Din hija aħbar ħażina ħafna:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6905543.ece
Il-liġijiet qed jinbidlu biex jitneħħew kapaċità tal-ġenituri li jagħżlu t-tfal tagħhom barra mill-edukazzjoni sesswali fl-iskejjel pubbliċi. Dan ifisser li kull kid fl-iskejjel pubbliċi, irrispettivament mill-isfond reliġjuż jew jixtieq tal-ġenituri, se jiġu mgħallma verżjoni tal-iskola ta 'edukazzjoni sesswali fl 15-il sena qodma. Dan imur fis-seħħ f'Settembru tal-2011. B'xorti tajba, dan huwa fil-Gran Brittanja, mhux hawn fl-Istati Uniti. Still, huwa big deal.
X'hemm daqshekk ħażin ma 'dak? Forsi ftit, jekk wieħed jassumi li t-tfal se jiġu mgħallma b'mod responsabbli. Tfulija sess tiegħi edukazzjoni esperjenza, madankollu, kienet xi ħaġa imma responsabbli. I kien xortik tajba biżżejjed li jkollhom jgħaddu mill-edukazzjoni sesswali ta 'tliet skejjel pubbliċi differenti madwar l-iskola għolja u junior high. Meta wieħed iħares lura, it-tlieta kienu dawn l-esperjenzi ta 'ħsara għas-saħħa tiegħi.
Ewwel esperjenza tiegħi fil junior high kien forsi l-aktar dannuż. I kien mgħallma kif masturbate mill video kartuns. I mhux se jsibu rwieħhom l-kwistjonijiet morali jew spiritwali jew mhux kwistjonijiet ma 'masturbation, iżda personalment, I ħafna jixtiequ I ma kinux ġew mgħallma dan f'dak il-punt fil-ħajja tiegħi.
Ovvjament, l-edukazzjoni sesswali hija importanti, u jien nemmen li huwa meħtieġ minn età żgħira. Iżda l-mod I se jagħżlu li jedukaw lit-tfal tiegħi se jkun ferm differenti mill-approċċi imgerfex użati fl-iskejjel pubbliċi. Għalliema fl-iskejjel pubbliċi ma jistgħux jiġu fdati ma 'tali suġġett delikat u perikoluż; l-potenzjal għall-ħsara hija tremenda, u l-ġenituri jassumu qed jagħmlu xogħol tagħhom, il-potenzjal għal kwalunkwe tip ta' benefiċċju huwa estremament minimu.
X'inhuma l-ħsibijiet tiegħek dwar l-edukazzjoni sesswali obbligatorju fl-iskejjel pubbliċi? Have you magħżul ma japplikawx it-tfal tiegħek fil-passat? Għaliex jew għaliex le? Inti kkonċernat ma din id-deċiżjoni l-ġdida?
Fl-aħħar 40 snin, il-firda bejn il-valuri nsara sesswali u l-valuri sesswali pubbliċi kibret dejjem aktar wiesgħa. Huwa issa aktar perikoluż minn qatt qabel biex fiduċja iskejjel pubbliċi li joffru edukazzjoni sesswali xierqa għaż-żgħażagħ.
Tagħlim fatti bażiċi dwar ir-riproduzzjoni sesswali hija ħaġa waħda, iżda huwa kompletament differenti biex jgħallmu kif masturbate, kif fehma imġiba omosesswali, il-valuri dwar is-sess premarital, eċċ
(Nota: ". Spammy". Il-blog ma jaċċettax ewwel abbozzi tiegħi għaliex kien jidher wisq C'est pourquoi il-"sax-kelma" jinbidel f'dan l-abbozz)Hahaha ... I qatt ma guessed li tkun kwistjoni, iżda jagħmel sens. Sorry għall-inkwiet, Tom. Stajt editjat l-kumment li taqra b'mod korrett.
Omosesswalità hija totalment ġdida tista 'dud li jien lanqas ma kienet jaħsbu dwar. I do not lura anki jkunu koperti meta I marru għall-iskola, imma hija ċertament ħafna aktar fil-miftuħ issa allura kien lura imbagħad. Jien jibża biex tara dak għalliema ta'l-edukazzjoni sesswali tista 'tkun tagħlim dwar is-suġġett f'dawn il-jiem ...
Niftakar sezzjonijiet tiegħi ta "sess" edukazzjoni fil-klassijiet tiegħi saħħa iskola. I qatt verament ħafna attenzjoni. I ħa fil-kuntest li, jien tagħlim dan mill-iskola, dan ovvjament huwa għaddej biex tkun stramb u jkunu preġudikata opinjonijiet u dak li mhux. I do not recall magħna tagħlim pjuttost l-affarijiet inti espressi imma I raden huwa dak li hu mistenni minnha.
Naħseb fil-jum tal-lum u l-età, li astinenza kompleta tagħlim mhux se jagħmlu ħafna tajba, jekk xejn, hija ser tagħmel gidjien tiegħi tixtieq li tagħmel dan aktar. Minflok, nixtieq li jgħallmu gidjien tiegħi li tkun intelliġenti, li jkunu konxji tas-sitwazzjoni, u ma tagħmel xejn raxx jew stupid. Huma għandhom ikunu jafu aħjar u li dawn se jkollhom jgħixu l-konsegwenzi.
Marti u jien qed jistennew l-ewwel tarbija tagħna kwalunkwe jum issa. Aħna deċiżi s'issa ilu biex id-dar iskola. Fortunatament marti użati biex jaħdmu bħala għalliem, imma anki jekk hi ma kinitx Nara l-ħtieġa għal dar skola aktar u aktar għall-familji li ma jridux tfal tagħhom jikbru bi xbieha tad-dinja mgħallma lilhom mill-gvern.
Fuq nota dwar l-omosesswalità, nista 'ngħid li fl-Istati li għaddew liġijiet li jippermettu żwieġ omosesswali, dawk l-iskola jkollha l-omosesswalità miżjuda mal-kurrikulu. Fil-Massachusetts kien hemm eżodu kbir ta 'familji Kristjani ġbid tfal tagħhom minn skejjel pubbliċi, minħabba li, anki kmieni bħala l-grad 1 li kienu qed jiġu mgħallma li stili ta' ħajja omosesswali kienu normali.
Jien kollha dwar hating-dnub u mhux il-midneb, iżda li ideali tagħha li jagħmel me żgur Irrid li jkun il-wieħed li jgħallmu lit-tfal tiegħi dwar dawn is-suġġetti u r-ramifikazzjonijiet spiritwali tagħhom.
Justin, jiena naqbel li fil-astinenza skolastika pubblika tagħlim ambjent jista 'jkun kawża mitlufa, iżda biss minħabba l-istorja wara klassijiet edukazzjoni sesswali fl-iskejjel pubbliċi. I am jgħixu u nifs prova li l-ġenituri jistgħu jgħallmu astinenza lit-tfal tagħhom b'suċċess. U jien ferħan ħafna li I stenniet.
Iżda l-ġenituri tiegħi ma jgħallmu lili astinenza direttament. Huma maqsuma Kristu miegħi, u huma maqsuma iskop ta 'Alla għall-sess fil-ħajja tagħna. Kien fidi tiegħi li ma jitħallewx lili milli jitlef virginity tiegħi, mhux ġenituri tiegħi (għalkemm huma għamlu dan indirett). Nemmen li dan il-metodu jaħdem u jaħdem tajjeb, minħabba l-livell ogħla ta 'fehma li dan jagħti.
Ma tagħmel xejn stupid huwa ċertament aħjar minn l-attitudnijiet ta 'lott ta' żgħażagħ, iżda xorta jammonta għal jinjora iskop ta 'Alla għall-sess fil-ħajja tagħna.
