Binary_Digit said:
But it's not as though the only way to learn about safe sex is in public school, either. Parents should share at least half of that responsibility, especially if their son/daughter turns out to be gay because they are statistically at higher risk for AIDS etc. And since unsafe sex happens in spite of education, I think maybe education needs to be revised to include more encouragement. It's certainly not a good reason to give up the whole idea of education.
I agree, they should. But they don't. And the education needs to be given somewhere. That is why schools teach sex education in the first place. Because parents are unwilling or incapable.
How long does it take to teach abstinance when compared to all the complexities of human sexuality? Only a fraction of the time. I would agree that an equal amount of encouragement should be given to abstinance, but it's not reasonable to overcomplicate the "wait until you're married" notion just to give it more air time.
This is where I dissagree. Firstly, not an equal but a greater amount of encouragement should be given towards abstinance than towards safe sex, because it is the more effective method. In math, you do not teach all the methods of coming to conclusion, you teach the most effective and practical. And that is abstinance. Now, we are aware that that is not enough, so yes, their should be education regarding "safe-sex" but there are plenty of issues around abstinance that can be discussed. Such as how one can avoid being in a position where that temptation is there. Or discussion regarding the multiple ways one might be able to reason for abstinance. My highschool and college experience has been that abstinance gets little more than an honorable mention, where are the rest is harped over. That is simply not a smart material plan.
It is the general opinion of experts on the subject, not just cultural norms of the uneducated masses.
No its not. It was decided by the lawmakers, not those that study the brain and human condition.
The marriage of Adam and Eve is never mentioned. Lot and his daughters were not married. Abram and Hagar were not married. Jacob had premarital sex with Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah. Reuben had premarital sex with his father's concubine. Isaiah had a son with a "prophetess", God approved and suggested the name Mathershalalhashbaz. Esther was made queen of Vashti's place after having unmarried sex with the king. Tamar and his daughter-in-law had a son named Pharez (who happens to be in the Adam -> Jesus lineage).
But I guess this is all pointless, since God seems to have changed His mind somewhere between the Old and New Testament.
I'm guessing this is where you said you found where Christ spoke against pre-marital sex?
Actually I think that's a reasonable argument, in that we're supposed to look for patterns when the Bible is not specific about something. The question is, which patterns should apply - man/woman only marriage, or the promotion of love, empathy, and brotherhood among men?
Wait, I don't think I'm following you on this. Because I seems that you are suggesting that the promotion of love, empathy, and brotherhood and the promotion of man and his wife are mutually exclusive. I think it is a promotion of both. Especially since we are given the roles of the husband and of the wife.
The head of the household is whoever the couple decides, unless you're suggesting that working wives and stay-at-home husbands are in conflict with the Bible. Likewise for whoever does the tasks (supposedly) designated specifically to men or women. Obviously neither would *bare* any children, but adoption is for another debate.
Ephesians 5:
23 for the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. 24
I do not think that it is necesary that the husband be the one that works in the family. But he is the head of the household, or at least should be as according to the Bible.
That argument is not so cut-and-dry though. Here's what I mean:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." - Romans 1:26-27 NAS
Paul seems to suggest that simply having homosexual desires and tendancies is a sin, not just the act. Do you believe homosexual desires (not the act) are a consequence of origional sin?
No, it appears that it is the "burning with desire" that is the problem here. To be attracted to someone and to burn with desire to have sex with them are seperate issues. To burn in desire for sex with anyone who is not your wife is, according to scripture, sinful.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NAS
This may be a translation issue. The New International Version uses the phrase "homosexual offenders". What if Paul had said "heterosexual offenders" instead? Would we take that to mean the condemnation of all heterosexual activity?
The origional Greek words were "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". These words are often translated as "homosexual", but the most common Greek word for homosexual at the time was "paiderasste". If Paul was referring to all homosexuals, then why didn't he use the word paiderasste?
Why use one synonym over another in any case?
"realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching," - 1 Timothy 1:9-10 NAS
Again, the Greek text does not say "paiderasste", the common word for homosexuals at the time. The actual phrase is "pornoi arsenokoitai andrapodistes" Language experts have said that "pornoi" refers to an enslaved male prostitute, "arsenokoitai" refers to a man who sleeps with an enslaved male prostitute, and "andrapodistes" refers to a person who enslaves others.
And like I have said before, it is not what the Bible does say about homosexuality, it is what it does not say. And there is simply no reason in the Bible to suggest that marraige is meant for anyone other than opposite sexes. In fact, marriage by its very definition (according to Webster) is a union between opposite sexes.
Main Entry: mar·riage
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law
Let's also not forget that Paul supported the oppression of women (1 Cor. 14:34-35) and accepted slavery as a normal practice (Philemon 1:15-16).
These are issues of contemporary culture, nothing more. At this point, women were often unedecated, therefore it would make sense that they not be voices of the Church. Regarding slavery, as I pointed out in a different thread quite recently, was a social issue, not an issue of the soul, therefore, it was not Paul's place to speak against slavery, but simply attempt to free souls from captivity.
These are not necessarily God's own words and intentions. Again, maybe we should consider the relavent patterns and draw our own conclusions, rather than taking every reference at face-value, because the latter methodology leads to many, many practices considered unethical even by today's conservative Christian standards.
Unethical due to social mores does not trump sinful or right in the eyes of God. And I certainly never suggest taking anything at face value, but rather knowing what you believe. And I have done enough studying and research to argue that the Bible is not wrong.
