" is pointed up in the terms of the Judgement in Matthew: I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me... I am sure you know the passage in the 25th chapter of Matthew. Jesus didn't say that entrance into the Kingdom was based on "a clean police record" so to speak.

At least in the Calvinist tradition, the condition of sin is a given: nobody avoids being mired in sin, and sin is sin, as you say. The only way we do not end up in the great deep fat fryer of hell is the entirely undeserved gift of grace.

Yes, the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in the sin-trap. I don't think Jesus demonstrated brilliance in the legal department; rather, his approach transcended the legalistic approach.

I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity.
— Bitter Crank
Only Marxists are products of systems — Agustino

Dodging, dodging, dodging. Is there some reason you don't want to confess your religious background?

I can't think of any way that a religion IS NOT a system. This is special pleading. Marxists, Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans et al are all products of a system of thinking.

The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology.
— Bitter Crank
Most transexuals are not hermaphrodites, so this is a falsification of facts. — Agustino

I didn't claim that most transsexuals were hermaphroditic. What I said was hermaphroditism is one form of actual "trans sexualism". Trans sexualism is a crowded box of postmodern sexual fluidity.

all of them were at least somewhat neurotic — Bitter Crank

BINGO! They are suffering of mental illness. — Agustino

Well, according to Freud, we are all at least somewhat neurotic, even me and thee, and especially thee... well, let's not get started.

a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance — Agustino

Repentance is an important part of this discussion, but I now have to go to a Lutheran Social Service meeting on homeless youth (my arm was twisted to go to this meeting) so I will say more later.

Sex isn't the only important thing in morality, BUT in today's world, it is SURELY the most neglected — Agustino

I would say, instead, that the problem is sexual conduct has become preeminent in today's world. It is accorded a value exceeding its significance (which is nonetheless great). It is too important to too many.

This is reflected not only in prevalence of the depiction of sexual conduct and desire in all media and the importance ascribed to being sexually active, but in the efforts made to condemn it (or rather certain kinds of sexual conduct) and prohibit or restrict it in law. It should not be a concern of the law except in limited circumstances. In my opinion, it should not be condemned in and of itself. There's nothing inherently or a priori morally objectionable about adults having sex even if not for reproduction or physical and spiritual "intimacy" (it isn't clear to me what is meant by that). The consequences of it (the harm caused by it) may render it reprehensible. If there is behind it an intent to harm, that intent may render a person reprehensible.

As a result, I don't think sexual acts are wrong unless they're engaged in for a particular purpose. You seem to think they are wrong unless engaged in for reproduction and (or is it "or"?) physical and spiritual "intimacy."

Sexual urges can make fools or worse of all or most of us, but where no harm results from them it seems unreasonable to condemn them.

There comes a point where standards of morality become so absolute, so detached from what is sensible and just, as to render those who uphold them irrational in their application. Take the case of Cardinal Newman, who in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua repeated, with great satisfaction, the following statement he'd made earlier:

"The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse."

The point that you've refused to address is why you believe that modification of appearance is a moral wrong — Hanover

It's not always wrong, it depends on what motivates it. I thought I was quite clear about it. If this is motivated by immoral desires, then yes, it is wrong. Same as sex - depends how and when it is done. Everything has its place.

It's obvious that women want to look nice (as do men) and that one reason for that is to be attractive to the opposite sex, but that is but one reason. — Hanover

It's one thing to want to look decent, and be an attractive/beautiful person, and a completely different thing to want to be an object of sexual desire. The former is normal, the latter is wrong.

Instead, you answered the question of whether you were opposed to young women who wanted larger breasts only in order to get fucked more often. To that, you were opposed, but that wasn't the question. — Hanover

Yes, and I've also added that I'm not opposed to surgery in the case of accidents, etc. I thought the two examples would clarify when I am opposed to them, and when I'm not.

Do you oppose women wearing dresses, high heels, make up, and coloring their hair? — Hanover

Depends for what occasion, whether it is vulgar (because sometimes it can be!), etc. But most of the time I don't, because dressing is quite often motivated by fashion trends (culture) rather than moral or immoral desires, and does not contribute to either morality or immorality. Although some of those girls going to Western nightclubs do in many cases dress so for the wrong reasons.