Sinjuri, congrats! I ser nitolbu għall-twelid. :)
I definitely ara vantaġġi u żvantaġġi kemm iskola homeschooling u pubbliċi. I'ma ftit horrified biex tisma li suġġetti ta 'l-omosesswalità għandhom joħorġu kmieni kemm ewwel grad; hemm ċertament raġuni biex iżommu tiegħek gidjien out ta' skejjel pubbliċi.
Il-vantaġġ ta 'skejjel pubbliċi, għalkemm, hi sempliċiment li gidjien jidraw l-bqija tad-dinja, kemm jekk huma jemmnu dak li l-bqija tad-dinja temmen. Still, mind ewwel grad huwa scarily miftuħa għall-fehmiet ta 'oħrajn madwarhom.
Bħala dritt issa, marti u I qed tippjana li jagħżlu r-rotta iskola pubbliku, iżda aħna ser nagħmlu l-almu tagħna biex tagħmel assolutament ċert tfal tagħna jifhmu li mhux kollox tisma mill-għalliema tagħhom huwa l-verità. Aħna ser kun żgur li jindirizzaw is-suġġetti importanti nisperaw ukoll qabel ma toħroġ fl-iskola. Still, jidher li jekk aħna ser ikollok bżonn tagħmel dan obscenely kmieni.
Jekk dan kellu jiġri fl-Istati Uniti, għalkemm, aħna ċertament se tiġbed tfal tagħna minn skejjel pubbliċi. Ikun jirrappreżentaw dawran fid-direzzjoni li huwa l-oppost ta 'fejn irridu li uliedna jmorru. Għalkemm, aħna x'aktarx jagħżlu skola privata minflok homeschooling minħabba li la minna huma għalliema.
I jgħallmu l-integrità sesswali fl-iskejjel biex tindirizza l-raxx ta 'mġiba riskjuża fiż-żgħażagħ tal-lum. L-edukazzjoni sesswali kien ebda fejn kważi discriptive kif it-temi apparentement fis-sistema skolastika Brittaniċi. I am a fidi soda madankollu, li l-edukazzjoni sesswali għandu jinbeda hekk kif il-wild ikun kapaċi li jistaqsu mistoqsijiet (fuq livell età xierqa ta 'kors). Djalogu miftuħ dwar is-suġġett ta 'sess mhux faċli għal ħafna ġenituri u għandu jkun l-għan ta' kull familja Nisranija li driegħ tfal tagħhom mal-verità. Meta titkellem l-erwieħ verità jirrikonoxxu jekk jaċċettawx jew le. Tfal armati ma verità bħala aġenti tal-bidla għall-Verità, Il-Mixja, u Il-Dawl. Hux viżjoni sabiħa ta 'Tama għal dinja jolqtu ħażin. I marru għall-iskola pubbliku u l-iskola Christian privat. Personalment, nixtieq l-adulti kienu mgħammra għat-taħriġ għalija li toqgħod fid-dinja pjuttost milli jiġi protett lili minnha. Il-bniet sena 12 qodma li huma fir-relazzjonijiet vjolenti u mhux sani li jmorru bżonn xi ħadd biex tgħinhom jiksbu off ta 'ċikli ta' mġiba riskjuża. Bniet tiegħi (5 u 6 yrs qodma) se jkunu ħfief u melħ anke fl-1 klassi tagħhom grad. Alla hija fidila biex jitlesta l-ħidma li bdiet fl lili u frott tiegħi.
Ir-rekwiżit obbligatorju għall-edukazzjoni dwar is-sesswalità umana fl-iskejjel Ingliżi ikun differenti, ovvjament, minn għażliet fl-Amerika. Il-parametri ta 'imġieba sesswali umana bħal morali, limiti, u l-aspettattivi huma kulturalment imposti. Dak li jidher bħala obbligatorji jew permissibbli se jkun differenti għal gruppi differenti ta 'nies. Attitudnijiet Ewropej lejn sesswalità huma estremament differenti minn tagħna madwar l-għadira. Ironiku, peress li wieħed tar-riċerkaturi qabel kollox fid-suġġett kien mill Indiana! Jekk xi ħadd irid verament jifhmu dak li aħna qed jittrattaw nissuġġerixxi li taqra xogħlijiet minn Alfred Kinsey imma tirrealizza li kien joqrob riċerka tiegħu bħala xjenzat.
I verament nemmnu li l-adulti vitali għat-tfal u żgħażagħ tagħha jkunu jafu aħjar tas-sesswalità tal-bniedem u r-riproduzzjoni. Anki jekk kultura Amerikana huwa ossessjonat bl-dehra u l-attività sesswali ħafna nies ma jkollhomx perspettiva komprensiva dwar dak li hu u għaliex aħna tagħmel dan. Tabloids sensationalize fuq min qed jagħmel dan li magħha jew aktar imġieba eċċessiv. Iż-żgħażagħ li qed jippruvaw jifhmu u jistabbilixxu l-identità sesswali tagħhom huma mgħarrqa bl-messaġġi inkomprensibbli. I do think estremament importanti tagħha għall-ġenituri jieħdu r-responsabbiltà biex jitgħallmu dwar dan kemm huma jistgħu, sabiex ikunu jistgħu jħossuhom komdi jitkellmu dwar parti ferm naturali ta 'bniedem u jagħtu l-importanza u l-ferħ nistgħu naqsmu fl-espressjoni tiegħu.
Ħasra tiegħu li kellek esperjenza ħażina fit-tagħlim dwar dan l-aspett ta 'l-umanità tiegħek f'punt fil-ħajja tiegħek meta inti feltru aktar vulnerabbli. Dak li huwa importanti huwa li n-nies jeħtieġ li jifhmu li l-sentimenti, mechanics, u s-sinifikat ta 'mġiba sesswali fil-ħajja tagħna bħal din għandha rwol kbir fil-modi li mhumiex dejjem evidenti. Jista 'jkollok bżonn tmur lura u mill-ġdid dak l-episodju li tassigura dawk il-kwistjonijiet ma jibqgħux haunt inti kif ikollok aktar anzjani. Peress li inti u Amber se jitkellem għal Reese dwar il-fehmiet tiegħek ta 'sesswalità, ikunu konxji li l-aspettattivi kulturali jinbidlu maż-żmien u li jista' jiffaċċa kwistjonijiet differenti jew ikollhom attitudnijiet differenti dwar dan.
Kun af, ukoll, li l-aħjar intenzjonijiet tiegħek biex kenn lit-tfal mit-tagħlim wisq kmieni wisq jew jistabbilixxu l-limiti fuq l-imġieba sesswali tista 'tkun frustranti. Kif għadna mammiferi, il-bijoloġija tagħna isuq ħafna kurżità u l-esperimentazzjoni. Aħjar parir tiegħi huwa li jitgħallmu kemm inti tista ', t-tfal tiegħek fatti xierqa bikrija fuq mingħajr ma timponi sentenza wisq fuq il-kurżità innoċenti, u ipprova ma skerz meta jgħidu jew jagħmlu xi ħaġa inti ma jistennew.
Irene, jien ferħan li jisma int tagħmel tali differenza ta 'valur. Naqbel li l-edukazzjoni sesswali hija importanti minn età bikrija.
Amber u I huma inċerti biex jikkunsidraw skola privata għat-tfal tagħna minħabba r-riskji li jiddeskrivu (li protett u naive għad-dinja minflok jiġu mgħallma kif jittrattaw dan). Nisperaw, aħna ser ikunu jistgħu jitqiegħdu u jżomm it-tfal tagħna fl skolastika pubblika.
Huwa inkoraġġanti li tisma 'dwar ix-xogħol tiegħek fis-sistema skolastika pubblika; kien diffiċli li jiksbu din l-opportunità? Inti ristretti fil-livelli kollha fil dak li tista 'tgħid?
Carrie: kummenti Gran!
