According the the Proposition 8 decision, religion can no longer be considered when determining whether a sexual practice is morally and legally wrong. But this creates a few problems. When you take away religious considerations, there are quite a few evils left open for debate. For instance, apart from religious morality, how can you argue that rape is morally or legally wrong? If you maintain an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, rape is a natural, even necessary, part of human evolution.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:06 — 11.6MB) | Embed
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandsons, Calvin and Paul. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
Everyone is missing one point rape takes away your self worth it ruins your life forever. Have you ever been close to someone who has been raped. The thing that I have noticed the most is their ,sudden hate for everything and all people. They withdraw and become very hard to cope with . They have no use for themselves and act like they never had any morals. They evidently turn into something or someone you never knew.. Rape destroys their very sole.
Without referring to any religion, please consider that whatever actions create the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals, families, groups, nations and mankind as a whole are 'good,' and those actions which harm the greatest number are 'bad.' So in this context, murder, theft, rape, and other activities which are against the law do not depend upon the context of a Higher Power (though this is in NO WAY to be construed as an argument for atheism!), but upon the survival and benefit of the most of these segments. IF gay marriage does in fact strengthen the individual, the family (though the separation rate and divorce rate among gays is apparently higher than even heterosexuals, which is outrageously high at present), the society and the nation, and arguably man as a whole, then by all means condone it. But it seems to me to be innately antipathetic to both the normal family unit, whose major purpose is the safe procreation and rearing of children, and to the aims of society. Without normal procreation, humanity will become extinct. (There are those who do not see this as necessarily a bad thing; I disagree.) So in this context, I argue that recognizing civil unions for the purpose of humanitarian concerns (visitation and care of sick partners), and inheritance as provided in wills is not inherently wrong or 'evil.' I argue that recognizing 'marriage' between the same gender is a travesty. That homosexuality exists is a fact. That some homosexuals actively prey upon and 'convert' younger persons is also a fact; one that has caused immeasurable misery. So for the same reason I oppose pederasty of either gender, I oppose the 'in your face' flaunting of sexuality, immorality and licentiousness of whatever persuasion. Sexual extremes of nymphomania, satyriasis, and bestiality are all the logical outcome of the 'if it feels good, do it' philosophy, which is ultimately anti-survival. This is my personal opinion, thoroughly expressed as such, and I do not expect it to be popular.
Rape is very much a crime. It is an attack.
Rape has always been a punishable offense by death. Decreed of God and God changes not, nor does his word change. Murder is another. Or should I define it as God had so defined it. The shedding of innocent blood.
is an athiest equivalent to anarchist? Seems like he is finding some equivalency. one wonders why he would stop at rape, move on to slavery and the "might makes right" constructs where the person has few, if any, claims for personal safety.
guess I better qualify for caliber 45 personal protection. What is your choice, evolutionary speaking?
To: ellie salzan
Before people chastise you for violent thoughts or male bashing, I offer you this;
I will SHARPEN your castration knife for you!
I feel this is a fair punishment for those that violate women or men in this manner.
bill
To:C.W. Crosby
Very well put. You may get a firestorm from gays, but that is expected. They want rights for doing what is wrong in the eyes of most of the civilized world, and not the least, God.
In the "Old Days" we lived by an eye for an eye, but we grew away from that within God's laws. Rape may have been
common in the early days of our evolution, but we grew and learned. Didn't the story of Sodom and Gomorra (sp?)
teach the world anything.
Many Blessings to all, and I mean all, not just my Christian brothers and sisters. bill
Someone is missing the point , rape is and should be illegal , but it was a natural act in our early evolution , necessary to keep the race alive . The point being made is that homosexuality is and always has been a perversion of of nature and the natural order of humanity. It should clearly not be constantly in the public view , but these sick people want to normalize or mainstream their perversion to make it easier to draw in converts to their sick actions.
Evolution! Then there cannot be a Creator. And if there be no God, there are no laws for we are simply a mere step above the creatures.