Are you opposed to people modifying their appearance generally, or are you really just opposed to men modifying their appearance to appear as women? — Hanover

The latter, because that is motivated by a perverse desire. If I dress in a woman for Halloween for example, nothing wrong - because that isn't motivated by a perverse desire that is contrary to my nature, but rather by a cultural desire.

You don't want it to be acceptable for men to wear skirts, unless it's a Scottish guy in a kilt, because that's a societal norm already, right? — Hanover

It depends on what motivates them to wear skirts. If they do so just for cultural reasons (the Scottish guy, or even a guy who admires Scotland), no problem. If they do it because they want to become women - bad.

At least in the Calvinist tradition, the condition of sin is a given: nobody avoids being mired in sin, and sin is sin, as you say. — Bitter Crank

This is TOTALLY not the case, even in Catholicism, but especially in Orthodox tradition. In Orthodox tradition man is inherently good - the Orthodox are actually quite lenient with sin, more lenient than is my liking. You can see this from Father Zossima's speeches in Brothers Karamazov!

The "bigger fish to fry" is pointed up in the terms of the Judgement in Matthew: I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me... I am sure you know the passage in the 25th chapter of Matthew. Jesus didn't say that entrance into the Kingdom was based on "a clean police record" so to speak. — Bitter Crank

Entrance into the Kingdom was certainly though not based on living in sin, including sexual sin. It is based on repentance, faith, coming to a life in Christ, love and grace. The instructions and parables reviewed in Matthew 25 cover ground which is summarised under love of neighbour and love of God, which are the two fundamental rules that Jesus gave earlier in Matthew 22. Sexual sin is against love of neighbour and love of God.

Yes, the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in the sin-trap. I don't think Jesus demonstrated brilliance in the legal department; rather, his approach transcended the legalistic approach. — Bitter Crank

The irony of it, I think, is that Jesus did not only transcend the legalistic approach, he even beat the Pharisees at their own game.

Dodging, dodging, dodging. Is there some reason you don't want to confess your religious background? — Bitter Crank

Not really, but what does this have to do with it?

I can't think of any way that a religion IS NOT a system. This is special pleading. Marxists, Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans et al are all products of a system of thinking. — Bitter Crank

I haven't said it's not a system. Rather that I am not the product of it. My family as I grew up has been largely not religious - it's rather that I insisted to pray, (I used to pray daily), but I've never seen my parents pray for example, until very late (I was 18+ already when I saw my mother pray or go to Church). We never went to Church, except for Easter, when it was tradition to go. The only thing vaguely religious that I remember was that when I was small my mother gave me a Bible for children with nice pictures, but that was all. God, apart from prayer, which I insisted to do myself, did not play a daily role in my life, or in my life within the community. I grew up in a largely secular culture as well, where sexual promiscuity and the like were givens for most people I have known. Most people, even my family, treat sexual promiscuity relatively lightly.

Funny story... At school, we had 1 hour of religion class a week. That was the first subject I was good at - I was initially terrible at everything else. My teacher at that time told my parents, I remember, that I have a very good natural moral intuition, that was lacking in other children, and that I knew what was the right thing even when I did the wrong (and in fact I quite often did the wrong ;) ). I was often used as an example for the other kids in class, and choosing what was wrong and what was right came easily to me. I remember my mother making fun of me "you're good at religion, but that is useless! What matters is mathematics, literature, history... these subjects" and I would, perhaps naively, answer "yes, but in Heaven that is the only thing that matters"

I didn't claim that most transsexuals were hermaphroditic. What I said was hermaphroditism is one form of actual "trans sexualism". Trans sexualism is a crowded box of postmodern sexual fluidity. — Bitter Crank

Very well, then I was not referring to hermaphrodites in my speeches (which are both sexes, rather than switching from their biological sex to another).

Well, according to Freud, we are all at least somewhat neurotic, even me and thee, and especially thee... well, let's not get started. — Bitter Crank

Where's the eye rolling emoticon please? >:O

I would say, instead, that that the problem is sexual conduct has become preeminent in today's world. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

It is accorded a value exceeding its significance (which is nonetheless great). — Ciceronianus the White

Yes.

