這是非常不好的消息：
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6905543.ece
法律正在改變，以消除家長的能力，選擇他們的孩子在公立學校性教育。 這意味著，每一個孩子在公立學校，不分宗教背景或父母的意願，將教學校的性教育15歲的版本。 這在2011年9月生效。 值得慶幸的是，這是在英國，而不是在美國。 不過，這是一個大問題。
這有什麼不妥嗎？ 也許很少，假設孩子們將學習負責任。 然而，我的童年性教育經驗是什麼，但負責。 我是幸運的，必須通過在整個初中和高中三個不同的公立學校性教育。 回首往事，所有這三個經驗我的健康損害。
我在初中的第一次體驗也許是最具破壞性的。 教我如何從一個卡通視頻手淫。 我不會把道德或精神問題或自慰非問題，但個人而言，我非常希望我沒有被教導在我生命中的那點。
顯然，性教育是重要的，我相信它是必要的，從一個非常年輕的年齡。 但我會選擇來教育我的孩子的方式，將極大地從偶然在公立學校中使用的方法不同。 公立學校的教師不能被信任這樣一個微妙和危險的問題;損害的潛力是巨大的，假設的父母做他們的工作，為任何一種利益的潛力是非常少。
什麼是強制性在公立學校性教育您的想法？ 你選擇選擇退出你的孩子在過去嗎？ 為什麼或為什麼不呢？ 你關注這一新的決定？
在過去40年來，基督教性價值觀和公共性的價值之間的鴻溝越來越寬。 它現在比以往任何時候都相信公立學校提供適當的性教育，青少年更危險。
教學有性繁殖的基本事實是一回事，但它是完全不同的教導如何自慰，如何看待同性戀行為，對婚前性行為的價值觀，等
（注：“垃圾”。博客不會接受我的第一稿，因為它似乎太在這個草案改變，這就是為什麼'薩克斯'字）哈哈哈......我永遠不會已經猜到那將是一個問題，但它是有道理的。 遺憾的麻煩，湯姆。 我已經編輯評論正確讀取。
同性戀是一個全新的蠕蟲，我什至沒有想到。 我不記得它甚至被覆蓋，當我去上學，但它肯定是一個開放的，那麼它是當年多出很多。 我很害怕看到什麼可能對主體性教育教師教這些天...
我記得我的“性”教育的部分，在我的學校衛生類。 我從來沒有真正重視。 我的背景下，我從學校學習這一點，所以很明顯這將是怪異和有偏見的意見和什麼不可以。 我不記得我們學習您表示相當的東西，但我想這是從它的預期。
我認為在今天的一天，年齡，教學完全禁慾是不會做太大的好處，如果有的話，它會讓我的孩子們想要做更多。 相反，我要教我的孩子很聰明，知道的情況，不要做任何皮疹或愚蠢的。 他們應該知道，而且他們將不得不忍受的後果。
我的妻子和我都期待我們的第一個孩子，現在任何一天。 前一陣子，我們決定家庭與學校。 幸運的是我的妻子工作，作為一名教師，但即使她沒有看到需要的家庭教育和家庭不希望自己的孩子成長了由政府教給他們的世界觀。
上關於同性戀的注意，我可以說，在已經通過的法律的州允許同性婚姻，這些學校有同性戀課程。 在馬薩諸塞州已有大量外流，拉著他們的孩子早為1級，因為即使他們被教導同性戀的生活方式是正常的公立學校，一個基督教家庭。
我所有關於仇恨罪，而不是罪人，但這一理想，這讓我相信我想是一個教我的孩子和他們的精神影響這些議題。
賈斯汀，我同意，在公立學校的環境教學禁慾可能是一個失敗的事業，但只因為在公立學校的性教育課背後的歷史。 我的生活和呼吸證明，家長可以教禁慾子女成功。 和我很高興，我等待著。
但我的父母沒有教我禁慾直接。 他們與我分享基督，和他們分享神的旨意，在我們生活中的性別。 阻止我失去我的童貞，不是我的父母（雖然他們間接），這是我的信仰。 我相信此方法的工作，效果很好，因為它產生更高層次理解。
沒有做任何愚蠢的事，肯定是比很多青少年的態度，但它仍然等於無視神在我們生活中的性別的目的。
豐富的，恭喜！ 我祈禱的誕生。 :)
我絕對看到家庭學校和公立學校的優勢和劣勢。 我有點驚恐地聽到同性戀這個話題上來，早在一年級有一定的理由保持公立學校的孩子。
雖然，公立學校的優勢，簡直是孩子習慣到世界各地，他們是否相信世界各地相信什麼。 儘管如此，一年級的頭腦是駭人開放給他們周圍的人的意見。
