A Loving Defense of Christian Morality: Why Opposing Abortion, Euthanasia and Sexual Immorality Promotes Human Welfare
At first glance, some may think that the title of Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality, is misguided. She is a Christian, after all. Aren’t Christians the ones who despise the body and the physical world?
Pearcey replies with a resounding: No! She then turns the tables by showing that today it is secularists who reject the physical world and the body. How do they do this? By exalting consciousness or feelings above the physical body. They desire liberation from the shackles of the body. They want to choose their identity, no matter how much it conflicts with physical reality.
Transsexualism is an obvious example. Those promoting the transsexual agenda insist that the physical body doesn’t matter. What matters is solely one’s subjective feelings. Objective biological facts are not only ignored, but are deemed oppressive. They see greater freedom in one being able to choose one’s gender. Who cares what the DNA says?
One of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial.
Pearcey considers this false “body-person” dichotomy the root of many moral ills. It motivates those supporting abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. It also promotes casual, impersonal attitudes toward sex in our “hook-up culture.”
Pearcey knows that, by taking on these hot-button topics, she is walking into a minefield. Anyone bold enough to challenge the entrenched immorality of our day is often dubbed intolerant or hateful.
However, one of the attractive features of this book is that Pearcey doesn’t simply proclaim, “Thou shalt not.” Rather she shows why Christian morality is superior and beneficial. She explains how Christian morality fits reality. Thus it enables us to fulfill the purpose for which we were created. It is not a set of arbitrary rules to restrict us. Rather, it helps us flourish and achieve happiness and fulfillment.
Secular morality, on the other hand, is damaging and destructive. It puts us in opposition to reality. We end up destroying ourselves and others. All the promises to the contrary end up being empty.
Who Qualifies as a Person?
Consider the debate over abortion. Advocates for abortion know that the fetus is a human life. Just a few weeks after conception, an unborn baby has a beating heart. A human body with its own distinct DNA is developing inside the mother. So how can pro-choice proponents justify killing a human being? By denying that the developing fetus is a person. This notion, known as personhood theory, is a powerful force in bioethics today.
Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »
Personhood theory claims that humans are not persons unless they have a certain level of consciousness. Having a human body doesn’t matter, they say. One has to have specific mental traits. Never mind that these traits are arbitrarily chosen. Never mind that bioethicists don’t agree among themselves as to which traits make someone a person. The point is that the fetus doesn’t qualify.
Indeed, some bioethicists argue that the new-born infant doesn’t qualify as a person either. Thus, some promote what they call “after-birth abortion.” Adults with dementia may also lose their personhood status. Who cares if their bodies are functioning quite well? Euthanasia, here we come.
The Roots of the Problem
How did we come to this intellectual state? In confronting this question, Pearcey’s analysis shines. Building on her earlier works developing a Christian worldview, she provides a convincing answer. Throughout the book, she explains the philosophical roots of what she calls (using Francis Schaeffer’s phrase) a “two-story” worldview.
The two-story worldview treats the body as just a hunk of flesh without moral significance. The physical world has no intrinsic purpose. Thus, the only purposes that exist are ones we choose. This makes our choices primary and our bodies inconsequential. Pearcey explains how many secular ideas, including Darwinism, have contributed to this idea.
The two-story view of humanity not only affects pro-life issues. It also helps underpin the current climate of sexual immorality.
The two-story view of humanity not only affects pro-life issues. It also helps underpin the current climate of sexual immorality. In the hook-up culture on our college campuses, many view sex purely as a physical act. They spurn loving relationships or emotional attachments. Pearcey exposes the folly of this view. It simply does not correspond with the reality of how we are made.
In addition to her astute analysis, Pearcey offers many personal vignettes that lay bare the destructive nature of the two-story worldview she critiques. She ably defends the Christian view of human life and sexuality by demonstrating that Christianity has answers that fit reality. Christian morality promotes human welfare and fulfillment. https://stream.org/pearcey-love-thy-body-defense-christian-morality/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Secular society binds its sense of right and wrong to whatever is trending - the collective "gut feeling."
The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian code of law of ancient Mesopotamia , dating back to about 1754 BC ( Middle Chronology ). It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi , enacted the code, and partial copies exist on a 2.25 metre (7.5 ft) stone stele and consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth"
It's more than 500 years older than the bible.
Trade Law #265: "If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been entrusted, be guilty of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or sell them for money, then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten times the loss."
The duties of workers Law #42: "If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field."
Theft Law #22: "If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death."