There seems to be some things people just don't get, rape should be dealt with very strongly, just as child molest, the cia deals in child sex slaves for all the political parties here and around the world and no one can do anything about it, they deal drugs, arms, assasinate people, all ok, so where do we draw the line, the catholic church favored it for yrs before it got exposed world wide and had to pay for a situation they should of dealt with, not condoned. just look at the rape of our country, we got an illegal communist muslim for president that appeard out of kenya like a genie, no back ground and got nominated into the political arena, talk is all we get, no action, even congress who is to make laws according to the constitution, almost totally disregard it and by that they are commiting treason and who stands to correct them, some say impeach obama, never made any diffeence impeaching bill clinton did it? well my friends take heed, talk is about all the justice we will ever get unless some one gets praying, God allowed this mess to show us politics can't and won't help, so pray with your heart not your mouth and perhaps God will hear and come to our rescue.
What is America becomming? An extremely LIBERAL and just do what eveyone wants do to as long they are satisified, self gratifcation, how sick is that. The world is sick, I true am a Christian and god does not say that in the bible unless we become slaves. If anyone DARES to try and rape me, so help me GOD, I will cut his penis off!!!!!
As a Christian you should discern that we as a nation are under the wrath and judgment of God. And why. We have forsaken him. We have become stiff necked and and self righteous. We glorify him with our lips, but not with our hearts. The churches have failed to raise up young people to lead the nation and because of that in part, God has given this nation over to a vile and corrupt people. Think not that improvement will come. For it will quickly pass and an even greater evil will descend upon us as a once great nation. Not one word that proceeds from the mouth of God shall return empty,
Can I help??
It's all a question of where in the Bible God says that such and such are sins, to be avoided in the first place, or repented of fully, wherever/however one has actually sinned. It's not only rape that's a sin. It's greed, mercilessness, self-righteousness, a lack of charity toward others, gossip, not forgiving others. If we expect to be forgiven, we need to forgive those who trespass. We have all trespassed. For those who think Americans trespassed by voting for Obama, the Republican party has not proven to be without sin. A political messianism isn't going to save the souls of Americans. Government will not be better than the people, and the American people's only hope is in God's mercy. We all need God. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans, I believe). In Erie PA Scott Harrington
Ah, but not all sins are punishable by physical death. Rape, murder and homosexuality are some mentioned. Other sins God had not set forth punishable by physical death are reserved for the seond death, or the death of the spirit that is within each man. Unique and individual as the body which hosted it.
I agree totally, but the fact that the people who put obama in are the same group of thugs that put the bushes in and all the other thugs that have screwed us over regardless of the party, both parties are run by the same group of thugs that sell most people on either political party then play name games, when we clean out the traitors physically and try them for treason and execute them as perscribed by law, WHAT LAW, DIDN'T SONNY BUSG SAY THE CONSTITUTION WAS JUST A GOD DAMED PEICE OF PAPER AND THAT IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO RUN THE COUNTRY IF HE WERE THE DICTATOR????????????? when eisehower gave a press release without a written speach said the people wouldn't do what he wanted them to, said guess I'll just have to put them away, the media spent the next two wks trying to explain what they thought he meant, nest huh!!!!!!
Friends, Ultimately there can be no freedom unless there is a sinless one who sets us free from evil. The existence of God is a moral necessity, because the nature of human action reveals man is inclined not only to good, but also to evil. To avoid self-righteousness, people need to acknowledge their moral dependency on God. Only God can make people good, and enable them to cooperate with His goodness. The theory of evolution is a denier of moral responsibility; if nature made man behave the way he does, nothing man does can be wrong, if it's evolutionarily inherited from lower animal species. In relation to this, I want to ask you, Gary, what you think of the review of Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" in the book "Ten Books That Screwed Up the World". What do you think of the inclusion of Behe's book in a list of bad books? I think his book is good, what do you say?
In Erie Scott Harrington
Sorry, but God cannot make any man good. It is against his nature to force his will on any man. No man is righteous, but by faith God accepts and accounts for it as righteousness. Such was Abraham.
Insofar as evolution, man would by all acount be unable to set forth laws. God had etched his laws into the hearts of men, whether they believe or reject God as Creator of all things.
I would add a food for thought…Man lived without a "moral" law, except the death penalty (God's decree after Cain killed Able), for thousands of years. Man then reveled what was in his heart because God had to destroy the world for the thoughts were evil constantly. After the flood something must have changed because man has certainly had the time to repeat the antediluvian circumstances, even before Christ, and we aren't even close to what it must have been like then. So I'm saying that the moral law must have been written in our hearts but it isn't natural to want to follow it all the time, thus the need for Gov't laws also since we unfortunately are Ruled by Gov't and not God. Evolution is in disagreement with moral law.