截至目前，我和妻子都選擇公立學校的路線規劃，但我們會竭盡所能，絕對確保我們的孩子了解他們從他們的老師聽到的一切 ，不就是這個道理。 我們一定會解決的重要課題，希望他們來之前在學校。 儘管如此，它看起來好像我們需要做這種骯髒的早期。
如果這種情況發生在美國，不過，我們肯定會拉我們的孩子公立學校。 它代表的方向是相反，我們希望我們的孩子去之交。 雖然，我們將最有可能選擇民辦學校，而不是在家自學，因為我們既不是教師。
我在學校教性的完整解決在今天的青少年危險行為的皮疹。 性教育是沒有幾乎一樣discriptive顯然在英國學校體系的主題。 但是我堅信，必須盡快開始，性教育的孩子能夠問問題（當然，在年齡適當的水平）。 有關性的話題的公開對話，是不容易，很多家長，應該是每一個基督徒家庭的目標與真理武裝自己的孩子。 當他們講真理的靈魂承認他們是否接受或拒絕。 兒童武裝，用真理，為真理的方式，光作為改革的推動者。 這難道不是一種傷害為世界的希望美好的憧憬。 我去了公立學校和私立基督教學校。 就個人而言，我想訓練我屹立於世界，而不是保護我從它配備成年人。 12年歲的女孩，暴力和不健康的約會關係中需要有人幫助他們獲得危險行為的週期。 我的女孩（5歲和6歲）將光鹽甚至在他們的第一級類。 神是信實的完成，他已經開始在我的工作和我的水果。
在英國學校的人類性學教育的強制性要求會有所不同，當然，比在美國的股權。 文化對人類性行為，如道德，限制和期望的參數。 什麼是強制或允許將不同人群的不同。 歐洲走向性行為的態度是非常不同的比我們整個池塘。 具有諷刺意味的，因為在這個問題的最重要的研究人員之一是來自印第安納州的！ 如果有人想真正了解我們正在處理，我建議你讀阿爾弗雷德·金賽的作品，但實現他作為一個科學家，他的研究已接近。
我確實認為，至關重要的兒童和青少年的成年人有一個更好地了解人類的性和生殖。 即使美國文化的外觀和性活動的痴迷，大多數人都沒有全面的角度上它是什麼，為什麼我們這樣做。 小報炒作誰做它人或更多的過激行為。 試圖理解和建立自己的性身份的年輕人被淹沒與難以理解消息。 我認為它非常重要，父母需要了解它了，因為他們可以，所以他們可能會覺得舒服談論人類的一個很自然的一部分，並傳授我們可以分享其表達的意義和喜悅的責任。
其不幸，你有一個壞的經驗，當你感到最脆弱的點在你的生活你的人性在這方面的學習。 最重要的是，人們需要了解的感情，力學，在我們生活中的性行為的意義，對這樣一個巨大的作用並不總是明顯的方式。 你可能需要回去和再處理，情節，以確保這些問題不繼續困擾著你，當你長大。 既然你和琥珀將談論自己性慾的看法瑞斯，要知道，文化的期望隨時間而改變，他可能會面臨不同的問題，或對此有不同的態度。
要知道，同時，您最好的意圖，以躲避你的孩子學習太多太快或性行為上設置的邊界可能是令人沮喪的。 由於我們仍然是哺乳動物，我們的生物學推動了很多的好奇心和實驗。 我最好的建議是學習，可以教你的孩子沒有太多的判斷強加給無辜的好奇心的事實，早在，盡量不要嚇壞了，當他們說或做一些你沒有想到的。
艾琳，我很高興聽到你這樣一個寶貴的差別。 我同意，性教育是從幼年重要。
琥珀和我都在猶豫考慮私立學校，為我們的孩子，因為你所描述的風險（被保護和天真的世界，而不是被教導如何處理它）。 我們希望，我們將能夠付諸表決，並保持我們的孩子在公立學校。
這是令人鼓舞的，聽到你在公立學校系統的工作，是很難獲得這個機會呢？ 你在所有的限制，你可以說什麼？
卡麗：大的意見！
嘉利，我度過了週末，我的父母，我的父親我有點更清晰性的意見是多少（有點諷刺）受文化的影響（可能更比教會世俗文化的文化）。 完全扔一個循環，我是我父親的說法，我對性的看法是沒有聖經，和/或他們根本沒有在“聖經”中解決。 我不得不承認，我沒有研究過這在一定程度上，我覺得足夠的知識，我打算在“聖經”研究性的更大的程度上。
我們討論了一些非常瘋狂的曲折，從“聖經”如何處理離婚，一夫多妻制，對婚姻制度的深入討論。 縱觀這一切，我的父親試圖證明我們的“基督教”婚姻和性的看法如何不必然符合聖經。 他不認為聖經與他們衝突，只是經不解決這些問題，在許多方面，鼓勵不同意見（如一夫多妻制）。
