The Sexual Revolution began in the late 1960s and was won by 1980. Today, as another blogger pointed out, abstinence before marriage is rare; "everyone", it seems, is "doing it". And after all, it's a good thing, right? Just natural. It might be a nice "romantic notion" to save oneself for marriage, but who could really do such a thing? In today's society, the point is, almost no one can or will.
I grew-up on the front lines of the Sexual Revolution. I saw female attitudes about sex change right before my eyes (and other body parts). Prior to birth control pills (the Pill), good girls tried their best to wait for marriage before having intercourse ("sex"). Oh, they "made out", but most "good girls" stopped at 2nd (or at least 3rd) base. That was the way it was in high school for my generation (I graduated HS and began college in 1971). But by college, more and more females began having "recreational sex". "Good girls" still wanted to get married, but they also stopped waiting for marriage to have sex with guys they "loved". The Pill was the driving force of the Sexual Revolution. Today it appears that good girls may still want to get married some day, but they want lots of other things. And divorce is such an ugly thing. Many girls are wary of marriage because of the disastrous marriages so many of their parents have showed them.
One point needs to be made before I proceed. The Sexual Revolution was all about females moving their default position from waiting for marriage to have sex to one of having sex on the same terms as a male; "whenever the desire hits, do it". Males have always been in that default position. They have never had to concern themselves with many things females must worry about: pregnancy, bastard children, a ruined "reputation", etc. The Pill changed all of that. Female abstinence was the great civilizer of men; it kept them by-in-large willing to get married at an early age in order to get sex regularly. And by then children came, work obligations, a need for a home; all great civilizing features of abstinence. Divorce carried great societal stigma and was avoided, plus was financially untenable. But with the Pill females changed; they began giving out for free what once cost a male a marriage license. And as the old saying goes, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free"?
I am not proud of my experiences in the Sexual Revolution. As I say to my old buddies who bring up our wild days, "it seemed like fun at the time". But now we're old and most of us have avoided divorce. We (my peer group) have kids in high school or college (we married late; I was 35 and my wife was 23). Most of us have done well financially and some of us (including me) have found a profound faith in God. But all of us carry the battle scars of the Sexual Revolution. That includes our wives and our children. And we're not too much different from most of the people reading and writing on ProgressiveU, so I know my story applies to you. Let me explain.
When a person opens themselves up to sexual activity outside of marriage, they are breaking one of the oldest traditional values of all cultures. The Jews have been practicing abstinence before marriage from at least 2000 BC (the Iron Age). The sanctity of the female's virginity before marriage has been a feature of eastern religions as well, even prior to the Jews. And marriage (although not necessarily monogamous marriage as we consider today) has been in the world since antiquity. Given the historically enormous difficulty of raising a child without a father as well as the relatively weak physical strength of a female compared to a man, plus the cultural norms of male-dominated societies since antiquity, it is not surprising that female abstinence prior to marriage would become maybe the greatest asset an unmarried female could possess.
The Pill changed everything in a matter of a few decades. Now a woman can have sex "like a man", for the pure pleasure of it. But is that all there is? Is sex just a biological function that all animals do for procreation?
I suppose it ultimately boils down to the foundational premise one applies to life. If you think people are just another critter, then you may have a point. If we are just unlikely animals that can talk, who live for today and tomorrow we're gone, with no purpose except to reproduce (and even that purpose is only by the longest of long-shots), then it is reasonable to live like the animals. Of course, wild animals live a very violent lifestyle, with survival of the fittest representing the single, terrible law of the universe. If that is the case, then all sorts of options are on the table. Because if we only live for this life, then it is in our best interest to get the best life possible for ourselves and to heck with everyone else.
Without a God, we are our own god. Oh, many of you may not believe in God but have all sorts of judgmental "moral" values. But that is just your own sense of yourself as god, decreeing the morals YOU think are right. But when we are ALL gods, then ultimately all our differing values are bound to collide. And in a world with no God, it still boils down to survival of the fittest, just like Darwin described. And rightly so, since weaklings only degrade the species.