This is reflected not only in prevalence of the depiction of sexual conduct and desire in all media and the importance ascribed to being sexually active, but in the efforts made to condemn it — Ciceronianus the White

Really? Historically promiscuity has always been condemned to a certain degree or another no? Today, I feel that it is not condemned at all, but rather encouraged. Look at all ancient law codes - most of them had punishments for adultery for example. Do you think adultery should be legally punished? Why or why not? (I know you're a lawyer (are you not?) and so I'm curious what you think!)

In my opinion, it should not be condemned in and of itself. There's nothing inherently or a priori objectionable about having sex, though the consequences of it (the harm caused by it) may render it reprehensible. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think there's anything wrong with sex itself as it exists. Some of the ways it's used though, are harmful, and hence reprehensible as you say. I don't think sex in-itself should ever be condemned by law (not speaking of adultery here, on which I'm unsure, but leaning towards condemning it).

You think that they're wrong unless engaged in for reproduction and ( or is it "or"?) physical and spiritual "intimacy." — Ciceronianus the White

I said two purposes, one physical, one spiritual. The spiritual one is intimacy. The physical one is reproduction. (the way I wrote it though, I understand your misunderstanding). I said failing to fulfil either one (in other words AT LEAST one) is guaranteed to be wrong and harmful. I gave the example of chewing food for the pleasure of it and then spitting it out instead of swallowing it. But of course, merely meeting the purposes of the activity does not guarantee it is moral (for example, once can meet the demand of reproduction through rape).

a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance — Agustino

Hey, the Lutheran Social Service lunch and meeting on homeless youth was quite good. They pried loose a donation I intended to not make.

Anyone who commits a sin once (everybody) will commit a sin again. From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning. We may not commit the same cardinal sin (like murder) more than once, but your average venial and mortal sins are the bread and butter of the confessional.

In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. The normal personality is always on the verge of veering into the territory of these sins, in an exaggerated fashion, The normal personality is capable of consistently demonstrating the cardinal virtues -- prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, faith, hope, and love -- with about the same consistency that it can avoid the major sins.

We are not masters of our own houses, as Sigmund Freud cogently observed. Insisting that we can, we shall, we will, and we must avoid your favorite sin, especially the one which is the uranium in the reactor of the human personality, is a wretched form of comfort. It's a gratuitously grim sort of damnation.

Perhaps we should repent of the whole business of sin, confession, damnation, etc. As far as I can tell, believers (Christian, Jews, Moslems) behave pretty much the same way that cradle and adult-converted atheists behave. Not better, not worse. Why is that? It is so because all human personalities are held together by the same flimsy ad hoc adaptations of our animal natures to our higher aspirations.

Regardless of what the church preaches, a stiff prick still has abysmal moral standards, and 2000 years of preaching, confession, absolution, threatened damnation and fear of hell, never made much of a difference.

The well regulated human has always recognized his and her needs, and has sought to satisfy them in a reasonable way, regardless of what the church preached (or they ended up miserable). Did some people pursue a thoroughly unreasonable way of satisfying needs? Absolutely! The well regulated human has also recognized that he or she is part of a larger, complex milieu and that solutions have to be found within that milieu. It's all pretty messy.

Periodically, the grip of the church has slipped and people have felt freer to behave as they wished. The last major slippage was not yesterday, and slippage has expanded into outright erosion of religious standards and control. In Europe and North America, maybe 200 to 500 million people have repented of their allegiance to Christian standards of behavior. Leaving behind the Christian model did not make them into barbarian heathens. They altered the milieu in which they live and have been able to find more human resolutions to their conflicts.

Hence: homosexuals are not candidates for burning at the stake; transexuals are not branded as abominations (your post excepted); women who are found in adultery no longer need fear stoning (except in certain barbarian regions like the Arabian Peninsula, in the lunatic Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan, ISIS, etc.); divorced women do not become pariahs, and so on.

Anyone who commits a sin once (everybody) will commit a sin again. — Bitter Crank

Disagreed. There is no necessity in this, even if you can treat it like a STATISTICAL law.