不用說，我來到了我父親的意見感到驚訝，有點後仰。 我不相信我會永遠改變我的保守基督教性意見，但我很失望，聽到我父親的意見，並聽取所謂的經文不支持我對性的看法。 這是我需要研究。
我會在這個問題上的每個人的思想很感興趣，特別是如何聖經“聖經”同意，不同意，或根本不解決對性的保守的基督教觀點。
傑森
你能更具體的經文，顯然是不支持“保守的基督教對性的意見”？ 我總是在你爸的想法感興趣。
具體來說周圍的婚姻，他聲稱，一夫一妻制是不是在宣揚“聖經”。 他提出了一個段落指出，主教是有一個以上的妻子，但聲稱有沒有更多的通道支持一夫一妻制比這。 事實上，一夫多妻制是假想更為普遍。 一夫一妻制性意見是相當重要的，因為我相信我們應該只有一個性伴侶（任何其他的方法似乎對我不道德）。 然而，我的父親聲稱，任何道義上的責任，我在我的腦海裡，對一夫一妻制的文化解釋，和外面，我的文化，一夫多妻制未必不道德。 很顯然，我非常非常不同意。
他還認為，神並不一定承認婚姻在教會（或政府或我們的文化）以同樣的方式。 這一直是我的好奇，並沒有讓我感到吃驚或扔我回去，但是這導致了我們對婚前性行為的討論。 我的父親似乎被摧毀典型的基督教性意見。 他建議，或許（他很小心，不作任何直接的結論）婚前性行為（如我們的婚姻的定義定義）不一定一種罪過（或許性行為是什麼定義一對夫婦結婚神）。
我父親的背後這次討論的目的是要強調一個事實，即我的職務，它背後的想法，是不是聖經為基礎的。 我不相信我說，甚至暗示這是，但他發現說明這不是很重要，並建議，在未來這樣的文章，我應該說明，我的這些意見不是來自經文，而是從我周圍的教堂文化。 我不完全同意。
他對這些問題的立場是明顯比我認為這將是更為自由。 我對性的看法會不會改變我們的討論，但他確實讓我覺得我的看法來自何處，我將研究經文，試圖找到任何引用到一夫一妻制，是什麼定義婚姻等任何幫助將不勝感激。
讓我們在一個問題。 首先，關於一夫多妻制。
在舊約中，一夫多妻是相當普遍的。 所羅門，例如，“有700個妻子，公主和300妾。”（1Kgs 11:3）
新約全書反映了不同的婚姻標準。
馬太福音19:8-9：耶穌對他們說：“因為你的心臟摩西硬度允許你離婚，你的妻子，但它從一開始就不是這樣。 和我對你們說：凡休妻的，除了淫亂，並另嫁，也是犯姦淫了“。
1蒂姆。 3:2，12要求，監督員和執事是“一個妻子的丈夫。”從那個時代的喪葬銘文表明，這可能不是一個一夫多妻制的參考。 相反，它被認為是善良的，但不是必需的，如果尚存配偶沒有再婚。
1蒂姆。 5時09分，教會支持寡婦要求是“一個丈夫的妻子”（1蒂姆。3:2,12除了'妻子'和'丈夫'換位，它是同希臘建設）。 沒有人會認為，婦女有丈夫的字符串，所以我們為什麼必須承擔，男性的妻子字符串？
關於婚前性行為，保羅在哥林多前的言論。 7是有益的。
1肺心病。 7時02分：“但是，因為淫亂的誘惑，每個人都應該有自己的妻子和每個女人自己的丈夫。”
1肺心病。 7:8-9：“對未婚和寡婦，我說，這是保持單身，因為我對他們有好處。 但是，如果他們不能行使自我控制能力，他們應該結婚。 因為它是好不如嫁比激情燃燒著。“
1肺心病。 7點34：“未婚或未婚妻的女人是關於主的事急，如何在身體和精神是神聖的。”
1肺心病。 7時36分：“如果有人認為，他沒有表現他的未婚妻朝著正確的，如果他的激情是堅強的，它必須是，讓他做，他想：讓他們結婚，這是沒有罪。”
1肺心病。 7時39分：“一個妻子是被約束，只要她的丈夫，因為他家住。 但是，如果她的丈夫去世，她要結婚的人，她希望是免費的，只有在主。“
我認為這些段落強烈建議未婚妻夫婦，直到結婚，以避免性別。 和結婚時，他們互相幫助控制通過授予那些本能夫妻的權利。“
我非常同意，我們需要區分聖經教導和教會的教學與傑伊。 我們都嚴重影響教會教學，兩者之間的區別，這是艱難的。
這裡是純粹的設計，從周杰倫的崛起評論：
循道衛理教會的某些圈子一直在推動性標準的修訂，並已採取一個“新”在外觀性經文。 這是可能的，周杰倫已經過這些“教義”的影響？ （我微笑著，我希望你是，太多。）
哈哈哈...我已經發送了一封電子郵件，我的爸爸，要求他輸入。 最初，他選擇了不參與網上，因為“太多，以解決”。 它看起來就像我幾乎毀了他的豪華...