Karrie, I jintefqu l-weekend mal-ġenituri tiegħi, u missier tiegħi għamilha daqsxejn aktar ċar għalija kemm fehmiet sesswali tiegħi huma (daqsxejn ironikament) influwenzati mill-kultura tagħna (probabbilment aktar il-kultura tal-knisja minn kultura sekulari). Liema kompletament threw me għal loop kien talbiet missier tiegħi li ħafna ta 'fehmiet tiegħi fuq sesswalità m'humiex skritturali u / jew li huma sempliċement mhumiex indirizzati fil-Bibbja. Irrid nammeti li jien ma studjati dan sa livell li inħoss infurmati biżżejjed; I pjan għar-riċerka sesswalità fil-Bibbja, fi grad wisq akbar.
Diskussjonijiet tagħna ħa xi dawra pretty crazy, minn kif il-Bibbja tindirizza divorzju, biex poligamija, għal diskussjoni fil-fond fuq l-istituzzjoni taż-żwieġ. Matul dan kollu, missieri attentat biex juru kif "Christian" tagħna fehmiet dwar iż-żwieġ u sesswalità mhux bilfors jaqblu li Iskrittura. Hu ma jargumentaw li l-kunflitti Iskrittura magħhom, biss li Iskrittura ma jindirizzawhom u f'ħafna modi jinkoraġġixxi fehmiet differenti (bħal poligamija).
M'hemmx għalfejn ngħidu, I daħal bogħod sorpriż fehmiet missier tiegħi, u daqsxejn jintefa lura. Ma nemminx jien taf qatt bidla fehmiet Kristjani tiegħi konservattivi fuq is-sess, iżda I kienet diżappuntata kemm biex tisma missier tiegħi, u biex tisma li allegatament Iskrittura ma tappoġġjax ħafna ta 'fehmiet tiegħi fuq sesswalità. Dan I ħtieġa għar-riċerka.
Inkun ħafna interessati fil-ħsibijiet ta 'kulħadd dwar is-suġġett, speċifikament kif scripturally-Bibbja jaqbel, ma jaqbilx, jew sempliċiment ma tindirizzax fehmiet Kristjani konservattivi dwar sesswalità.
Jason,
Tista tkun aktar speċifika dwar liema "fehmiet Kristjani konservattivi dwar sesswalità" li apparentement ma appoġġjati mill-Iskrittura? Jien dejjem interessati fil-ħsibijiet dad tiegħek.
Speċifikament madwar żwieġ, huwa jsostni li monogamy mhux ppriedka fil-Bibbja. Huwa aġġornati 1 passaġġ li jgħid li Isqfijiet se jkollhom mhux aktar minn mara, iżda pretensjonijiet hemm passaġġi mhux aktar appoġġ monogamy minn dan. Fil-fatt, poligamija hija allegatament ħafna aktar prevalenti. Monogamy huwa pjuttost importanti li fehmiet sesswali tiegħi, peress li jien nemmen li għandu jkollna wieħed biss is-sieħba sesswali (xi approċċ ieħor jidher immorali lili). Madankollu, missier tiegħi ssostni li kull obbligu morali li għandi fil-fehma tiegħi lejn monogamy huma spjegati mill-kultura, u li barra tal-kultura tiegħi, poligamija mhuwiex neċessarjament immorali. Ovvjament, I ħafna ma jaqblux.
Huwa argumenta wkoll li Alla mhux bilfors tirrikonoxxi żwieġ bl-istess mod li l-knisja ma (jew il-gvern jew il-kultura tagħna). Din minn dejjem kienet kurjużi lili, u ma nistagħġibx jew tarmi me lura, iżda dan wassal lilna fis-diskussjoni fuq is-sess premarital. My missier deher li jiġu stabbiliti fuq qerda fehmiet tipiċi sesswali Christian. Huwa ssuġġerixxa li forsi (kien attent li ma tagħmel xi konklużjonijiet diretti) sess premarital (kif definit skond id-definizzjoni ta 'żwieġ tagħna) mhux neċessarjament dnub (forsi sess huwa dak li jiddefinixxi koppja miżżewġa kif lil Alla).
Għan missier tiegħi wara din id-diskussjoni kien li jenfasizzaw il-fatt li wara tiegħi, u l-ħsibijiet warajha, ma kienx scripturally-bbażati. Ma nemminx I said jew anki impliċita li kien, iżda huwa sab li huwa importanti li tiddikjara li ma kienx, u ssuġġeriet li fil-futur għal artikolu bħal dan I għandu jiddikjara li dawn l-opinjonijiet ta 'mini ma jkunux ġejjin minn Iskrittura, imma pjuttost mill-kultura tiegħi knisja tal-madwar. I ma kollox jaqblu.
Pożizzjoni tiegħu dwar dawn il-kwistjonijiet huwa ovvjament ħafna aktar liberali minn I qatt ħsibt li jkun. Fehmiet tiegħi fuq is-sess mhux se tinbidel bl-diskussjoni tagħna, iżda huwa ma jagħmlu me jaħsbu dwar fejn l-opinjonijiet tiegħi ġejjin minn, u jien ser tkun riċerka Iskrittura biex jippruvaw isibu xi referenzi għal monogamy, dak li jiddefinixxi ż-żwieġ, eċċ Kwalunkwe għajnuna li tkun apprezzata.
Tikri kwistjoni waħda kull darba. L-ewwel, fuq poligamija.
Fit-Testment il-Qadim, poligamija hija pjuttost komuni. Solomon, per eżempju, "kellhom 700 nisa, il princesses, u 300 concubines." (1kgs 11:03)
Il-Testment il-Ġdid tirrifletti l-istandards matrimonjali differenti.
Mattew 19:8-9: Ġesù qalilhom, "Minħabba l-ebusija tal-qalb tiegħek Mosè permess li inti divorzju nisa tiegħek, iżda mill-bidu ma kienx hekk. U jien ngħid lilek: min divorzji martu, ħlief għall-immoralità sesswali, u jiżżewweġ oħra, jikkommetti adulterju ".
1 Tim. 03:02, 12 jeħtieġu li sorveljanti u djakni jkun "ir-raġel ta 'mara waħda." Iskrizzjonijiet funebri minn dik l-era jindikaw li dan huwa probabbilment ma riferenza għal poligamija. Minflok, kien meqjus virtuż, iżda mhux meħtieġ, jekk il-konjuġi superstiti ma jerġgħu jiżżewġu.
Ara 1 Tim. 05:09 fejn knisja appoġġati romol kienu meħtieġa li tkun "il-mara ta 'wieħed raġel" (li huwa l-kostruzzjoni Grieg istess 1 Tim. 3:2,12 ħlief "mara" u "raġel" huma trasposti). Ħadd ma jaħseb li n-nisa kellhom sensiela ta 'żwieġhom, hekk għaliex għandu aħna nassumu li l-irġiel kellhom sensiela ta' nisa?
Dwar is-sess premarital, rimarki Paul fil 1 Kor. 7 huma utli.
1 Kor. 07:02: "Iżda minħabba l-tentazzjoni li immoralità sesswali, kull bniedem għandu jkollu mara tiegħu u kull mara raġel tagħha stess."
1 Kor. 7:8-9: "Biex il-miżżewġin u l-romol nerġa 'ngħid li huwa tajjeb għalihom li jibqgħu wieħed kif jien. Iżda jekk dawn ma jistgħux jeżerċitaw awto-kontroll, dawn għandhom jiżżewġu. Għall huwa aħjar li jiżżewġu milli tkun aflame mal-passjoni. "
1 Kor. 07:34: "Il-mara miżżewġa jew għarajjes huwa ħerqan dwar l-affarijiet tal-Mulej, kif tkun qaddisa fil-ġisem u l-ispirtu."
1 Kor. 07:36: "Jekk xi ħadd jaħseb li hu ma jkunx iġib ruħu kif suppost lejn għarajjes tiegħu, jekk passjonijiet tiegħu huma b'saħħithom, u għandha tkun, let lilu do kif hu jixtieq: ħallihom jiżżewġu-it ebda dnub."