So maybe there really is a God. I know that to be the case. Christians who have been "born again" are filled with God's Spirit and He teaches the person how to live, through His living, infallible text-book, the Bible. The Bible is the greatest written work in the history of the world; all scholars must agree on that point. It has been said it would require an intellect greater than Jesus Christ to invent such a character. Over 2 billion people in the world right now consider themselves to be Christians; probably less than 30 percent of that number are actually "regenerated" Christians (experienced God's "2nd birth"). Saying you are a Christian does not make you one; it requires a miracle of God. As the book of James says, even the demons believe there is one God, "and shudder".
You may rightly ask, what does this have to do with the Sexual Revolution and the propensity of unmarried people to have sex? The point is only fully understandable to the regenerated Christian. But nominal Christians (those who claim the Christian religion but do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ) and even atheists and agnostics can understand the following premise.
God's plan for marriage was first put into existence in the Garden of Eden. Adam found his life as a single man not completely fulfilling. He was in the most perfect place imaginable; literally Heaven on Earth. He had interesting and fulfilling work to do: God charged Adam with tending the Garden and naming the animals. But in all creation, only Adam was not completely fulfilled. God had made the animals "male and female", so that they would be "fruitful and multiply, filling the earth". But Adam had no mate. God knew Adam needed a mate, so He took part of Adam and made Eve. He then married them. He said "a man shall leave his father and mother and take his wife, and they will be ONE flesh". Contrary to the notions of Biblical illiterates, God never condoned men having multiple wives; marriage has always been between one man and one woman since the Garden of Eden.
So why is it important that people not have sex before marriage? Because God is holy. That sounds like a stupid answer to people who don't know God or His word. But try to follow this. Man sinned in the Garden of Eden. Sin separated Adam and Eve from God. God promised He would send a Savior to restore the relationship between Himself and the people He created in His image. God also established His laws (the 10 Commandments) so people would understand what sin looks like. God never changed the requirement that people must be holy (or "righteous") to enter His presence and have peace with Him.
Ultimately, females keeping themselves "sexually pure" before marriage was the behavior that represented the keeping of at least one of the 10 Commandments ("do not commit adultery", which means "don't have any sex outside of marriage"). Females keeping themselves pure (for all the good reasons listed above, like no children out of wedlock, a good reputation, etc) functionally kept many men pure as well. So society functioned on that standard (not perfectly by any means, but still held the standard) for thousands of years. Marriage was therefore far better than it is today. Divorce was far rarer and taboo.
The reason is that sex outside of marriage is a sin, as God has decreed. But it's not just "He said so, so do it"; He knows everything and He knows that sex outside of marriage will greatly damage marriage. Purity before marriage is THE foundation of love and marriage. Marriage is to look like a picture of the relationship between God and people. But when sexual impurity is part of a marriage, it is damaged from the start. It is like the old joke about how much dog poop is TOO MUCH in a pan of brownies. The right answer is "ANY". The sexual relationship God planned for married people is complete joy, peace, trust and love. But when people are sexually experienced ("impure") prior to marriage, they end up bringing the dirt and turmoil of their prior relationships into the marriage. Trust is the first thing that is shattered.
That is easy to say, but you may say that's not true; all that is just the past. But let me describe what actually happens in a marriage when people have been impure prior to the marriage. At first everything is all infatuation and lots of sex. But over time the infatuation ALWAYS ends. Along with the ending of the infatuation is a realization that there is not much "submission" in the marriage. Marriage vows are promises to submit your desires and needs to the desires and needs of the other person. It is a 2-way street. But the marriage based on sexual impurity leaves terrible wounds on both parties; wounded people need healing. If both are wounded, they are very unlikely to be able to heal the other person. So divorce ensues.
In some cases, divorce doesn't happen. Instead, a bastardized, distorted marriage results. Real marriage is mutual submission to one another. It is loving, nurturing, caring; it is not seeking it's own desires but the desires of the spouse. Of course, the desires of one spouse are the desire of the other spouse, so they are of one mind and ultimately (as God commanded) one flesh.
The bastardized marriage (which is probably the majority of the marriages of people aged 60 and under in this country) has little to do with mutual submission. At best it is like a truce between warring factions. Yes, there may be love. But there is not much intimate trust. And since the infatuation of the new relationship ALWAYS ends, the love relationship that survives (IF it survives) is never what God intended. Yes, people are resourceful and do make marriages "work". But they are always flawed if built on impurity, because that innocence of purity was lost prior to the marriage. Like virginity itself, once it is gone it cannot ever be restored.
