Chinatown is a really good film. The characters and the strange character relations are somewhat unique. Another particularly interesting element of the film is its structure, and it is discussed in Alternative Scriptwriting at some length. I’m probably inadvertantly spoiling the film for you in the rest of this post, so if you plan to see the movie (which you should) perhaps skip over this of this paragraph. The structure of Chinatown isn’t particularly noticeable,, seemingly framed almost standardly in the three acts, but then the last act of the film illustrates otherwise, revealing to the audience something classically unexpected.

Let me clarify what I’m saying about Chinatown regarding the “expected”: Jake’s actions at the end of the film are relatively congruent with the rest of his actions in the film, and perhaps even expected. I say this since he he is portrayed as flawed character in the first two acts who is often out to save his own neck and “make an honest living”, regardless of his good intentions. However, in films that are of the restorative three act structure, “good” and “bad” morals are somewhat ubiquitous in a generlised kind of way, and “good” ultimately prevails in the third act, and the protagonist restores the mess he or she has managed to create. So although Jake acts as he always has, and says nothing at the end of the film because the people he cares about are already dead, the sense of “good” or “justice” is not embraced by him.

So, the film ends with a kind of hopeless inevitability where everything is against you, even though the structure suggests (because of the norm) that the film is going to end with good prevailing where Evelyn perhaps does not die, and Jake lives or dies fighting for Evelyn and justice. Thus, although it seems unlikely that Jake can turn this situation in his favor, we (as an audience) want him to somehow end up on top. Chinatown achieves this feat by forming a balance between the characters, their implied back stories, and their actions in the film, which essentially foreshadow the end with many glimpses of the “reality” of the situation. So, the end, although unexpected, was well crafted with the rest of the story, and not merely some sort of unexpected twist or sudden event that’s simply there to make the audience say “shit, I didn’t expect that!” Instead there was a suggestion of twisted (or different) morality as a film, a sharp bite of reality. Again, I mean that in relative terms, compared to the more standard restorative three-act structure films, like Wall Street or High Fidelity. The unlikely hero is in a situation where he is unlikely to succeed but this time he actually fails; sometimes, good intentions aren’t enough. Sometimes people with large amounts of power doing “bad” things think they’re right, or that certain things are “just that way”.

On a side note, I was rewatching Chinatown with a person who hadn’t seen the film in a long time and couldn’t remember it. So, the film ended, and this person said that they had wasted her time watching a morally bankrupt film. This person felt that filmmakers have a social responsibility to make films which have a positive impact on audiences, instead of taking the audience for an unnecessary “ride”. This person said that films are entertainment, and thus they should be entertaining without misguiding the audience just to show a morally bankrupt, unexpected ending merely to have a unique film. I don’t agree with this line of thinking because [some] films need to be thought-provoking, perhaps challenging norms and reflecting other realities or potential realities in society. If one thinks that films are just for entertainment so that one feels good at the end, then that’s fine, but can Chinatown and the filmmakers be called “morally bankrupt”? I suppose it depends on your idea of morality. I think the last thing we need are films that all have the same moral standpoint that don’t even question the naive notion of a “universal” or absolute morality. Such widespread, exact, notions of morality don’t really seem to exist in the world today. Furthermore, I don’t think all films need to show “good” always prevailing, nor do they need to show characters that care most about what many (but not all) think is right.

So what does Jake do? What’s right? What is morally acceptable? Does Jake stand up for those who are already dead, for “justice”, merely to get ridiculed and killed? Does Jake stand up for Katherine when he really knows that he can’t achieve anything against the amounts of “power” he would need to oppose. Does Jake trick Evelyn’s father and take him elsewhere in the end so that he gets himself killed or does he rely on his “backup” so that both he and Evelyn can potentially survive the ordeal? Like Jake says earlier in the film regarding his time working in Chinatown: he wanted to do good by someone, but he’s convinced that he was just unlucky.

Not everyone can be Rick from Casablanca.

The blog-post and the article are both good insights into modern evangelicals and the diverse range of topics that fall under their category of morality. The media seems to have focussed on gay marriage and abortion as the central issues of the religious political circles, but perhaps that’s inaccurate or perhaps, the times are changing? Worth a read if just to see another angle.