Trade Law #104: "If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt from the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant."
Liability Law #53: "If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined."
Law #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina . If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price.
Doesn't seem like most secular laws are just a "trend" as they've existed free of religion for far longer than written religious laws have. Religion merely hijacked secular laws and added penalties that supposedly go beyond death to frighten people into obedience.
You seem to be making the assumption that Hammurabi was not a religious person and that Babylonians were not religious people - that somehow Hammurabi's code was a purely secular exercise. That's highly doubtful.
These laws address, very broadly, the timeless morality that if someone damages someone else's property, he should compensate the victim and if he assaults someone, he should be punished somehow. The details of our reactions may be adjusted over time, but are not important. Our moral sense of right and wrong about these things has not changed.
In contrast, the examples I gave are of things that were considered right or wrong by pretty much everyone and only 20 years later are characterized as having the exact opposite quality.
You seem to be making the assumption that Hammurabi was not a religious person and that Babylonians were not religious people
The Babylonians had dozens of faiths and worshiped many Gods and Goddesses. That's why they needed a secular law not steeped in religious doctrine that applied to all regardless of their faith. The morality was not derived from any one Gods wishes but from the general welfare of the populace as secular laws do.
The morality was not derived from any one Gods wishes but from the general welfare of the populace as secular laws do
Multiple assumptions here. e.g., that Hammurabi's code - like the U.S. Constitution, I guess - was designed to promote the general welfare. Where do you get that? Does the code say that? What makes you think the laws weren't simply to enforce order, thus preserving the stability of Hammurabi's reign? You make it sound like Hammurabi was some enlightened "man of the people" instead of a warlord and a despot. You are projecting your own values on to people who have been dead for 3,000 years.
The Code of Hammurabi dates to about 3750 years ago. Hammurabi was an Amorite (Semite) who became King of Babylon about the time that Abraham left his father’s house in Harran and settled in the land of Canaan. .....
The Code of Hammurabi was engraved on a stele more than 7 feet high. At the top of this stele of dark stone appears an image of King Hammurabi standing reverently before the seated Shamash, the god of justice. Shamash is dictating the law to his earthly representative. The Code of Hammurabi closes with this statement: “The righteous laws which Hammurabi, the wise king, has established . . .
Two Sumerian legal documents drawn up by Ur-Namma, king of Ur (c. 2100 BC) and Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c.1930 BC), precede the Law Code of Hammurabi. The Hammurabi Code—the most important legal compendium of the ancient Near East, drafted earlier than the Biblical laws—found its sources in these essays. The text, which occupies most of the stele, constitutes the raison d'être of the monument. The principal scene depicted shows the king receiving his investiture from Shamash. Remarkable for its legal content, this work is also an exceptional source of information about the society, religion, economy, and history of this period.
aaaaaaaaanndd
comment 300
ta da !!
I would argue there is no such thing. Secularism has no morality of its own. Morality is a code of principles to which one can turn in moments of crisis or uncertainty and find truth. Secular society binds its sense of right and wrong to whatever is trending - the collective "gut feeling." In concert with moral relativism, this means no one ever has to say they're sorry so long as the majority has decided to accept a given practice or philosophy.
Your (flawed) argument seems based on the idea that morality is unique or exclusive to religion or religious ideology.
For that (absurd) statement to have any merit, you have to first prove there's a god. Or are you saying you would be incapable of being a good/moral person If there was no god? Rather odd that god would be the basis morality, considering god is one if the most immoral ogre's ever imagined if the bible is to be believed.
I’m saved by grace through faith.
You're free to believe that. Of course, that has nothing to do with my previous reply.
I don’t have to prove anything to you.
Because you can't! You also don't have any credibility and I have no reason to accept anything you claim or say.
“Blessed are they who not seeing, believe.”
Sounds more like deluded are they.
When people chose not to believe for whatever reason,
I already gave you a reason-no evidence.
we don’t impose our belief on them, but move on to others who may listen and believe.
Sorry, but not everyone is gullible enough to fall for your brand of BS.
So, we’ve moved beyond trying to reach you who has clearly declined to believe
Want to "reach" me, then provide the evidence!
so a Christian seeding an article or opinion on some subject of interest to them would not have you or a like minded person in mind for the message.
That doesn't mean your "message" won't be met with or is exempt from challenge or skepticism.
Yet you and your friends never cease to jump in on something presented without you or them in mind.