It is so critical to stay pure as a young person. The sex you have as a single person will be nothing compared to the anger, mistrust, coldness, and separation you will have in marriage after the infatuation is over. The Hollywood stars and many wealthy people just get divorced as soon as the infatuation ends. Others stay married "for the children". Others stay married for "love and commitment", but even this group lives with just an approximation of what marriage is like between 2 people who were pure on their wedding nights.
Christian people who have married as virgins are the happiest and most sexually fulfilled married people of any group in the world. There is trust and submission. They have more sex than any other group of married people. Their marriages rarely end in divorce.
I am currently in my 4th year of working with Christian counselors and my wife trying to mend the broken marriage that resulted from my impurity (and my influencing my wife to impurity) prior to our marriage. It is extremely difficult work. There is hope that there will ultimately be supernatural healing that will allow us to enjoy a full and rich marriage that may more closely represent a truly good marriage that God intended and provides for those who stay pure prior to marriage. There is still hope for our teenage children, who have accepted Christ in their youth and have learned the lesson I'm trying to teach in this post.
Here is my message to my kids; maybe you can learn from it too. From the age of 13 to 23 is 10 short years. They are the years in which you grow from being a child to having an adult body and the beginnings of an adult mind. The best thing you can do during those 10 short years is:
1. spend every effort at maximizing your education 2. the time not spent in academic studies should be spent a) in becoming proficient in a life-long sport or artistic endeavor and b) spending time helping others less fortunate. 3. spend time developing good and lasting friends of both genders, but don't pair off as "boyfriend-girlfriend" with anyone until you get your first good job. 4. Never "date", but begin "courting at the end of your educational years, ideally around 22 or 23. "Courting" means searching for the person who you are to marry. 5. When you believe you've found the person you could marry, stay sexually pure, continue to court for at least one year, pray a lot, and then get married.
If you will follow the 5 guidelines above, you will likely experience the following:
1. a happy, rich, trusting marriage including an incredible sex life that others cannot comprehend. 2. financial and social success and joy far surpassing most other people you will know. 3. physical and emotional fitness and joy 4. you will know the joy and blessing of truly helping others less fortunate; really making a "difference" in the world around you 5. you will be blessed with children that you will be equipped to raise as great parents in a secure, trusting and loving family and home.
If you want to grow up divorced, broke, miserable, always putting out the fires of life, with kids that have gone through the same (or worse) stuff as you, then go out, have sex early and often, and follow the rest of the sheep off the cliff. As the old beer commercial said, probably before you were born "you only go around once in life; you've got to grab for all the gusto you can". The question is, what kind of gusto do you really want?
Statistically speaking, most of the college age people reading this post came from a family in which divorce was a factor. Without sexual purity and a relationship with God, divorce is a high probability. You bet your parents had lots of premarital sex. We Baby Boomers started and won the Sexual Revolution; most of us know far more about it than you will ever believe. Now you guys are living in the new world order that we established. But it is like living under an oppressive government. It doesn't work. Look at the divorce rate. Look at the sexual perversion, the sexual crimes that are committed. They are far greater in occurrence than 50 or 100 years ago. Look at the babies born out of wedlock. Look at the 100 million abortions; all those dead babies that would otherwise be living with us.
As a single young person you can choose to live a life of bimboism or of purity. Bimboism leads to the bad stuff. Purity is a test to be passed as a single young person but is wonderful and easy once married to another pure person. Such a marriage yields a life of joy and peace. There is little middle ground. The good life is hard to achieve without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and again, that is foolishness to many who do not know Him. But as the Bible says, "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart".
God wants you to have the good life of love, joy and peace. Most young people have chosen bimboism. I admit that I did, and then lead my pure girlfriend down the same road before we married. God is working to fix my marriage after 18 years. If you have already chosen sexual activity before marriage, you can stop now. God will heal you faster while you are single than after you are married. Turn to Him, ask Him to reveal Himself to you and help you live a life of purity going forward. And ask Him to lead you to the spouse He has for you. He will do it if you ask Him and trust Him with your life. That is what real "gusto" is all about.