The author of this blog, Krista posted the above link to her blog in a comment here regarding my reference to Zacharias and the four basic questions of life. On her post, this explains the gist of the four basic questions of life:

“Ravi Zacharias spoke about the requirements of a coherent worldview. He said there are 4 questions a worldview must answer: the questions of origins, meanings, morality and destiny. The question of origins deals with how life came about. The question of meanings deals with the question of why life came about. The question of morality deals with questions of what is right and wrong and how we know the difference. The question of destiny deals with the question of the ultimate destinations of life.”

Four very valid questions. It’s quite obvious that many people think about these four questions and not get any answers, and subsequently try and find the answers. Krista continues, and says:

“Everyone has a worldview. The question is, is your worldview coherent? Does it answer the above questions? If you chose to believe in a certain system, be it religious or non-religious, it must answer these questions in order to be relevant, and it must be relevant in order to be correct. You may have an answer to the question of destiny, but if you do not have an answer to the question of morality then your worldview has a hole in it; there is then something about the way you look at the world that doesn’t make sense, because you have not provided an answer for one of the basic questions of life.

“What is your worldview? Is it coherent? And does it satisfactorily answer these questions in a way that makes sense and reflects reality? If not, it may be time to look for a new way to look at the world that is logical and realistic.”

Yes, everyone has a way they see life, however does their “worldview” need to be coherent? Life is confusing. Why does a worldview need to answer those four questions? Perhaps we are here to get a better understanding of those questions, and the answers aren’t merely found in a scripture. Your faith tells you the answers you have are correct. Why MUST a worldview answer those questions? I am asking anyone, not just the author of the particular blog. How does having an answer, which may be correct for all four of those questions make the answers defintely correct? Why must a view answer those immensely difficult questions to have relevance? Relevance to what? A worldview with logical, or relevant answer to those questions does not mean it is correct.

I could say we came into existence because an alien race far, far away (really far away), created the life on our planet including the human race; then we exist because it was an experiment to see how various species especially those with two legs, who can be conditioned, with an ability to think somewhat logically, but with no idea of their origin, will progress; we know what is right and wrong because we have been given the ability to use our brains, conscience and the analysis of experience (ours and others’) if we can merely break away from some of our conditioned ideas in our minds; and we will ultimately die when our heart stops and our brains stops functioning, and then, there will be nothing but silence. Now, I must admit, it’s not from an old scripture, and it’s flawed, but I’m sure, given the time, I could twist it enough so that it makes enough logical sense to oppose other answers to the four questions. To use your terms, it reflects reality as much as the heaven and hell idea where our actions and good lives really mean nothing if we don’t accept THE single doctrine. And it’s as coherent as the idea that some almighty entity – God – created us. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s correct.

I can’t see how answering those questions validate a worldview any more than a worldview that is searching for those answers, or even a worldview that disregards those questions. Having answers that may or may not be correct does not validate anything. It’s your faith that allows it to be relevant and correct for you, and then your faith that suggests to you that the answers you have are absolutely correct for everyone. These ideas are definitely interesting to explore.

Really interesting thoughts, that post linked above, and this one really opened my eyes about the money in circulation with regards to “good egg” endorsements and how that works. What really got me interested was the response from RSPCA that I thought was quite honest and reflects questions and dilemmas that I often think about. I’m not going to write about food I’m afraid, although I love food, however this topic, and the comment left by Jane Speechley got me thinking about another topic I read about after Pheona mentioned it in one of our classes earlier this week.

This article from the theage.com.au refers to a new stance taken up by Amnesty International as part of their “stop violence against women campaign”:

AMNESTY International is facing upheaval and mass resignations after it decided last month to advocate that abortion be decriminalised worldwide.

The reason for this stance is to prevent and reduce violence against women. In some African countries rape is a weapon of war, and women are left with unwanted pregnancies. To make matters far worse, there is discrimination towards the raped women by their very own communities because they might be carrying the child of an opposing combatant. Not only were these woman treated violently and degraded to the ultimate level, often these unwanted pregnancies ”lead to ostracism” because abortion isn’t allowed. I personally think it’s disgraceful that religion facilitates this sort of behaviour based on tradition which is completely out of context, however I’m sure there are many that disagree with me. I don’t want to get into how much I disagree with the stance of the Church.

