Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AUTHORITIES IN New York say they have found human remains in the charred remains of a house that likely belong to the sister of a gunman who lured two firefighters to their death on Christmas Eve.
Investigators suspect the victim found in what was left in the house in the upstate New York town of Webster is Cheryl Spengler, 67. She had not been seen since Monday. The brother and sister were said to not get along.
Sixty-two-year-old William Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother, armed himself with a revolver, a shotgun and a military-style rifle before he set his house afire to lure first responders into a death trap before dawn.
Police Chief Gerald Pickering was unable to confirm whether Cheryl Spengler had died in the fire or if she was killed beforehand. A medical examiner is working on identifying the remains.
This 2006 image provided by the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department shows the shooter William H. Spengler Jr (AP Photo)
After setting his home and car ablaze, Spengler took up a sniper position, waiting for firefighters to arrive. He was armed with three weapons and an “arsenal” of ammunition, according to Pickering.
He had a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver, a Mossberg 12-gauge pump action shotgun and a .223 Bushmaster rifle — the same military-type assault rifle used in the recent elementary school shooting in Connecticut that left 26 people dead.
As soon as the firefighters arrived on the scene, Spengler shot at them. His rampage came to a halt thanks to a policeman who returned fire.
Lt. Michael Chiapperini, 43, also the Webster Police Department’s public information officer, was killed in the incident. (AP Photo/West Webster Fire Department)
“This was a clear ambush on first responders,” Pickering said. “Essentially, it was a combat mission.”
In addition to the two firefighters killed, two of their colleagues sustained “serious injuries” and underwent surgery, Pickering said, noting they were in stable condition.
A police officer was treated and has been released from hospital.
“I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down and do what I like doing best — killing people,” read part of the note discovered in the wake of Monday’s shooting in the upstate New York town of Webster, Pickering told reporters.
Tomasz Kaczowka. 19, was also killed in the shooting (AP Photo/West Webster Fire Department)
He said the typewritten note by Spengler was two or three pages long, but would not be released at this time.
Seven homes were destroyed in the blaze, as the shooting thwarted initial efforts to douse the flames.
Even before the shootout, Spengler had already been found guilty of manslaughter and jailed for 17 years for his grandmother’s death in 1980.
The incident in Webster came 10 days after a shooting rampage at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that saw a disturbed young man gun down 20 children, aged six and seven, and six adults.
The shooter, Adam Lanza, had killed his mother at their home before heading to the school, where he eventually took his own life.
The Newtown shooting has revived debate in the United States on the country’s gun laws, which are far more lax than in most other developed nations.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Ok. Let me adress a few things in there, as I can see where you are coming from, I just think you may have a slightly romanticised notion of things, and you seem to have slipped into fallacious argument, so I will put this to you – not as an attack or anything, merely to help round out what you are trying to say – because you have made some excellent points about personal responsibility..
1. “Til Death do us part” is not natural, and it hasn’t always been the way. The ritual of Handfasting, which is where marriage comes from, states that you should remain hand fasted for “as long as the love lasts”. Having known people who’s parents stayed together in spite of how much they had grown to hate each other, this is equally as damaging as having parents split up. Children deserve to grow up without all that aggro. If their parents hate each other – what kind of role model is that? If one or other parent becomes abusive – should the family unit be preserved there?
These things are never that black and white. The “til death do us part” is the only truly unnatural thing there. For that reason I would disagree with this sentiment.
2. I agree with you that as a species we seem to be losing the concept of taking responsibility for our actions.. Having said that – I practice safe sex because pregnancy is very likely to have adverse effects upon my health. I’m of the opinion prevention is better than cure, so I use contraception. I cannot use any contraception that has hormones involved as it would worsen my condition. Sadly condoms are not 100% effective, so if one bursts and I fall pregnant, should I be forced to take the risk of pregnancy, that I have done my best to prevent happening? I’ve taken the responsibility, to prevent. If that fails should I be punished?
Should a woman who was raped be forced to carry to term – she cannot take responsibility for falling pregnant as she did not even consent to the sex.
In this respect I think a lot of people like to forget that accidents (and more dispicable acts) can and do happen, and while that may work out fine and dandy -there’s nothing to say it must.
3. I do not argue for more taxes on cigarettes, or other nanny state intrusions.. In fact, I am with you on the personal responsibility thing, because I’m sick of our nanny state outlawing things based upon fallacy rather than evidence. I think you may have fallen into a hasty generalisation there.. I personally advocate more personal freedom and less intrusion into personal affairs by governments or churches. After all we are each individual human beings, and as such should take responsibility for our actions, putting extra taxes on things doesn’t do anything except make money for the government..
Education is key – and sadly, our education is governed by those with vested interests.
Now, to adress the fallacies..
To suggest that abortions / contraception are there for “people who fall into bed with strangers”, is a fallacy. The spotlight fallacy. It ignores the many other reasons for these procedures / preventions are used.
You used misleading vividness and an appeal to emotion, suggesting that sex is somehow a “reckless pursuit of personal pleasure”, when it is a very valid part of a loving relationship. And loving relationships do not automatically equal people who wish to become parents.
You were economical with facts when you stated that “at least the adults emotional requirements are met”, as I pointed out above – if you were married to an abusive partner / alcoholic / drug addict / adulterer – would it not be better to leave and take the kids with you? Marriage breakdowns are not just about the parents relationship you know.. Believe it or not – a seperated couple are just as capable of having their kids best interests at heart.
If someone gets an STD or falls pregnant you do NOT fork out for it. STD tests are not covered on the medical card, and abortions are not either – these are all paid for privately. This is either said from a place of unknowing or it is a deliberate lie.
Sexual morality existed a lot longer than 3000 years I’m afraid, history shows us different. If you are referring to the biblical sense – that’s hardly a good place to base morals when it comes to marriage equality and equal rights for man, woman and child.