You have no proof for your even the subject heading assertion. I live in the state of Utah where more than half the population waits until they are married to have sex. And their divorce rate is exactly the same as the national average. Pre-marital sex doesn't cause divorce rates to go up.
Your argument is based in religious ideology. Your statements of purity and sex are meaningless to people who don't believe sex is sinful or impure. You are trying to persuade people who don't have the same mindset and fixed view of the world as you. They are not going to suddenly think something is impure and wicked simply because you said so and because the Bible said so when they don't believe in the Bible or Christianity. If I told you were sinning for not wearing a veil like the Koran says you should, it wouldn't change your mind or your wardrobe.
If you are going to make a statement about cause and effect, however, you need to actually have proof to back it up. If I used anecdotal evidence, I can prove a lot of completely contradictory things at the same time. Anecdotal evidence is not proof.
Citizen Press Revolution
This is an argument about reality, not your "ideologically" based comments. If you fall into the group that believes the universe popped into existence out of nothingness, then go on with that delusion; I cannot talk you out of it. Atheists are religious ideologues who are desperately wanting for the universe to be a work of magic with no magician. Sophomoric ranting and raving is no refutation of my post, just argument by making noise.
No one must believe in God; Lord knows it's a free country. But to think that purity doesn't exist and that "anything goes" sexuality is merely having fun is wrong. Just ask women who have had an abortion; speak to them 20 years later, see how their marriages are (often multiple divorces), see how their sex life is (pathetic). Their abortion had emotional consequences, because we are not dogs, we are people.
Sin is a reality. If you murder a human being, it is a sin. If you have sex outside of marriage, it is a sin. It creates problems; it hurts people. Hey, I used to believe EXACTLY like you do when I was a kid out getting lucky in my "glory daze".
Every group of young people think they are the first to discover sex and the first to declare it harmless fun. But it's just self-serving nonsense. The divorce rate has escalated along with the abortion rate and the professed rate of premarital sexual activity. FACT. Give me YOUR documentation to refute it, otherwise, you're just giving anecdotal evidence that is no proof.
Premarital sex damages an individual for life, just like a physical wound leaves a scar. The world is full of emotionally scarred people; to not think that is so is just ignorant. People are scarred by lots of things.
Meanwhile, purity leads to much better marriages. I didn't say they all ended perfectly, but they have a MUCH higher rate of success among committed Christians. Yes, Christians suffer a similar divorce rate as non-Christians; Christians are just like everyone else, just forgiven of their sins. They're still sinners.
But young people who remain pure (it is a very small club these days) do have much higher success rates in marriage and sexual satisfaction. My facts are from professional Christian counselors who work in the marriage and abortion counseling field (I am a former secular psychiatric counselor, post-masters).
Sorry you don't like my post, but my signature below explains why we disagree.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
In place of responding to what I wrote, you make a lot of assumptions about me instead. Instead of having a discussion about what I put forth, you simply continued your ideological rant.
Your reply omits any proof that I asked that premarital sex and divorce rates are linked. I put forth the facts that in the state of Utah where more than half the population doesn't have premarital sex, their divorce rates are the same as the national divorce rate. This shows absolutely no link between premarital sex and divorce rates.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you make a statement about cause and effect, you need proof to back it up.
Also, you miss my point that your post is futile if you are aiming to people who don't believe in the Bible and/or your brand of Christianity.
Citizen Press Revolution
doesn't mean I didn't give the correct one. My post involves mainline Christian based, mental health counseling statistical analysis. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) involving divorce rates and premarital sex rates in the past (1900, 1950, 1980, 2000) demonstrate soaring divorce rates among all ethnic and economic family categories in the 1980 and 2000 samples, at the same time premarital sex rose precipitously in the Sexual Revolution. This is well known with pastors and Christian counselors.
Same with recommendations on abstinence. See this article.
http://www.probe.org/rusty-wright-articles/rusty-wright-articles/cool-stuff-about-love-and-sex.html
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
Obviously there's a correlation between divorce rates and premarital sex. But is it a spurious correlation or a real one? If I remember my history correctly, divorce wasn't widely practiced, and not really common until 1985 (when all 50 states allowed for a no-fault divorce). Isn't it possible that before this, people wanted to get divorced, but weren't able to because the law would not permit it? That would certainly account for the huge rise in divorce rates in the last two samples.
