Allen Hunt's Blog

Shoulda been called Definitely Not.

I want to use this blog post to comment on your shows from Easter weekend. First off, that called who chastised you for talking about sex so much - especially on Easter - was absolutely right. You spent 4 out of 6 hours on sex and the other two on politics (Obama). You should have talked about the Easter story and use some of your Emory and Yale education to finally admit that there is no real evidence for the resurrection (and no, Gospels don't count as evidence)

You have charged that "are we raising harlots" when you talked about the latest STD statistics. I sure feel sorry for your daughters if you think they are "harlots" or "whores" if they are sexually active before they get married! If, as you allege, premarital sexual activity results in "emotional and spiritual damage", it is surely because of people like you demeaning them for rejecting Puritan ideas of morality and not because premarital sex is inherently demeaning or damaging.

If you look at Western Europe you will notice that rate of STDs and pregnancy among teenagers and young adults is much lower than in the US. At the same time, premarital sex in Europe is neither tabooized nor condemned (however median age of first sex is comparable at between 16 and 17 for both Europe and US). Neither do they have abstinence only sex ed (funded by 100s of millions of dollars of taxpayer moneys) filled with misrepresentations and outright lies about human sexuality.
So your approach is exactly wrong - we need to move away from failed Puritan morality.

When I listened to your Sunday show I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Her position is hopelessly out of touch with reality - by her own admission. The truth is that humans mature sexually in their early teens but age of marriage has been pushed back for cultural, educational and career reasons to late 20s/early 30s for many people (Dawn Eden is even older than that). At the same time we have effectively decoupled sex from procreation by use of contraceptives. In such a case the idea of premarital virginity is neither realistic nor desirable.

I did laugh at the suggestion she and Andy get together! I am sure he can do better though.

Speaking of sex, thanks to YouTube I can't get this stupid song out of my head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVJZkDuVBM
In the bed,
on the floor,
on the towel by the door,
in the tub,
in the car,
up against the mini bar

Very funny!

In any case, I thought it was a poignant vignette about where our culture is right now. To me, maybe it's a sign we are finally getting rid of our Puritan legacy - slowly but surely. To you, it probably means the seventh seal is getting broken as we speak.

You have charged that "are we raising harlots"

I know, I was against him using that terminology from the beginning. Not because I think it is too shocking (let's be honest, I like being edgy). But I think because in our generation we have recognized that the "demeaning" of sexual decisions does not actually help in any way. From your "perspective," it ridicules a decision that isn't inherently wrong. From my "perspective," demeaning people for wrong decisions was never a Christ-like response. He didn't call the Prostitute caught in adultery a "whore." He recognized her value as a human being and spoke to that.

The truth is that humans mature sexually in their early teens but age of marriage has been pushed back for cultural, educational and career reasons to late 20s/early 30s for many people

Agreed. Made that point on the air.

Speaking of sex, thanks to YouTube I can't get this stupid song out of my head:

I know. Absolutley hilarious. Did you see Kimmel's response video about Ben Affleck. I can't believe how many celebs they got to utter the phrase "I am F*#&ing Ben Affleck" - http://youtube.com/watch?v=rGa29kPBbp4 (Josh Groban was my favorite)

LC,

Thanks for commenting. I apologize for taking so long to respond.

Obviously, I beg to differ. My views are not Puritanistic at all - just simply in the mainstream of Christian belief for 2000 years.

We rarely describe the sanctity of the body any more and have given up in the face of a Western culture where sexual standards have become essentially like those of the pagans in the first century. We Christians are not prudes or legalistic Puritans - rather we believe that God has created us and purchased us for higher things. Our bodies belong to God. Best of all, our bodies are destined for the resurrection. As a result, we seek to honor God in and with our bodies.

From your "perspective," it ridicules a decision that isn't inherently wrong. From my "perspective," demeaning people for wrong decisions was never a Christ-like response.

I see what you mean. His harsh characterization might draw people away from the Faith. In that case I hope he keeps it up.