I agree with you – we are losing personal responsibility daily. Between health and safety, political correctness, etc.. But your argument showed that you have failed to consider some very valid aspects of the situation. I hope that I have done them justice in trying to put them too you.
Sorry this was supposed to be a reply to John McGuirk..
You get my vote Shanti. Well said.
I agree with much of what you say, and I accept many of your criticisms – particularly the spotlight fallacy (though in fairness I was not attempting to use it to make the generalisation you claim, and intended the specific example to stand alone rather than as an argument for a wider ban on abortion, for example).
Second, I accept that some relationships fail. But there is a difference between accepting that some fail (divorce should always be an option) and approving of their failure. We should want relationships to succeed and we should demand that when people make a commitment that they take it seriously – this is why society should actively frown on adultery rather than just accepting it as “none of our business”.
Third, of course sex is a key part of a loving relationship. Heck, it’s a key part of plenty of “liking” relationships too. But there’s a difference between sexual expression between two people and living in a society where we view everyone as a sexual object to be picked up in a nightclub and forgotten after breakfast the next day. Nobody’s ever going to stop casual sex, but the fact is that casual sexual encounters are more dangerous and more risky and the idea that they should be encouraged and welcomed is bizarre.
We’re more in agreement than disagreement, I think.
And that last too should have been a “to”, I wouldn’t mind but thats one of my own pet peeves..
Yes, it seems we are, but I would also argue that with personal responsibility comes personal choice. And for that reason, the choice must be respected.
Again, the root cause of all of this is poor education, be that from the system or the parents. My sex education at school consisted of anatomy, and description of the menstruation cycle and pregnancy. With a “no sex until marriage” thrown in at the end.
There was no talk about emotions, self respect (a common reason girls are eager to sleep around, but not the only one), responsibility, or reality.. I do not know what sex education young men recieve as I was at an all girls school, but I do know that to tell a teenage boy to just ignore his natural instincts is certainly not enough.
It’s the lack of education and the constant nanny state legislation that removes personal responsibility. Restriction of choice removes personal responsibility or accountability from the decision.
Boring. Write John a letter and leave the rest of us out of your personal diatribe.
@Lelookcoco
Just close your eyes and pretend you just didn’t have to waste time scrolling a few extra times and writing a biting response.
Im all for the sexual liberation of adults to do whatever they wish in private but the program for this sounds more like a charter for bullshit artists to make money.
Love the way this author is thinking but unfortunately I think it’s going to be some time before Ireland can hold its head up with other European nations and be grown up about our attitudes to sex same sex relationships and all things sexual.
after reading some comments here the journal should bring in twitters rules 120 characters…theres nearly half the bible written already…
Sorry!! I know I’m responsible for that.. Be thankful you don’t have to put up with me in real life lol!!
Dont apologise Shanti, its good to see a reasoned debate taking place rather than the sort of sound bites that twitter enforces.
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts this evening!
Thank you Eamon, but I know I can be very long winded and can appreciate why it turns some people off :)
John your a bit nuts. If relationships break down people live with the consequences themselves and if they are mature enough try maintain a good working relationship if kids are involved. The problem with religious zealots is that they / you need a framework in which to live your life that’s fine but I want no part of it. By the way I found this article particularly boring and badly put together. Good luck with the I’ll have my views of morality here from the sidelines I hate to break it to you but the games over.
How does this writer think having multiple marriages WITH children is a good thing? Divorce and separation is always bad for the kids!!
Depends on the marriage…..
Better to have happy parents who are seperated then grow up in a home were they have stayed together and are miserable.
So stay in an abusive relationship ?
Face palm
Did you all actually think I meant that I was against divorce? Seriously??
Of course break up if the marriage is abusive.
My problem is the completely laxed attitute with which this article seems to view having been in multiple marriages. It even talks about having kids from two or more of those spouses like it’s a perfectly acceptable thing!
People are absolutely free to do that if they so wish, but how can any of us say it’s a good thing?
I’m all for the normalisation of sexuality and so forth, but if you’re going to bring a child into this world, you make the commitment to eachother first!
If you can’t commit to your spouce for life, then how can you do so for a child???
David are you attempting to suggest that only married people should have children?
No, but I believe that if people are to intentionally bring a child into this world, they should make sure they are fully committed to eachother and compatable for the long term.
Personally I’d propose to a woman before having a child with her. If she won’t marry me then how can you expect to provide a child with a stable upbringing.
1) Society sanctions marriage and gives it it’s blessing because we recognise and endorse the love between two people. We stand in recognition of their vows to each other before the rest of us. When they break those vows to each other they break a commitment they made before us and asked us to bless (or endorse, if religion offends you). They’re betraying not just each other but the society that invested it’s goodwill and support in their relationship when they asked us to at the altar (or registry office, etc etc).
2) Read a history book. You find references to marriage, relationships, sexual norms (read: Morals) going back through time in nearly every ancient civilisation. And if you’re going to dispute that it’s 2000 years for christians, 1500-odd for Muslims, or 3000-odd for jews, or longer again for the ancient romans, that’s up to you, but it’s not very productive.
3) Yes, of course, but all of them involve the destruction of a human life for her own convenience, so what does it matter?
1. And what about those in long term relationships who choose not to marry because it it outside their faith or they are atheists?
They have not asked for anyone’s approval, they just are.. And in some cases because they are not naive enough to think that humans are an exclusively monogamous species.
2. The Ritual of Handfasting was used here before Christianity ever got to more northern parts of Europe. And as I pointed out – that vow is “for as long as the love lasts”. In many other cultures without Abrahamic belief systems, marriage is not necessarily seen as a permanent thing – just a public statement that you have chosen to commit for now.