From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning — Bitter Crank

Then Jesus came for nothing. Can you believe that while still calling yourself a Christian?

We may not commit the same cardinal sin (like murder) more than once, but your average venial and mortal sins are the bread and butter of the confessional. — Bitter Crank

Because of your hardness of heart, as Jesus said, not because this must be so.

In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. — Bitter Crank

I, the depreciating and nihilistic Christian who thinks everyone is evil and corrupt, do not think these are core characteristics of human nature ;)

We are not masters of our own houses, as Sigmund Freud cogently observed. Insisting that we can, we shall, we will, and we must avoid your favorite sin, especially the one which is the uranium in the reactor of the human personality, is a wretched form of comfort. It's a gratuitously grim sort of damnation. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with Freud because it is simply not the case. There are many people, especially in history, if we exclude this age, for which sex was not the uranium in the reactor of the human personality...

Why is that? It is so because all human personalities are held together by the same flimsy ad hoc adaptations of our animal natures to our higher aspirations. — Bitter Crank

You know why? ;) Because they live in the same God-damn corrupt culture, that's why, and culture plays a more important role than beliefs one remembers every Sunday.

a stiff prick still has abysmal moral standards — Bitter Crank

Right, but he's not master of my house, is he master of yours? :p

The well regulated human has always recognized his and her needs, and has sought to satisfy them in a reasonable way, regardless of what the church preached (or they ended up miserable). — Bitter Crank

I don't think you quite understand what a need is. A need is something without which one simply cannot live, regardless of their will to live. Things such as air, food, sleep, excretion, etc. Can one live without sex? Yes. I can easily grant you that this is very very very difficult if you so desire (although I don't think it is). Thus sex is not a need, end of story. Also, do you think Saints (for one) were miserable?

Leaving behind the Christian model did not make them into barbarian heathens. — Bitter Crank

Are you sure? As I said, they're very good at the soft virtues, but nothing else. They may not be barbarians which take a bat and smash your head with it. But they are barbarians in all other ways.

They altered the milieu in which they live and have been able to find more human resolutions to their conflicts. — Bitter Crank

Oh really? That's why every night outside a nightclub there is some guy wanting to break a girl's head? Is that why? Is that also why the rate of divorce has gone up? Is that why the rate of depression and suicide is bigger in the US than in Nigeria?

Hence: homosexuals are not candidates for burning at the stake — Bitter Crank

They weren't except for some dark periods of the Middle Ages and Victorian ages. In Ancient Greece and Rome homos were quite cool people :) . We can conclude that for a large share of history homosexuals were NOT candidates for burning at the stake.

transexuals are not branded as abominations (your post excepted) — Bitter Crank

Well their actions certainly should be, because that's what they are, so this is unfortunate that in today's world we cannot even see how wrong trying to change your sex is.

women who are found in adultery no longer need fear stoning — Bitter Crank

Right, women who commit adultery today go like "Oh yeah but you ignored me for so long, I didn't feel loved anymore!!" (and then they wonder why the man broke their head :s ) They don't even see it is wrong. This is absolutely terrible, absolutely! At least in the past, because they feared it, they knew it was wrong. Now they don't. Many act as if it's their RIGHT to commit adultery if they don't like it anymore. That's just insane (not to mention uncaring, selfish, and virtually all the other vices). There's very few things more reprehensible than such an answer, and it deserves the same kind of punishment that a psychopath who kills and rapes a young girl, and then mercilessly feels proud and unapologetic of it in front of her family in court deserves. Such people deserve torture, and gnashing of teeth until they beg for mercy (in other words until they repent and feel sorry for what they have done). Same category of sin - the murdering rapist and the self-righteous adulterer. (actually this psychopath punishment thing - a good subject for a new thread, I'll open that soon - I'm curious what lawyers and people with law experience would think about torture being a punishment for such people).

except in certain barbarian regions like the Arabian Peninsula, in the lunatic Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan, ISIS, etc. — Bitter Crank

I agree with Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) when he said that the Taliban is correct in-so-far as they punish women for adultery, but they are wrong in-so-far as they don't permit moral mistakes ;) (and the possibility of moral excellence is more important and can't be sacrificed just to ensure no one gets hurt (from adultery in this case)).

