这是非常不好的消息：
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6905543.ece
法律正在改变，以消除家长的能力，选择他们的孩子在公立学校性教育。 这意味着，每一个孩子在公立学校，不分宗教背景或父母的意愿，将教学校的性教育15岁的版本。 这在2011年9月生效。 值得庆幸的是，这是在英国，而不是在美国。 不过，这是一个大问题。
这有什么不妥吗？ 也许很少，假设孩子们将学习负责任。 然而，我的童年性教育经验是什么，但负责。 我是幸运的，必须通过在整个初中和高中三个不同的公立学校性教育。 回首往事，所有这三个经验我的健康损害。
我在初中的第一次体验也许是最具破坏性的。 教我如何从一个卡通视频手淫。 我不会把道德或精神问题或自慰非问题，但个人而言，我非常希望我没有被教导在我生命中的那点。
显然，性教育是重要的，我相信它是必要的，从一个非常年轻的年龄。 但我会选择来教育我的孩子的方式，将极大地从偶然在公立学校中使用的方法不同。 公立学校的教师不能被信任这样一个微妙和危险的问题;损害的潜力是巨大的，假设的父母做他们的工作，为任何一种利益的潜力是非常少。
什么是强制性在公立学校性教育您的想法？ 你选择选择退出你的孩子在过去吗？ 为什么或为什么不呢？ 你关注这一新的决定？
在过去40年来，基督教性价值观和公共性的价值之间的鸿沟越来越宽。 它现在比以往任何时候都相信公立学校提供适当的性教育，青少年更危险。
教学有性繁殖的基本事实是一回事，但它是完全不同的教导如何自慰，如何看待同性恋行为，对婚前性行为的价值观，等
（注：“垃圾”。博客不会接受我的第一稿，因为它似乎太在这个草案改变，这就是为什么'萨克斯'字）哈哈哈......我永远不会已经猜到那将是一个问题，但它是有道理的。 遗憾的麻烦，汤姆。 我已经编辑评论正确读取。
同性恋是一个全新的蠕虫，我什至没有想到。 我不记得它甚至被覆盖，当我去上学，但它肯定是一个开放的，那么它是当年多出很多。 我很害怕看到什么可能对主体性教育教师教这些天...
我记得我的“性”教育的部分，在我的学校卫生类。 我从来没有真正重视。 我的背景下，我从学校学习这一点，所以很明显这将是怪异和有偏见的意见和什么不可以。 我不记得我们学习您表示相当的东西，但我想这是从它的预期。
我认为在今天的一天，年龄，教学完全禁欲是不会做太大的好处，如果有的话，它会让我的孩子们想要做更多。 相反，我要教我的孩子很聪明，知道的情况，不要做任何皮疹或愚蠢的。 他们应该知道，而且他们将不得不忍受的后果。
我的妻子和我都期待我们的第一个孩子，现在任何一天。 前一阵子，我们决定家庭与学校。 幸运的是我的妻子工作，作为一名教师，但即使她没有看到需要的家庭教育和家庭不希望自己的孩子成长了由政府教给他们的世界观。
上关于同性恋的注意，我可以说，在已经通过的法律的州允许同性婚姻，这些学校有同性恋课程。 在马萨诸塞州已有大量外流，拉着他们的孩子早为1级，因为即使他们被教导同性恋的生活方式是正常的公立学校，一个基督教家庭。
我所有关于仇恨罪，而不是罪人，但这一理想，这让我相信我想是一个教我的孩子和他们的精神影响这些议题。
贾斯汀，我同意，在公立学校的环境教学禁欲可能是一个失败的事业，但只因为在公立学校的性教育课背后的历史。 我的生活和呼吸证明，家长可以教禁欲子女成功。 和我很高兴，我等待着。
但我的父母没有教我禁欲直接。 他们与我分享基督，和他们分享神的旨意，在我们生活中的性别。 阻止我失去我的童贞，不是我的父母（虽然他们间接），这是我的信仰。 我相信此方法的工作，效果很好，因为它产生更高层次理解。
没有做任何愚蠢的事，肯定是比很多青少年的态度，但它仍然等于无视神在我们生活中的性别的目的。
丰富的，恭喜！ 我祈祷的诞生。 :)
我绝对看到家庭学校和公立学校的优势和劣势。 我有点惊恐地听到同性恋这个话题上来，早在一年级有一定的理由保持公立学校的孩子。