 So what are the consequences of this stance and campaign? From theage.com.au:

Many Christians, especially Catholics, are expected to resign and may establish an alternative human rights organisation.

The Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference is considering its response, but a senior Catholic said yesterday he thought “a parting of the ways” was inevitable. Amnesty estimates that 500 Catholic schools in Australia have member groups, as do other Christian schools.

This might not seem like a big thing, however Amnesty has been an “envied” human rights organisation for years partly because of the support they receive from the [Catholic] Church. Additionally, many members are Christian (although the article states that Amnesty is unaware of the exact number of Christian members) and many supporting organisations and intuitions would be inscribed with Christian, and perhaps specifically, Catholic, values. This poses a problem because through loss of membership, support from the Church, and other Christian affiliates, Amnesty could potentially lose a lot of it’s power or effectiveness as a human rights organisation. Their impact on the world arena could be seriously stunted because of their stance on abortion.

Previously Amnesty was neutral about abortion. The group has 2.2 million members and supporters worldwide, including about 72,000 in Australia. It does not know how many are Christians, but Amnesty has traditionally been the envy of other human rights groups because of its strong church-based support.

Chris Middleton, principal of St Aloysius’ College in Sydney, said Amnesty’s Australian membership would be deeply hit, and in the Third World it would be reduced to a partisan and ideologically exclusive group.

Please don’t for a moment think that I do not support these particular views of Amnesty International, but this is where I see the relationship between this issue for Amnesty, and the comment on Camilla’s blog that says:

Secondly, the product endorsement revenues paid by such companies as Pace assist us in achieving our mission. Without this important financial contribution, the RSPCA would be unable to carry on the many beneficial projects that we do to actively promote the care and protection of animals.

As I mentioned, you have raised some good questions, but I’d like to leave you with just one: How can the RSPCA best prevent cruelty to animals – through endorsing ethical products; or by taking the higher moral ground, and refusing lucrative endorsement fees from companies which engage in both ethical and conventional production practices?

One criticism I have, pointed out by my father, is that the word “conventional” in “conventional production” is a tad inconsistent with what RSPCA often calls “cruel.” Nonetheless, let me continue.

I’m comparing eggs and chickens to rape, women and abortion, but the idea of the two organisations that try and prevent cruelty, one to humans, and the other to animals, are somewhat similar. RSPCA choose to receive money from Pace Farm for endorsing their free range eggs, although the company also produces products that do no agree with the principles of the RSPCA. However, they are only endorsing the “good eggs” and they are receiving money to help their cause which might be considered greater than eggs. Yes it conflicts with their stance on cruelty with animals, but by “taking the higher moral ground” and refusing money from companies that are involved with ”both ethical and conventional production practices,” the RSPCA would lose some of their power, impact and their all-round ability to help. I think the RSPCA is doing the right thing by endorsing the particular ethical farms, because I believe the power to help more is better than a moral stand-point that offers no solution and reduces the help that is possible for the masses. Perhaps the RSPCA should more publicly state that they oppose the unethical production practices of the companies they endorse even though they endorse particular ethical products? 

So, returning to the topic of Amnesty. A paragraph from their mission as stated on their website is:

In pursuit of this vision, AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

So, their stance on abortion definitely ties in with their mission. I must admit however that I am struggling to understand what Amnesty actually does – I mean I’ve been trying to read about it, but it seems that they undertake research on matters regarding human rights and suggest action, does that sound right? Do they do anything else? I know there is a lot of criticism of Amnesty and their inaction and pontification where action needs to be taken (here is an example), but will this new stance reduce them to an enthusiastic but powerless organisation? I guess, it all depends on their intention – yes they want to promote human rights, but how much can Amnesty change the world, especially after losing such large amount of support? My question is, by taking this stance, although their views are consistent with their mission, are they undermining their own usefulness and function in the world?  The RSPCA supports some products from a company even though they don’t entirely agree with the particular company’s values, could Amnesty perhaps learn from that? If you had the power to change Amnesty’s stance to be neutral, thus still having the support of the Catholic Church, and thus Amnesty having more power and voice to help the masses, would you do so? Or would you potentially allow Amnesty to end up like this (from the same article from the theage.com.au):

Chris Middleton, principal of St Aloysius’ College in Sydney, said Amnesty’s Australian membership would be deeply hit, and in the Third World it would be reduced to a partisan and ideologically exclusive group.