So you just want an echo chamber or everyone to agree with you or accept you BS, no questions asked, is that it? Considering this is a public discussion forum, we can "jump in" whenever we please, regardless of whether you have us in mind or not.
It’s like you all have your own counter messianic message hoping to prevent or to persuade against a 3rd party/person from becoming a believer.
It's called logic and reasoning. People can believe they want. But belief does not equal fact.
Morality is linked to God and thus to religion.
Not if people like Scumbag Child Diddler Roy Moore is one of your examples of being "linked to" this mythical being. Your entitled to hold any and every kind of twisted idea of morality (and you appear to do so) but we're entitled to call this horrific bullshit out.
Note that the author neglected to mention adultery or pedophilia that figures so prominently Comment removed TOS [ph]
I can only speak for myself, but my sense of morality came from the teachings of my parents and not from religion or the government. For the most part, I think I have followed their teachings over the past 60+ years. I am not perfect but if my parents were still alive I think they would be proud of the person I am.
I can only speak for myself, but my sense of morality came from the teachings of my parents and not from religion or the government.
I think many of us first adopt our sense of morality from our parents, as they have the earliest and most significant influence on us. Parents are probably a major reason why children become involved in religion or religious belief too. Religion might further refine our moral stance. But there's also the effect of socialization, societal mores, sense of empathy, and perhaps most unpredictably, our personal analysis of mores and morality. Of course, the Golden Rule makes for a good moral basis too.
I am not perfect
Don't sell yourself short Paula. 
I believe this NTer has perfected the Big Lie with this load of shit. It's his Opus Magnum of bullshit---until his next one, of course.
Those promoting the transsexual agenda insist that the physical body doesn’t matter.
Um, this is exactly what Christianity (and several other regliions) teaches but how I do love it when an alleged Christian moralist steps in her stupidity of her own faith's teachings in order to justify the hate she and those like here need to spread.
From a Trumpette and Pizzagate moron:
I Know Jesus Christ Is Real Because Demons Gave My Dog Bloody Diarrhea.
"Thus, some promote what they call “after-birth abortion.” Adults with dementia may also lose their personhood status. Who cares if their bodies are functioning quite well? Euthanasia, here we come."
Ah, the straw man argument of "If the law allows abortion up until viability or allows a person with a terminal illness to end their life, what's to stop people from killing born children and old people with dementia against their will?"
Such dishonest debate is proves that the religious will stop at nothing to impose their religious views on everyone and everything in an effort to validate their faith.
"Secular morality, on the other hand, is damaging and destructive. It puts us in opposition to reality. We end up destroying ourselves and others. All the promises to the contrary end up being empty."
More justification for their hate and discrimination while refusing to accept the tens of thousands of happy, productive same-sex couples and transgender Americans who are finally able to come out of the closet without fear of being physically attacked by a mob of hypocrites. They have to claim that their doing it for your own good, they're forcing their children to undergo vile and destructive "conversion camps" that attempt to belittle and destroy a persons feelings and emotional State so they can rebuild them in their own image. How sad that they often can't love their own children due to the indoctrination they received as children.
That's the only argument (and logical fallacy) certain individuals are able to ever come up with.
A libelous statement if there ever was one. Would you agree Patriot? It's like some people prefer to be regressive or stagnant. They seem genuinely threatened or frightened by societal progress. It boggles the mind.
Translation:
Everyone must agree with Shepboy regarding all topics most especially religion.
Do you like the constitution, Shep?
I won't apologize for being me
Nah, that would be NV not NT.
Some here might be trying to make it more like that but management here has them pretty well headed off at the pass.
For now .....
a "utopia" of everyone who locksteps with your thoughts and viewpoints - all the same... group think.... does everyone get free brown shirts or must they pay for them separately ?
It was "fine" as long as you were a straight white protestant who supported the status quo of discrimination and abuse of those you felt were "others", the minorities, gays and liberals fighting for civil rights and equality. I'm sure that many white supremacists felt "fine" while beating to death or hanging minorities they felt were getting "uppity" or had looked at them or "their women" wrong. It's not a utopia if society only works for the majority but steps on the necks of minorities.
When has it been hostile towards christians? That's a rather absurd statement too, given that the majority of the US population identifies as a Christian.
When was that?
So diversity is a bad thing, is that it?
I know! Let's make NT and America one big echo chamber! That'll solve all the problems
I know, right? America was so much better a place when bible-babblers were free to lynch blacks, witches and Papists, when they denied women and minorities the right to vote, and when they denied married women the right to own property or to hold their husbands accountable for rape. Those are all things which bible-babblers firmly endorsed.