1 Kor. 07:39: "A mara hija marbuta li żewġha sakemm jgħix. Imma jekk żewġha jmut, hija ħielsa li tkun miżżewġa lil min jixtieq, biss fil-Mulej. "
Naħseb li dawn passaġġi tissuġġerixxi bi sħiħ li l-koppji għarajjes kellhom iżommu milli sess sakemm miżżewġa. U meta miżżewġa, huma għandhom jgħinu lil xulxin kontroll dawk instincts billi tagħti "drittijiet konjugali."
I strongly jaqblu ma Jay li għandna bżonn li ssir distinzjoni bejn it-tagħlim skritturali u t-tagħlim tal-knisja. Aħna lkoll ferm influwenzati mill-tagħlim tal-knisja, u huwa diffiċli li ssir distinzjoni bejn it-tnejn.
Hawn kumment maħsuba biss biex tikseb żieda minn Jay:
Ċrieki Ċerti fil-Knisja Metodista ġew imbuttar għal standards sesswali riveduti u kien qed jieħu "ġodda" ħarsa lejn Iskrittura sesswali. Huwa possibbli li Jay kien wisq influwenzati minn dawn "taghlim tal-knisja"? (Jien jitbissem; Nispera inti, wisq.)
Hahaha ... Stajt bagħat ittra elettronika lil Dad tiegħi titlob għall-kontribut tiegħu. Oriġinarjament, huwa għażel li ma jinvolvu ruħhom online minħabba li kien hemm "wisq biex tindirizza". Jidher qisu stajt pretty ħafna ruined li lussu għalih ...
Rigward monogamy / poligamija, il-versi huma ċari fit-tifsira tagħhom iżda ħadd minnhom verament jikkundannaw poligamija. My missier argumentat fuq punt wieħed fil-konverżazzjoni tagħna li l-ftit monogamy relatati mal-dikjarazzjonijiet kienu għal raġunijiet prattiċità, peress li huma ma japplikawx għal kulħadd.
Il-passaġġi madwar sess premarital ma tagħmilha ċara li huwa żbaljat; argumenti missier tiegħi, madankollu, imdawwar aktar li l-opinjoni ta 'Alla ta' żwieġ jista 'jkun differenti minn fehma tal-knisja, li taffettwa dak li huwa kkunsidrat li jkun is-sess premarital. Mż-żewġ naħat jekk koppja ma jkunx jixtieq li tkun "miżżewġa" u ma jkunx jixtieq li jiddedikaw ħajja kollu tagħhom għal "konjuġi" tagħhom, il-Bibbja jagħmilha ċara li dawn ma għandu jkun li jkollhom sess. Forsi l-kwistjoni ta 'xi jfisser li tkun "miżżewġa" ma verament kwistjoni meta wieħed iqis li Thankfully aħna ma jiddeċiedi liema huwa jew mhuwiex dnub. Still, jiena naħseb li aktar milli għall-ġlieda kontra l-kultura ikun aħjar (għall-fini ta 'bini ta minflok jitkissru oħrajn) li jikkonformaw mad-fehmiet kulturali ta' żwieġ.
Ikun interessanti ħafna biex tisma ħsibijiet missier tiegħi dwar dan is-suġġett direttament minnu fid-diskussjoni miftuħa. I am, naturalment, ma jkunux jistgħu jiddikjaraw l-argumenti tiegħu 1/2 kif ukoll jista '. Grazzi għall-Iskrittura, il Tom. Nisperaw nistgħu tkompli d-diskussjoni.
Parti importanti ta 'kull diskussjoni dwar it-tagħlim skritturali dwar is-sess hija diskussjoni b'saħħithom ta' grazzja.
Fl-esperjenza tiegħi, ħafna Nsara kibru bil-ħsieb ripressiva ta 'sess, sabiex dawn għandhom tendenza li jkollhom kumplessi ħtija attiva żżejjed dwar kwistjonijiet bħal dawn. Ħajja matrimonjali tagħhom issir spjaċevoli, u huma jsiru kapaċi biex ikollhom konverżazzjoni naturali, Sane, u bilanċjat ma 'tfal tagħhom dwar is-suġġett.
Huwa wkoll possibbli li jixtru fis-grazzja irħis "sabiex Insara jċedi għal pressjoni sesswali, jekk wieħed jassumi li grazzja dejjem se jkun hemm (Rom see. 6:." Għandhom nkomplu fid-dnub li grazzja naraw? ").
Għażiż Ones,
Kull dritt, I raden I għandhom jissieħbu f'dan konverżazzjoni sabiex I jistgħu jitkellmu għalija nnifsi. I told Jason matul il-weekend li kelli ma jkunx miktub risposta għaliex ikun meħtieġ li "deconstruct" l-assunzjonijiet kulturali kariga tiegħu sal-punt li se jimxu l-konversazzjoni kollu f'direzzjoni differenti. Peress hu magħżul biex tagħmel dan, u peress li huwa inkluż lili f'din konverżazzjoni mingħajr il-kunsens tiegħi, jien issa se jitkellmu għalija nnifsi.
L-ewwel, jiena naqbel ma 'u japprezzaw il-kummenti ta' Irene u Karrie. I find it interessanti li iż-żewġ nisa f'dan konverżazzjoni huma dawk qal li l-edukazzjoni sesswali fl-iskola hija kritika. Naqbel li d-djalogu miftuħ dwar is-sess hija importanti u li l-ġenituri wisq biss ma jkollhomx dan konverżazzjoni mat-tfal tagħhom. Jien thankful li Irene għandu l-opportunità li tippreżenta metodu b'saħħtu mas-sess fl-iskola pubbliku.
It-tieni, biss minħabba I jsostnu li nsejħu "l-opinjoni Nisranija ta 'żwieġ" huwa aktar prodott ta' kultura tagħna minn prodott ta 'l-Iskrittura, mhuwiex xieraq għalik li wieħed jassumi li jien ma naqbilx li l-opinjoni taż-żwieġ. I am not titlob għal definizzjoni mill-ġdid taż-żwieġ. I am li toġġezzjona għall baptizing din l-opinjoni u ssejjaħ dan "il-" ħsieb Kristjana. Din mhix dwar "liberali" dawl bħala Jason jissuġġerixxi. Huwa dwar jiġu fidila lejn l-Iskrittura, li nixtieq jsostnu hija fehma konservattiv ħafna.
Paragrafu 1 Karrie tal essenzjalment jagħmel l-istess punt li I kienet qed tagħmel ma 'Jason matul il-weekend. Attitudnijiet tagħna lejn is-sess huma fformati fi parti kbira mill-kultura li ngħixu. Biex tmur aktar lilhinn, nissuġġerixxi li dak li hu llum normalment deskritt bħala l-"familja Nisranija" jew "ħsieb Christian fuq is-sess" huwa aktar prodott ta '1950 kultura Amerikana nofs milli hi tal-Bibbja. Poligamija hija ta 'dan.
Tom huwa korrett li poligamija hija komuni fil-Testment il-Qadim, u nissuġġerixxi anke jidher li jkun approvat minn Alla. Ħu nota speċifikament li Ġesù ġej permezz ta 'relazzjoni poligami bejn David u Bathsheba.
Nixtieq isostnu wkoll li l-ċitazzjonijiet Testment ġodda minn Tom ma jipprekludux poligamija fil-livelli kollha, ħlief forsi (jiddependi fuq l-interpretazzjoni wieħed) għal isqof jew "sorveljant." Ir-referenza għad-divorzju jista 'faċilment jiġi applikat għall monogamy jew poligamija. Għandi l-ebda problema bil-interpretazzjoni Tom li l-passaġġi ta 'Tim 1 jirrelataw ma' konjuġi superstiti. Interpretata b'dan il-mod jagħmilha siekta dwar il-kwistjoni tal-poligamija; li jagħmel il-punt tiegħi darb'oħra.