I know comparing a stance that reduces a group’s power against protecting animals with regards to eggs and chickens, is very different to a similar point about losing power in helping masses of people by having a stance about abortion to ”curb violence against women,” and I don’t particularly want to get into a debate about that; although I do remember Spoonman on Tripple M asking, if in a plane crash, you had the chance to save someone, and had to choose between saving the family pet and a stranger, what would you do? Nonetheless, this post isn’t about whether you hold human life as something more precious than another animal.

In conclusion, would you sacrifice certain principles for the time being - even though you wouldn’t be helping, for the RSPCA, certain chickens; and for Amnesty, certain women – for the ultimate advantage of the masses, or would you state your principles whatever they are and stick by them even if that means you become more powerless to help a greater number of animals (RSPCA) or people (Amnesty)?

Can Amnesty still function properly as an organisation, or do they need the Catholic Church’s support and the Catholic members to boost their voice which can make a bigger difference overall? Is it about values or results? Is there another angle to see this from? Tough questions – I mean if you decided to change your view about abortion, what would you say to an ostracised young woman with a fatherless child, in the middle of Africa – “sorry, but for every female in this town who has lost their basic human rights, we helped fifty other people elsewhere,” is that what you’d say? It’s tough. I am struggling to gauge what kind of effect this change in stance will have on the results that Amnesty produce.

Now, I don’t want to argue about your Zacharias quote, “Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world to make bad people good, he came into this world to make dead people live,” but please note I wasn’t referring to the intention of a religion but just the possible impact or consequence of it, which could be leading a good life and so on. Nonetheless, I just want to make it as clear as possible, why this argument about relative truth is quite irrelevant to me and others who share a similar line of thinking. To suggest another idea of truth, this is a little but great quote I found on the Tamilnation website within the immensity of the “From Matter to Life to Mind… an Unfolding Consciousness” section, which is a substantial compilation of unwavering wisdom:

“…I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised… The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth…No man from outside can make you free… No one holds the Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity…” Jiddu Krishnamurthy

So, considering that my view on attaining an understanding of truth (my understanding is relatively undefined) is quite different to Krista’s and that I do not believe any religions are perfect, let me try and make it as clear as I can why the argument regarding absolute and relative truth is something I think is irrelevant, and something I do not care much about. In the Mind 2 Mentes post about relative and absolute truth, Krista had said and quoted this:

I was listening to a Josh McDowell message on the radio talking about the way this generation views truth. He told about how when he speaks to crowds of people about the subject, he picks somebody out to ask them a couple questions. He would hold up a Bible and the conversation would go something like:

“Do you believe this is the Word of God?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe it is inerrant?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe it’s completely reliable?”
“Yes”
“Why?”

And then there was usually silence. And if the person did have an answer, the conversation would continue like:

“Because I have faith and believe it to be true”
“So if the person across the aisle from you believes the Qur’an to be true, does that make it true to them, just because they believe in it?”
“Yes”

And this is where the debate begins. So, straight away, in my line of thinking, and apparently Gandhi’s as well, I would simply say “no” to the second question, “Do you believe it is inerrant?” and thus the line of questioning will stop, or it will change and perhaps I would be asked “why?” and I could once again quote Gandhi because he sums up my view extremely well, and so on. When I referred to meaning in the For the sake of Meaning? post, I was not referring to relative truth but rather, differing beliefs, motivation, because I feel that finding truth, whatever that may be, is the journey of the individual.

I really cringe when I hear things like:

“Living a good life will not save you. Jesus Christ alone provides salvation for the soul so that we can be with God forever.”

And i really to start think - how are certain people  so sure about such things? For Christians, or anyone, who believe that their way is the only right way, this discussion about absolute truth would be interesting and probably necessary to “properly” affirm their faith – a discussion which ends up referring to the bible, quote after quote of theology and quotes referring to passages in the bible. Nonetheless, it is useless to me, since I cannot say that the bible is inerrant or the only word of God. Therefore, I find the discussion tiring also because it is formed on a foundation of assumptions that a certain scripture is 100% correct.