3. That all depends on when you consider human life to begin. Whether you consider the zygote, embryo or foetus as human or potentially human, incapable of survival ex-utero, and still in the danger zone for spontaneous abortion. Which is when the majority of abortions take place.
Marriage isn’t sanctioned or blessed by society, all marriage is, is a legal recognition of the partnership, no more no less. How has society supported the relationship?
You will also see references to infidelity, so it obviously didn’t have the effect you are suggesting.
Considering a woman discharges about 80% of her fertilised eggs during menstruation, by your logic that makes every woman who has ever had a period, a murderer.
The only constant things in life is “CHANGE” and “GOD”.
what’s your point?
It depends on whether or not you think there is such a thing as God, though, doesn’t it Dominic?
really dominic? and what GOD are you refering to? Jesus, Jehovah, allah, Buda, or better still click on the link below for a list of all known deities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
the list goes on and on you could say it CHANGES CONSTANTLY
More like death and taxes.
God shouldn’t be brought in to any debate based in the real world
God is not a constant. I myself am Godless.
Well said!
Can you explain how you personally are betrayed when infidelity occurs in a relationship that you are not involved in?
Can you please cite references to support your statement that “sexual morality” (whatever that means) has existed for 3000 years and the effects it has.
Would you be willing to accept there are multiple situations that may lead a woman to have an abortion?
Lets start with those questions and see how you get on.
Your amazement at what I just said amazes me. Every single atrocity ever committed on a State level has been due to evidence denial. Worshiping of Jesus is a religion it is delusional to say otherwise. These always start off apparently benign and then morph into the craziest ideologies. I do not think you are an idiot. Neither do I believe the worshipers of Kim Jong il were idiots. Many nuclear physicists were impressed with him. I do not think that Muslims who believe Muhammad did a one night flight on a winged horse to converse with the angel Gabriel are idiots. There are three main ways to make smart people believe idiotic things 1) Mental illness psychosis schizophrenia etc. 2) Consuming hallucinogenic drugs psilocybin etc. 3) Dogmatic regimes which use recognised methods of mind control. Religion and peculiar despots fall into this category. This is one of the reasons why Islamic states have nearly all got dictators because there is not a clear line between religious and secular propaganda. You will have no problem believing that when the Taliban create edicts that beards must be of a certain length is peculiar. The people who believe these things are not idiots either but that particular belief is delusional. We could go on all night as to what constitutes mind control . Its main ingredients involve making people feel good about themselves, creating a sense of tribal identity worshiping of a charismatic leader the use of music film and the media to spread propaganda, the censorship of information and the creation of scapegoats and the punishing of dissenters. This sums up religion and one can be made believe in just about anything such as human sacrifice of an iron age Israeli who rose from the dead. There is no ambiguity on this it is a belief held without justifiable evidence hence it is a delusion. I respect your right to believe in it but once you try preach it in the public square society has a duty to call it as it is.
You’re entitled to say that I’m delusional, but there’s nothing really logical about that. Anyone can lob that accusation at people. I’m more interested to getting to the meat of this argument. So far nobody has really argued against any of the reasons why the Christian POV on sexuality are unreasonable, or have really made any attempt to refute the argument that I’ve presented.
It’s peculiar that you bring up Kim Jong Il because North Korea is currently under a rather horrific brand of state atheism, it is currently one of the worst places for Christians to live on earth also. That’s another topic altogether.
I don’t see anything productive in going back and forward claiming that the other is delusional. I also have zero interest in defending anything other than Biblical Christianity, so I’m going to leave it there if that’s quite alright with you?
Plus a zillion from me there sums it up nicely
Hoping for? can you please explain why you are hoping to be called such things?
I have no interest in calling you names or labelling you (I dont know you), I’m just concerned with the massive inconsistencies in your arguments.
Funny, you haven’t pointed out one yet.
I have a feeling that this is going to be an unpopular comment, but I’m going to take a plunge, and disagree with the author. I am hoping that this comment will provoke some positive discussion and dialogue. This is going to be a long post, and it will require patience to read.
Before I start, I’m going to point out that I’m coming at this from an evangelical Christian perspective, and I’ll be looking at some of the arguments that the author makes in that light.
1) The author seems to be derisive of marriage, and of Christian views towards marriage –
The author is derisive of marriage and of Christian views towards marriage in particular. The latter concept I will discuss more thoroughly later.
Marriage as a commitment of a man and a woman to love one another, stand by one another, and to live as one is a fundamentally important factor of society. Marriage, as a bond which supports children with male and female rolemodels is also an essential pillar of stable families. Undermining marriage, to me seems to be undermining both the key advantages that it presents in a relationship, and secondly undermining the key advantages that it has in bringing stability to children. This is a destructive trend as far as I can see it.
2) On divorce – I agree with the author that there should be the liberty to divorce. At the same time I am torn in respect to this because it has brought a huge negative to light. Prior to divorce being illegal in 1995 at least people had the real perspective that marriage was forever. That concept has been lost. Indeed, as we’ve weakened and compromised our sexual ethics, we’ve actually undermined marriage as an institution to our demise in many ways. The idea that marriage was for life, and that marriage was permanent, ultimately meant that people understood that it was a life long commitment which no doubt encouraged greater care, it also meant that people must have had the desire to put more effort in towards keeping their marriages alive when they fell into difficulty.
3) The author seems to equate moving away from Christianity to progress –
As far as I’m concerned this couldn’t be any further from truth. Christianity and a Christian perspective to marriage have clear benefits to society a number of which can be listed below.
A Christian approach to marriage where by sexuality is expressed solely in that marriage, is clearly beneficial. The author says that she has experience working with AIDS and that she has spent a lot of time trying to bring awareness of that disease to light. Indeed, I would argue that this is valuable work. However, a liberal approach to sexuality doesn’t serve to prevent against AIDS. Contraceptives certainly do help, but they fail. Indeed, contraceptives do not prevent against the spread of other STI’s even if they do work. If one truly and honestly wants a foolproof way of preventing AIDS. Then encouraging people to wait until marriage makes perfect sense. It means that there is zero risk of anyone getting any STI, and indeed, it means that the spread of STI’s is nullified even when those relationships are expressed sexually in marriage.