關於一夫一妻制/一夫多妻制，經文是在清楚自己的意思，但他們沒有真正譴責一夫多妻制。 我的父親在一個點在我們的談話中認為，少數的的一夫一妻制相關報表的實用性原因，因為他們並不適用於每個人。
婚前性行為的通道周圍沒有明確指出這是錯誤的，我父親的論點，但是，更多的包圍，神對婚姻的看法可能不同於教會的看法，從而影響被認為是婚前性行為。 無論哪種方式，如果一對夫婦不希望是“已婚”，不希望奉獻自己的一生，他們的“配偶”，“聖經”清楚地表明，他們不應該發生性行為。 也許這意味著什麼“結婚”的問題並不真的重要考慮，幸好我們沒有決定什麼是或不是一種罪過。 不過，我會想，而不是對抗的文化，這將是更好的建立，而不是打破他人著想，以符合婚姻的文化觀點。
這將是非常有趣的，直接聽取他對這個問題我父親的思想在公開討論。 當然，我不能到一半，以及他能說出他的論點。 經文謝謝你，湯姆。 希望我們可以繼續討論。
討論任何有關性的聖經教學的一個重要組成部分，是的寬限期健康討論。
在我的經驗，許多基督徒已經長大了與鎮壓性的觀點，使他們往往有就有關事項過度內疚複雜的。 他們的婚姻生活變得不愉快，他們變得無法有一個自己的孩子的話題自然，理智，均衡的談話。
它也可以購買到“廉價的恩典”，使基督徒給性壓力，假設，寬限期將永遠存在（see.羅6：“我們應繼續在罪中，叫恩典顯多嗎？”）。
親愛的，
好吧，我想我要在這次談話中加入這樣我可以為自己說話。 週末我告訴賈森，我沒有書面答复，因為這將是必要的“解構”在他的崗位的文化假設點，它會在不同的方向移動整個談話。 既然他選擇這樣做，因為他已包括在本未經本人同意的談話，我，現在我會為自己說話。
首先，我同意和欣賞的艾琳和嘉利的意見。 我覺得有趣的是，在這次談話中，兩名婦女是說，在學校的性教育是至關重要的。 我同意有關性別的公開對話是重要的，太多的父母只是沒有與子女交談。 我很感激，艾琳有機會提出在公立學校性健康的方法。
其次，僅僅因為我斷言，我們稱之為“基督徒的婚姻觀”更是一個比聖經的產品，我們的文化產品，這是不恰當的，你以為我拒絕接受這樣的婚姻觀。 我不要求重新界定婚姻。 我反對施洗這一觀點，稱它是“”基督教的觀點的。 這是不是一個“自由”賈森建議。 它是忠於聖經，我想抗衡的是一個非常保守的看法。
嘉利第一款本質上的相同點，我與Jason週末。 我們對性的態度，在很大程度上是由我們生活在其中的文化塑造。 百尺竿頭更進一步，我會建議，什麼是今天通常描述為“基督教家庭”或“性別基督教認為”更比“聖經”是1950年中美國文化產品。 一夫多妻制是一個很好的例子。
湯姆是正確的，在舊約一夫多妻制是共同的，我會建議，甚至出現被神認可。 特別注意耶穌通過大衛與拔示巴之間的一夫多妻關係。
我還認為，從湯姆的新約引用不排除一夫多妻制在所有除也許取決於一個人的解釋為一個主教或“監督員。”離婚可以很容易地應用到一夫一妻制或一夫多妻制。 我沒有與湯姆的解釋，1添段落涉及到未亡配偶的問題。 在這種方式解釋它使得關於一夫多妻制的問題保持沉默，這使我再次點。
應當指出，深入研究了這個問題（我為我的博士論文“家庭”）揭示1世紀（耶穌和保羅的時間），一夫多妻制已普遍了“時尚”雖然是不加禁止。 再次，這是一個文化運動，而不是一個宗教運動。
毫無疑問，保羅喜歡基督徒是單身和獨身主義者，因為它允許個人把重點放在服務基督。 但他說，如果你無法控制你的性慾，倒不如結婚和婚內性。 我不會反對湯姆說：“夫妻應該避免性行為，直到結婚......”Howver，必須在保羅的日子是怎麼回事，了解這些文本的結論。 有基督徒誰被納入作為宗教儀式的一部分使用prostituion異教實踐。 保羅提出各種反對這的參數throughtout他的信件。 因此，它可能會或可能不會適當解釋這些經文與未婚妻夫婦，但很顯然，這是最重要的譴責賣淫。
直到結婚不從性別：問題是，“什麼定義婚姻的開始？ “這是結婚證嗎？ 它是一個公開儀式嗎？ 你會建議我，亞當和夏娃，提出了結婚證，站在一個牧師或法官在公開儀式前？ 我會建議，創2:24給他們婚姻的起點“成為一體”，即，他們有性行為。 結婚證是一種現代的發明。 人類歷史的大部分時間中，婚姻被“記錄”或保持法律上的原因追踪。 和這段歷史最需要任何儀式或許可 - 你剛才宣布，你已經結婚了誰就給誰保持的紀錄。
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.