Intense (and rather lengthy) read. People are entitled to their views, yet, so many people seem so certain about everything. How and why is this the case? People are so certain that there is a God. Others are so certain there isn’t a God. I guess, this division isn’t all that unbelievable, but it’s when people have beliefs that are oh so specific that my mind starts to shut down. Alright, so there’s a God? Let’s assume that. Now there are rules and a single path? How are people so absolutely sure of “God’s Will” and the means of reaching salvation? After reading so many blog posts, and books about this, so many people have their opinions, and so many people are so certain that they are in fact correct, and the other poor fellow reading another dusty old book is incorrect - this observation leaves me amazed and terrified.

The writer of the linked blog-post attacks atheists, but my question is, what’s so bad about only believing in this life, “carpe diem” and so on? Who’s to say that’s wrong. I wouldn’t live my life that way, but that’s me and the meaning I have found for myself at present. Furthermore, the relationship between atheism and Epicureanism is a massive generalisation. I’ve read blogs of atheists who seem to care overtly for themselves, the people they hold close; they have an urge to awakenthe “foolish,” and they care a whole lot for pleasure and materialism. Traditionally that may be thought of as bad, selfish, arrogant and inconsiderate. However, at the same time I have atheist friends who don’t have to believe in a God to do good things - they don’t really care about material items and pleasure (and a balance to maintain pleasure) as suggested by Epicurus. I’m not convinced, but Christians say, being a good person isn’t what it’s all about; and doing good things isn’t what it’s all about – It’s about dead people becoming alive? How is anyone so sure of such things? What about other religions? People try their best to understand and follow the will of “God” yet they are still condemned to Hell because they chose wrong? Clearly if someone chose wrong, it was on purpose. Understanding of these “certain” things are derived from a text that is perfect and inerrant? How in the world can anyone be certain about matters that talk about things we can’t see and close their mind to everything else? The writer can say that one only can see the effects of the wind but not the wind itself, and similarly one can see the effects of the Holy Spirit but not the holy spirit itself; am I stating the obvious when I say that the effects of wind can be recorded and studied accurately; whilst the effects of the Holy Spirit you speak of are far more personal? What suddenly gave the Holy Spirit such definite characteristics and the basic questions regarding life such certainty? What makes you right and me or some other person wrong? Is it just the fact that if you’re right it has to mean that I’m wrong? It has to be that black and white, does it? 

I’m glad that so many people are so sure what life is about. And more perplexing: I’m amazed that people are so sure what eternity is about.

What’s with all my questions?

This was a really interesting read for me. The head of World Vision speaks of why he left his high-paying, comfortable job, to run World Vision. It seems that his major reason was religion, and since the opportunity to serve was presented, he had to take it up. I never realised that World Vision was a Christian organisation. It’s apparently a Christian organisation that doesn’tforce their views onto the people they help; as Richard Stearns says, he lets those he helps know WHY he’s there if they actually want to know. He quotes the bible in saying that he’s meant to pass on the word. To state the obvious, but some people overlook it, this is an example of some fantastic things that religion – Christianity in this case – has facilitated. Lots of people point out the number of people in Africa dead from sexually transmitted diseases because of ridiculous conservative views that are not practical – they blame religion (or scripture) for it, which is fair enough to a degree, but in the end, it’s down to the people in power and their intelligence, or in the case of those particular conservatives, stupidity. While it can’t be forgotten that such stupidity exists and that the consequences are huge, perhaps it should be a bit more widely noted that Christianity (and thus it’s scripture) and religion has also formed, facilitated and reinforced the motivation of an organisation like World Vision which has been helping people in need, without discrimination (I can only go by what I read) around the world, and not just facilitated terrible leadership with dire consequences.

I also find that it’s sad that only half a percent of the US budget goes to help other countries (and please don’t tell me that the 400 billion plus that went into the “war” in Iraq was actually helping another country), where there is clear knowledge on how to stop major forms of poverty. I wonder how much of the Australian federal budget is allocated to such causes and the infrastructure of struggling nations.

The second quote from this blog-post is really disturbing. Strange experiments that support scripture but are scientifically flawed seriously shouldn’t be encouraged. If anything, if science and religion disagree on a matter, children should be taught to question it – but not tricked into thinking that science and religion agree. They’ll be made into fools and ridiculed when they become older, and they’ll not have a leg to stand on when challenged by similar ideas by people who have different beliefs. They will not be taken seriously. Perhaps it will cause confusion in a child to be taught one thing in religion, and another by science, however it will allow them to come to conclusions that aren’t merely fabricated.

