I've read an unfortunate email correspondence carried on among several prominent Christian pastors and apologists—Dr. James White, Dr. Tom Ascol, and Drs. Emir and Ergun Caner—concerning "the debate that almost was."

As I understand it, Dr. White initiated contact with the Caners desiring a structured, moderated debate between 2.5 and 4 hours long with a clear thesis and cross-examination, all of which is typical for Dr. White's formal debates. The topic? God's presumed "omnibenevolence" towards all of mankind in matters of salvation—yep, it's Calvinism vs. Arminianism once more.

Some who have read the correspondence believe that Dr. White was overly "caustic" and that the exchanges were "unproductive" (see the comment on this post at 18:17). However, I think they were definitely productive in that 1) they demonstrated what Christian charity and truthfulness looks like in the face of obnoxious goading and 2) it clearly demonstrates why the Caner debate never came to pass: because the Caners and their appointed moderator, Dr. O'Donnell, refused to sharply focus the subject of the debate, also changing the parameters for the debate so quickly, it's a wonder that Dr. White didn't suffer from whiplash.

I've not read any of the Caners' respective blog posts, articles, or publications, but judging by their contributions to the exchange, I'm not missing too much. As a Calvinist myself, I think that the way they treated Dr. White was shameful, zinging insults at him while refusing to listen to opposing points of view. Dr. White posted the correspondence, asking the readers to judge for themselves. I have done so, and I believe that Dr. White was firm and uncompromising, while also being charitable towards the Caners. It's a shame that the Caners refused to abide by Dr. White's reasonable requests; it would have been an interesting debate.

If there's one thing that I've gotten out of IST 402:Technology in Popular Culture, it's a new sense of horrified wonder for the potential of mankind. The imago dei is undeniably present in humanity's creative impulse, but it's twisted by the results of the Fall. This post should indicate what I'm talking about.

Throughout the semester, IST 402 has examined pop culture's take on all kinds of tech issues. Video games, mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, transhumanism, etc. Of course, the common stream running through all this is the human-ness of man. Emotions, communication, warfare, intelligence, all are expressed somehow in pop culture. Even (and sometimes especially) sex.

God defines marriage fairly early on in human history: as soon as the first woman, Eve, is formed from Adam's rib, and the pair consummate their marriage (Gen. 2:24). Marriage is between one woman and one man (not, as some would have it, between two "consenting partners" or the like).

The Bible also has fairly straightforward principles regarding marriage and husband/wife relationships. Song of Solomon contains beautiful poetry encompassing both pre- and post-marriage intimacy, including the joys and fears of such a relationship. The writer of Proverbs has something to say regarding quarrelsome wives (19:13, 27:15) and marital fidelity (esp. Prov. 5). Consider the following wisdom for a young man from Proverbs 5:15-18:

"Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth..."

Before and after these poignant entreaties, the Proverb-writer treats the reader to a discussion of the "adulterous woman." Obviously, marital fidelity is of great importance to him.

The Decalogue is clear concerning God's position on adultery. The 5th commandment is as clear as crystal: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). Little commentary is needed; God hates adultery, and commands death in the Mosaic law for those who commit it, both man and woman (Lev. 20:10).

Jesus Christ raised the bar even higher when He expounded His Father's Law in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:27-30 says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

In other words, the Law against adultery not only forbids the act of adultery itself, but also adulterous thoughts. This commandment is primarily aimed at married people, hence the use of "adultery," here and in the original commandment. Those who wish to apply Jesus' words here to sexual lust committed by the unmarried must, in my humble opinion, unreasonably expand the definition of "adultery," but they are not without recourse to the final commandment: "Thou shalt not covet.," which surely covers any form of sinful desire.

From these brief ruminations, we can conclude with certainty that the Lord God considers 1) the act of adultery, 2) adulterous thoughts, and 3) covetous (including sexually covetous) thoughts sinful.

What does this have to do with technology?

Many sectors of technology revolve around stimulating and prolonging sexual desire, licit or illicit. While it may be injudicious to condemn ALL technology-related sexual activity, I cannot think of a single usage of technology for singles that would be Biblically-endorsed or even tolerated. The metrics are undeniable: http://www.mykidsbrowser.com/internet-pornography-statistics.php.

Phone sex, virtual sex, interactive sex in video games, sexual IM conversations, pornographic media (written material, images, video, and even audio) are everywhere online, on video game consoles, on cell phones, on MP3 players, and frankly, everywhere one cares (or doesn't care) to look.

Pursuit of these "services" are sinful. Of this, there is no doubt in my mind. As such, I must extend a plea to the readers of this note: please consider what you and your children are accessing. There are all sorts of insidious ways that sin can find you: in Facebook sidebars, pop-up windows, channel surfing, spam emails, and the list continues ad nauseum--and I mean this literally. Watch for it, and get rid of it. Pluck it out and cut it off, even if it is somewhat uncomfortable and inconvenient.

The pursuit of holy living is worth it.