~C
Visit my blog.
Your comment helps me see a paradigm your generation may have about divorce. Frankly, your post has made me feel "older" than many I may have read. It demonstrates to me that divorce is so rampant and so mainstream that today young people like yourself see it as just a common risk of married life.
The paradigm I learned as a child of the 1950s is that divorce is a terrible character flaw. It demonstrates the immaturity of the vast majority who use it as a parachute out of reality and responsibility.
Marriage is, above all, a life commitment. It is a cornerstone of civilization; the linchpin of the family. Divorce is a demonstration of the selfishness of individuals. What havoc divorce as wrought on children everywhere; what a terrible lesson to learn, as you have learned, that it's just something people have wanted to do and know the law allows it. Very sad; it makes me want to cry and to vomit, to be quite frank (and I'm not a guy that cries much).
It is obvious from the divorce rate (and your post underscores it) that much of the culture has no idea what marriage is about. Remember what I said in my post about "infatuation"? It ALWAYS ends. I'll go out on a limb of speculation and say that there are ZERO marriages in which the giddy, crazy passion of early romance is the primary emotion of any good marriage. And that is a good thing. It is that early attraction that draws us to one another. But a good marriage is founded on far more than physical attraction. As I said, marriage is about submission of one partner to another. Marriage is the best institution in the world; flawed people get married and stay that way. Yet increasingly, apparently common in your generation, marriage is just about what "I" want.
It's the old hippy poem of the 60's come to life...
"I do my thing, you do your thing,
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations
You aren't here to live up to mine.
I am I and you are you.
And if, by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
IF NOT, IT CAN'T BE HELPED."
That, Venus, is a load of feces. Life is not about MY THING but about living to serve others in humility. When you live life as a servant to others, you find joy, respect and blessings beyond understanding. When you live life for "MY THING", you're still a child, a little Id running around with a bottle and safety blanket.
I am happy to say not everyone believes like you do. Most of my friends have not divorced. Divorce is a disaster for all who live through it. I know one couple who needed to divorce; the man (a friend I have tried to help) has a terrible personality disorder, explosive, angry, raged at his wife and kids for years, violent out bursts, etc. Then he committed adultery. His wife is a great, sweet lady who admits to her part of the problem, but no one should suffer what she has suffered. God allowed divorce in the Bible for situations such as this.
But divorce for the sake of "my thing" and "your thing" is pathetic. It would be funny if it were not such a disaster for children and adults. Just look at you. Your ideas about divorce appear to be "just something lots of people wanted, but the oppressive state made it difficult".
One last comment. Marriage is hard. It is work. That is why it fails in today's society. So many want things for free, no effort. Instant gratification. If it's broke, don't fix it, just get a new one. That's OK for a video game console (I've just bought Xbox 360 for my son and he's throwing out PlayStation and GameCube because they're broken). But marriage never breaks. It is people who break and don't have the guts to look in the mirror and find help to get themselves fixed so they don't break their children, their spouses and themselves even more. Divorce is a disaster of the first rank.
Thanks for your post, Venus. It has opened my eyes.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
As Venus demonstrates, you cannot say that premarital sex causes an increase in divorce rates. Ice cream profits and robberies increase together, but ice cream does not cause crime. The factor that causes both to increase at the same time is the fact it is warmer.
Sometimes, staying married is a worse disaster when neither loves each other, hate each other, and have a malfunctioning relationship. You cannot fix a relationship by yourself. It takes two. And when one of the parties will not do it, the children will suffer in their adult lives since they will an unhealthy and negative relationship to base their views on.
Staying married is not always the best course of action.
Citizen Press Revolution
Let me start out by saying that both of my parents have been divorced. Twice. My dad has now remarried for the third time. So yeah, the topic of divorce is very near and dear to me. But what are the reasons for the divorces, you ask? Well, my mom and dad originally got divorced because my dad committed adultery. And then he went on and married the woman he did that with, and found out she was a complete bitch. She even tried to take my sister away from both my parents, and would have likely succeeded if my mom hadn't found out about it. So, instead of living through a life of hell with her, he got divorced again. My mom and stepdad got divorced because HE thought that he wasn't in love with my mom anymore. My mom was absolutely devastated. All has turned out pretty well since, except that my mom is rather stressed and lonely, especially with me away at college now.