I mistakenly put a question mark after the sentence "Rape is a violation of individual rights," when I meant to put a period after it. Obviously, I'm saying that rape IS a violation of individual rights. I apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.
In reply to the above comment from visiontoamerica, I'm not just saying that a group of people have decided to live this way, because they believe it benefits them. I'm saying that people OUGHT to live this way, because it DOES benefit them. It benefits an individual not to be a slave. It benefits one to be in control of his own life. In other words, I'm saying that freedom is a good thing, because it is IN FACT beneficial, not simply because people have DECIDED to respect it. Obviously, in many cases, people have decided not to.
Nor have I removed the morality of the issue and JUST made it a social one. What I am also saying is that it is IMMORAL to violate individual rights, because it is harmful to people's lives and mutual interests. Individual rights ARE a moral principle, one which deserves to be respected BECAUSE it is beneficial — because it is indispensable to people's lives and happiness.
William Dwyer
But why should they "OUGHT to live this way…"? It may benefit (yet there is no such thing as "good" or "benefit" outside of God. Things just are) others not to live this way. It benefits the thief and rapist to take from others. Sure it doesn't benefit the ones being taken from but without God, why does any of that matter? It just is.
Where is this concept of freedom and slavery outside of God? There is more freedom for the individual NOT to follow these arbitrary man-made rules. He's free to make any decision he wants. Under your idea of freedom, man is still a slave to other men and there is no morality attached to it. It's one group of people imposing there will on another.
Romans 6:16 "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin to death or of obedience to righteousness?
Verse 18 " And having been set free from sin, you became slaves to righteousness"
This is the basis for why we ought to live this way. When we serve ourselves we are slaves to sin and when we serve God we are slaves to righteousness. When you choose to serve God, because you love Him, do you not feel BOUND to do what is right?
Visiontoamerica wrote, "But why should they 'OUGHT to live this way…'"? Why ought they to respect the rights of others? Two reasons: First, violating the rights of others is logically indefensible. One cannot demand that one's own rights be respected, if one is not willing to respect the rights of others. Secondly, living in a free society improves the quality of one's life and well being. It allows one to thrive and prosper.
You wrote, "It may benefit (yet there is no such thing as 'good' or 'benefit' outside of God. Things just are) others not to live this way. It benefits the thief and rapist to take from others." It does not benefit the thief or rapist to live in a society in which this kind of conduct is practiced and condoned. The thief and the rapist are living by and counting on a double standard. A society of thieves and rapists — of predatory criminals — is inherently self-destructive.
You asked, "Where is this concept of freedom and slavery outside of God? There is more freedom for the individual NOT to follow these arbitrary man-made rules. He's free to make any decision he wants." Yes, but he is not free to escape the consequences and the implications of that decision. The rule which says which one should respect the rights of others is not arbitrary; it is dictated by the nature of reality — by the requirements of human life and well being.
You wrote, "Under your idea of freedom, man is still a slave to other men and there is no morality attached to it. It's one group of people imposing there will on another." On the contrary, I am saying that it is WRONG for one group of people to impose its will on another — that slavery is immoral — because it is self-defeating and self-destructive. You continue to say that morality can only come from God, but it was God who commanded Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath. Is murder moral if God commands it? It is, if the standard of morality is God's commandments, but not if the standard is human life and happiness.
William Dwyer
Where does logic come from? You're borrowing from God to make your case. You can't do that.
You can't account for right or wrong either. Things just are. Without God, those things don't exist.
Visiontoamerica, you wrote: "Where does logic come from? You're borrowing from God to make your case. You can't do that."
If, as you say, logic comes from God, and my case is logical, then it's valid. Correct? But assume, for the sake of argument, that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't logic still apply? Logic simply says that things are what they are and that any reasoning about them must be consistent and non-contradictory.
You wrote, "You can't account for right or wrong either. Things just are. Without God, those things don't exist." Suppose that God commanded you to kill atheists. Would that make it moral — because God commanded it? Or would it still be wrong? I'd say it would still be wrong. Wouldn't you? But if so, then morality does not come from God; it comes from the value of human life.