From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning
— Bitter Crank
Then Jesus came for nothing. Can you believe that while still calling yourself a Christian? — Agustino

Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it?

I was raised as a Christian in a devout Christian home (Methodist). I have taken Christianity seriously for many years. I take it seriously, the same way I take the constitution seriously, but I do not now claim to be a Christian because I just don't believe god exists. I think Jesus was a real person, but I don't think he was the son of god.

In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.
— Bitter Crank
I, the depreciating and nihilistic Christian who thinks everyone is evil and corrupt, do not think these are core characteristics of human nature ;) — Agustino

Well of course personality theory doesn't list the seven deadly sins as human features, but in small doses, all of these are essential. Our animal natures (as opposed to our "human" features") are not all that nice. If people weren't somewhat acquisitive (greed), if they didn't have somewhat healthy egos (pride), if they didn't have somewhat of a sex drive (lust), if they didn't somewhat aspire to match their betters (envy), if they didn't somewhat enjoy good food (gluttony), if they couldn't work up somewhat of a head of steam to defend themselves (wrath), and if they couldn't let it rest somewhat (sloth) where would we be? Nowhere.

Extreme features are often a problem in human personality, which is why you are running into so much flak about your views on sexuality. Most people do not embrace the extremity of your views. Maybe you're not crazy for holding such views (neuroticism is not the same thing as crazy), but when turned into policy such extreme views can cause a great deal of misery and harm. (And yes, they have been policy at various times--including within my time and place).

Nobody thinks anarchic irresponsibility and a complete indifference to consequences for sexual behavior is a good idea. And relatively few, merciful god, are as focussed on the alleged harm of sexual behavior as you are.

Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it? — Bitter Crank

In what sense has salvation conquered sin if sin remains? The whole purpose of Jesus's coming, which finishes with the Last Judgement at the Revelation is the destruction of sin and death.

I was raised as a Christian in a devout Christian home (Methodist). I have taken Christianity seriously for many years. I take it seriously, the same way I take the constitution seriously, but I do not now claim to be a Christian because I just don't believe god exists. I think Jesus was a real person, but I don't think he was the son of god. — Bitter Crank

Alright understood :)

If people weren't somewhat acquisitive (greed) — Bitter Crank

I don't think being acquisitive is greed. Greed is being acquisitive more than what is required for your well-being.

if they didn't have somewhat healthy egos (pride) — Bitter Crank

Self-esteem is not the same thing as pride. Pride, like the other sins, is an excess of something that is inherently good according to Catholic, Orthodox Christianities and Aristotelianism.

if they didn't have somewhat of a sex drive (lust) — Bitter Crank

Lust is again an excess. I won't mention the other sins you mention, because these simply qualify as excesses of things which are naturally good.

Maybe you're not crazy for holding such views (neuroticism is not the same thing as crazy), but when turned into policy such extreme views can cause a great deal of misery and harm — Bitter Crank

My views are actually not extreme compared to most periods in history, they actually do lean on the lenient side. If I was say a monarch, you would not be punished for being homosexual and for wanting to live with another man instead of a woman. Nor would transgender people be punished for seeking to change their sex. They would be provided counselling and therapy instead (Homosexuals, lesbians and so forth will probably be left alone - if a man wants to live with a man instead of a woman, nothing inherently wrong with that so long as it's done with decency, love and respect). Promiscuity would be discouraged (advertising which involves sexual references banned) and looked down upon, but not outlawed - no legal punishment would be entailed to promiscuous people (as this would probably lead to more suffering and confusion than anything else). Sex education in schools would also discourage promiscuity, and encourage long-term relationships. I would create state supported institutions to help people form and be in long-term relationships (some people really do have problems forming and sustaining long-term relationships, and they need help - and others get very sexually frustrated because getting married or getting into a long-term relationship can be complicated). Adultery would probably be outlawed, and treated with the same seriousness as murder - but again depends on the severity of it. Just as there can be more serious forms of murder, so there can be more serious forms of adultery. I think most people would be happier than they are now. Many, I would hope, would also be more decent human beings.