Having lived through all this, I don't ever plan to get a divorce. I have been with my boyfriend for more than two years now, and plan to be with him at least another 2 before we get married. It'll more likely be another 5. I am well aware of the importance of marriage. Divorce is not something I will easily consider, and will likely only get a divorce in the event that one of us cheats, or one of us becomes abusive. As I doubt either will happen, my marriage will likely be for life. Don't assume that you know anything about what my views on divorce are just because I pointed out a few statistics. Oh, and in case you were wondering, it wasn't really physical attraction that brought my boyfriend and I together. That obviously played some role, but we had been friends for quite some time before we got together. We were drawn together because of the intense conversations we have, and continue to have now. Whether it be about books, movies, politics, or religion, we can almost always find something to talk about. And that's why I plan on marrying him.
Consequently, when I realized that I loved him, I knew it wasn't lust. I wanted to spend time with him, and after I started actually putting myself into the relationship, I started to care more and more about making HIM happy. I have told him countless times, especially early on in our relationship, that he should leave me if I make him unhappy. He hasn't yet. We've had some pretty serious fights in the years we've been together, a few to the point where we were going to break it off. But we never have. We're learning the lesson of working on it NOW in the relationship, instead of in the marriage. We're not going to 'just get a new one' if we turn out to have a fight. We'll work to make it better. So again, don't pretend that you know how I feel about marriage. You haven't the slightest clue.
That said, I'm saying that it's likely that the divorce rate would have been as high in the 1900's as it was in 1980 and 2000 if it had been legal. The fact was, it wasn't, most of the time, so people were often forced to make things work or live in an unhappy marriage. Now that divorce is legal, people don't want to work as hard to make things worse. However, the divorce rate NEVER takes into account the number of people that get divorced, and then remarry EACH OTHER. I cannot pretend to know what went through people's heads 50 years ago. I wasn't alive, and neither were either of my parents.
What MY point is is that you can't correlate premarital sex and divorce based on rates when divorce was made legal for most around the same time the pill came out. Would the divorce rates be as high if divorce had been made easier 50 years before it was, and consequently before the pill came out? I don't know. But it's a possibility. As the poster above me said, heat is a third variable in crime and ice cream sales. Age is a third variable in math scores and shoe size. Who says there's not another variable at work here?
~C
Visit my blog.
and knows nothing of the culture that preceded it. First of all, divorce was FAR from illegal; that is poppycock. And the majority of the country was relatively poor compared to today. Much more of the population lived in a rural setting. Church attendance was higher; "family values" were not old fashioned, they were the only sanity in life. I'm sorry, young lady, but you don't have a clue about the zeitgeist of the first half of the 20th century.
When my parents went to college in the 1940s, they were in a very elite group, especially my Mom. Very few women attended college in those days. Dorms were absolute bastions of gender-control; no men allowed, or even considered. Chaperons were REQUIRED for dating couples until they were 21, which was the minority of students because most kids started college at age 16 or 17 (there were only 11 grades in public school, not 12, much less kindergarten or preschool, which did not exist in most of the country).
Good girls didn't have sex until marriage; their virginity was prized, having sex before marriage "ruined" a girl, gave her a "bad reputation". It was a different world. That was still the norm when I was in high school (in the southeast); it began to change rapidly the year I went to college, as I've mentioned else where.
Now you may be speculating that if all the "enlightened people" of today could have gone back and changed things...easy divorce, the Pill, drugs, sex, rock n roll and MTV... that everyone would have come around. No, they were busy fighting 2 world wars sandwiched by the Great Depression. Life was not so easy. There was no TV, only radio starting in the early 1900s, few cars (most families could afford no more than 1, and many had no car). So you can still speculate that if we didn't have all those things, then people would divorce in a minute. Yeah, and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his bottom when he jumped.
There is clear correlation. But the point you are really hiding your head in the sand about is that premarital sex devastates lives and marriages. Sex is not just a physical act, unless you're a dog. Human beings are not dogs. We have souls that are damaged by committing sins.
