The Philosophical Policeman

[rusmeister]

From Another Thread:

But up until as late as the 1800's, they still relied on Exodus 22:18 despite Jesus saying "Let him who is without sin..."

I just wondered if it's an official teaching that the NT overrules the OT, and when it was first instituted. Officially.

--A

Taking a risk to answer a question that has a definite answer...

...I can say that that authority determined at the very beginning that the old covenant was finished and completed, and a new covenant was established.

Except you didn't really answer my question, did you?

Who determined it? (Who? What person or what council?) And when did they determine it? (What year?) And does it officially form a part of any doctrine? (Is it taught as revealed truth?)

--A

Your question, as put, is almost too obvious to answer, a little like asking what color the sky is and when that when that was determined.

The simplest answer is "immediately". The disciples came to understand not only Who Christ was and what he was doing here, but what the purpose of it all was. And that purpose was human salvation. Western understandings are different, so things like the doctrine of atonement are pretty much absent in the eastern Church. When Christ said things like, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it", it made it clear that it was a completion, not a "well, we had it wrong before but we're going to get it right this time". So from the very beginning, from Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Church has taught the new covenant, and it is found throughout the new testament. There are so many references that make this clear, from being no longer under the law, but under grace, that it's a little 'non-plussical' for a question like that to be posed. No traditional Christian of any stripe would dispute it, it's so obvious and common to Christian faith. It's foundational to Christian understanding. There are apt least a hundred refs in the NT epistles that underline this. It's not something that was decided later in Council, but has been taught from the beginning.

It might be worth adding that as a fulfillment, it in no way makes the people of the old testament "wrong". We even have a week of the OT forefathers of Christ, celebrated a week or so before eastern Christmas (the Nativity, Jan 7th on the Julian calendar), putting it at the end of December (middle for those that observe the Gregorian calendar). I have electronic icon of the
forefathers that we are welcome to venerate (note that veneration is NOT worship).

[Avatar]

Is there an answer to the question or isn't there? Do you know, or don't you?

And while we're at it, exactly what parts were replaced if we still adhere to the OT in many instances?

--A

[rusmeister]

Is there an answer to the question or isn't there? Do you know, or don't you?

And while we're at it, exactly what parts were replaced if we still adhere to the OT in many instances?

--A

Given that I just answered the question - and it is a clear answer - "From the very beginning of the Christian Church", it seems odd that you are still asking the question.

When you say, "What parts", again you are speaking outside of the Christian paradigm. It's not "parts" vs "the whole" but how everything was transformed in the light of Christ. The closest thing to the paradigm you express is that morality didn't change at all - but practices definitely changed. Blood sacrifice was discontinued. And so on. But murder remains evil. When you try to take it apart into "parts" you kind of miss the whole point. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God and Lion of Judah that makes sense of the prophecies, of the Angel of Death in Egypt, of everything. Only they didn't need to kill lambs and smear blood anymore because the ultimate Lamb had already given Himself as the ultimate (in both meanings of the word) Sacrifice. So yes, there were changes in what had been Judaism, but it wasn't a matter of "some parts changing" and other parts not.

[Avatar]

So when was that beginning?

So yes, there were changes in what had been Judaism, but it wasn't a matter of "some parts changing" and other parts not.

Ok, maybe we're getting a little closer here. But some parts did change, right? And apparently others didn't?

So what parts of the OT fell away, and what didn't? What still applies to you from the OT and why?

--A

[rusmeister]

So when was that beginning?

So yes, there were changes in what had been Judaism, but it wasn't a matter of "some parts changing" and other parts not.

Ok, maybe we're getting a little closer here. But some parts did change, right? And apparently others didn't?

So what parts of the OT fell away, and what didn't? What still applies to you from the OT and why?

--A

The formal (in the most literal sense of "formational") beginning of the Church was 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ, who appeared to a great many people, a number of whom had witnessed His execution, over the first 40 days, up to what is called the Ascension. Over that time, the 11 disciples and other followers of Christ began to understand how Christ fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies, and they really had seen God walking on this planet. When the Holy Spirit descended on them, they became the Apostles, the people sent out to preach the Resurrection and the fulfillment of the prophecies. That was the beginning.