Oh yes, and I would put an end to Tinder, and the like :D
(also Ashley Madison... but I would leave the porn sites free though - which by the way BC most "extremists" would not ;) )

Why would you think such is extreme? Do you think expecting people to be decent and caring human beings is extreme?

And relatively few, merciful god, are as focussed on the alleged harm of sexual behavior as you are. — Bitter Crank

Yes, currently. In 50 years, this will probably change as the harm that unconstrained sex is causing is only growing and becoming more and more apparent.

but I would leave the porn sites free though — Agustino

What kinds of porn are allowed in your republic?
Are porn stars in your republic allowed to be married?

Ever been cheated on?

What kinds of porn are allowed in your republic? — csalisbury

All of them?

Are porn stars in your republic allowed to be married? — csalisbury

Not as long as they are active in their porn career.

Ever been cheated on? — csalisbury

Not really, just deceived, which came close to cheating though. Actual, proper cheating? Thank God, no.

What about porn conventions, are they allowed?

How'd the deception affect the relationship?

Do you think adultery should be legally punished? Why or why not? (I know you're a lawyer (are you not?) and so I'm curious what you think!) — Agustino

Yes, for good or ill, or perhaps for both, I'm a lawyer.

Adultery according to Merriam-Webster Online is (I paraphrase) voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone who is not his/her spouse. Adultery is still "on the books" as a crime in many states here in the U.S.A., though these laws are very seldom enforced. My guess is that if they were the courts would be significantly more busy then they are even now, which is very busy indeed.

I don't think adultery should be a crime. Marriage is treated as a kind of partnership in the law in most states by my understanding; it certainly is where I practice. Those partnerships may be dissolved for most any reason, now, just as other partnerships. It used to be the case that adultery or some other conduct would have to be established as a prerequisite for a divorce. In those days, people wanting to be divorced would have to resort to manufacturing evidence of adultery. For example, the husband would arrange to have his photograph taken while he was in bed with a woman not his wife. They could be doing nothing at all but laying in the bed, wearing pajamas, and could be complete strangers meeting just for the purpose of having their picture taken while in bed, but that was deemed adequate by sympathetic courts.

Eventually, it seems a policy decision was made to allow people miserable with each other to part ways without the need to establish or fabricate heinous conduct, and the law focused exclusively on allocating the property of the marriage-partnership and arranging for custody and protection of minor children of the marriage. That is a difficult enough task in many cases. I, personally, don't practice divorce law, thankfully; but this is my informed understanding.

As marriage can now be dissolved in the law without established immorality or fault (though those factors may impact property division and custody of children), imposing criminal penalties for the failure to honor marriage related sexual commitments strikes me as unreasonable. But I don't think the law should impose criminal penalties for adultery in any case. It may cause pain or harm to a spouse or children, but I don't think it's the kind of pain or harm that merits the imposition of criminal penalties. It is, as you might say, a question of priorities. Law enforcement resources are more usefully devoted to punishing other kinds of conduct. Civil remedies may be appropriate, however.

Marriage in the law is something different from marriage in religion. A religious institution may insist that marriage cannot be dissolved, that divorce is not allowed and except in limited circumstances and adultery a sin requiring punishment, but the law is no longer in the service of religious institutions. I think that's a good thing.

Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it?
— Bitter Crank
In what sense has salvation conquered sin if sin remains? The whole purpose of Jesus's coming, which finishes with the Last Judgement at the Revelation is the destruction of sin and death. — Agustino

Well, damned if I know. According to the Agnus Dei, the "Lamb of god, takes away the sins of the world; have mercy on us". If there was no sin, mercy would not be called for. Baptized, shriven Christians sin. Who thinks they do not? Conquering sin didn't eliminate it. If sin is separation from God, and Christ's atonement for the sins of the world reconciled man to god, then the effect of sin -- alienation from god -- is kaput.

As for the Last Judgement, that hasn't happened yet, presumably. Once the Kingdom of God is inaugurated, and though we've been dead 10,000 years, we can get together and compare notes at that time.

I prefer to think that man is essentially good, but quite flawed owing to his provenance, which interferes with the "better angels of his nature" God didn't create us by fiat; we descended from other species, and retain features of species long before us.

I never did like the book of Revelations much. Along with some of the epistles, it should have been dropped into the shredder.