虽然，公立学校的优势，简直是孩子习惯到世界各地，他们是否相信世界各地相信什么。 尽管如此，一年级的头脑是骇人开放给他们周围的人的意见。
截至目前，我和妻子都选择公立学校的路线规划，但我们会竭尽所能，绝对确保我们的孩子了解他们从他们的老师听到的一切 ，不就是这个道理。 我们一定会解决的重要课题，希望他们来之前在学校。 尽管如此，它看起来好像我们需要做这种肮脏的早期。
如果这种情况发生在美国，不过，我们肯定会拉我们的孩子公立学校。 它代表的方向是相反，我们希望我们的孩子去之交。 虽然，我们将最有可能选择民办学校，而不是在家自学，因为我们既不是教师。
我在学校教性的完整解决在今天的青少年危险行为的皮疹。 性教育是没有几乎一样discriptive显然在英国学校体系的主题。 但是我坚信，必须尽快开始，性教育的孩子能够问问题（当然，在年龄适当的水平）。 有关性的话题的公开对话，是不容易，很多家长，应该是每一个基督徒家庭的目标与真理武装自己的孩子。 当他们讲真理的灵魂承认他们是否接受或拒绝。 儿童武装，用真理，为真理的方式，光作为改革的推动者。 这难道不是一种伤害为世界的希望美好的憧憬。 我去了公立学校和私立基督教学校。 就个人而言，我想训练我屹立于世界，而不是保护我从它配备成年人。 12年岁的女孩，暴力和不健康的约会关系中需要有人帮助他们获得危险行为的周期。 我的女孩（5岁和6岁）将光盐甚至在他们的第一级类。 神是信实的完成，他已经开始在我的工作和我的水果。
在英国学校的人类性学教育的强制性要求会有所不同，当然，比在美国的股权。 文化对人类性行为，如道德，限制和期望的参数。 什么是强制或允许将不同人群的不同。 欧洲走向性行为的态度是非常不同的比我们整个池塘。 具有讽刺意味的，因为在这个问题的最重要的研究人员之一是来自印第安纳州的！ 如果有人想真正了解我们正在处理，我建议你读阿尔弗雷德·金赛的作品，但实现他作为一个科学家，他的研究已接近。
我确实认为，至关重要的儿童和青少年的成年人有一个更好地了解人类的性和生殖。 即使美国文化的外观和性活动的痴迷，大多数人都没有全面的角度上它是什么，为什么我们这样做。 小报炒作谁做它人或更多的过激行为。 试图理解和建立自己的性身份的年轻人被淹没与难以理解消息。 我认为它非常重要，父母需要了解它了，因为他们可以，所以他们可能会觉得舒服谈论人类的一个很自然的一部分，并传授我们可以分享其表达的意义和喜悦的责任。
其不幸，你有一个坏的经验，当你感到最脆弱的点在你的生活你的人性在这方面的学习。 最重要的是，人们需要了解的感情，力学，在我们生活中的性行为的意义，对这样一个巨大的作用并不总是明显的方式。 你可能需要回去和再处理，情节，以确保这些问题不继续困扰着你，当你长大。 既然你和琥珀将谈论自己性欲的看法瑞斯，要知道，文化的期望随时间而改变，他可能会面临不同的问题，或对此有不同的态度。
要知道，同时，您最好的意图，以躲避你的孩子学习太多太快或性行为上设置的边界可能是令人沮丧的。 由于我们仍然是哺乳动物，我们的生物学推动了很多的好奇心和实验。 我最好的建议是学习，可以教你的孩子没有太多的判断强加给无辜的好奇心的事实，早在，尽量不要吓坏了，当他们说或做一些你没有想到的。
艾琳，我很高兴听到你这样一个宝贵的差别。 我同意，性教育是从幼年重要。
琥珀和我都在犹豫考虑私立学校，为我们的孩子，因为你所描述的风险（被保护和天真的世界，而不是被教导如何处理它）。 我们希望，我们将能够付诸表决，并保持我们的孩子在公立学校。
这是令人鼓舞的，听到你在公立学校系统的工作，是很难获得这个机会呢？ 你在所有的限制，你可以说什么？
卡丽：大的意见！
嘉利，我度过了周末，我的父母，我的父亲我有点更清晰性的意见是多少（有点讽刺）受文化的影响（可能更比教会世俗文化的文化）。 完全扔一个循环，我是我父亲的说法，我对性的看法是没有圣经，和/或他们根本没有在“圣经”中解决。 我不得不承认，我没有研究过这在一定程度上，我觉得足够的知识，我打算在“圣经”研究性的更大的程度上。