William Dwyer
Wow, you truly are God aren't you? Getting to decide what is right and what is wrong all on your own. You are truly special. Unfortunately for you (and for me actually) there is an entire world out there of people who think exactly the same way. So who ultimately is correct – who gets to decide? We have all set ourselves up as God.
Lets take some of your arguments:
"Two reasons: First, violating the rights of others is logically indefensible. One cannot demand that one's own rights be respected, if one is not willing to respect the rights of others. Secondly, living in a free society improves the quality of one's life and well being. It allows one to thrive and prosper."
Why is violating the rights of others wrong – who says so? Why can't I demand you respect my rights while violating yours – who says I can't" BTW, this happens all the time, every day, to everyone when you or me take the last piece of cake when someone else wanted it – and we knew it.
Wow, who says living in a "free" society improves your life and allows one to prosper? Don't you remember Katrina? There was no law enforcement, everyone was free to do what they wanted. The ultimate in freedom. Guess what happened??? Sure wasn't prosperity. And the only folks thriving were the rapists, thieves and murderers.
In the end, your old tired version of moral relativity and utilitarianism will lead to tyranny – not freedom. God tells us that as well as history (both ancient and modern).
BTW, God is perfectly just. He has not commanded me to kill atheists and so if I did I would be held accountable for that. (as a side, I am pretty sure there have been men who have commanded the killing of certain groups of folks because they thought it was "good" for their society and they would thrive and prosper without them).
BUT, if you do not know God thru His Son Jesus Christ, you are accountable for that and God Himself will take your life. And yes that is just and right because your life belongs to Him who made you. He will do with it as he pleases. But God, is merciful and faithful to forgive us for our rejection of Him and His law but only because of the work of His Son Jesus Christ. Christ has given up His life for ours and that of His own will because He loves us. Therefore the penalty for our rejection of Him (from where all sin flows) has been paid. That is where our freedom is found – not in man's ideas.
Hi Jeff,
You wrote, Why is violating the rights of others wrong – who says so? Why can't I demand you respect my rights while violating yours – who says I can't"
Reality and logic say you can't. It makes no sense to say that I should respect your rights but that you shouldn't respect mine. Can't you see that that's a moral double standard — that it's a logically inconsistent and self-contradictory principle of conduct?
You wrote, "Wow, who says living in a 'free' society improves your life and allows one to prosper? Don't you remember Katrina? There was no law enforcement, everyone was free to do what they wanted. The ultimate in freedom. Guess what happened??? Sure wasn't prosperity. And the only folks thriving were the rapists, thieves and murderers."
Oh, for Pete's sakes, Jeff, by "free society," I didn't mean a lawless society in which people's freedom was being violated by rapists, thieves and murderers." I meant a society in which people are free from coercive interference by others — one in which physical force is used to defend their rights, not to violate them.
You wrote, "In the end, your old tired version of moral relativity and utilitarianism will lead to tyranny – not freedom. God tells us that as well as history (both ancient and modern)."
I'm not advocating moral relativity or utilitarianism. I'm advocating the moral absolutism of freedom and of individual rights, because it is the only logical and consistent principle of social interaction.
You wrote, "BTW, God is perfectly just. He has not commanded me to kill atheists and so if I did I would be held accountable for that." I understand that. My question was, if he did, would that be morally just act? Remember, God commanded Moses to have a man stoned a man to death for working on the Sabbath. Was that a just act? Or should Moses and those who did the stoning have been held accountable for it?
William Dwyer
Even atheists innately understand that hypocrisy is wrong, as William evidences in this argument. God's law is indeed written on the hearts of all men. Unfortunately, while he does a superb job of convincing us of the LOGIC for morality, whether with or without God, he still presents us no evidence from the cold universe at large that morality does indeed exist apart from a supreme perfect creator which establishes morality. The founding fathers as quoted in David Barton's booklet, The Second Amendment argued Demar's case far better than he or any of us . . .
"Apart from religious morality, how can you argue that rape is morally or legally wrong?" Rape is a violation of individual rights? So the question becomes: how can you argue for individual rights apart from religious morality? Well it's not in people's material interests to live in a society that does not observe that principle — as the respective histories of totalitarianism and freedom have so eloquently demonstrated.