I won't mention the other sins you mention, because these simply qualify as excesses of things which are naturally good. — Agustino

It seems like I made the same point, somewhere along the line.

Yes, currently. In 50 years, this will probably change as the harm that unconstrained sex is causing is only growing and becoming more and more apparent. — Agustino

In 50 years we'll all be busy filling sandbags to hold back the rising oceans, and doing this at night because it will be too hot in the daytime. It will be too hot to be screwing around, with no air conditioning because all our energy will be devoted to carbon sequestration and running ER rooms to treat people for heat stroke.

I anticipate that global warming and it's attendant problems will resolve all of our moral issues, except the one of making the earth a pest hole.

Not really, just deceived, which came close to cheating though. Actual, proper cheating? Thank God, no. — Agustino

By any chance, have you ever looked at a woman with carnal thoughts, possibly, just a little bit, just enough to incur divine wrath? Hmmmmm? Just the teensiest bit of lust in your heart? NO? Oh, come on! Even Jimmy Carter admitted to lusting in his heart.

A practical solution I've seen implemented is to have three restrooms -- male, female, neutral. So those who wish to adhere to traditional roles can do so, and those who do not can also do so.

It was a nice touch, I thought.

Of course, this was in a semi-private establishment (bar) which chose to do such, which changes things from when you're talking about policy and law.

I have no idea what controversy you're talking about, though. To be honest, I've only heard this kind of moral haranguing from conservative politicians wanting to beat out their opponent on the conserv-o-meter and show their constituents they bleed red-white-blue and believe in traditional values.

But, I accept that my experiences are conditioned by what is a rather conservative state.

What about porn conventions, are they allowed? — csalisbury

Depends how they are organised. Organised the way many are today, probably not.

How'd the deception affect the relationship? — csalisbury

I broke up with her, although probably, looking back, or rather if I could live again, I wouldn't have. It was too harsh, and that's one of the things I regret. People have to be honest to themselves, and I'm not ashamed for having done wrong. Better to admit having done wrong than to deceive oneself ;)

By any chance, have you ever looked at a woman with carnal thoughts, possibly, just a little bit, just enough to incur divine wrath? Hmmmmm? Just the teensiest bit of lust in your heart? NO? Oh, come on! Even Jimmy Carter admitted to lusting in his heart. — Bitter Crank

I didn't claim to be a saint BC. There's a lot of differences between a saint and myself, and I'm nowhere close to being a saint. I merely claimed to be a decent human being. So yes, I have looked at, in fact, many women, with carnal thoughts and/or lust. I have probably not done this while I had a girlfriend though. I would generally avert my gaze from other women at those times. Is this sinful nevertheless? Yes! Should I not do this? Yes! Is it less sinful than outright adultery? Yes - because in the latter not only do you hurt yourself, you also hurt others. In the former, you only hurt yourself and your own mind. I would probably not do this if I lived among religious and saintly people - but I live surrounded by a culture which encourages lust and carnal thoughts, to the point it becomes almost an automatic reaction.

@Ciceronianus the White
Thanks for your informative response. A few questions/comments if you don't mind:

Those partnerships may be dissolved for most any reason, now, just as other partnerships. — Ciceronianus the White

Hmmm this depends though on the terms on which a partnership was founded. I'm not a lawyer, but having run my own business in the past, I know that many times it's not easy to terminate an existing contract. Would you not agree that the terms on which the partnership, in this case marriage, are founded, must determine when and in what conditions it can be dissolved?

It may cause pain or harm to a spouse or children, but I don't think it's the kind of pain or harm that merits the imposition of criminal penalties. — Ciceronianus the White

How does one legally differentiate the kind of pain that merits criminal penalties and the one that doesn't?

Civil remedies may be appropriate, however. — Ciceronianus the White

What civil remedies are you thinking of when you state this?

A religious institution may insist that marriage cannot be dissolved, that divorce is not allowed and except in limited circumstances and adultery a sin requiring punishment, but the law is no longer in the service of religious institutions. I think that's a good thing. — Ciceronianus the White

What if those are terms explicitly stated in the marriage agreement and agreed by both parties at the time of the marriage?