He didn't call the Prostitute caught in adultery a "whore." He recognized her value as a human being and spoke to that.

I do find it quite ironic that one of the most quoted (by Christians) episodes in the gospels is also the one which most certainly was added to the text sometime in the Middle Ages and is not original to the gospels at all.
Plus, I do not think the woman in the story was even a prostitute - would it even meaningful to talk about "adultery" in that case, as it is all in a day's work for them.

Agreed. Made that point on the air.

You agree, yet you don't take one extra step and acknowledge that Biblical standards for sexuality are hopelessly outdated because our ways of life differ so fundamentally from what they were in the 1st century CE.

Did you see Kimmel's response video about Ben Affleck.

Sure. How about Brad Pitt as the delivery guy?

Thanks for commenting. I apologize for taking so long to respond.

I was very busy this last week myself so right back at ya!

Obviously, I beg to differ. My views are not Puritanistic at all - just simply in the mainstream of Christian belief for 2000 years.

That's exactly how the Puritans saw themselves and exactly what is wrong with your position.
This is not 1st century CE, it is the 21st century. And even more significant than mere chronological distance is that our way of life is completely different than it was 2000 years ago. As a matter of fact,
the original Puritans were much closer to our time chronologically but they were definitely closer to 1st century technologically and socially.
As I have already mentioned, we tend to marry long after the onset of puberty and many chose not to get married at all. We also have means to "prevent issue", to determine paternity and to protect ourselves against sexually transmitted diseases.
Think about this, Allen. Even if you think Bible was given by God, He thought it necessary to, in the New Testament, abrogate many laws that he set forth only a few centuries before in the Old Testament. So why should He not change some of the laws again to fit our times? A kind of a Third Revelation if you will.
Of course, I do not believe the Bible is word of any god, I am just trying to make a point.

We rarely describe the sanctity of the body any more and have given up in the face of a Western culture where sexual standards have become essentially like those of the pagans in the first century.

Pagans of the first century weren't a monolithic block you know. But in general, humans don't seem to be "designed" for mating with one mate for life, unlike some species (such as some birds). Just look at our closest relatives - chimps, bonobos etc. That some societies were more permissive about sexuality than the Christian-Puritan model is hardly surprising.
Even the Holy Catholic Church knew that much and operated some of the brothels in medieval Italy!

We Christians are not prudes or legalistic Puritans

Your sexual morays are even more restrictive that those of the Bible. You believe one should not get married if one is not open to having children - in effect you want to condemn anyone who does not want children to a life of perpetual virginity. I can't find anything like that in the Bible - can you help me? 1 Corinthians 7 certainly does not mention willingness to have children as a precondition for marriage. It simply says that if you burn with desire you should marry.

Another thing you condemn is masturbation. Here again the Bible is silent. And no, Genesis 38 (Onan and Tamar) doesn't count as it describes something completely different (coitus interruptus, if you want to get technical). In fact, how this episode could have been confused with masturbation is a mystery to me.

So what sort of sexual release would be open to someone who doesn't want to have children in your, supposedly non-Puritan, non-prude and non-legalistic sexual theology? No marriage, certainly no premarital sex and no masturbation. Talk about a bad case of blue balls!

- rather we believe that God has created us and purchased us for higher things.

"Purchased you"? As in "a slave"? What a wretched theology! You enslave yourself in your own mind and call it "love"!

Our bodies belong to God. Best of all, our bodies are destined for the resurrection. As a result, we seek to honor God in and with our bodies.

Speak for yourself. My body belongs to me. And besides, if resurrection is real and God can raise a body that has been atomized in an atomic blast (for nothing is impossible for God, right?) than he should have no problem to raise a body that has, say, genital Herpes, incorruptible and imperishable. So resurrection is no argument at all, aside from the fact that I do not believe in resurrection!

But speaking of Herpes, you have not addressed my STD argument. After all, this whole thing was started with you ranting about the "1 in 4" statistic.

I'll conclude with this classic "Monty Python" clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-z-0gBqXVQ
Be sure to watch the two Protestants at the end. :)