Now, when you speak of "parts", we have to identify what that can mean. In Christian context, it would mean doctrine, worship and praxis. So what changed? Well, the new doctrine was how the death and resurrection of Christ made sense of Judaism. So aspects of doctrine, worship and practice that looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as a purely future event were over and done with. But human life went on, so the teachings of morality remained the same. Doctrinally, Christ explained that He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it, and pointed out that we fulfill the Law if we love God with all of our heart and mind, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Who then needs to harp on stealing if we have the higher and clearer calling of loving our neighbor? It is clear that if we do love him as ourselves, we won't steal, murder, or bed his wife. So that "changed", to the extent that you can call it change. It shifted attention from the outward externals to the internal state of one's soul.

Worship did change, to take the revelation into account, but not as much as some think. The earliest Christians continued to go to the temple to worship and even preach, and so liturgical worship developed out of the worship of the ancient Jews. Praxis changed insofar as people began to call upon the name of Jesus as Lord, and prayer reflected this. Since Christ gave us a model for prayer, the prayers developed reflected the elements He prescribed.

It was also quickly established that the Kingdom of heaven is not of or in this world, and that salvation - entrance into that Kingdom is not merely for Jews, but for all. As such, social prescriptions like the death penalty were not adopted by the Church, even though the morality had not changed. So things like adultery and the homosexual act (note: ACT, not state of being) remained forbidden as morally destructive, but the example of Christ was to be followed. So acts remained selfish/wicked and were condemned, but no one could judge (determine the state of another before God) people. Today people no longer seem able to tell the difference.

In short, some things were no longer necessary, and were therefore no longer practiced, and the people of the Church were called to a new level of
spiritual growth, and so new practices developed.

Hope that helps!

[rusmeister]

At the risk of resurrecting a dead thread, I posit there is something to the argument of moving the sexual conduct goalposts further out once same sex marriage has been accepted.

LINK to story about pro-pedophilia conference

If you can just ignore the source long enough, you may contemplate the fact that this conference, small as it was, was even allowed to exist in public in a way that would have been unthinkable in past decades.

(In support of that last post:)

It's obvious to me. It is not obvious only to people who cannot see that moral can be and are shifted if the mood of national morality allows it, and all we need to do is point out that fifty years ago, the movements for same-sex marriage today were completely unimaginable; that even the most daring sci-fi writers posited such things happening centuries away on distant planets. That the same thing could happen regarding other issues (like bestiality and pedophilia, as I have previously pointed out), currently seeming impossible or ridiculous, are not at all if we allow for a shift in public moral perception. The denial that such a thing is possible is based on an assumption that whatever we hold to be morally sacred now will, without any particular basis other than an appeal to 'the better side of humanity', be maintained in all places and times. It is evident that they do not. Public acceptance of casual divorce, cohabitation, adultery, and pornography were once all in the sphere of the 'unimagination'; yet, one by one, what was morally acceptable shifted and these things became part of the public fabric.

(I'm not going to debate this. If this is not obvious to someone, then I don't think anything I could say would make any difference.)

So yes, I do see gradual shifts in what is acceptable as inevitable - age, for instance - from 18 to 17 to 16 (I DID say "gradual"), for example. At first, they will be broadly opposed. And then gradually issues like what is "appropriate" (a user-defined term) will be challenged, and mutual consent to ease the gradual and eventual passage.

[Prebe]

I agree about the sliding morality in a society without an axiomatic ideological/religious foundation. However, I don't think that it is as unidirectional (in relation to your compass) as you like to picture it.

You implictly claim to want to protect someone (children and animals) by adhering to ancient moral norms, correct?

So, from the theoretical assumption that the moral is going down and down only, you wish to enforce ancient moral norms that are not directly linked to the groups you are trying to protect? IIRC there is no age of consent in the bible. (there IS some poo-pooing of bestiality of course

What you seem to forget on your crusade (a term that I don't really consider an insult considering your ethos) is that the adherence to those norms could hurt, nay IS hurting, very real people as we speak.

The fact that the people it is hurting are supposed to be hurt (real bad in fact) according to the bible makes it a little bit easier I suppose.

