Recently in Comment of the Day Category

To begin to understand the Bible's views (and they are various) on sexuality you need to get into the culture.

Sex was something that came with marriage. For women between the ages of 14 and 18. For men probably a little later. Scripture supports what we see in society and studies of sexual dysfunction show, that human beings are designed to be sexually active from late teenage years onwards.

When I read the Song of Solomon I find an erotic poem describing many different diverse acts of love, most of which happen before the couple are married. Once you key into the imagery there is not much that is not covered. Love is awakened? Perhaps she fell pregnant. It is almost implicit. And so they marry.

Pre-marital sex in Scripture means pre-adult sex. It also means the risks of pregnancy outside of the core economic and family unit. The Gospels are clear that Mary & Joseph did not marry for love after all (although I am sure they grew to love each other) and they story demonstrates the stigma of pre-marital sex. But Joseph's response was one of grace (to put her away not shame her), and grace doubled (to marry Mary). And yes I do hold to the Creedal statements on the Virgin Birth. But is is the appearance of the situation that should guide our response.

So the 'No Sex Before Marriage' argument doesn't wash. The 'Sex is part of the journey of two people towards life long covenant loving commitment' argument does. Contraception offers us more sexual freedom, but not the freedom to be irresponsible, recreational or promiscuous. Remember plenty of STI's are passed on by skin contact, that is by 'fooling around'. The ideal is one intimate sexual partner for life.

And now it's time for a woman's perspective on "original sin."

Eve, the woman, fell for the snake's deceit. Eve, the woman, was a deceived transgressor, not Adam (1 Timothy 2:14). Eve, the woman, was seduced by the snake and then tricked Adam into eating the forbidden fruit. Eve, the woman, is to blame for the fall into original sin resulting in the total depravity of all humankind. Eve, the woman, forced God to exile all of humankind from the Garden of Eden.

Eve, the woman, is blamed by many church fathers, including Tertullian:

"...walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve, -- the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. "In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords it over thee." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image in man. On account of your desert -- that is, death -- even the Son of God had to die."

Actually, the mere existence of soccer is proof of total depravity.

To prove total depravity, I only need to look at the following:

1. NFL officiating, especially when the Steelers involved in the Super Bowl.

2. Terrel Owens picking up a new contract.

3. The 14 wins the NCAA is trying to take from Saint Bobby Bowden.

4. The multiple Grammys for Coldplay and John Mayer.

5. Britney Spears selling out our local 20K venue when innovative music fests in Florida (Langeradoo)are cancelled.

How else can you explain this?

How can we explain these things unless there is total depravity, at least in the area of sports. Unless god created everything and walked away. I think I cannot believe in a sovereign sports God in light of this.

I am a Sports/Music Deist. Of course, the lack of World Series wins for the Cubbies still give me a small amount of faith in God.

Sorry- I saw your threat of banning as a challenge.

Hey does Tony ever post replies to the comments. I'm a long time lurker here at his blog and I notice he doesn't really reply to criticism of his opinions here. What's up with that?

Paul-

These are just some options for why Tony doesn't comment back:

1. Perhaps he does. When we post, we are asked for an e-mail address. Perhaps Tony perceives that some people like to leave comments in order to start a public row. Maybe Tony chooses not to acquiesce to their desire to start a fight in public, and instead addresses their criticisms through e-mail. That way, people cannot come by and pick fights for picking fights sake, because Tony does not allow that to happen.

2. Maybe Tony likes to merely observe conversations. Since he is the originator of the post, we already know where he stands. Chances are Tony is not going to change anyone's mind who disagrees with him, at least not in this kind of setting. So instead, Tony sits back and observes our conversations and interactions with each other unfold, and we get the benefit of thinking these things through and wrestling with the implications on our own end.

3. This goes along with number 1, but maybe Tony chooses not to engage with those who are attempting to be combative. I haven't "lurked" around here long enough to see whether he seems to engage more with those who present their differing opinions in a more respectful manner than he does with those who seem to want to correct him, because they have to be right and he has to be wrong.

4. Maybe he's busier than we think he is?

There could be lots of other reasons, I'm sure.