我们讨论了一些非常疯狂的曲折，从“圣经”如何处理离婚，一夫多妻制，对婚姻制度的深入讨论。 纵观这一切，我的父亲试图证明我们的“基督教”婚姻和性的看法如何不必然符合圣经。 他不认为圣经与他们冲突，只是经不解决这些问题，在许多方面，鼓励不同意见（如一夫多妻制）。
不用说，我来到了我父亲的意见感到惊讶，有点后仰。 我不相信我会永远改变我的保守基督教性意见，但我很失望，听到我父亲的意见，并听取所谓的经文不支持我对性的看法。 这是我需要研究。
我会在这个问题上的每个人的思想很感兴趣，特别是如何圣经“圣经”同意，不同意，或根本不解决对性的保守的基督教观点。
杰森
你能更具体的经文，显然是不支持“保守的基督教对性的意见”？ 我总是在你爸的想法感兴趣。
具体来说周围的婚姻，他声称，一夫一妻制是不是在宣扬“圣经”。 他提出了一个段落指出，主教是有一个以上的妻子，但声称有没有更多的通道支持一夫一妻制比这。 事实上，一夫多妻制是假想更为普遍。 一夫一妻制性意见是相当重要的，因为我相信我们应该只有一个性伴侣（任何其他的方法似乎对我不道德）。 然而，我的父亲声称，任何道义上的责任，我在我的脑海里，对一夫一妻制的文化解释，和外面，我的文化，一夫多妻制未必不道德。 很显然，我非常非常不同意。
他还认为，神并不一定承认婚姻在教会（或政府或我们的文化）以同样的方式。 这一直是我的好奇，并没有让我感到吃惊或扔我回去，但是这导致了我们对婚前性行为的讨论。 我的父亲似乎被摧毁典型的基督教性意见。 他建议，或许（他很小心，不作任何直接的结论）婚前性行为（如我们的婚姻的定义定义）不一定一种罪过（或许性行为是什么定义一对夫妇结婚神）。
我父亲的背后这次讨论的目的是要强调一个事实，即我的职务，它背后的想法，是不是圣经为基础的。 我不相信我说，甚至暗示这是，但他发现说明这不是很重要，并建议，在未来这样的文章，我应该说明，我的这些意见不是来自经文，而是从我周围的教堂文化。 我不完全同意。
他对这些问题的立场是明显比我认为这将是更为自由。 我对性的看法会不会改变我们的讨论，但他确实让我觉得我的看法来自何处，我将研究经文，试图找到任何引用到一夫一妻制，是什么定义婚姻等任何帮助将不胜感激。
让我们在一个问题。 首先，关于一夫多妻制。
在旧约中，一夫多妻是相当普遍的。 所罗门，例如，“有700个妻子，公主和300妾。”（1Kgs 11时03分）
新约全书反映了不同的婚姻标准。
马太福音19:8-9：耶稣对他们说：“因为你的心脏摩西硬度允许你离婚，你的妻子，但它从一开始就不是这样。 和我对你们说：凡休妻的，除了淫乱，并另嫁，也是犯奸淫了“。
1蒂姆。 3:2，12要求，监督员和执事是“一个妻子的丈夫。”从那个时代的丧葬铭文表明，这可能不是一个一夫多妻制的参考。 相反，它被认为是善良的，但不是必需的，如果尚存配偶没有再婚。
1蒂姆。 5时09分，教会支持寡妇要求是“一个丈夫的妻子”（1蒂姆。3:2,12除了'妻子'和'丈夫'换位，它是同希腊建设）。 没有人会认为，妇女有丈夫的字符串，所以我们为什么必须承担，男性的妻子字符串？
关于婚前性行为，保罗在哥林多前的言论。 7是有益的。
1肺心病。 7时02分：“但是，因为淫乱的诱惑，每个人都应该有自己的妻子和每个女人自己的丈夫。”
1肺心病。 7:8-9：“对未婚和寡妇，我说，这是保持单身，因为我对他们有好处。 但是，如果他们不能行使自我控制能力，他们应该结婚。 因为它是好不如嫁比激情燃烧着。“
1肺心病。 7点34：“未婚或未婚妻的女人是关于主的事急，如何在身体和精神是神圣的。”
1肺心病。 7时36分：“如果有人认为，他没有表现他的未婚妻朝着正确的，如果他的激情是坚强的，它必须是，让他做，他想：让他们结婚，这是没有罪。”