A Christian approach to marriage has clear benefits in terms of personal relationships. Sexuality is something that is treated with high esteem, it is not expressed early in a relationship. This is advantageous in so far that people can spend the time getting to know their partner and developing a deep relationship with them before they express themselves sexually. It also means that discussion as to the value of sexuality can happen early on in a relationship. In addition to this, it means that the couple know eachother deeply and intimately before they even express themselves sexually in a relationship. It means that one is truly sure that someone loves them before they express themselves sexually, it also means that there is a formal pledge of commitment in place before this happens.
A Christian approach to marriage also has clear benefits in respect to unplanned pregnancy. The Christian ideal of waiting until marriage means that if a pregnancy arises within a marriage, that the couple are in a better means to deal with it. It means that the couple have the structure in place so that they could reasonably bring their child into the world, and provide for them in a structured, and loving family environment with a mother and a father to support them. This would practically nullify the concept of abortion, it would also practically nullify the concept of single parenthood.
Finally, and separate to marriage. I think that the rejection of man’s Creator is ultimately a destructive trend. Denying the very unity that brought and brings all things together as far as I’m concerned is a fundamental rejection of the way things are. A rejection of ultimate truth, a rejection of an objective standard of ethics ultimately leading to moral confusion and moral decay. This doesn’t seem much the solution to a problem, but rather the perpetuation of it as far as I’m concerned.
4) Is a liberal approach to sexuality entirely a good thing –
The liberal approach to sexuality that the author is encouraging isn’t necessarily a good thing, devaluing sexuality as something special to be shared in a marriage, devaluing marriage as a key structure for children to live in, and devaluing the value of male and female rolemodels to children is destructive ultimately.
The reason that the value of life is being denied in many Western countries is essentially because we’ve decided that our conjugal rights supersede the right to life. The decision as to whether one wants a child can be answered relatively simply. One is the albeit fallible mechanism of contraceptives, and the second is waiting until one is in a stable position to deal with that risk if and where it arises. If one isn’t willing to take either of those two precautions, then the question of whether or not abortion-by-choice is acceptable comes down to whether or not we think that our conjugal rights are more important than the right to life which is the most important right and liberty that we have. There are no rights or liberties if we don’t have the right to life.
A liberal approach to sexuality is as I’ve said above, a key reason why STD’s spread. If people did hold a Christian POV to marriage, STI’s would be practically non-existent. If I was to put it in another way, I think that God was profoundly right in setting the standard for marriage in the Biblical text. It gives me confidence as a Christian as to whether or not I believe and trust in Him. It also makes me despair for a world that chooses to reject Him and the love that He’s shown us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus to take away the penalty of our sin.
5) Is not legalising abortion exporting a “problem” or is it taking a stance on a problem –
The stance that Ireland holds on abortion as I see it isn’t ignoring a problem, or indeed exporting it. What it is doing is taking a key stance on human rights. It is ensuring that the right to life isn’t compromised through abortion-by-choice. It is saying that people have a right to live, breathe and dwell in the world, that killing an unborn child is profoundly wrong.
Even if abortions do take place overseas. On the basis of The Guardian’s figures for abortion in England and Wales in 2008. In Wales a country with a similar population to Ireland, there were 8,000 unborn children killed. In comparison there were just over 4,000 unborn children killed in the same period if one is to judge from figures of Irish women having abortions abroad. This I think is a success. Although, I think a more pragmatic position would be if we could reduce the number of abortions, and the perceived need for abortion, as I’m sure that even the most adamant pro-choicer would argue, that abortion is not a desirable position for any woman to find herself in.
Simply put, the Christian position on sexuality and marriage makes sense. In my position it makes far more sense than the liberal Western approach to sexuality, which has actually produced more problems in society than it has actually resolved. As a young person in Ireland today, I see that as being overwhelmingly clear.
I can appreciate the sentiment. But as I am sure you are aware, Christianity is not the be all and end all of faith.
Many others have different faiths, and others have no faith at all – which makes most of the argument a red herring.
The Christian view of marriage is indeed admirable, but also quite against nature. It is in human nature to experiment and to experience. To deny that is against nature. And as this belief system is not shared by all, the argument is actually moot.
1. People can get married after long engagements and still find out years later that they never truly knew one another. Life changes people, so this “until death does us part” thing is ignoring a very important fact of life. Plus, according to the KJV Eph 5:22 women are supposed to submit to their husband as they would to god – which is kinda ignoring equality rights in a marriage.
2. On some levels I can agree that the perception of the importance of the commitment inspired people to work harder upon their relationships, as would having children – but this also accounted for many women and children remaining in abusive situations, so I can appreciate why you are torn. It is certainly a double edged sword.
3. Sadly this point is moot. The Christian perspective is all very well and good – if you are Christian. But not everyone is, so to have the values of one faith pushed upon a whole society regardless of their faith is wrong.
I won’t go near that “ultimate truth” stuff as it would divert the course of the discussion.
4. This point simply ignores human biology and instinct. It ignores nature. Which I find a little paradoxical as god is supposed to have been its creator, but that aside. Education about the responsibilities inherent in making sexual decisions is key, and although this is not christianitys fault per se, it is the catholic churches stronghold upon our education system has led to poor education in this area.
By just saying “wait until marriage” you are not addressing any of these important issues regarding relationships and urges.
5. To force a woman who is already making a very tough decision as you yourself pointed out, to make a journey overseas, possibly alone, to do it – that’s the issue.
Again, I ask you to remember that while the Christian way makes sense to you (as a Christian) it may not make sense to everyone else.