Now you can say you don't believe in sin. But what is it when you kill someone? Steal? Lie? Cheat? Are these just life choices that if they work for you, no biggie? That is foolishness and self-delusion (or very possibly a delusion from someone else, see 2 Corinthians 4:4 and attached:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor%204.4,%202thes%202.10-12;&version=31;
I work closely with a professional marriage counselor who specializes in saving couples from divorce. Most couples do not want divorce, but their lives are so scrambled and their minds are so clouded by the lies of our culture that they think it is the only option. Most people aren't hideous, self-possessed monsters only focused on "me". Some are and they give everyone else a bad name. But divorce is a result of premarital sex and cheating in marriage; few cheat in marriage if they were virgins when they started. Abortion is another common result of premarital sex. And as the professional counselors will tell you about abortion, it takes 10 minutes to have one and a lifetime to get over it.
Our actions have consequences. The popular culture (and college boys who want to get lucky) will tell you premarital sex is a great thing. That is a lie. It is a terrible thing. Divorce, multiple marriages, and generalized bimboism are a result; just check out your parents. What a sterling role model they were for their daughter. So it was good enough for them, you might as well go for it as well.
Wrong. You don't have to. Try sanity. Sanity is a very happy and peaceful place, although today it may also be a lonely place unless you have God (as the bumper sticker says: No Jesus, No Peace; Know Jesus, Know Peace). People don't have sanity because they don't choose it. They choose crazy and then wonder "why is life so crazy". Gee, let's see...
Best wishes to you C. My 14 year old daughter's nickname is C (her name is Caroline, and I love her with all my heart and soul; she's only a B-C student in her demanding prep school, but she's maturing, and, praise God, she loves Jesus). I will pray for you that you will be able to overcome what your parent did to you. Girls are such a joy (so are boys; mine is 13, James; he's a fine boy, great musician, tennis player and student). Children are a joy. They should never have to face the indignity of crazy parents. But you should forgive them and try to influence them to grow up; don't follow in their footsteps.
God bless you, C.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
I'm tired, I have Physics studying to do, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to finance my education next year. So forgive me if this is short (in length and... attitude).
You have entirely too many stereotypes about youth, and I'm not going to change your mind about any of them, but whatever. I do not think the world started the day I was born. Quite the opposite. I love reading all about history. Just recent history gets the short end of the deal in most history classes, so the most recent history I have studied is the Holocaust. And that wasn't in America. Well, I'm in the process of studying the fall of communism, but again, that's not in America.
You're right. Divorce wasn't illegal. It was just a pain in the but, and you needed sufficient cause to get a divorce. There was no such thing as the 'no-fault' divorce that we have today. That didn't fully come into play until 1985, when all 50 states got such a law. I said that in my first post, apparently you missed it.
The education women got in the 1950's (and likely before, though I'm not completely sure) was mostly that of how to be a good housewife. And since you grew up in the Southeast, I take it your mother was a 'southern belle'. Compared to the rest of the nation, the southeast hasn't changed too much. I know most of my high school class went to church regularly. One of my closest friends was the 'preacher' of the school because he would go around shouting about various things. Exaggerating, of course, so it was rather humorous to watch him, but he was from good southern stock. But I digress.
I know full well that sex is not just a physical act. I know many people my age don't think that, but I place a high emotional stake in it. And I believe most girls do, whether they show it outwardly or not. I also never said I didn't believe in sin. I know we all sin. I just don't go around preaching it. I ask God for forgiveness for my own sins and move on with my life.
I don't agree with you, as I've made perfectly clear in my past statements. Perhaps we have different ideas of premarital sex. The idea you probably have in your head is young people going out and just sleeping with each other for fun, and sleeping with anyone who will get into the sack with them. I'm pretty sure these people have the same reputation as they did long ago, with the possible exception of boys among their peers, but that's another story. Not everyone who has premarital sex fits into this mold. What do you say about those that have sex with the person they eventually marry, and that's it?