[rusmeister]

As I said, I'm not into debating with deniers. Might as well argue with Holocaust deniers. It's something so big and obvious, yet they say it can't happen - when it already did.

Simple fact: the things spoken of were socially unacceptable. This is what Farsailor was saying and I agree. He didn't say "They didn't happen". He said that they were not (publicly) acceptable. (So Orlion, take note - we are NOT saying that the people attempting to achieve the one are attempting to achieve the other.) They were unacceptable and everybody from all walks of life said they would "never" happen. Yet they did. The attitude toward social morality - what is publicly acceptable - changes when there is not a rock-solid - religious - basis for maintaining it. (George Washington said that long before I did.)

So people who say that other changes will never happen (just because) are the people who have no reason. I can think of an extremely probable driving reason. Human desire. Lust. The worship of the individual, individual rights and taking an idea like "the pursuit of happiness" and making that central to the justification of anything at all. It's not about "logic" or "reason", so the constant complaints against "logical fallacies" in slippery slopes are irrelevant. No one is claiming that slippery slopes are logical constructions per se. The slippery slope is a real thing that arises when one thing happens, making another thing, not logical, but more probable. The probability of another change becomes more likely and gradually enters the realm of the feasible. The gradual change(in public acceptance) from marriage, the family and sex as something holy to casual divorce, and from there to casual adultery, to sex outside of marriage, toleration of pornography in public, and homosexuality CAN be described as a slope, and a slippery one at that. I do see a direct connection, and am quite convinced that sex outside of marriage was impossible as long as divorce was difficult, but it became possible when divorce became easy. Acceptance of homosexual behavior was not possible as long as sex outside of marriage was unacceptable. "Same sex marriage", an oxymoron in my lexicon, was not possible until the public first tolerated homosexual behavior.
It may or may not be a "logical" chain of thought, but it certainly is a factual, not hypothetical one.

2 Prebe: I do not say that morality always goes in one direction. As Farsailor pointed out, it is going in a definite direction at this time and that is what I am speaking of. As to forgetting, I do not forget at all. I deny that the claimed hurt (the mere denial of legitimacy of homosexual relations - as something separate from crimes committed against people who suffer from same-sex attraction, which I condemn along with the rest of you) is actual hurt. The actual hurt, both spiritually and socially (and I believe physically as well) is in public acceptance of such relationships. And no, we are not "supposed" to hurt. I don't think in all these years that you've ever grasped the Eastern Christian understanding that sin is an illness to be healed, not a crime to be punished - not a mere breaking of arbitrary laws. We do not see ourselves as righteous and them as 'sinners'. We see ALL of us as sinners, the peculiar thing about this particular sin being that they seek public approval for it, and I think that MY sins ought to be publicly disapproved of - that I OUGHT to have to do them in secret (I ought not do them at all, of course). So it's just democratic application of something that we see to be a genuine ill.

I'd have to emphasize "publicly acceptable" a number of times, so as to eliminate discussion of the evils committed by despots as things nevertheless disapproved of by the public as not relevant to what is publicly acceptable.

One thing Vraith said I am totally on board with:

I hope they DO eliminate pedophilia-related things from any "mental illness" associated categories: cuz then they have no legally acceptable psychological defense to fall back on. The system works: they get punished for what they DO, not for how they FEEL.

Even from my standpoint, a spiritual illness is by no means necessarily a mental illness - although I can see how one could spring from the other, one is NOT the other as such.

But the real point to be hammered home is the one mentioned above. We know that people have always done things. There have always been things like adultery, homosexual acts, etc. But under Christendom - the geo-political reality for nearly two millenia, they were publicly unacceptable. People said "This will never happen." Practically everyone asked did. Yet those things happened. This is fact, not speculation. We now live with casual divorce, cohabitation and so on, right up to same-sex marriage, whereas 100 years ago we did not. (Casual divorce was just being advocated as an idea at that point; cohabitation (as something publicly acceptable) was still completely unthinkable. (My thanks to Prebe for supporting this point.)

So the fact that you think something impossible/unthinkable today in the moral sphere is no argument at all that it may not happen - for it already has, and it definitely happened gradually so it can definitely be described as a slope.

[aliantha]

rus, 100 years ago, people who cohabited long enough were legally recognized as having a common-law marriage -- a practice that began in the Middle Ages and is still legal in parts of the world today, including some US states.