Għandu jiġi nnutat li studju bir-reqqa ta 'din il-kwistjoni (li għamilt għall-dissertazzjoni dottorat tiegħi dwar "familja") tiżvela li mill-seklu 1 (il-ħin ta' Ġesù u Paul) poligamija kienu ġeneralment marret "barra tal-moda" għalkemm kien mhux ipprojbit. Dan, għal darb'oħra, kien moviment kulturali, ma moviment reliġjużi.
M'hemmx dubju li Paul preferuta li l-Insara jkunu wieħed u celibate għaliex permess għall-individwi li jiffokaw aktar fuq li jservu Kristu. Iżda huwa qal, jekk inti ma tistax tikkontrolla sesswali tiegħek iħeġġeġ, ikun aħjar li jiżżewġu u jkollhom sess fiż-żwieġ. Jien ma jargumentaw kontra konklużjoni Tom li "koppji għandhom iżommu lura milli sess untill miżżewġa ...." Howver, dawn it-testi għandhom jinftiehmu fid-dawl ta dak li kien għaddej matul il-jum Pawl. Kien hemm Insara li kienu jinkorporaw l-prattika pagan ta 'użu prostituion bħala parti mill observances reliġjużi tagħhom. Paul għamel diversi argumenti kontra din throughtout ittri tiegħu. Għalhekk, jista 'jew ma jista' jkun xieraq li jinterpretaw dawn passaġġi kif relatati ma koppji għarajjes, iżda huwa ċar li huwa qabel kollox kundanna tal-użu ta prostituzzjoni.
Fir-rigward waqfien mill sess sakemm miżżewġa: il-kwistjoni hija, "What jiddefinixxi l-bidu ta 'żwieġ? "Huwa ta 'liċenzja taż-żwieġ? Huwa ċerimonja pubblika? Hemm xi inti ser jissuġġerixxu lili li Adam u Eva ressqet liċenzja taż-żwieġ u kien qabel qassis jew imħallef waqt ċerimonja pubblika? Nissuġġerixxi li Ġen 2:24 tagħti l-punt tat-tluq ta 'żwieġ bħala "dawn isiru wieħed laħam," jiġifieri, huma jkollhom sess. A liċenzja taż-żwieġ hija invenzjoni moderna. Għal ħafna istorja tal-bniedem, żwiġijiet kienu "reġistrata" jew jinżammu rekord ta 'għal raġunijiet legali. U għal aktar ta 'dan l-istorja l-ebda ċerimonja jew liċenza kienet meħtieġa - inti biss dikjarat li inti kienu miżżewġa li kull min waħħal kien żamma tal-rekord.
This does not mean that I am suggesting sexual promiscuity is acceptable. My point is as at the beginning of my argument: our assumption that a marriage is only valid when we have a public ceremony and have a license is a culturally determined assumption. Please be clear, I'm not saying that it is a bad assumption. I'm saying that you cannot defend that assumption with Scripture. No where in the Bible does it say that you have to have a license and a public ceremony to be married. According to Genesis, to be married means to “become one flesh,” ie, have sex. (Which, by the way, is backed up by a study of the history of the church. The tradition of getting your marriage “annulled” is based on whether a couple was ever really married in the first place, most often interpreted as if you never had sex with your partner, you were never really married, despite the license and ceremony.)
Let me cite one more Biblical reference before I make my last point. We usually talk of Hagar as Abraham's concubine. However, Genesis 16:3 says that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham “to be his wife.” No license, no ceremony, only sex and polygamy. However, you must realize that for Abraham to take Hagar as his second wife also meant that he was giving her a new status and it gave her new rights. It was not casual sex.
Dan iwassalni għall-aħħar punt tiegħi. Kwalunkwe diskussjoni ta 'sess u żwieġ fil-Bibbja irid jgħaraf li matul il-nisa Bibbja kollu jinftiehmu bħala proprjetà u kellu drittijiet prattikament l-ebda legali. Mara dejjem tappartjeni għal xi bniedem, jew missierha jew żewġha. Dan huwa għaliex l-Bibbja hija tant ċara li jekk raġel tal-mara tmut, ħuha fil-liġi huwa li tieħu tagħha bħala mara. Hija kellha li jappartjenu lil xi ħadd. Barra minn hekk, jekk hi ma kellhiex tfal, il-brother fil-liġi għandha toħroġ tqila tagħha. Ħares lejn Dewteronomju 25:5, huwa ċar li Alla huwa kmandant poligamija. Jekk il-brother fil-liġi tirrifjuta r-relazzjoni poligami, huwa jista 'jiġi kkastigat. Barra minn hekk, adulterju u l-istupru kienu dnubiet kontra l-bniedem li huma proprjetà tal-mara; il-adulterer kienet misruqa proprjetà tar-raġel. Fiż-żwieġ moderna, il-kunċett tagħna ta '"inti jappartjenu lili" jista' jiġi ntraċċat lura sa din l-idea. And yet, illum ngħidu aħna tirrifjuta l-idea li n-nisa huma proprjetà.
Issa, peress stajt tidher li poligamija hija inqas mhux projbit mill-Iskrittura (għalkemm stajt ssuġġerit li Alla approvat fil-inqas f'xi każijiet), u peress stajt wera li l-unika definizzjoni Bibliċi definittiv ta '"meta" xi ħadd isir miżżewġa hija bbażata fuq l-att ta 'sess bejn li l-bniedem u li l-mara, u peress li stajt tidher li bħala kultura jkunu rrifjutaw suppożizzjoni bażika ta' żwieġ Bibliċi (li l-mara huma proprjetà tal-irġiel) Għalhekk, nixtieq jasserixxu mill-ġdid li dak li aħna nikkunsidraw l-"opinjoni Nisranija ta 'żwieġ" hija bbażata aktar fuq il-kultura tagħna milli fuq il-Bibbja.
Nistieden kwalunkwe inti li jipprova me wrong.
Bl-imħabba kbira u rispett u ta 'qalb konservattivi,
Dad
Ħafna grazzi għall Jay għall-verifika pulzieri I recall meta inti kienu qed jagħmlu riċerka tiegħek għall-dissertazzjoni dottorat tiegħek fuq il-familja. Għandi xejn imma rispett għal dak kollu li x-xogħol iebes u riċerka.
Â
I ħafna japprezzaw kważi kollha ta 'rimarki tiegħek, u nsib ftit li tilwima. Jekk sfurzati li jsibu punt ta 'kontenzjoni, nixtieq kwistjoni l-kunċett ta' New Testment "silenzju" dwar poligamija.
Â
1 Kor. 07:02 hija pjuttost qawwi: "Iżda minħabba l-tentazzjoni li immoralità sesswali, kull bniedem għandu jkollu mara tiegħu u kull mara raġel tagħha stess."
Â
Taħdit tal 1 Kor. 07:02, Wayne Meeks, teologu liberali minn Yale, jgħid li "juri li monogamy kien mifhum mill-Insara Pawlina ... kif normattiva u l-mezzi normali biex ikun evitat porneia."
Â
Il-epistles NT oħra, Meeks jgħid, "juru li monogamy kompliet tkun l-aspettattiva normali fin-normalità tal Pauline maħsub." (L-Insara Urban Ewwel: Il-World Soċjali tal-Appostlu Pawlu, l-Yale University Press, 1983:. 101)
Â
Stajt ċċekkjati xi ċitazzjonijiet ftit tal-missirijiet tal-knisja bikrija (madwar 100-350 AD). Huma jirrikonoxxu li poligamija kien għadu prattikat fis-soċjetà, iżda dawn jitkellmu condescendingly tal-prattika. Għall-kittieba diversi bħall Tertullian, l-għażla biss il-Christian kien bejn celibacy u monogamy. (Ara trattat tiegħu "Fuq monogamy," ca. 200 AD)
Â
Fi snin reċenti, stajt isiru konxji ta 'prinċipju ieħor biblika li kelli qabel qbiżt. Matul is-Pastorals (1 & 2 Tim. U Titus), Paul ripetutament titfa 'enfasi qawwija fuq l-importanza tal-Kristjani jżommu standard ta' mġiba li mhix skandaluża għall-kultura.