For example, not everyone views a foetus as a human, more the possibility of a human – like sperm. Mind you, the origins of the term “sin” comes from the wastage of semen, and masturbation is frowned upon in Christianity.
I respect your decision to view life in these terms, and liberal laws do not prevent you from living by your religions values and ethics, however, to force them upon others is what is wrong (again, I cannot blame you for this, as spreading the word makes up a large part of the Christian doctrine and you are merely fulfilling your duty as a Christian by expressing these views).
Thanks for your post, I appreciate your response, but I believe that it is mistaken.
1) My point isn’t that Christianity is the be all and end all of faith. The author of this article makes an explicit attack of the Christian approach on sexuality, as a result, I thought it would be best if I evaluated that approach in comparison to the approach that she encourages. I believe that I managed to do that by clearly listing the advantages of that approach.
2) As for Ephesians 5:22, if you actually read the entire section, it also describes a husbands obligations to ones wife. Something which many in our society may want to consider. I’ll quote it for you below:
“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”
This is beautiful, and something I couldn’t encourage more as someone who follows Jesus. I should love my potential wife in the same self-sacrificial spirit as Jesus did. I think that approach is admirable, and is a reason why I would continue to defend the Christian POV on marriage as well as its advantages, it presents a brilliant philosophy on marriage. Why would that be an issue?
3. The point isn’t moot. There is something true irrespective of whether or not people hold it. If Christianity is true and you reject it, it’s still true.
Leaving that aside, my point was actually to demonstrate that there are clear advantages of a Christian perspective of ethics over the one that Western society has created. I’ve clearly presented logic as to how many of the problems that have arisen as a result of that liberal understanding of sexual ethics could be resolved by employing Christian principles to our relationships. You can choose to accept or reject this, but it doesn’t mean that the arguments that I’ve presented aren’t valid.
4. You seem to have simply ignored my points on the benefits of a Christian approach to sexual ethics. Waiting until marriage is advantageous in many ways. You’ve simply ignored my point without engaging with it, automatically dismissing it as nonsense because you think it’s incompatible with human biology. Why do you think this?
5. It makes clear sense in terms of the logic that I’ve presented. If more people took the pragmatic approach to wait until they were in a position of stability before taking risks, irrespective of whether I even mention Christianity in that respect, there would be practically no perceived need for abortion-by-choice. That’s a valid point. If that isn’t an option, one would have to question if someone valued their conjugal rights over the right and liberty to life.
As for the origin of the term sin, I think that’s not quite accurate, I’ll wait for you to present something reasonable in that respect. As far as most Christians would be concerned, sin is when we live in contempt of God’s standard. That’s on any point of ethics.
I’m not forcing them on anyone? – I’m simply presenting my case, which you and others are free to reject. Ultimately when push comes to shove. I think you’re wrong, you think I’m wrong, why not discuss it?
William Grogan: I couldn’t care less if you regard me as a moron. Most of the case that I’ve presented, is simply logical. If one lives according to Christian ethics even if for arguments sake God isn’t real, they still produce better results in respect to strong marriages, strong families, and less to no perceived need for abortion-by-choice. The argument for a liberal perspective on sexuality hasn’t been presented yet. I’m interested to see if someone is going to give it a go.
Ok.. Here we go..
1. I can appreciate your point – but these morals about life and love are not exclusive to Christianity and to present them as such is disingenuous.
2. That can be seen as quite nice – but What about the bibles attitude toward women? They are seen as inferior – as they were created for man and not vice versa, 1 Cor 11:3-10. They’re also blamed for attracting spirits with their hair.. And as Cyril pointed out can be stoned for not being virgins.
3. The statement about rejecting Christianity and it retaining its truth is incorrect. In fact it is a logical fallacy. I see Christianity as an astrotheological metaphor. Combining Judaism (who rejected Jesus), Mithraism and a few other pre-existing beliefs.. I cannot see something so plagued with contradictions as truth, especially as there is evidence to the contrary.
As for Christian views, before Christianity came here some people lived by the rule of harm none, and believed in the threefold rule that what you send out is what you get back – this too encourages positive behaviour – it is inherent in many other indigenous spiritual paths, and predates Christianity all over the world.
4. I have chosen not to marry, because I am not christian and so do not give it any credence – I live by the rule for as long as the love lasts, and do not plan on having children. By Christianity’s view I am living in sin with my partner, we are having sex and taking precautions. But in your religions view, not only are we immoral – we should be burned. John 15:6.
5. I would have good reason to consider abortion, it may impact my health. Plus, I cannot guarantee that my partner and I will be in the best position to provide for another life, so we choose not to begin one. We do this out of consideration for the child and my health. You chose to ignore cases like that. The logic you have provided has been fallacious and therefore illogical.
The origins of the word “sin” come from the Ancient Sumerian texts, which is also where a chunk of the old testament – which forms the basis for Christianity in spite of the Jewish rejection of it, according to the Sumerians it was a sin to waste any of the ingredients of fertility (as it was a fertility based teaching). Of course, their story had a lot more to it than the stories of Adam and Eve in Eden, Noah and the flood, and the Tower of Babel (what has been translated so far) in the bible – such as the rivalry between En.Ki and En.Lil, the creation in pots of clay rather than from clay, placing some of Adam (the rib) in Eve so that they could procreate, Noah collecting the seed of every animal rather than the animals themselves.. It’s really quite fascinating.. And predates Judaism and the Egyptian beliefs we know of today. In fact some facets of it are found in Ancient Egypt, such as the symbol for Thoth which was initially the symbol for Ningizzidah in ancient Sumerian.
Gareth.
Phew! That was a one humdinger of a comment.