A common-law marriage can still be contracted in the District of Columbia and over ten states: Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and Texas included. Additionally, New Hampshire law provides for posthumous recognition of common-law marriage in probate cases; and Utah will recognize a common-law marriage if the parties get a judicial decree to the effect a common law-marriage exists or existed between them.

True, regular marriage was considered preferable by polite society -- but legally, a mechanism exists in some jurisdictions to recognize cohabiting couples as husband and wife.

(Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, there's no such thing as a common-law divorce. Common-law married couples have to go to court to get a divorce, just like everybody else.)

[rusmeister]

rus, 100 years ago, people who cohabited long enough were legally recognized as having a common-law marriage -- a practice that began in the Middle Ages and is still legal in parts of the world today, including some US states.

A common-law marriage can still be contracted in the District of Columbia and over ten states: Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and Texas included. Additionally, New Hampshire law provides for posthumous recognition of common-law marriage in probate cases; and Utah will recognize a common-law marriage if the parties get a judicial decree to the effect a common law-marriage exists or existed between them.

True, regular marriage was considered preferable by polite society -- but legally, a mechanism exists in some jurisdictions to recognize cohabiting couples as husband and wife.

(Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, there's no such thing as a common-law divorce. Common-law married couples have to go to court to get a divorce, just like everybody else.)

To me this looks like another effort to find an exception in order to disprove the overwhelming rule. I am speaking about far more than a few parochial examples from one specific time, but how marriage was viewed overwhelmingly over space and time - and it was NOT as something "preferable" to simply sleeping with people, but something where people who practiced such "free love" found themselves cast out of society. That was generally true 100 years ago, and unarguably true 150, 200, 300, 400 years ago and so on, and generally everywhere in Christian lands - now lands that were once Christian. The modern understanding of common-law marriage first arose in primarily Protestant lands - which, surprise, surprise! included England and the US - where people agreed that the marriage had (somehow) been performed before God, if not before man - the assumption was nevertheless of a sacred bond which is quite a different thing from the modern cavalier attitude toward the sex act.

Thus, the basic fact of definite shift in attitude remains unchallenged, and it is therefore obvious to any thinking person that there is no special reason for public perception of morality to 'freeze' where it stands today; that continued shifting is definitely possible, based not on speculation, but on what has already shifted. In short, what is now considered "sex with minors" can very possibly become acceptable (we need only redefine "minor" to make that happen), and if perceived physical harm be a basis, toleration of bestiality (another interesting discussion) can also be put on the table. Again, I do NOT say that that is what folks defending same-sex marriage desire. Only that it is what they will most likely achieve.

Check back on my words in ten years and we'll see what the public moral climate looks like then. (I am presupposing that there will be no 'revival' or general return to Christian faith and morality. I think it would take a general global catastrophe to bring something like that about.)

[Cail]

As I said, I'm not into debating with deniers.

And yet, here you are.

[rusmeister]

As I said, I'm not into debating with deniers.

And yet, here you are.

And I am not debating with you, Cail.

[aliantha]

To me this looks like another effort to find an exception in order to disprove the overwhelming rule. I am speaking about far more than a few parochial examples from one specific time, but how marriage was viewed overwhelmingly over space and time - and it was NOT as something "preferable" to simply sleeping with people, but something where people who practiced such "free love" found themselves cast out of society. That was generally true 100 years ago, and unarguably true 150, 200, 300, 400 years ago and so on, and generally everywhere in Christian lands - now lands that were once Christian. The modern understanding of common-law marriage first arose in primarily Protestant lands - which, surprise, surprise! included England and the US etc.

Once again, you are drawing (perhaps unconsciously) a line between "Christian" and "Protestant" -- interesting, no?

And how does "one specific time" equate to a period of hundreds of years?

The point of my post was to underline that, once again, your examples are faulty, which calls into question the premise of your argument.