Titus 2:05 huwa eżempju tajjeb: "Ferrovija l-nisa żgħażagħ ... biex ikunu awto-kkontrollata, pur, xogħol mid-dar, it-tip, u sottomessi għall-irġiel tagħhom stess, li l-kelma ta 'Alla ma jistgħux jiġu reviled."
Â
Il-parti ewlenija hija: "li l-kelma ta 'Alla ma jistgħux jiġu reviled." Paul trid Insara biex jevitaw imgieba li tkun reviled fis-soċjetà. Din id-direttiva tidher fil-modi diversi passaġġi tużżana madwar żewġ fil-Pastorals.
Â
Hawn il-punt: Fil-kultura tagħna (jew fl-Afrika jew ir-Russja jew l-Arġentina), huwa xieraq għall-Insara biex jiġu evitati prattiki matrimonjali li tkun skandaluża in-normi soċjali lokali.
Â
I ċertament naqbel li ħafna mill dwana żwieġ tagħna mhumiex Biblically bbażata. Iżda jkun xieraq għal kull nisrani, tkun xi tkun il-kultura, sabiex tiġi miċħuda n-normi kulturali u biex jimpenjaw ruħhom fi prattika li tkun mistħija jew indiċenti.
Â
Ħsibijiet?
Hi Tom,
As I said, jiena ma jissuġġerixxu aħna tirridefinixxi dak li aħna nifhmu bħala żwieġ fil-kultura tagħna. U jien nemmen li bħala nsara għandna jgħixu sa l-ogħla standards fil-kultura tagħna (jew forsi standard saħansitra ogħla). Iżda mod wisq spiss ngħidu xi ħaġa huwa "Christian" peress li ħafna Nsara jippretendux li tagħmel dan. Għandna bżonn li jkunu kapaċi li jidentifikaw dak li huwa "tal-kultura tagħna" u dak li hu verament "ta 'Alla."
I kompletament jaqblu li l-imġiba tagħna għandhom glorify Alla. U li aġir aċċettabbli fi żmien l-kultura tista 'tkun differenti minn fil-kulturi oħra. Like Paul, we should become weak to the weak (1 Cor. 9:22) so that we might save some. So, if I am trying to witness to a Jewish friend over lunch, I would not bring him a ham sandwich, though it would not be a sin for me to eat a ham sandwich. Likewise, I practice monogamy, not because there is a Biblical injunction against polygamy, but because within our cultural context it would hurt the cause of Christ for me to be polygamous.
Naħseb li inti ċitazzjonijiet dwar monogamy back-up-dikjarazzjoni fil-post preċedenti tiegħi li mill-seklu 1 poligamija kien barra tal-moda, mhux primarjament minħabba kwistjonijiet reliġjużi, iżda minħabba n-normi kulturali. Li l-Insara bikrija mifhuma monogamy bħala "normattiv" hija l-istess bħal rivelazzjoni minn Alla. Fil-post tiegħi I rikonoxxut li mill-ewwel seklu kien normattiv. Iżda, dan kien anke għadhom qed jiġu diskussi mill 200 AD, tissuġġerixxi wkoll li ma kienx hemm kelma definittiva condeming dan.
Allura, fl-aħħar, aħna naqblu li għandna nevitaw poligamija, mhux għax Alla ddikjarat hija żbaljata, iżda becaue fil-kuntest kulturali tagħna ikun skandaluża għall-Evanġelju.
Biex wit, dak li huwa kkunsidrat aġir aċċettabbli f'dan il-każ huwa ddeterminat mill-kultura, ma Iskrittura.
Jay:
Â
Jien miegħek fuq kważi kull kumment ... imma għinni jifhmu għaliex 1 Kor. 07:02 ma jgħallmu monogamy.
Well, first of all, Paul acknowledges that his advice around sex and marriage in 1 Cor 7 is “not a command of the Lord, but I give my opinion…” (v 25, also see verses 6 and 12). Isn't it interesting that Paul hedges here – at least three times.
Second, in this passage, Paul is not concerned with the nature or make up of the family here. This is completely about “sanctioned sex.” Paul is “giving in” to the Christians in Corinth. He prefers that they all stay single and celibate because he believes that Jesus will be returning within days. But because they have shown that they are unable to stay chaste, he wants each one to have someone to have “sanctioned” sex with, ie, a husband or a wife.
The question in this verse becomes: does the phrase “each woman should have her own husband” mean “each woman should have a husband all her to herself.” Young's Literal Translation reads: “and because of the whoredom let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her proper husband.” Proper husband does not necessarily equate to “a husband all to herself.”
If we tried to strip this verse of cultural prejudices, it could be paraphrased to read, “In order to avoid indiscriminate sex, every man and woman should have a designated sexual partner who conforms to cultural norms.”
Again, Paul is not concerned with the nature or make up of the family here. His argument here is completely different from his definition of Christian family in Galatians, for example. His only real concern is about avoiding “whoredom” or casual sex. I expect that if you asked a polygamous Mormon family if 1 Cor 7:2 applies to them, that they would say, “Yes.” Each of the women has a husband with whom she can have sanctioned sex, and the man has his own wives. Together they can offer the sexual release in a sanctioned relationship and avoid the loss of self control (v 5) that leads to “whoredom.”
Again, I acknowledge that Paul was living in a day where monogamy was normative, and probably imagined a relationship of “one man and one woman” when he wrote this, but I would suggest that those in a committed polygamous marriage fit the intent of 1 Cor 7:2 which was to avoid “whoredom.” I don't see that this prescription requires monogamy.
Thanks for this. It's helpful.
Â
I have a hard time swallowing the paraphrase: “In order to avoid indiscriminate sex, every man and woman should have a designated sexual partner who conforms to cultural norms.”
Let's assume that all of your comments are in keeping with the letter and spirit of New Testament teaching. Let's examine some practical questions:
1. What would be wrong if two Christians living in 21st century America chose to decline the usual marriage vows and ceremony and live together and have sex as committed sexual partners?
2. If I were a missionary to an African tribe where polygamy was the cultural norm, would it be appropriate for me to ignore the polygamous relationships and simply pursue the other areas of Christian teaching?
3. How do your conclusions apply to two male Christians who choose to pursue a committed homosexual relationship as “designated sexual partners”?
I'm going to hit Submit Comment and run for cover.
I'll jump in here for a moment. Thanks, Dad, for coming in and elaborating on/better defining your points. I apologize for dragging you into public discussion without your consent, but I do believe the discussion has been very good for us all. It is good for me to be able to see your thoughts in writing, and observing the discussions between you and Tom has been enlightening.
Tom, much thanks as well for all of your scriptures and points. It's all certainly been very good for me. I'm looking forward to hearing my father's answers to your questions above.
As I'm headed over to California later this week, I think I'll ask Amber's father (who is a minister in the Free Methodist Church) to contribute to the discussion. His views are typically slightly more conservative; whether that will make any kind of a difference or reveal anything new to the discussion I do not know.
Once again, thank you to you both (and everyone else who has contributed) for the time you've put into this. I'm very excited for what's to come in the discussion.
Jason, jien ser tagħmel rimarka malajr.
Â
Dan il-għalf huwa għalf oerhört volatili għal xi ħadd li jottjeni imħallsa minn knisja. Jay kien ħafna gracious biex jaqsmu xi konklużjonijiet onesti u hard-iġġieled. Jien konvint - u profondament apprezzattiv - ta 'impenn Jay-tagħlim bibliċi.