Again, this is a response to another comment that became a post. 

“I think terming one’s religion ‘progressive’ is more an act of seeking acceptance than anything else. Today’s society loves anything that is ‘progressive’ or ‘open minded’…but what about when these values dilute the truth because it is just easier to handle it that way?”

As much as progressive religions get accepted by people like me, I feel there would be more dismay (and anger) from the “pure” religions they were derived from. This could be a Christian fundamentalist calling another Christian not a “true Christian.” Half the Christians that come up with rubbish like “true Christian” and associated terms, are Protestant Christians and the Protestant Church exists because of a reformation; and at that time, I’m sure it would have been thought of as what people know consider “progressive.” So, instead of wine and bread being Jesus’ blood and flesh, they became a symbol for his blood and flesh. Like Shannon said, in that context, it was progressive and frowned upon by those outside of the movement, but not by those within it.

Why would people who are pushing for progressive religions actually try and do it because they are merely seeking acceptance? Wouldn’t they just pack up and have their own beliefs at home and tell their friends about it? Maybe some are looking for acceptance, but I think more are looking for harmony.

And using words like “truth” as one would use toilet paper, just makes me feel like throwing up. If someone actually believed it was truth, they wouldn’t attempt to dilute it. They must possess some doubt, otherwise they would not challenge it and they would not change it. If we are talking about absolutes, how can something you believe to be truth be easier to handle if it is “diluted” since it becomes something that is no longer the truth?

When talking about religion, relative truth only becomes false when one talks in absolutes. I really applaud those people who give anything such significant certainty about “truth” because they must have had some damn amazing experiences.

Regarding the second paragraph of James’ comment:

“This seems to tie in with an idea raised in another post of yours – loving God. “Fundamentalist’s Christians” have an idea of what is pleasing to God, and as an act of love, they want to fulfill that. They don’t think that they are earning God’s love, but are just showing him their returning love. It seems like that idea is wrong and close minded, but isn’t this just a reflection of the way love is played out in the physical world?” 

Perhaps I was implying that people are earning God’s love but didn’t say it, and it was intentional. Let’s use your reference to “fundamentalist Christians” to start. I was trying to say that when a person chooses to accept God through Jesus Christ, they thus love God and Jesus Christ and thus they believe that they receive the unconditional love from God. I also said that, it would be a fantastic feeling to have. I also said that such people follow scripture since they have the faith to believe the scripture is 100% accurate, and if they did not follow it as best as they could, they would indeed be contradicting the love they have for God. I was also implying that because you love God, he loves you back. Perhaps, in this line of Christian thinking, he loves you back anyway. That’d be great. Yet regardless of that love, if you don’t accept God and thus the Bible and Jesus Christ, he condemns you to a place where he does not reside – a place called Hell.

As much as you say that is how love is played out in real life, for some reason I think you’re wrong. Yes you try and do what you can to please someone you love and who loves you back. However even if I hate someone, I do not punish them so harshly and send them to a place like Hell which is apparently devoid of God but rather, full of evil. If I was watching someone who I loved, and they were trying their best to do what they thought was right, I would eventually help them – I would not send them to Hell. I wouldn’t turn my back on someone who doesn’t please me in the ways that I wanted but tries their best in whatever capacity they can - I would still be pleased. If I loved someone I wouldn’t turn my back on them when that person tries to do their best when my will is unclear in the midst of so many instructions on how to live life. Even if I hated a person, if I was indeed their creator, I wouldn’t be so harsh. So, these non-progressive but “pure” ideas can’t be compared to how love is played out in real life. I’m not cheating on God by thinking there is another way.

To stand up for Shannon a third time, I’d like to understand what James’ last comment actually means. Yes Shannon stated the obvious, but in a very concise way – he talks about the Protestant reformation without having to mention it. How can anyone really determine the desires of God, when they are being interpreted from a scripture? You can only answer that question after making a whole lot of assumptions which then makes your answer useless outside of that frame you began in.

