Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:53:24 -0800 Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
writes:
>
> On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:00 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > So there may not necessarily be an objection to pedophilia when it
>
> > passes the moral grammar and the cultural, religious, social etc
>
> > constraints placed upon this
> > There's not much I can add to this. Thanks for being honest about
>
> > it. If this is where Hauser and friends lead, count me out.
> >
>
> Remind me again how the bible speaks out on these issues? What does
>
> the bible say about pedophilia? My guess? Nothing. So how do we as
>
> Christians oppose pedophilia if there is not necessarily a biblical
>
> objection to this?
>
>
>
> To argue that the Bible opposes such because it contradicts your
> ethics seems quite meaningless. So why would our innate ethics
> oppose
> such behavior, even though over time there have been various
> examples
> of young children being married based on religious beliefs, etc.?
> Why
> not explore these questions rather than run from them because they
>
> may hit too close to home?
> Especially when the Bible may not offer much support one way or the
>
> other to oppose pedophilia either?
>
If you're talking about photographs, there weren't any, so they would not
be mentioned. If you're talking about action, male intercourse with a
male of any age would result in stoning. With a female, it could be a
lifelong commitment with no possibility of dissolving the union or, if
the female were already promised, stoning. It isn't open season from a
biblical perspective.
Dave

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 2 16:57:36 2006