I have no sympathy for someone having sex at 15. At least make it to an age where you could get by financially if a baby decides to crash the party.
I readily admit that was stupid. Young and dumb. But I sure as heck was not the only one. Not even close. Disregarding your irrational metric (sex drive is not really something you can just avoid - YMMV ), doesn't this further reinforce the need for some sanity in how this subject is broached with teenagers? EDIT: Isn't this why we have juvenile courts? You are young and dumb. So now you punish the poor newborn too?
If Sex drive is uanavoidable due to biological reasons, then why is the religious right against sex education in public schools? I mean honestly? Why? DD
I'm not saying I agree with them... but I think the idea that biological urges gives you excuse to do whatever you're urged to do isn't smiled upon in either religion or the law. Alcoholism is genetic...we don't encourage them to keep drinking. These folks are simply saying that sex is to be saved for marriage. For them it's a morality issue, not a practical one. As concerned as you are about having people even mention comparative religion in a public school setting, they're equally concerned about a public school teacher having such influence on the issue of sexuality with their children. I'm not about denying people sex education... I think it's important. But I also don't want underage sex encouraged in doing so...I suppose it's all about presentation and context for me. Does that make sense?
I surely hope not. I always enjoy reading your posts regardless if I totally agree with them or not. We definitely need more people like you on the board, especially in the D&D.
I don't mind them teaching abstinance, but to bury your head in the sand and not even discuss a biological issue in school, is just downright scary. I know what some of them believe, I have no issue with them teaching that to their children, but it is when education is denied that the problem blossoms. I just find it silly that the religous right is happy to play Ostrich in such an important matter for their own children. DD
Please understand I'm not disagreeing with you. They need to teach sex ed. And abstinence should be included in that.
For your perusal, max, I submit the following passages from the preeminent american essayist, Gore Vidal: There is a great deal more of considerable interest (IMO) but I am too tired to type it all out. This tidbit above is from Sex is Politics, Playboy 1979. As for religions frowning upon biological urges, that pertains in this case only inasmuch as the Jews and even some Christians were still fighting with worshippers of Asherah (Venus, Dionysus) who celebrated and flaunted sex as a form of worship in itself. This was, of course, hard to resist - and as such sex itself was made a form of idolatry. Interestingly enough, the root hebrew terms for many of the leviticus-inspired "abominations" continually mentioned by the sex-abhorring apostle Paul is "idolatrous".
I think Paul would tell you to not be a slave to your urges. There's not much liberation in being unable to control yourself. And I'm not sure how much time Gore Vidal spent actually reading the words in red, but I don't get a lot of enslavement from Jesus. Keep in mind too that when Paul writes that there is no longer man or woman, free or slave, jew or gentile.....that he's likely making one of the first real arguments for the equality of the genders in history. Sorry for my defensive reply
channels obi-wan Well, that depends on your point of view as what constitutes liberation /channels obi-wan I really don't think he was talking about Jesus at all. In fact, I don't think the passages I copied mention him at all - they are all in reference to christianity as a religion. I did not mean to offend.
Such a sane and rational opinion.......and one I completely agree with. This country needs a common sense party in the worst way. DD
He also writes some of the most intensely patriarchal and sexist passages in the entire bible - even the stuff redacted to be more patriarchal by P after J in the old testament. (Interesting side note - it has been argued and evidence has been presented that J was, in fact, a woman in Solomon's court.) Moreover, Paul is so anti-sex it's mind boggling. Of course, he also thought christ's return was bound to occur within the next few years of his life... Again - not trying to be offensive - the point is not that the fundamental tenets are impure or outrageous or unbelievable. The point is that they have been corrupted. Within the bible itself.
P after J except before I?? Which J are we talking about??? I don't think Paul is anti-sex. I think you're doing to the NT what the fundamentalists do...forget its context. With Paul you're talking about different letters to different churches, each with their own unique challenges. His most notable quotes on marriage and sex are in his letter to the church in Corinth...so he borrows from Stoicism to speak to them. That's their context. But remember that Paul was Jewish...he was a Jewish leader, even. That he would have had notions of morality and immorality regarding sex should be expected. And you're absolutely right...he tells people to avoid marrying if possible because he believes the end is really near and feels like that would restrict what little time they had left. I wonder what fundamental tenets regarding sexuality you feel have been corrupted. You can read the Torah and get the same concepts with regard to sexuality. You can read the Talmud and pick up on it. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
(Actual) Authors of the old testament are referred to by letter. P was the priestly revision, the last one, and the most heavily edited/censored/redacted. J is the version famous for it's puns. P was rather ruthless in editing out the parts of J deemed "inconvenient" to both jewish patriarchal ideology and levite control of the preisthood. He is scared to death of it. A good point. But it does not really justify Paul's easily identifiable disdain for women. He was a jewish leader after all... I was referring more to the "real" fundamental tenets (love your neighbor as yourself, humility, peace, etc.). With respect to sexuality, I'd argue Jesus has a fairly relaxed view of it. Frankly, it appears to be of negligible concern in his eyes. The corruption then is in the bizarre emphasis it has been given by every christian leader since Paul, and in the way it has been routinely used to demonize women.
1. You're right...I've read that P & J thing before. 2. Paul -- I don't think he's scared of it at all. One of the things that commentators noted of the early church was that they were known for sexual restraint. There are a couple of mentions of that from Roman sources from outside the Bible. That wasn't just a Paul thing. But I don't see anything about Paul that's scared of sex. Again, I think his entire viewpoint is shaped on the notion that there is a lot of work to do in a very limited timeframe. 3. I don't think Paul has disdain for women. Again...he equates men and women. He puts the notion of superiority aside. Think of how revolutionary that would have been for that time...particularly considering he was on the Sanhedrin! And the movement he is becoming a focal point in includes women leading churches all over the place...and he makes note of that again and again in letters. I question whether he wrote the letters that I'm guessing you have the most problem with...for those and many other reasons...including the huge difference in writing style. I have a hard time reading Romans and then reading Hebrews and thinking they were written by the same dude, for example. 4. Remember...Jesus said if you've lusted after a woman, you've committed adultery. We like to think of him as being the master of tolerance for all things...but it certainly seems he would affirm the notion that sex was for marriage...especially since he specifically says that infidelity is a grounds for divorce. But that he honored and respected women is all over the Gospels. It's drenched in it.