I’m thinking about this in an Australian context because that’s where I live. The linked post asks a question that I think used to be far more important in Australian society some years back, however I haven’t really heard many people talk about it of late, although I acknowledge that there are sections of society that preach that sex before marriage is bad. It should probably be noted that the times that I’ve ever heard this topic being brought up, were with regards to religion, but obviously the topic can be discussed separate to religion also. Yet, I’m more interested in the assumption made in this argument/exploration/questioning/question, that a “perfect mate” exists somewhere out there.

The two comments left so far on the original blog-post are quite valid. The first comment seems to be from a point of view that sex before marriage is bad. If you’re comparing this question about sex to that of the theory of communism, it’s like you’re saying it would be great if we could hold on until marriage, but it’s not going to happen because society makes it difficult. It’s an amusing analogy but if you truly believe it’s not ”applicable” I don’t see why you would also say in theory it would be the best gift to your spouse, when you seem to also suggest in your comment, that you don’t think sex before marriage is a big deal. Perhaps being a virgin is a great gift to your future spouse, but then, the spouse will only truly care if they actually agree that sex before marriage is bad but inevitable. The second comment that people should all have a knowledge of the dangers etc is extremely true and I think schools in Australia, and definitely the one I went to, make sure that people are educated about the potential consequences of sex.

The original post reads: But I also believe that giving you[r] pure body to your new spouse is the greatest gift you could possibly give them. It says that “I knew I would find the perfect mate some day and I saved myself for you”. That is so much better than, “I got tired of waiting so I gave it away to three other guys before I met you”. “ Now, I was discussing this with a friend and a couple of thoughts came to me. Let’s assume for a second that sex is more than a bodily function. So, the quote above is only true if you believe that there is a “perfect mate”and that you can only love one person in your life. I don’t think I believe that, but it’d be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on that.

Secondly, there is the problem of marriage, children and divorce. To state the obvious, part of a healthy intimate relationship, is sex. A lot of people increasingly move in with each other and live life together for a long time before marrying and having children. This way, they can see whether they are truly compatible with each other; and they get a glimpse of whether the relationship will last. Wouldn’t that be better than rushing into a marriage, having children, only to then realise you’re not really happy with your partner? Of course, it should be noted that people do get married and both people haven’t had premarital sex, and they live on for decades being happy with each other, but at the same time, the opposite has often been true and then the kids are in the middle struggling. Marriage usually means a lot of commitment (although it seems marriages are getting shorter and shorter) and perhaps people should try and be more certain, especially before having kids.

I also think that previous relationships become irrelevant. You might say, “I got tired of waiting so I gave it away to three other guys before I met you,” but what if you truly had feelings for those people – what if you thought you loved them? I think far more people would be against a blog-post with the heading “random sex before marriage – right or wrong?” I really think things like “perfect mate” are far too ideal especially since you’re implying that one would actually know if and when they found such a person.

“God’s will sometimes doesn’t have the power to stop raging hormones or a deep love for someone.” – Raging hormones aside, I’m wondering how different your definition of “deep love” is to your definition of “perfect mate.” 

“So..  is it right or is it wrong?” – I don’t personally see it as an issue. It shouldn’t make a difference. I guess it would, if your religious views tell you otherwise. I think in some ways when you decide to settle down with someone for whatever reasons, your previous relationships, and the sex, become irrelevant. Unless the person you’re with is a virgin, they wouldn’t really be jealous of your previous experiences unless you keep referring to those times in your past. However, “right or wrong” really depends on the value one places on sex and virginity. Yes, I think right and wrong are relative, because I do not believe in an absolute truth that is present in a text. Would you be like “oh my god, wow, you saved yourself for me?” if the person you were with said that they’d abstained from sex until they found you? I personally wouldn’t care, but I’m sure there are people out there who would say that one shouldn’t have sex unless they are perfectly sure that they have found “the one” and obviously, for those people sex before marriage would be bad, and the “gift” you speak of, would be great.

Strange topic to talk about. Even stranger because I don’t think it’s a big deal and my opinion, it seems, is quite vague and, “do what you want!” I just don’t think people should really care about another’s past relationships when they get into a relationship with that person. If sex is just a bodily function, then no one should care; if it’s an expression of affection, or love, then only if someone has sex with another person while in a relationship, should someone care; if sex means that you have chosen that one mate for ever, well then, it’s time to put on the chastity belt.

It’d be great to hear some thoughts on this.