1肺心病。 7时39分：“一个妻子是被约束，只要她的丈夫，因为他家住。 但是，如果她的丈夫去世，她要结婚的人，她希望是免费的，只有在主。“
我认为这些段落强烈建议未婚妻夫妇，直到结婚，以避免性别。 和结婚时，他们互相帮助控制通过授予那些本能夫妻的权利。“
我非常同意，我们需要区分圣经教导和教会的教学与杰伊。 我们都严重影响教会教学，两者之间的区别，这是艰难的。
这里是纯粹的设计，从周杰伦的崛起评论：
循道卫理教会的某些圈子一直在推动性标准的修订，并已采取一个“新”在外观性经文。 这是可能的，周杰伦已经过这些“教义”的影响？ （我微笑着，我希望你是，太多。）
哈哈哈...我已经发送了一封电子邮件，我的爸爸，要求他输入。 最初，他选择了不参与网上，因为“太多，以解决”。 它看起来就像我几乎毁了他的豪华...
关于一夫一妻制/一夫多妻制，经文是在清楚自己的意思，但他们没有真正谴责一夫多妻制。 我的父亲在一个点在我们的谈话中认为，少数的的一夫一妻制相关报表的实用性原因，因为他们并不适用于每个人。
婚前性行为的通道周围没有明确指出这是错误的，我父亲的论点，但是，更多的包围，神对婚姻的看法可能不同于教会的看法，从而影响被认为是婚前性行为。 无论哪种方式，如果一对夫妇不希望是“已婚”，不希望奉献自己的一生，他们的“配偶”，“圣经”清楚地表明，他们不应该发生性行为。 也许这意味着什么“结婚”的问题并不真的重要考虑，幸好我们没有决定什么是或不是一种罪过。 不过，我会想，而不是对抗的文化，这将是更好的建立，而不是打破他人着想，以符合婚姻的文化观点。
这将是非常有趣的，直接听取他对这个问题我父亲的思想在公开讨论。 当然，我不能到一半，以及他能说出他的论点。 经文谢谢你，汤姆。 希望我们可以继续讨论。
讨论任何有关性的圣经教学的一个重要组成部分，是的宽限期健康讨论。
在我的经验，许多基督徒已经长大了与镇压性的观点，使他们往往有就有关事项过度内疚复杂的。 他们的婚姻生活变得不愉快，他们变得无法有一个自己的孩子的话题自然，理智，均衡的谈话。
它也可以购买到“廉价的恩典”，使基督徒给性压力，假设，宽限期将永远存在（see.罗6：“我们应继续在罪中，叫恩典显多吗？”）。
亲爱的，
好吧，我想我要在这次谈话中加入这样我可以为自己说话。 周末我告诉贾森，我没有书面答复，因为这将是必要的“解构”在他的岗位的文化假设点，它会在不同的方向移动整个谈话。 既然他选择这样做，因为他已包括在本未经本人同意的谈话，我，现在我会为自己说话。
首先，我同意和欣赏的艾琳和嘉利的意见。 我觉得有趣的是，在这次谈话中，两名妇女是说，在学校的性教育是至关重要的。 我同意有关性别的公开对话是重要的，太多的父母只是没有与子女交谈。 我很感激，艾琳有机会提出在公立学校性健康的方法。
其次，仅仅因为我断言，我们称之为“基督徒的婚姻观”更是一个比圣经的产品，我们的文化产品，这是不恰当的，你以为我拒绝接受这样的婚姻观。 我不要求重新界定婚姻。 我反对施洗这一观点，称它是“”基督教的观点的。 这是不是一个“自由”贾森建议。 它是忠于圣经，我想抗衡的是一个非常保守的看法。
嘉利第一款本质上的相同点，我与Jason周末。 我们对性的态度，在很大程度上是由我们生活在其中的文化塑造。 百尺竿头更进一步，我会建议，什么是今天通常描述为“基督教家庭”或“性别基督教认为”更比“圣经”是1950年中美国文化产品。 一夫多妻制是一个很好的例子。
汤姆是正确的，在旧约一夫多妻制是共同的，我会建议，甚至出现被神认可。 特别注意耶稣通过大卫与拔示巴之间的一夫多妻关系。
我还认为，从汤姆的新约引用不排除一夫多妻制在所有除也许取决于一个人的解释为一个主教或“监督员。”离婚可以很容易地应用到一夫一妻制或一夫多妻制。 我没有与汤姆的解释，1添段落涉及到未亡配偶的问题。 在这种方式解释它使得关于一夫多妻制的问题保持沉默，这使我再次点。