I’ll try to be a bit briefer. I agree with most of what you said. Except for one thing, me being a secularist and all of that. I believe that a moral code reinforced by a religious belief is wrong. Let me put it this way. I believe that the jolly green giant is the one and only true god who has decreed that if I don’t be a good boy and eat up all my sweetcorn I won’t grow up to be big and strong and be able to be happy and work hard for the man. Why do I believe this? Because they have been running the ad on telly for the last 3000 years!
Now I’m a smart little boy and I know that sweetcorn is very good for me and makes me big and strong because my my surrogate mammy or my male mammy or my two daddies or my two mammies told me. They also told me that too much telly is bad for my perception of reality, that they love me very much and that the jolly green giant is not real but sweetcorn is full of vitamins and iron and highly nutritious. They have also shown me how to read the label on the tin so I can check for all for myself what other foods might contain.
Sorry you lost me over the repetitive use of Christian marriage, prior to 1996 people were locked in to loveless abusive relationships, I had an aunt who was raped on her honey moon by her new husband she had a son the following 9 months and because of that she was emotionally detached from him which in fairness he is as screwed up because of it, she tried to get an annulment but they would not pass it, when she had to get her daughter registered with her partner get a letter off her ex husband to say he was not her new daughters father even though they had separated the previous 7 yrs, I currently now now a few marriages that would possibly be better off spitting because no kid should be put through shit by their parents
1. The author has attacked a Christian perspective on sexuality and on marriage. I feel I have the liberty to argue that that perspective is wrong for a number of reasons. I’ve still not heard any form of argument as to why the logic that I’ve presented is wrong.
2. As for handling the Bible. I feel that it needs to be done with care. Paul’s point of view concerning women and the length of their hair has to do with the culture that Paul was preaching in. Again, this is off topic and if you wish to discuss this more in depth I suggest that you get in touch with me via my Twitter account. I suggest that you read all of 1 Corinthians 11 rather than isolating passages out of context.
3. Your point about Mithraism and Christianity as an astrological metaphor needs to be expanded. It sounds like your view is based on Zeitgeist: The Movie which was refuted by Skeptics Magazine even. I doubt that Skeptics Magazine would have any interest in promoting Christianity. Mithra was born as a fully grown man from a rock, therefore the point that Mithraism has any real comparison to Christianity is nonsensical.
4. Christianity presents that one needs to believe in Jesus to be saved. I’m not going to deny this as it’s clearly presented as such in the Gospel. We’ve sinned and fallen short of God’s glory as far as Christianity is concerned, and as a result we rightfully deserve God’s punishment. Jesus came into the world to offer us a new start with God. That’s clearly what it teaches and I think it makes perfect sense given the nature and history of humanity.
5. Not at all. Abortion shouldn’t be seen as a mechanism for contraception. What you seem to be saying is that your conjugal rights are more important than the right to life, which is essentially what I’ve just argued. It seems like fair logic to me.
Do you have any links or references for your POV on the origin of the word “sin”? If so I’d be interested in reading them. I’m surprised how little you’ve actually engaged with what I’ve actually said.
Gareth.
1. The author was talking about the society we find ourselves in – as a result of religion perhaps. To present Christianity as though it exceeds other spiritual practices is what I find to be disingenuous.
2. I agree – off topic, but to explain it away as “the times he lived in” means that other elements of the bible may also be dismissed.. And as there are people of various positions of both belief and non belief, to impose Christianitys’ values over another is not suitable.
3. Not based on Zeitgeist, I said it was one element, zeitgeist has its flaws, but also many truths.. And they went nowhere near the Ancient Sumerians.. But thanks for trying to dismiss me by throwing in a straw man – note, more fallacy.
4. And the Sumerian version of events – upon which the whole story of Eden (Ed.In) and Adam & Eve (plural) and falling short of gods expectation is based, show the Serpent as the brother of the being that humans are taking orders from. He tells them that his brother is no god and that they should be free.. He had been mating with the Eve’s, corresponding to the Elohim and Nephelim. Most other religions in the region branch out from this common point (until we find something older than them).
5. An abortion is not a decision any woman takes lightly. It’s not a pleasant experience from what I have heard either. To use preventative contraception is and always should be primary. Abortions should be a very last resort, please do not force your assumptions on my views. And you ignored my points about pregnancy complications and contraceptive failure – not to mention people who choose not to marrys’ needs. I have a right to express myself sexually with the guy I’ve been with most of a decade, I don’t see celibacy out of marriage as particularly practical in reality..
6. Hunt down the Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and learn a bit more about the Ancient Sumerians :) then you will understand what I am speaking about with regards “Sin”
As regards me engaging with what you have said, I could easily say the same of you.. I do agree that the Christian tradition has some positives, but the things I agree with are most certainly not exclusively Christian, and so Christianity bears no relevance to them..
I’m with William; either prove your God exists and is relevant to my life, otherwise you and your religious friends stop trying to regulate my life.
Just thinking what my mum said to me when I was 16/17, her mother never looked at sex as pleasurable and has a distorted view of sex, where as my mum said to me enjoy it and don’t get any hang ups, I don’t,thankfully any issues with sex, but some people were thought it was dirty and there for have issues with exploring their sexuality
Very true.. I know many girls who’s attitudes toward sex were very conflicted and confused as a result of a less than open discussion on the subject.. It is certainly a private situation between two people, but the fact that (when I was at school) there was no discussions about the emotions surrounding sex, the way that society places all sorts of conflicting images of women’s sexuality (and I suppose men’s too, although I am not qualified to make this statement), just “it’s for after marriage” and “it’s for procreation”.. We’re not the only mammals who do it for pleasure, and why would we have been given these urges if they were to be ignored? If it was simply down to procreation we would probably have a mating season or a “heat”..
The “in heat” sessions already happen any night in coppers :)
That they certainly do!
John you mentioned 3000 year old texts about sexual morals. Just a quick question. What is your attitude to the view that girls who are not found to be virgins on their wedding night be stoned to death at her fathers doorstep?