That leads me to my last point. Any discussion of sex and marriage in the Bible has to acknowledge that throughout the entire Bible women were understood as property and had virtually no legal rights. A woman always belonged to some man, either her father or her husband. That is why the Bible is so clear that if a woman's husband dies, her brother-in-law is to take her as a wife. She had to belong to someone. Further, if she has not had children, the brother-in-law must get her pregnant. Look at Deuteronomy 25:5, it is clear that God is commanding polygamy. If the brother-in-law refuses the polygamous relationship, he may be punished. In addition, adultery and rape were sins against the man who owned the woman; the adulterer had stolen the husband's property. Within modern marriage, our concept of “you belong to me” can be traced back to this idea. And yet, today we say we reject the idea that women are property.
Now, since I've shown that polygamy is at least not prohibited by Scripture (though I've suggested that God endorsed it in at least some cases), and since I've shown that the only definitive Biblical definition of “when” someone becomes married is based on the act of sex between that man and that woman, and since I've shown that as a culture have rejected a basic assumption of Biblical marriage (that woman are the property of men) therefore, I would assert again that what we consider the “Christian view of marriage” is based more on our culture than on the Bible.
I invite any of you to prove me wrong.
With great love and respect and a conservative heart,
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.”
Â
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.”
Â
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.)
Â
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)
Â
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.