应当指出，深入研究了这个问题（我为我的博士论文“家庭”）揭示1世纪（耶稣和保罗的时间），一夫多妻制已普遍了“时尚”虽然是不加禁止。 再次，这是一个文化运动，而不是一个宗教运动。
毫无疑问，保罗喜欢基督徒是单身和独身主义者，因为它允许个人把重点放在服务基督。 但他说，如果你无法控制你的性欲，倒不如结婚和婚内性。 我不会反对汤姆说：“夫妻应该避免性行为，直到结婚......”Howver，必须在保罗的日子是怎么回事，了解这些文本的结论。 有基督徒谁被纳入作为宗教仪式的一部分使用prostituion异教实践。 保罗提出各种反对这的参数throughtout他的信件。 因此，它可能会或可能不会适当解释这些经文与未婚妻夫妇，但很显然，这是最重要的谴责卖淫。
直到结婚不从性别：问题是，“什么定义婚姻的开始？ “这是结婚证吗？ 它是一个公开仪式吗？ 你会建议我，亚当和夏娃，提出了结婚证，站在一个牧师或法官在公开仪式前？ 我会建议，创2:24给他们婚姻的起点“成为一体”，即，他们有性行为。 结婚证是一种现代的发明。 人类历史的大部分时间中，婚姻被“记录”或保持法律上的原因追踪。 和这段历史最需要任何仪式或许可 - 你刚才宣布，你已经结婚了谁就给谁保持的纪录。
这并不意味着我的建议是可以接受的性滥交。 我的观点是，在开始我的论点：我们的假设，当我们有一个公开仪式及有牌照是由文化决定的假设婚姻是唯一有效的。 请清楚，我不是说这是一个坏的假设。 我说，你不能捍卫这一假设与圣经。 在“圣经”它说，你必须有许可证和要结婚的公开仪式。 根据成因，要结婚的意思是“成为一体”，即有性行为。 （其中，顺便说一下，备份通过研究历史的教堂，让你的婚姻“废止”的传统的基础上，一对夫妇是否真正摆在首位结婚，最经常被解释为，如果你从未有过与你的伴侣发生性关系，你从来没有真正结婚，尽管许可证和仪式。）
让我举一个更圣经的参考，才使我的最后一点。 我们通常说的亚伯拉罕的妾夏甲。 然而，创16时03分表示，萨拉夏甲给亚伯拉罕“是他的妻子。”没有执照，没有仪式，只有性别和一夫多妻制。 然而，你必须认识到，亚伯拉罕作为他的第二任妻子夏甲也意味着，他给她一个新的状态，它给了她新的权利。 这是不滥交。
这使我对我的最后一点。 任何在“圣经”的性别和婚姻的讨论，不得不承认，在整个圣经妇女被理解为财产，几乎没有合法权利。 女人总是属于一些人，无论是她的父亲或丈夫。 这就是为什么“圣经”，如果一个女人的丈夫去世，她的妹夫是作为一个妻子，她是如此清晰。 她已经属于别人。 此外，如果她一直没有孩子，兄弟在法律必须得到她怀孕。 在申命记25:5看，它是明确的，上帝是指挥一夫多妻制。 如果妹夫拒绝一夫多妻制的关系，他可能会受到惩罚。 此外，通奸和强奸罪;反对的人所拥有的女人通奸偷了丈夫的财产。 在现代婚姻中，我们的“你属于我”的概念可以追溯到这个想法。 然而，今天我们说，我们反对的想法，妇女财产。
现在，因为我已经证明了一夫多妻制，至少不是由圣经禁止（虽然我建议神赞同，至少在某些情况下），因为我已经证明，唯一明确的圣经“的定义，”当“人基于性别的那个男人和那个女人之间的行为成为结婚，因为我已经表明，作为一种文化已经拒绝了圣经的婚姻的基本假设（那个女人是男人的财产），因此，我再次断言，我们认为“基督教婚姻观”，是基于我们的文化，而不是圣经更多。
我邀请你来证明我错了。
用伟大的爱心和尊重，一个保守的心，
爸
Many thanks to Jay for checking in. I recall when you were doing your research for your doctoral dissertation on the family. I have nothing but respect for all that hard work and research.