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Sure reckless sex can have very nasty consequences but human mammals living in the 21st century have found very effective ways of limiting the risks associated with having sex that does not lead to procreation or within marriage. Sexually liberated societies you will find are not torn apart by social strife or other societal malaise. On the contrary conservative societies are the most messed up in the world. France, the Netherlands Sweden do not have the sexual hang ups you do and are all the better for it.
I wouldn’t argue that France, the Netherlands, or Sweden are better off at all, for the reasons I’ve mentioned above I would go as far as saying that if people held a Christian approach to sexuality in society I think the world would be better off in that respect. I don’t regard a sensible approach to sexual expression to be a hangup either.
As for the passages you’ve quoted from the Law of Moses, if you get in touch with me on Twitter, I’d be glad to chat through them with you. It would be bringing this topic, off topic though.
So Gareth you would prefer to live in 1930s Ireland where religion ruled where single mothers had to hide in shame or leave the country is better than France or Sweden? While Ireland has many unplanned pregnancies it is precisely because of our Christian past where sex was not talked about in school etc and when people lost their fear of superstition of the church they had not the sexual sophistication to deal with it. This is similar to the Bible belt in America who also talk of family values but have huge problems with teen pregnancies. They have as much sex as liberal countries do but are totally in denial of it.
Religion shuts down the minds of people and makes otherwise intelligent people say and try explain away silly things. I can see you are a reasonably smart individual from looking at your twitter account and I have never said religious people are stupid but religion is stupid. Otherwise intelligent people believe nonsense because establishing evidential fact is not necessarily selected for in natural selection but tribal beliefs that held a group together would have been highly advantageous to survival in 50,000 year old man in an age before the scientific method began.
No, believe it or not, I wouldn’t live in 1930′s Ireland. I think there are negatives when one church rules over a society. I regard Christianity as a grassroots movement. I don’t particularly desire or expect any special attention from any Government for Christianity. I think that it is up to Christians to live and speak for Jesus in their daily lives. I think that the dominance of the RCC over the State wasn’t a positive relationship. I think the State should be entirely neutral towards religion.
At the same time, I do believe that Christian values promote much good, and that Christian values in respect to Christianity are demonstrably good in comparison to the liberal Western approach towards sexuality. It’s produced many problems. I don’t encourage a prudish approach towards sexuality, but at the same time I don’t encourage a loose approach towards sexual ethics. I think that sexuality within a marriage is a good and a productive thing. I think that God was right in showing us this. Indeed, if I am to believe what I do, it is sensible and reasonable to believe that God as Creator ultimately knows what’s best.
I think sex should be discussed openly and honestly in schools, but I do think that the position that I’ve described concerning sexual ethics, must and should receive an adequate and fair hearing alongside other approaches. It is evident to me that this approach to sexual ethics is far better than its counterpart in society. Others are at liberty to disagree with me, and I respect a fair and frank discussion on that topic.
I find that my faith enriches my life, I find that it is profoundly reasonable in many respects, and has caused me to think more about what my purpose is why am I here, and who am I living for. As far as I’m concerned it’s enriched by very being. As a result, I reject your position concerning my beliefs. I also reject the idea that atheism has provided any form of enlightenment in society.
While it is noble to say that you aspire for Church/State separation this just simply does not work in religious societies. America is the prime example. Its constitution is entirely secular not a mention of god yet their religious growth in the 1960s evangelical expansion has all but destroyed the wall of separation. You say Atheism has not bought enlightenment this is simply laughable. Lets take America again 85% of Americans are believers but 93% of the US national academy of science are either Atheist or Agnostic and do not give intellectual respect to religion. You seriously don’t believe countries like Sweden are more enlightened than places like Texas or Alabama or any predominantly Christian nation I can think of? This level of delusion in otherwise people of normal intelligence scares me.
As a woman who is not Christian, my objections to Christianity would be that there is a presumption that the Bible is the word of god.
This can be shown to be untrue all by itself.
My next issue would be with the Biblical attitude toward women. And with the elitism present (although this is not restricted to Christianity), in fact from many discussions with some hard line Christians have done no more than confirm to me why I am not a Christian.
I have values, believe it or not.. But in christianitys eyes, only it is enlightened – and this is not the case. I am not accusing you personally of having these beliefs – just the bible.
Cyril: I’m amazed as to how you think I’m talking about a “religious” society. I’m simply talking about when people live and speak authentically for Jesus, and what He stood for in this world. I’m convinced that if people actually did that rather than trying to ram their own ambitions into Government under the guise of Christianity that the world would be a better place. I don’t encourage state sponsored Christianity, in fact I think state sponsored Christianity is awful in comparison to the real deal.
As far as I’m concerned, atheism hasn’t brought any real perspective as to how we should deal with any of the problems that I’ve listed above. I believe strongly that Christianity has if people are willing to give it a fair hearing. Again, “delusion” is up for discussion. You think a belief in God is delusional. I think the rejection of God in the earth that He has created is not just delusional, but ultimately to our detriment. If God is the Creator of the universe, and I believe there’s good reason to suggest such, then the rejection of Him, is denying the cornerstone of reality itself.
You’re welcome to think that I’m an idiot for holding these views. I of course wouldn’t agree with you, but that’s your liberty. I believe that my beliefs make better sense of the universe than regarding it as being a meaningless void.