Plus your blasphemy laws and other Christian sharia laws were always so charming, like the one in the Pennsylvania colony which required the death penalty for being a Catholic priest, and the ones which denied marriage to same-sex couples and mixed-race couples.
Give it up....that is old!
Wrong! Morality is not unique or exclusive to religion. Neither does religion have a monopoly on morality.
I will agree on that!
You like being wrong, don't you? The concept of the golden rule predates the existence of your religion and many others. The moral theory of utilitarianism is a recent idea and is very secular.
Rape, murder, and genocide are moral according to the Bible, so you have no claim that religious morality is the only source of morality. You may believe this to be true but facts do not need your agreement to be true.
Being wrong seems to be what he does best. Just look at some of his other posts.
Being wrong appears to a career for him. Is this something that he chose for himself or was it suggested to him by his high school counselor?
s/.
Those who just think they know #$@! are a trial those of us who do must endure...
You declare it to be dishonest with supporting the assertion. How is it dishonest to explore the potential consequences of a specific policy?
Because we've had 46 years of legal abortion as determined by the Supreme court and we haven't slipped at all towards killing babies that have been born. We've had decades of research available from other countries and now years of examples of certain States that have legalized euthanasia for terminal patients and there's never been any slide towards just murdering patients with dementia. That makes it a dishonest argument that ignores facts and creates an illusionary straw man that the religious love to attack.
But there are, in fact, people who support the things mentioned. The events of the last 46 years speak only for those years and do not predict the future. 15 years ago, not many people would have predicted that we'd have state sanctioned gay marriage, transgendered soldiers, or women in combat. In fact, it was only in 1994 that DOD officially banned women from combat. You'd think that would have been the end of it, but in 2013, the ban was lifted. So, I'm not impressed with the record of the last 46 years as some kind of bar to at least discussing all possibilities.
Anyone familiar with the history and status of civil rights rulings at the time certainly would have made that prediction. In fact it's inevitable that all persons have equal rights under the law - particularly since these Christian sharia laws were completely unsupportable since they had no rational basis whatsoever.
In fact the passage of misogynistic and anti-LGBT legislation guaranteed that these issues would be reviewed by the courts sooner.
Below is a link to Yahweh commanding murder. I will just cite the one dealing with Yahweh's commands for murdering children, but it is not a complete list.
I can understand the Great Sky Fairy wanting to murder all the innocent first-born infants, but it seems rather psychotic to take out one's rage on the farm animals.
The old convert (and stay converted) or die passage may be cited as an excuse to execute any of us outside of the Christian fold and divide our possessions among our executioners.
I would really consider the following to be very evil, but according to the Bible, this is how Yahweh wants his followers to deal with anyone who does not worship Yahweh.
Christians are NOT under the Law of Moses- we are under the Law of Christ (grace). The only ones who say the Old Testament laws of Moses apply to Christians are those who ignore the Scriptures.
"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." Acts 15:24-29
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:12,13
Jesus said: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:16,17
These two verses don't contradict because the Bible tells us the Law is obsolete
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:12,13
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:3,4
Neither is the majority of the world that does not believe in Moses and Yahweh. We prefer to keep it that way.
Have Mercy!
Some of these folks are really scary. If they truly get in power, I don't want to live here. I won't live in a theocratic America
This is why we are losing some of our most intelligent young adults to more secular nations that will shelter and accept them. Those societies will benefit from the talents that a theocratic US seeks to suppress and/or eliminate because intelligent, secular adults are a threat to the theocrats.
Unfortunately, us older adults will not likely be accepted as anything other than tourists with time limits on how long we can remain.
The capitalists benefit from a country that is controlled by theocrats who tell the masses that their god loves them for being impoverished slaves and that they will be rewarded in the "next life" if they are willing slaves in this life. I am serious. Google "poverty and theocracy", and/or how religious belief can cause poverty and/or how poverty can cause religious belief and/or poverty in theocratic nations. There is ample documentation on how religion is bad for one's economic health.
Where are you going to live cowgirl?
Probably right where I am now. I'm surrounded by mostly farm lands and rarely see people unless I go grocery shopping or to visit my daughter.
There are many issues in this country and the world because of an expanding aged population that is dependent on being supported by a large workforce that is working on decreasing wages in order to put the majority of world wealth into very few hands.
To keep the populace distracted by who the real winners (the less than 1 percent) and the losers (the more than 99 percent)are, we are kept at each other's throats in every way it is possible to divide us - age, gender, skin color, education, income, religion and whether we prefer dogs or cats.