I greatly appreciate virtually all of your remarks, and I find little to dispute. If forced to find a point of contention, I would question the notion of New Testament “silence” about polygamy.
1 Cor. 7:2 is fairly potent: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
Speaking of 1 Cor. 7:2, Wayne Meeks, a liberal theologian from Yale, says it “shows that monogamy was understood by the Pauline Christians … as normative and the normal means for avoiding porneia.”
The other NT epistles, Meeks says, “show that monogamy continued to be the normal expectation in the mainstream of Pauline thought.” (The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, Yale University Press, 1983: 101.)
I've checked a few citations of the early church fathers (ca. 100-350 AD). They acknowledge that polygamy was still practiced in society, but they speak condescendingly of the practice. For several writers like Tertullian, the Christian's only choice was between celibacy and monogamy. (See his treatise “On Monogamy,” ca. 200 AD)
In recent years, I've become aware of another biblical principle that I had previously missed. Throughout the Pastorals (1 & 2 Tim. and Titus), Paul repeatedly places strong emphasis on the importance of Christians maintaining a standard of behavior that is not scandalous to the culture.
Titus 2:5 is a good example: “Train the young women … to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”
The key part is: “that the word of God may not be reviled.” Paul wants Christians to avoid behaviors that would be reviled in society. This directive is stated in several ways in about two dozen passages in the Pastorals.