提圖斯2時05分是一個很好的例子：“培養的年輕女性要自我控制，純淨，在家，善良，順服自己的丈夫，上帝的話，可能不會唾罵。”
Â
關鍵的部分是：“上帝的話，可能不會唾罵。”保羅想基督徒，以避免將社會唾罵的行為。 這個指令在幾個方面指出，在大約兩打的田園詩的段落。
Â
這裡的一點：在我們的文化（或在非洲或俄羅斯或阿根廷），它是基督徒適當，以避免婚姻的做法，那將是可恥的當地的社會規範。
Â
當然，我同意，我們的婚姻習俗，許多沒有聖經根據。 但是，這將是不適當的任何基督教，拒絕任何文化，文化規範和從事做法，那將是可恥的或不雅。
Â
思考？
您好湯姆
正如我所說，我不建議我們重新定義我們的婚姻在我們的文化的理解。 我相信，作為基督徒，我們應該不辜負我們的文化內的最高標準（或者甚至更高的標準）。 但太我們經常說的東西是“基督教”，因為很多基督徒，假裝做。 我們要能夠確定什麼是“我們的文化”，什麼是真正的“上帝”。
我完全同意，我們的行為應該榮耀神。 和可能接受的行為，在一個文化比其他文化不同。 保羅一樣，我們應該成為弱弱（1肺心病。9:22），使我們可以節省一些。 所以，如果我想見證一個猶太朋友在午餐時，我不會把他一個火腿三明治，但它不會是一種罪過，我吃火腿三明治。 同樣，我實行一夫一妻制，而不是因為那裡是一個反對一夫多妻制的聖經禁令，但因為在我們的文化背景，它會傷害基督為我的事業是一夫多妻制。
我想你回就高達1世紀，一夫多妻制是時尚，這主要是因為宗教問題，在我先前的職位聲明一夫一妻制的引用，但由於文化規範。 早期的基督徒理解為“規範”的一夫一妻制是不是來自上帝的啟示。 在我的崗位，我承認，一世紀，這是規範。 但是，它甚至仍在辯論由公元200年，也表明，有沒有一個明確的字condeming。
因此，在年底，我們同意，我們應該避免一夫多妻制，而不是因為上帝已宣布不對的地方，但在我們的文化背景becaue這將是可恥的福音。
也就是說，在這種情況下，被認為是可以接受的行為是由文化，而不是聖經。
周杰倫：
Â
我與你幾乎所有的評論......但我明白為什麼1肺心病。 7時02分不教一夫一妻制。
嗯，首先，保羅承認，他的意見，圍繞性別和婚姻在1肺心病7是“沒有主的命令，但我給我的意見......”（V 25，也看到了6和12節）。 是不是有趣的是，保羅對沖這裡 - 至少三次。
第二，在這一段中，保羅是不關心的性質或家庭。 這完全是有關“性制裁。”保羅是在哥林多的基督徒“給予”。 他喜歡，他們都保持單身和獨身，因為他相信，耶穌將在幾天內返回。 但是，因為他們已經證明，他們是無法保持貞潔，他希望每個人有“制裁”，即丈夫或妻子發生性關係。
在這首詩中的問題變成：這個短語“每個女人應該有她自己的丈夫”意思是“每個女人應該有一個丈夫所有她到自己。”楊氏文字翻譯如下：“和因淫亂讓每個人都有自己的妻子，讓每個女人都有她合適的丈夫。“正確丈夫並不一定等同於”丈夫都對自己。“
如果我們試圖剝奪這種文化偏見的詩句，它可以轉述閱讀，“為了避免不分青紅皂白的性別，每一個男人和女人都應該有一個指定的符合文化規範性伴侶。”
再次，保羅是與自然不關心或家庭。 他的論點是從他在加拉太基督教家庭的定義完全不同，例如。 他唯一真正關心的是如何避免“淫亂”或濫交。 我希望，如果你問一個一夫多妻制的摩門教家庭，1肺心病7時02分，如果適用於他們，他們會說，“是的。”婦女每個人都有一個與她可以制裁性的丈夫，和人都有自己的妻子。 一起，他們可以提供性釋放在被制裁的關係，避免喪失自我控制（V），導致“淫亂。”
再次，我承認，保羅在其中一夫一妻制是規範每天的生活，可能想像中的“一個男人和一個女人”的關係時，他寫道，但我會建議，在一個堅定的一夫多妻制的適應1的意圖林前7:2，這是避免“淫亂。”我不明白，這個處方需要一夫一妻制。
感謝這一點。 這是很有幫助的。
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.
在這裡我就跳了一會兒。 謝謝你，爸爸，和/更好地確定你的觀點闡述。 我道歉拖入公眾討論，沒有你的同意，但我相信我們所有的討論一直很好。 這是為我好，能夠看到您的想法寫，觀察你和湯姆已經被啟蒙之間的討論。
湯姆，非常感謝所有的經文和分以及。 這一切都無疑是對我非常好。 我期待著聽到您的上述問題的答案我父親的。
正如我要去加州本週晚些時候，我想我會問Amber的父親（循理誰是部長）參與討論。 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.
再次，感謝你給你，你把這個時間都（和其他人誰作出了貢獻）。 什麼來討論，我很興奮。
傑森，我會做一個快速的說法。
Â
This stuff is incredibly volatile stuff for anyone who gets paid by a church. Jay has been very gracious to share some honest and hard-fought conclusions. I'm convinced – and deeply appreciative – of Jay's commitment to biblical teaching.
Â
The questions I've asked are H-bombs that can end a career. Since I'm not paid by any church, I can get away with speaking freely. But I have great compassion and sympathy for your dad's situation. I wouldn't blame him if he chose not to respond further.
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。 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.
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.
嗨，傑森：
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.
嗨，傑森：
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…