Like others here, I'm not buying your "slippery slope into debauched chaos" claim. Part of the reason that gay marriage (and yes, I'm using that term deliberately, in backlash against your insistence that it's incorrect ) is gaining acceptance is that we're beginning to understand that there's no psychological or physiological harm to anyone involved in the practice. Even children, who society has the most responsibility to protect, turn out fine when they're raised by two moms or two dads. There's no scientific, psychological, or legal basis for the prohibition -- only the "eww" factor drummed into us by centuries of, dare I say it, the Church's stranglehold on society's mores. Society is now moving away from those Church-dictated mores -- you're absolutely right about that -- but unlike you, I think it's a *good* thing, because I believe the Church was wrong about gay marriage from the get-go.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, does in fact cause both physical and psychological harm to its victims, and that fact has been well documented -- unlike the claims of damage from gay marriage which, when investigated, turned out not to be true.

I suppose, if I let my imagination run away with me, I could envision a time in the distant future in which pedophilia was accepted. Let's see...that would require believing it plausible that a parent would accept a predator having sex with his kid.... Nah. Not buying it.

[rusmeister]

What exactly are "the same forces" that pushed for SSM that are now pushing for pedophilia? I will push for SSM, but I will not push for pedophilia. Which people/groups push for both?

Hi, Fist,
I thought I was pretty specific in saying that the SSMers are NOT pushing for pedophilia.
Wondering why a horse is getting beat that no one is championing...?

[rusmeister]

None do. It's just paranoid logical fallacy. It's also further interesting to note that 'double-standard culture' does not exist just in 'Protestant culture'. If you've ever read Tolstoy (as an example off the top of my head) you will find the aristrocracy of Russia to have acceptted if not encourage 'flings'. You know, just so long as you weren't caught. Tolstoy personally found such views appalling, but they still existed. I wouldn't be surprised to find something similar for commoner folk in Dostoevsky... Chekov also had some short stories about affairs. So there
Once again, let's say that there is some valid reason to think that pedophilia can become the norm based on the observation that public view of morality changes. That still does not link is with same-sex marriage acceptance. Ultimately, it is an 'argument about age of consent', which has nothing to do with SSM since it is all ready assumed that both parties are capable of consent.

I'm not sure what would link it in your mind, Orlion. To the person who accepts the tradition of Judeo-Christian morality, the link is obvious - sexual immorality comes from one place - that of pleasing the self above all other considerations; if I desire something, that justifies it. The idea that if I have the desire, it cannot - or must not - be bent; unnatural, wrong. I need submit to no tradition that denies me what I happen to desire. Now I think that that desire may be accompanied by any number of noble feelings - which have no impact on the tradition or the holistic view of the nature of man and woman and the purpose of sex, and are therefore irrelevant to that. Smiling faces, and even kind, loving feelings do not change that basic reality. So felt the ancient Greek men toward their catamites. It was nevertheless immoral and though practiced, was not particular approved even in Greek society. It's also worth noting that not one myth or legend about 'gay gods' or even humans has survived - the love and coupling in the stories was always what you call "heterosexual" which was always considered simply "normal". That's a small point, and so I would not be distracted on details that might seek out an exception to deny the overwhelming rule, but it is nevertheless telling.

And I would add to that that it certainly seems that one unthinkable thing is not possible until another unthinkable thing has become thinkable, and that it necessarily must be gradual - a sudden leap from the complete and practically indissoluble Christian marriage to either 'same-sex marriage', pedophilia or such things really is impossible. The barriers are broken down one small step at a time. Even consent as a justification for sex outside of marriage was unthinkable (as something publicly approved) until casual divorce had first become a common reality; it was only then that the "sexual revolution" became possible.

[Orlion]

To the person who accepts the tradition of Judeo-Christian morality, the link is obvious - sexual immorality comes from one place - that of pleasing the self above all other considerations; if I desire something, that justifies it. The idea that if I have the desire, it cannot - or must not - be bent; unnatural, wrong. I need submit to no tradition that denies me what I happen to desire.

Here, we disagree. I'm going to assume first from your previous comment that the acceptance of SSM/homosexuality does not lead, in of itself, to pedophilia. Rather, you view it more as a result of a larger movement to move away from 'tradition' (single quotes means "in a general sense, not doubtful of the thing).