John if I say I believe in the flying spaghetti monster and you say I am delusional and I say that is just your opinion that doesn’t enhance your argument one bit it just adds to your delusion. You cant prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist and neither can I prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. Neither can I prove that suicide bombers wont be rewarded with 72 virgins but I can say with certainty that all the above are delusional beliefs because they are not supported by evidence. This is not circular it is called reality. Secondly I mentioned Kim Jong ill to get you started on the whole what about Stalin he was an Atheist thing. If Atheism lead to those societies we would not have a Sweden or Netherlands with such good quality of life indicators. The systems that led to the rise of Stalin and Kim Jong il were not due to atheism it was due to making people feel good about themselves as mentioned above. The societies that preceded them were religious also. Sweden and the Nordic countries escaped the dictatorships of the 1930s. Atheists don’t worship Dawkins as in a Jesus or Stalin sense. We don’t have his graven image on the wall in our home. We don’t go around reciting and learning lines from the origin of the species. We dont have feel the need to send our children to atheist schools where they are thought that there is no god and told that they will receive a big reward for believing in dogma that a deity doesn’t exist. The reality is Kim jong il made his people feel good despite being starved. You mentioned belief in Jesus makes you feel good. Kim Jong il made scapegoats of the west despite the west having much better quality of life than North Korea. Is this not exactly what you are doing saying you believe Christian Nations have a better quality of life when the evidence is unambiguous that they don’t? This is evidence denial, lack of acceptance of peer review etc, Atheism is not dogmatic. If Jesus came down from heaven did a few miracles etc I would be open to changing my mind but this is not going to happen. Religious nations will continue to fight and reject science etc and as long as this continues I will continue to reject dogmatic delusions of any description.
The ChristianThe Christian view of sex is inherently illogical and Shanti Om gave you a very good account of why this is so. I need not rehash it again. The bible is rampantly homophobic also. This is primitive and intolerant in the extreme. I am not intolerant of you going to Church and doing as you wish neither is any genuine Atheistic country. Sweden has one of the best records of religious tolerance of any country so much so it is being attacked from within by growing Islamism. However I am intolerant of religion being given intellectual credibility or forcing its way into the corridors of power. Secularists should not put up with this and it is intolerable.
Cyril: I wouldn’t desire for any country to be atheistic. In fact that would be my worst nightmare and it should be yours also given what happened under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and others to mention a few. What I do desire is for a country to be impartial in respect to faith or atheism. I want the liberty to live and speak for Jesus in society. That’s all I desire. The Government shouldn’t be atheistic, or of any other persuasion regarding the God question. All it need do is protect liberties. Christians need to promote the Gospel themselves.
Shanti hasn’t engaged with my arguments in my first post at all. I’ve clearly presented the consequences of following Christianity in respect to sexual ethics. Logically it would be a mechanism for reducing the spread of STD’s, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions. It would also reduce the number of children without a mother or father. These are all reasons why I believe the Christian POV trumps the liberal Western view that has emerged amongst us.
Those countries were totalitarian
I have already dealt with the Stalin/ Pol Pot argument. They are dogmatic despots that do not embrace critical thinking by any stretch of the imagination. I agree with you about how the government should be neither Atheistic or religious and I respect your right as a private individual to freedom of speech and also my right to ridicule beliefs held without evidence. Yes you are right if we all were Christians and forced its hatred of sex on others we would have less STDs and unwanted pregnancies. You are also right that if societies were religious we could eliminate public homosexuality along the lines of 1930s Ireland or modern day Iran. However there are much more desirable ways to deal with STDs and unplanned pregnancies as in the Swedish model of emancipation of women and sex education contraception and more equal societies. The Chinese government can boast about low levels of crime also but at a barbaric cost.
Those leaders also displayed every single outward symptom of psychopathy. They rejected religion as they wished to vacate the throne for them to have ultimate power.
Hardly relevant.. Massive straw man..
I have engaged with your arguments, and I have drawn your attention to the fallacious nature of them, which renders your logic void..
And for you to ignore that we are indeed human, and one of the few species on the planet who do not go on “heat” shows one of the paradoxes of the Abrahamic religions, why be given free will and sexual urges if they are not to be used?
Gareth… technically, Christians must kill all non believers, not preach to them. So, if you continue to preach your gospel and refrain from killing us non Christians, you are disobeying your own “God”.
It’s entirely disingenuous of you Gareth to trot out the Stalin/Pol Pot ‘example’. You’ve been having this same debate for a long, long time and this particular point has been thoroughly refuted in every debate there’s been on the matter. You simply have no logical basis for linking Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot’s atheism to their violent acts.
“I’ve clearly presented the consequences of following Christianity in respect to sexual ethics. Logically it would be a mechanism for reducing the spread of STD’s, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions.” No. This is really, really stupid and there is no more polite way of putting it. Africa, the Philippines… areas where christianity is strongest in the world at the moment and they have the highest rates of AIDS. In Western countries we have the lowest. Where evangelical Christianity is strongest in the States, is -ta-da!- also the highest rates of teen pregnancies. This is even higher when you compare it with secular European countries. And lower abortions? Well, if you’re not allowed have an abortion, then it’s a bit obvious that your rates of said are going to be lower… Or maybe it’s just the rate of *reported* abortions. There’s still the old back alley, eh? Where you can have your fetus aborted in circumstances that may bring you pain or cost your life.
You don’t have to go as far as abstraction, thought experiments, or make ‘logical’ conjectures about how the two systems work. The proof is plain to be seen.
jesus what a snore-fest
On a different note there’s a funny program on 5* now and they guy who is in big chef little chef giving sex lessons :) a bit of education for you’s :)
In Ireland it’s called the Fleadh Cheoil!!
To the woman who wrote the article; your American friend doesn’t know a whole lot about her own country. Tell her to look up Griswold v Conneticut. Then tell her that we don’t care what she thinks anyway. Considering the whole thrust of your article is ‘minding one’s own business’ maybe you shouldn’t lecture us on how backwards we are and what we need to do to live our lives in a manner more befitting of your ideal.
Keep your self congratulation to yourself while you’re at it.
Seriously? 200000 word essays. Each to their own. Stop the pontificating
William if you dont like essays then dont read them.
Meh
have your say