Here's the point: In our culture (or in Africa or Russia or Argentina), it's appropriate for Christians to avoid marital practices that would be scandalous to the local social norms.
I certainly agree that many of our marriage customs are not biblically based. But it would be inappropriate for any Christian, in whatever culture, to reject cultural norms and to engage in a practice that would be shameful or indecent.
思考？
Hi Tom,
As I said, I am not suggesting we redefine what we understand as marriage in our culture. And I do believe that as Christians we should live up to the highest standards within our culture (or perhaps an even higher standard). But way too often we say something is “Christian” because a lot of Christians pretend to do it. We need to be able to identify what is “of our culture” and what is really “of God.”
I completely agree that our behavior should glorify God. And that acceptable behavior within one culture may be different than in other cultures. 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.
I think you citations regarding monogamy back up the statement in my earlier post that by the 1st century polygamy was out of fashion, not primarily because of religious issues, but because of cultural norms. That early Christians understood monogamy as “normative” is not the same as revelation from God. In my post I acknowledged that by the first century it was normative. But, that it was even still being debated by 200 AD, also suggests that there was not a definitive word condeming it.
So, in the end, we agree that we should avoid polygamy, not because God has declared it wrong, but becaue within our cultural context it would be scandalous to the Gospel.
To wit, what is considered acceptable behavior in this case is determined by the culture, not scripture.
Jay:
I'm with you on almost every comment … but help me understand why 1 Cor. 7:2 does not teach 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.
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.
在这里我就跳了一会儿。 谢谢你，爸爸，和/更好地确定你的观点阐述。 我道歉拖入公众讨论，没有你的同意，但我相信我们所有的讨论一直很好。 这是为我好，能够看到您的想法写，观察你和汤姆已经被启蒙之间的讨论。
汤姆，非常感谢所有的经文和分以及。 这一切都无疑是对我非常好。 我期待着听到您的上述问题的答案我父亲的。
正如我要去加州本周晚些时候，我想我会问Amber的父亲（循理谁是部长）参与讨论。 他的意见通常是稍微保守，这是否会使任何种类的差别，或透露任何新的讨论，我不知道。
再次，感谢你给你，你把这个时间都（和其他人谁作出了贡献）。 什么来讨论，我很兴奋。
杰森，我会做一个快速的说法。
这东西是令人难以置信的波动，由教会支付的任何人得到的东西。 周杰伦一直很殷勤地分享一些诚实恶战的结论。 我相信 - 和深深感激 - 周杰伦的承诺圣经教导。
我问的问题是可以结束了职业生涯的H型炸弹。 因为我没有支付任何教会，我可以畅所欲言。 但我有你爸爸的情况非常同情和同情。 我不会怪他，如果他选择不进一步回应。
这是我对这个话题的最后一篇文章。 我只是没有自由支配的时间，让我继续。
首先，我承认我的意译，把信封。 我只是一个点，意译出来，我的论点中是无效的。
这不是我的意图，以促进一夫多妻制或建议改变我们当前的文化的了解婚姻。 我的论点是，我们认为“性和婚姻的基督教认为”有更多与文化做的比它与圣经一直。 我相信我已经说过这种情况良好，没有在这里驳斥。 汤姆在他的“丑闻”后，基本上同意。
汤姆的问题的解答：
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。 是。 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.
最后，虽然没有人了，有这一切的影响，对家庭的性质。 我不会去那里，说，有适当的家庭在我们的文化中的作用的关注。 保持一个强大的家庭的概念，重要的是我们的文化。 你可以使用这个道理，反对婚前性行为，一夫多妻制等，我可能会同意你的看法。 但从来就不是我的观点。 我的观点从来没有，我是否赞同一夫多妻制或婚前性行为。 我的观点一直是，我们认为这是“基督教认为”在这些问题上的文化基础比圣经的基础。
阿门和阿门。
谢谢你，爸爸。 在那里，我们有它。 ;)
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.
嗨，杰森：
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.
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.
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…