Â
Il-mistoqsijiet stajt talab huma H bombi li jistgħu jispiċċaw karriera. Peress jien ma jitħallas minn kull knisja, I jista 'jitbiegħed ma jitkellem liberament. Imma jien kompassjoni kbira u simpatija għal sitwazzjoni dad tiegħek. Jien ma tort lilu jekk huwa għażel li ma jirrispondu aktar.
This is my final post on this topic. I just don't have the kind of discretionary time that would allow me to continue this.
First, I acknowledge that my paraphrase was pushing the envelope. I was merely making a point, and that paraphrase out of the context of my argument is not valid.
It is not my intent to promote polygamy or to suggest a change in our current culture's understanding of marriage. My argument is and has been that what we consider “the Christian view of sex and marriage” has more to do with culture than it has to do with Scripture. I believe I have stated that case well and nothing here has refuted that. Tom essentially agreed in his “scandalous” post.
To answers Tom's questions:
1. It would be a “violation” of cultural norms. Cultural norms are powerful, but I still can't find anything in Scripture that says the ceremony is required. I have had to address this issue several times as a pastor. What I ask of such couples is, “Where is God in your relationship?” I also ask for evidence that they consider this to be a permanent relationship. Finally, we talk about how it appears to the rest of the world, particularly when children are involved. I can honestly say that every couple I've had this conversation with has eventually bowed to the cultural pressure and had a public ceremony.
2. Iva. However, you should not ignore what Scripture says about how husbands should treat wives, etc. In many cultures polygamy still equates with woman being property. Jesus elevated woman above that and Paul calls husbands to a higher standard.
3. My argument has nothing to do with homosexuality. Unlike polygamy, homosexuality is expressly condemned in Scripture.
Finally, though no one has brought it up, there are implications for all of this on the nature of the family. I'm not going to go there, expect to say that there are appropriate concerns about the role of family in our culture. Maintaining a concept of a strong family is important to our culture. You could use this reasoning to argue against pre-marital sex, polygamy, etc. And I would likely agree with you. But that has never been my point. My point has never been whether I endorse polygamy or pre-marital sex. My point has consistently been that what we consider to be “the Christian view” on these issues are more culturally based than Scripturally based.
Amen and amen.
Thanks, Dad. There we have it. ;)
OK, let's be clear about some things.
FIRST: Yes, of course, we women should have a LOT to say about teaching children and young people about sex. You seriously don't want to wait to explain the process and its repercussions after the fact. Its dangerous to patently assume that young people, especially young women, will innately know how their bodies work and how easy it is for them to conceive. We then gestate and give birth to babies. If you hadn't noticed this is tough work. We might make it look simple but fellas, it ain't…
SECOND: Ancient European sex providers in Rome were not always “prostitutes”. Prostitutes in contemporary Western society are paid sex workers. There were/are women in other belief systems who provided a sexual services for the people who subscribed to a particular world view. We, as Midwestern-American, middle class, Protestant Christians, do not necessarily share the values of this Classical Period world view. The luxury of our current cultural perspective does not give us the right to categorize/label/condemn these people who served legitimate roles within their culture for their time. I think we seriously need to address the use of loaded terms inherent in translating texts from different languages and cultures. It creates issues in contemporary understandings that cause drastic separation in how behavior and relationships are addressed.
The Abrahamic Traditions share a different perspective on sexuality that was culture bound and regulated the behavior of women, perhaps due to the complex Judeo-Christian/Islamic ritual restrictions on inheriting family resources. If you control who has sexual access to your women you know to whom the offspring belong. You want to insure that your resources are used by your family. It has a lot to do with early agrarian society and how to raise a workforce that ensured the survival of a lineage.
What does not explicitly come out in the Abrahamic scriptures, but is still pretty universally observed, is that humans as mammals are inherently sexual beings. Attempts to regulate sexual behavior were/are intended to keep peace between us. As humans we constantly struggle with that, even among those who consider themselves Conservative Christians. Seems we just can't adhere to the standards we set for ourselves.
I guess that's why grace and forgiveness is so important.
Realize, too, that although we turn to scripture to clarify how we should best conduct ourselves, much of what is in the OT Bible is problematic in applying it to contemporary people. Seriously read some of that and then consider how often you could have already been dragged out and stoned for transgressing Mosaic law!! Many of these laws were made by men for cultural regulation. The fact that some Christian denominations cherry-pick scriptures to regulate their followers' activities, dress code, diets, and attitudes really bothers me. If our God is a loving God, not sure he'd still want us beating the tar out of each other for wearing the wrong cloth or eating something on the wrong day or claiming someone else's country/resources/people for our own.
Wish I'd been present at the Council of Nicea…
I was just re reading your posts on FB regarding your perspective on human sexuality education, self pleasuring, etc
Are you concerned about Christian conduct in regard to sexual behavior?
I think sex is a wonderful gift from God, and if its true he made us in His own image, he intended us to enjoy it. If you grew up in a rural area with active livestock breeding programs you might notice we aren't the only species who enjoy the procreative act.
But seriously, there are culturally acceptable ways that Christians can experience their sexuality, whether that is with their partner or by themselves.
Reading up on this topic, not just about its scriptural basis, but its health benefits, its mechanics, and cultural parameters, might be in order. You can find Christian-oriented resources on this. I might also suggest that you read some of Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnson or other reputable authorities on human sexual behavior. Realize, tho, that a perspective of a scientist or a social scientist may be vastly different than what you've known up til now. Kinsey was raised in a very conservative Christian home. Even as a bug biologist he had no idea of how human sexuality worked. He researched it AFTER he got married and introduced a class on human sexuality into the University of Indiana curriculum. For a long time it was wildly popular!
Karrie, thanks for your thoughts. I am in deep understanding that sex is a beautiful thing, and that it was meant to be enjoyed. It is clearly a blessing from God. Still, I do believe that I am tempted to “enjoy” sex in ways that are not wholesome.
We can argue whether masturbation is a sin all day, but the fact of the matter is we are not to lust over what we do not have, neither sexually nor non-sexually. Supposedly, some of us are able to masturbate without lusting. I, unfortunately, am not. I believe this might have been the direction you were taking.
Truthfully, there's nothing wrong with lust in a marriage relationship. However, it is extremely difficult (at least for a man) to keep his mind focused entirely on his wife during a solo session. For many/most/all? men, it is of course nearly impossible to lead a completely sexually pure life, but it is important that we strive to do so.
Therefore, yes, sex is meant to be enjoyed, and there is nothing wrong with sex strictly for pleasure. Still, sex tainted by lustful thoughts not directed at your spouse is no longer pure.
I am outspoken on this subject simply because of the saturation of sex within our culture. I cannot watch most sitcoms without being tempted to lust, nor can I go to some church services without my eyes wandering to areas they shouldn't wander. Much of this, of course, is my own sinful fault, but most of it could be prevented with a deeper understanding between men and women.
I am not “cherry picking” scriptures here to say that the Bible mandates a certain dress code. However, clearly we are not to cause others to stumble. It is important for us not to judge, and not to turn nonbelievers away because of what they are wearing. Still, I do believe it is the responsibility of a Christian woman to be modest in what she wears.
I recognize that there is often an incorrect tendency among conservative Christians to believe that sex is the enemy. Clearly, it is not. The reason this tendency sadly exists is because of how much it is forced into our lives within our culture. In many ways, it is the enemy, because of our culture's corruption of such a beautiful thing.
Hi, Jason:
First of all, let's clearly define lust in the context of what comprises the male human sexual being. LUST is defined as an unrestrained desire or craving, it could be anything we irrationally desire, but we tend to associate lust with sexual desire. But because human males are visually oriented as opposed to emotionally oriented there is a subconscious (or maybe not so subconscious!) tendency to assess other females as potential sexual partners. This is a biological phenomenon of the human male as mammal, with innate urges for reproduction. It is how we react to our inherent biology with our adaptation to cultural expectations that defines us as the people God created 'just below the angels' (Thomas Aquinas?).