It is a game that we are always going to lose and even though I realize it, it is damned difficult to quit playing.
No worries. The major sects would be annihilating each other long before they would ever agree to govern together.
But they do claim to worship the same supposedly unchanging God that made those laws, don't they?
So you can throw out the 10 Commandments, right? After all, those are from Moses and the Old testament.
That's nice. Prove it! Moses supposedly delivered yhe 10 Commandments. BUT the Commandments are part of the OT. Therefore, they are OT laws, which some christians claim doesn't apply to them. The 10 Commandments certainly does not make or have say in our secular laws!
Mel Brooks:
I'm familiar with biblical history. And biblical BS as well.
That's nice. Prove it!
I do know better, more than you realize, and my statement stands.
Based on your statement, it's clear the only one who doesn't know what they're talking about here is you!
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:30-31
Many Christians believe Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law and brought a new covenant which is why they no longer observe the Sabbath. They believe he left them with only two laws mentioned by him there in Mark. You'd know this if you actually had any real biblical knowledge, so you might want to stop badgering Gordy as you've clearly lost the argument.
Belief does not equal fact.
Empty threats from your cosmic boogeyman is neither convincing or persuasive. I find it funny that believers do not require proof of a god they can't even prove exists, but would probably require proof for any other (especially extraordinary) claims made before they believe or accept it.
See first statement.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as choice.
And they will never have any credibility for their claims either.
Because you have no proof other than wishful thinking.
Using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic-a logical fallacy.
That's nice. Prove it!
Amusing biblical stories.
I cannot believe something for which there is no proof. No proof = no belief.
I'm open minded to any evidence or proof you have of a god. Are you open-minded to the possibility there is no god and that your belief system is wrong? And not believing in a god is not the same as hating god. That's just absurd.
So you have no proof! Just dogmatic nonsense. Got it.
Is this why conservative Christians quote Leviticus as a reason to oppose LGBT equal rights and marriage?
Isn't it fun to catch these people in what's either their massive hypocrisy or even more massive ignorance of their own faith's content? Or, maybe it's all based on their always massive dishonesty about everything. Ever notice that they seldom, if ever, quote their own founder's words from the gospels?
Apparently, we aren't supposed to notice that they are hypocrites of the first order. if the search engine for past posts was better I could catch much more in their hypocrisy. A few weeks ago a conservative claim that he wasn't Christian because I could him in his hypocrisy. if I could find that reply I could hoist him on his own sword, but I have been unable to do so. Vbulletin chat software makes those searches very easy to the point where you can shut a thread down just by exposing the hypocrisy of people.
I have said multiple times that conservative Christians would claim religious persecution if they were forced to live by the teachings of the man who they claim is their savior and the son of god. When was the last time that you saw a conservative quote the Sermon on the mount or the gospel of Matthew?
Will this Abrahamic annihilation be carried on HBO as a pay per view? It sounds like a mini-series that I might actually want to watch.
Will this Abrahamic annihilation be carried on HBO as a pay per view? It sounds like a mini-series that I might actually want to watch.
The other night I was watching a show on tv about people on death row. One was about a man that had made a deal that he would not get the death penalty. The jurors did not know this and one so called Christian man was pissed off because he could not put the guy to death. Another was about this Christian woman that would pray over it all yet couldn't wait to witness a man being put to death, even though the judge thought it was an accident.
After watching several of these stories, time and again, all I could think is that these so called Christians just seemed to have some sort of bloodlust and love revenge. They all seem to use stories and lines from the old testament while seeming to ignore the love and forgiveness that comes out of the new.
I would argue there is no such thing. Secularism has no morality of its own. Morality is a code of principles to which one can turn in moments of crisis or uncertainty and find truth. Secular society binds its sense of right and wrong to whatever is trending - the collective "gut feeling." In concert with moral relativism, this means no one ever has to say they're sorry so long as the majority has decided to accept a given practice or philosophy.
Of course, under this system, what constitutes "right" and "wrong" can - and does - change, not only from one generation to another, but even year-to-year. This is how Hillary Clinton can endorse a law-and-order crime bill and be forced to apologize for it a few years later. Or Barack Obama can hold the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then turn around and treat gay marriage as a moral imperative . This is why
In each of these cases, those with a firm religious moral grounding have not had to change their position because "right" remains "right" over time. However, those who get their sense of right and wrong from whatever is popular, will find their positions shifting in the wind.