With that clarification, I move to what I quoted from you, as I think it is also representative of what you view the problem to be and also what I think is erroneous. First, very few people believe that just by merely desiring something, it is right to do so without any other considerations. I refer to ali's post as an idea of this: general opinion may not be against one's desire to marry another of the same sex consensually because no detectable harm comes from it. Sure, they may squabble or anger each other, but that's part of traditional marriage too, right? Pedophilia, on the other hand, has many observable harms, meaning that regardless of 'tradition' (some of which may allow pedophilia as we view it today), so though a person may desire it, it s wrong, bent (though I won't say unnatural, merely because I view that term as meaning 'impossible'. I'll trust you to judge if I think it unnatural according to your definition;)).

So desire isn't the sole deciding factor for morality, even to individualists as myself. Other factors would include, for example, harm to the society which would help me reach my individual goals unless I were to undermine it in some way.

As far as change in perceptions, it happens, and not always for the better or worse. Sometimes change is very good (blacks are humans also? Splendid!) despite what some traditions may posit (blacks are descendents of Ham and are our slaves according to the curse of Noah! It has been so for thousands of years, what could be wrong about that?)

Change can also be bad, though at the moment I can't come up with a snarky example, for which I apologize. I just don't see SSM as one of these bad changes.

[Fist and Faith]

What exactly are "the same forces" that pushed for SSM that are now pushing for pedophilia? I will push for SSM, but I will not push for pedophilia. Which people/groups push for both?

Hi, Fist,
I thought I was pretty specific in saying that the SSMers are NOT pushing for pedophilia.
Wondering why a horse is getting beat that no one is championing...?

I wasn't talking to you. Farsailer is championing this particular horse:

And I will point out that some of the same forces that pushed same-sex marriage are now working on making pedophilia acceptable. They're getting started by changing some of the wording associated with the field so as to remove the inflammatory connotations that go with them. You think I'm joking, just remember in the 60's, gay marriage would have been laughed at and knocked off the agenda, 40 and 50 years later, it's here, it's being taken seriously and it's not going away. By the same token, we're likely to see the same happen with pedophilia, it will take a couple of generations, you and I may not live to see it, but it too will be made acceptable. Of course at that point, we'll have an extremely fractured society between those who deem it OK and those who don't. You thought today's debate around same-sex marriage was bad, wait until you see the debate around pedophilia 30 to 50 years from now.

As for you, rus, it still applies. You assume nobody will speak out against pedophilia. That, because some things you find objectionable have become accepted by society, all things you find ogjectionable will become accepted by society. There's no reason to believe that. No reason to believe murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, and any number of other evils will ever be deemed acceptable by me, or by society. Just because we saw through the fallacy of the traditional abhorrence of some things does not mean there are no things to be abhorred.

[rusmeister]

What exactly are "the same forces" that pushed for SSM that are now pushing for pedophilia? I will push for SSM, but I will not push for pedophilia. Which people/groups push for both?

Hi, Fist,
I thought I was pretty specific in saying that the SSMers are NOT pushing for pedophilia.
Wondering why a horse is getting beat that no one is championing...?

I wasn't talking to you. Farsailer is championing this particular horse:

And I will point out that some of the same forces that pushed same-sex marriage are now working on making pedophilia acceptable. They're getting started by changing some of the wording associated with the field so as to remove the inflammatory connotations that go with them. You think I'm joking, just remember in the 60's, gay marriage
would have been laughed at and knocked off the agenda, 40 and 50 years later, it's here, it's being taken seriously and it's not going away. By the same token, we're likely to see the same happen with pedophilia, it will take a couple of generations, you and I may not live to see it, but it too will be made acceptable. Of course at that point, we'll have an extremely fractured society between those who deem it OK and those who don't. You thought today's debate around same-sex marriage was bad, wait until you see the debate around pedophilia 30 to 50 years from now.

As for you, rus, it still applies. You assume nobody will speak out against pedophilia. That, because some things you find objectionable have become accepted by society, all things you find ogjectionable will become accepted by society. There's no reason to believe that. No reason
to believe murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, and any number of other evils will ever be deemed acceptable by me, or by society. Just because we saw through the fallacy of the traditional abhorrence of some things does not mean there are no things to be abhorred.