Lust, then is unrestrained. I guarantee that you are much more restrained than you assume. If not, Amber would assist in your restraint. While it is something that you should manage to the best of your ability now, I don't think that a somatic biological response should warrant paralyzing guilt. As you get older you'll be able to manage this more effectively. But be prepared for a long battle…As long as you have a pulse hopefully you are going to have a sex drive. But if I may quote Ira Gershwin regarding the aged Methuselah, “…who calls that living when no gal is giving to no man of 900 years…”
Again, I think we really owe it to ourselves as a culture to have a better understanding of human sexuality. When we understand something more clearly we have a greater mastery over it.
Here's an idea: the best way to learn more about a topic is to teach it. Why don't you learn about this and teach a youth seminar on Christian perspective of human sexuality?? Several years ago the Roscoe UMC did human sexualtiy weekends for the Methodist Youth Fellowship. These weekends were intended to teach pre-adolescents and young adolescents about their sexuality within the parameters of church in a non judgemental setting. I think there are several people who had been involved in these efforts still around. There are definitely former participants of these human sexuality weekends that still attend the church.
Ask around, you might be surprised!!
Re: Paul… Although one of Paul's most moving verses were about the nature of Love (1 Cor 13) I also wonder, much like the 1937 work by Arthur Darby Nock, if the Apostle Paul was an extremely repressed homosexual who had an imperfect understanding of Hellenistic culture. He seems conflicted about how people should handle their sexuality in the present (1st century Mediterranean), and encouraged people to remain celibate as the nature of the physical body would pass away upon the return of Jesus. Odd of him to impose his opinion on the Judeo-Christian world view of the 1st century Mediterranean since our OT God seemed intent on populating the world since the time of Genesis. It also seemed to be the intent of the Catholic church as well as the Hebrew traditions. It is also argued among scholars of the apocryphal canon that sexual purity was imposed by Christian patriarchal cultural much later (again, thank you, Council of Nicea) on the stories of Jesus rather thanwhat may have actually been the case.
We have to be very careful about what we think is based in scripture and what actually is in scripture. We must then try to understand the intent of the chapter/verse within its context.
After we get a better understanding of sex, then later we can discuss the nature of the soul when released from the physical body.
Karrie, to be completely honest I don't think we'll ever see entirely eye-to-eye on this matter. I would suspect that you see more along the lines of my father's views, which I do not wholly agree with.
My lusting may be “restrained”, but that does not make it any less sinful. Whether or not you call it lust, I am still tempted (and moved) to think some rather disgusting thoughts and (hopefully only in the past) to partake in some rather disgusting behaviors. Male sexuality is often so strong that to “let it free” in any manner would be incredibly dangerous and ill-advised. Clearly, the thoughts that run through my mind on a regular basis are the definition of lust.
I am not personally taking any scripture into play here other than Christ's simple commandments for us not to lust. It is dead clear in Matthew 5:27-30. There is no question that I am constantly guilty of this very thing, exactly how Christ describes it.
It would be detrimental to my faith to accept these thoughts as healthy and righteous, or to excuse them as part of my physical nature. We are often fighting our “physical nature” as Christians, whether it be to fight emotions of jealousy or hatred, or our tendency to overindulge.
It is also personally very clear to me that my sexual thoughts and habits often get in the way of my relationship with Christ. They can also be a positive influence, when I am enjoying righteous sex. Still, it would not be spiritually healthy for me to take a less critical eye to myself regarding sex. It would most certainly take me in the opposite direction. I've tried it quite a few times, and I've always come out farther away from Christ.
Hi, Jason:
You mustn't feel that your earthly, physical struggles separate you from God. What is most fortunate is that although you may have feelings or concerns about your own issues of the flesh, scriptures tell us that God who created you and Jesus who was God in flesh both intimately understand the conditions of life in human form. When scripture says Jesus Christ was God made flesh, we need to understand he was a man physically and had first hand experience with the biology of the human body.
There exists recent scholarship and speculation regarding the extent of Jesus earthly experience. Religious Studies scholars and theologians studying the Apocryphal Canon have stated that Jesus Christ himself may have been married. Jesus' own “sexual purity” was later added and emphasized when the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, along with those of Paul, influenced the leadership of the early church in the late 4th and early 5th century. While some may consider the more recent opinions as “fringe,” what they compel us to do is gain a clearer understanding of the detailed and nuanced history of the Early Christian Church.
This would put into perspective what we follow in our dogmas and doctrines.
Carrie: You've said many things that are helpful and insightful. But your last posting left me wanting.
Â
There have been, and always be, attempts to reinterpret history. The alleged scholarship behind the claims that Jesus was married is, bluntly, not credible. The vast amount of relible data from the earliest and best sources supports the view of Jesus found in the gospels.
Â
I acknowledge a tendency in early Christian writers to overstate and overglorify the traditions that had been passed to them. But frankly, I have a hard time accepting the notion that Jesus' sexual purity was 'later added'.
Sorry for the long period of silence. I've been on vacation and we've been through an H1N1 scare with Reese (as diagnosed by a doctor), when in fact he did not have H1N1. But that's an entirely different topic. ;)
It is clear that obviously Jesus was sexually pure, as he is purity by definition. Therefore, the decisions that Jesus made surrounding sex are very important, as they are our best example of sexual purity.
The concept of Jesus having been married is extremely foreign to me; I can't imagine his lifestyle fitting in well at all with any kind of a healthy marriage. Jesus was entirely focused on His purpose, and it seems that a marriage relationship might have gotten in the way.
Clearly, Jesus struggled with the same bodily urges that the rest of men do. The difference, however, is that his faith was strong enough to never give into them. It would be nice if we had clear evidence of what Jesus did or did not do sexually, but I think the lack of examples of Jesus' sexual experiences is a testament to the likely fact that Jesus refrained from sex for much (or more likely all) of his life.
First to establish some points, lets go waaaaaaay back, and understand where our knowledge of Jesus originates, the Bible . The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them original, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have authority. Scholarly perspectives fall within a spectrum of maximalist (Everything is true) and minimalist (A work of theological fiction) approaches. What is true is that only a fraction of texts survived the Early Christian Era, that was reviewed and edited by the early church fathers beginning in the reign of Constantine in the 4th century. Investigations of ancient Syro-Palestinian cultures in connection with the OT manuscripts are extremely important in how we understand this. I recently visited a small Biblical Archaeology museum at a Seventh Day Adventist college made me realize what we are contending with. Archaeologist William Dever (formerly of the U of Az, now in retirement in Cyprus) , has pointed out that there are in fact multiple histories within the Bible, including the history of theology (the relationship between God and believers), political history (usually the account of “Great Men”), narrative history (the chronology of events), intellectual history (ideas and their development, context and evolution), socio-cultural history (institutions, including their social underpinnings in family, clan, tribe and social class and the state), cultural history (overall cultural evolution, demography, socio-economic and political structure and ethnicity), technological history (the techniques by which humans adapt to, exploit and make use of the resources of their environment), natural history (how humans discover and adapt to the ecological facts of their natural environment), and material history (artifacts as correlates of changes in human behavior). Dever notes that the role of archaeology increases as one goes down this list, and that archaeologist's interpretations of the written record can differ markedly from the record itself.
The current understanding of the New Testament leaves out several books, the Apocrypha and the Gnostic Canons. Dr. Karen L. King of the Harvard School of Divinity has researched and written extensively on the Gnostic and Apocryphal texts and presents a cogent argument for a broader understanding of the times.
Second: The history of marriage is problematic as well. Marriage had originally been an agreement between 2 families. In Medieval European history there had been a series of restrictions on what constituted marriage. By the time we get to the American Colonies, marriage had been recognized as extended cohabitation. The introduction of licenses was originally intended to keep “racial purity” in early American society. While contemporary physical anthropologists have completely debunked the myth of race, we still have the license/document that makes it a legal arrangement.
Meeting coming up, more later…