That may be so Kevin. The point was that it shows a bit of intellectual complacency to assume that everyone else has an unsatisfactory explanation for morality and we somehow do.

Jason, at some point doesn't the answer come down in a way to God's answer to Job: "Where were you when...?"

Ultimately, isn't the foundation and ground to all of this simply the irreducible authority and sovereignty of the Living God? And, going further, can't it further be argued that for a person to acknowledge that foundation pretty much demands that he or she have such a relationship with God that they see the justice and rightness of this perspective?

In other words, at some point (it seems to me) it reduces finally to "I am the LORD, creator of Heaven and Earth. There is no God besides Me." Reason and rationality have been bypassed, supplanted, by Glory.

Yes Grdankl, but the assumption that morality is a celestial decree carries the hint of the possibility that it might have been otherwise. And if it is right to be moral because God commanded it, why is it right (as opposed to prudent) to obey God?

I am not sure anyone has come up with a satisfactory explanation of morality. That does not mean it does not exist.

It's so ironic that MSM's condemn this, since NAMBLA, GLAAD, PFLAAG and like organizations promote type of activity and work to destroy our traditional, Judaeo-Christian morality, which, of course, makes it clear that our sexuality is intended to be expressed fully in a life-long covenantal relationship between one man and one woman. To be consistent, if they advocate any moral boundaries, then there must be an eternal referent for those boundaries. The only religion, philosophy or way of thinking that fulfills that is the Judaeo-Christian world-view. Pantheism fails because "god" is an impersonal force or entity like gravity or electricity, and distinctions between right and wrong or true and false are seen as immature and unenlightened. Atheism fails because there is no way to construct moral absolutes either from the bottom up (from molecular arguments) or from the top down (sociological or evolutionary arguments). Islam declares homosexuality to be sin, but prescribes capital punishment for it; yet there are at least some homosexual references in Islamic literature. The only world-view which can justify moral absolutes while providing redemption and healing is the Judaeo-Christian one. As Paul states in I Corinthians to a congregation which included promiscuous and formerly homosexual people, "and such WERE some of you". They had been forgiven, redeemed and healed. Isn't that the answer we should seek, rather than to allow the homosexual community to collapse our entire moral so that they can feel OK about their lifestyle? The Christian outlook offers both an intact moral structure and acceptance for all of us, since we all fall short of it in various ways.

I keep hearing MSM voices calling this "awful", "terrible" and "horrendous", and it surely is. Mr. Sandusky's case is nearly "textbook" in quality and quantity. If someone were to go out looking for--searching for--a pedophile, Mr. Sandusky would be very near the top of the list.

And yet, if we look in a mirror, who are we to condemn him? Have I sinned? Of course: I'm human. Has everyone else on the planet sinned? Of course: we are all human. Humans are infected with the killer-virus of sin! If not of THIS sin, then certainly others. There are so many to choose from, and there are nearly as many variations as there are people.

So, I think the most important point that Mr. Rempe makes is that we cannot afford the luxury of self-righteousness. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...."