Nor can a rejection of individual rights be upheld with logical consistency. Either you own your life or someone else does. If you own it, then no one can impose his will on you. If you do not own it, then you are a slave of whoever does. But if you have no right to your own life, then others have no right to theirs, in which case, they have no right to own yours — no right to make you their slave. In short, the principle of slavery entails a logical contradiction.
The only logically consistent social principle is one in which everyone enjoys the same right to freedom — the same right to determine their own choices and actions. That principle prohibits not only rape but also every other kind of coercive intervention into people's lives whether imposed by private individuals or by the government.
William Dwyer
That doesn't demonstrate why it is wrong, only that a group of people have determined to live in a particular way because they believe it benefits them. You've removed the morality of the issue and just made it a social one. With your argument there is no "right to freedom" that we have, just a collective body of people deciding not to rape one another.
Dear William Dwyer, Strictly speaking, from a certain point of view (Christian), only God owns everything in the world. "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof", as Scripture says. That does not make man a slave of God, but rather a servant; we are not here for ourselves, but for God. When we serve ourselves, we become slaves to ourselves. Man is given to doing wrong, so to be delivered from evil, man needs God. Everyone has a right to freedom, but freedom was not meant to be without law. true because God says them. Only biblical Christianity reveals the real natural law, for God made nature.
.We were all meant to live in peace and harmony and freedom. We can do whatever we want as long as what we do is within the limits of civil and moral law. These laws come from God. In Erie Scott Harrington PS You are right, William, everyone has the same right to determine their own choices and actions. That is basic human moral responsibility.
William: I don't know of your worldview but I think you put forth, unfortunately, an intelligent argument. To not rape can be explained rationally by saying individuals have a right to expect safety, thus avoiding a moral aspect, which is what much of the liberal progressive thinking is based upon, they work hard to avoid morality because that does come from God.
A fallacy with Libs is that they pick and choose whether we exalt individuals, or the collective, based solely upon their whims that change constantly. They don't care what God says and personally I don't care what they say except that their worldview is a path to destruction and they can't see the big picture because they lack the discernment that God gives.
Yet we manage to rise about out "natural urges" to realize the benefit of respecting personal autonomy.
This is so astoundingly unintelligent.
Marder, you haven't responded to the challenge by Gary to demonstrate why rape is wrong outside of God. You've only made an empty statement to which I say "so what?"
Rape takes away a person sacred part of their body that God gave us to save for marriage an for someone to just steal someones life and something that is theirs to keep or to give away freely upon marriage. NOT for someone to take what is NOT theirs. It is wrong totally!!!!!!!!!!!Stealing is WRONG and thats why the world is like it is today because of people like you that condone all the bad things and makes it a everyday thing. It's not just religion, it a part of life that someone chooses not to give away and when someone TAKES with out permission its wrong. Glad your not my Daddy……
Who are you referring to as "Glad your not my Daddy"?
If you are referring to Gary you obviously didn't listen to the show.
Dear Guest:
Did your parents fail to teach you how to read with understanding? The author of this article is showing how stupid and immoral the judge was when he made the decision overturning Prop 8. He is not condoning rape. In fact, he is taking the opposite position and showing rape is evil and wrong just like homosexual marriage which is forbidden in the Bible.
Sorry, you violated the courts decision by basing your argument on 'God'. Your opinion will now be dismissed as based on irrelevant assumptions. Listen to the talk before commenting on a tongue in cheek title!
Rape does far more than simply take the physical virginity of a girl or woman; it often causes internal scarring that may later hamper her ability to procreate; but even worse is that it damages the soul or psyche of the victim, in such a way that the person is forever scarred by the act; and if it's repeated enough times, it may even "kill" that part of a person, leaving the mind and body trying to figure out how to then continue to function without that vital part of the person's essence. The damage is even worse if the rapist is someone who should be protecting and/or caring for the victim, such as a parent or spouse. Further, rape is NEVER about sexual intercourse; it's always about POWER and CONTROL! Neither is it in ANY way a "natural" function! It's an abomimation and a violation akin to murder, which isn't decided as wrong on the basis of any given religion, and neither should the act of rape be decided as "right" or "wrong" on a religious basis!