Hi Fist,
On the first, OK.
On the second, I do NOT assume that no one will speak out. Just as people spoke out against easy divorce, fought the rise and spread of public acceptance of the pornography industry, and oppose same-sex marriage - all of which can be claimed to cause no physical harm (I know that's Ali's idea) - so they will speak out against other future shifts. It seems evident to me that sex with children will start by a gradual lowering of the age of consent. Now pre-puberty sex is a further degradation and so IS harder to imagine, but once it's accepted with 11/12 year-olds, it won't be so hard to imagine. Heck, I can even see evils you describe like murder and theft being justified. If certain types of murder were cast as "honor killings" (or anything other than simple murder), or theft as an understandable redistribution of wealth to or by poor and downtrodden people, then we have a foot in the door to push it open wider. Pandora's box is not merely a nice story but also carries a great truth that people do not see could also apply to sex or anything, really.

[rusmeister]

To me this looks like another effort to find an exception in order to disprove the overwhelming rule. I am speaking about far more than a few parochial examples from one specific time, but how marriage was viewed overwhelmingly over space and time - and it was NOT as something "preferable" to simply sleeping with people, but something where people who practiced such "free love" found themselves cast out of society. That was generally true 100 years ago, and unarguably true 150, 200, 300, 400 years ago and so on, and generally everywhere in Christian lands - now lands that were once Christian. The modern understanding of common-law marriage first arose in primarily Protestant lands - which, surprise, surprise! included England and the US etc.

Once again, you are drawing (perhaps unconsciously) a line between "Christian" and "Protestant" -- interesting, no?

And how does "one specific time" equate to a period of hundreds of years?

The point of my post was to underline that, once again, your examples are faulty, which calls into question the premise of your argument.

Like others here, I'm not buying your "slippery slope into debauched chaos" claim. Part of the reason that gay marriage (and yes, I'm using that term deliberately, in backlash against your insistence that it's incorrect ) is gaining acceptance is that we're beginning to understand that there's no psychological or physiological harm to anyone involved in the practice. Even children, who society has the most responsibility to protect, turn out fine when they're raised by two moms or two dads. There's no scientific, psychological, or legal basis for the prohibition -- only the "eww" factor drummed into us by centuries of, dare I say it, the Church's stranglehold on society's mores. Society is now moving away from those Church-dictated mores -- you're absolutely right about that -- but unlike you, I think it's a
*good* thing, because I believe the Church was wrong about gay marriage from the get-go.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, does in fact cause both physical and psychological harm to its victims, and that fact has been well documented -- unlike the claims of damage from gay marriage which, when investigated, turned out not to be true.

I suppose, if I let my imagination run away with me, I could envision a time in the distant future in which pedophilia was accepted. Let's see...that would require believing it plausible that a parent would accept a predator having sex with his kid.... Nah. Not buying it.

What I think I can say is that your arguments of no physical harm were applicable to previous changes and can also be applied to future changes. For now, I will point out that changing the age of consent gradually down to the onset of puberty (and let's say from 18 to 16 for starters. No change will be sudden and drastic. Yet you speak as if it were not possible for our society to degrade in principle.

Next, if our moral attitudes are merely imposed by the Church, then that can be applied to anything you currently think moral and to past teachings of the Church that you (thankfully) happen to agree with. Our attitudes toward sex with minors may also be a "eww factor". Or to sex with animals if either consent or no-harm are deemed the guiding principles. Yet "no-harm" was the principle for tobacco for hundreds of years, even into the twentieth century. (just finished the Gilbreth autobiography pt 2 "Belles on their Toes" and the mother gives in on cigarette smoking on that basis - and that's 1925-ish). If harm is later discovered that will be of no help or comfort to those who thought there was no harm when there was.

And lastly, I draw no lines in the history of Christian faith unconsciously. It may be that I leave out ideas due to lack of space and time, but it's quite conscious. I see the Roman Church to have gone fundamentally wrong 1,000 years ago, and the event that produced Protestantiam to be a right protest with an even more wrong reaction. They have all retained some truth, and on this we can often stand together, but they have also gone wrong, the one from making one man an absolute authority and the other from making each man his own authority, effectively eliminating authority altogether.

[Fist and Faith]

It's all a matter of perspective. You think bad things have come to pass, and more will. I think good things have come to pass, and the bad ones will not.