You know absolutely nothing about my parents except that they got divorced. My first stepmother was a bitch, and she is the only person I use that term for. My current stepmother is great. I love her. I only wish my father had met her before he messed up his life. My mother, on the other hand, is the best role model I could ever hope for. She's the strongest woman that I know, and I admire her greatly. Sure, my life may not have been perfect without the nuclear family that I'm sure you're used to, but I wouldn't change a thing about it. I've had more experience with life in my 19 years than many people in your generation have had period. I'm certainly not perfect because of it, but I'm better for it. It is because of my mother that I know I can handle just about anything that's thrown at me. I know I can live without the support of a man. I'm very grateful for my boyfriend... he's the best friend I could ever have... but I know that if things don't work out, that I'll be ok in the end. I know many girls I can't say the same for. So while you use sarcasm in describing my parents as 'sterling role models', I don't. I think my mom is great. My dad has issues, so perhaps your assessment of him is accurate, but I still love him, and I still look to him as a fatherly figure, however distant he may be.
I already told you in my last comment what I plan to do. OBVIOUSLY this went right over your head as soon as your read about my parents. Pity, too. I thought it was nice. And crazy parents are the best. Normal people are boring. A little craziness keeps things interesting. That's the motto I live by.
Oh, and I found another thing that changed between 1950 and 1980 (those were the dates you gave, weren't they?). I cannot believe I didn't think of it before. In the 1960's, a lovely thing happened that allowed women to get out of the mold that had been forced upon many in the 1950's, and most likely earlier, not considering the movement to work during WWII because of the lack of labor. Women were given equal opportunity to work, to learn the same things men could. There's a third variable for you. Sure, birth control may have increased sexual ventures before marriage, but I'm sure a lot of men felt threatened by women working. I know several men that expect their wives to be the classic housewife, even now, and would feel threatened if the woman was more successful. It's a blow to their masculinity. Don't you think that was a blow to many marriages, resulting in more divorces? Or how about the women working so much that the men feel lonely, and thus go out and find other sources of entertainment, eventually causing a dissociation of their marriage? Or even if they don't go out and cheat... there's only so much a person can handle their spouse being away from them before they can't take it anymore. And yes, marriage isn't considered nearly as... sacred, I suppose, as it once was. Britney Spears is an obvious example of that. Or perhaps people are just unsure of their feelings when they marry, and the feelings they have disappear. This was apparently the case with my stepfather. I can't imagine his marriage is that great now, but I'm not close enough to him to know or care.
Best of luck with your ministry.
~C
Visit my blog.
You're a smart girl and sometimes I'm a jerk. I started my "blogging career" in the Intelligent Design / Darwinism Wars in '04 on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which is the home of the ID proponent Discovery Institute and lots of liberal Darwinists who literally hate the ID people). Then I graduated to the big leagues on RedState.Org, where literally thousands of subscribers read the posts and hundreds of comments were made. The debate is with hardline atheists and true-believing (Darwinist) PhD scientists on one side versus the Intelligent Design proponents, who are headed by brilliant, counter-science orthodox scientist. But they are a small club and it's a gang attack by the Darwinists. It requires much spine and patience to fight through the bile, vitriol, disinformation and genuine indoctrination of the Darwinists, who (here's that bad word again) hate people (it appears) that can articulate persuasively the glaring and fatal flaws of Darwinism. It is a "big kids" fight, and I tend to be contentious in my writing anyway; it keeps people reading, although it tends to be quite polarizing. I certainly didn't mean to polarize or talk down to you.
James (my 13 year old) and I had dinner at the local neighborhood sports pub (Buffalo wings, onion rings, lots of neighbors and a game room in the back); our girls of the family felt like staying home and eating girl food. James and I talk about everything. Over the last 2 years he and I have had the discussion that is essentially the theme of my post on premarital sex. But he mentioned something in our chat tonight that I realized I left out that is critical.
Maybe this will ring true to you; and this is not original thought with me, this is mainstream Christian counseling. And don't forget, in my first life I was a mainstream SECULAR mental health counselor (before I became a business man because I knew intuitively that the secular counseling taught at liberal universities is horse hockey (HH) (pardon my French). That is why I didn't finish my PhD and become a famous marriage counselor. When I was in grad school the deal wasn't to save marriages but to help people "actualize" themselves and eliminate "dissonance". In other words, whatever the great "I" wants, that's what's "right for you". And after all, if you don't make yourself happy, how can you make anyone else happy?" HH!!! Of course, I bought the nonsense while they were teaching it to me, but this was the "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, 4 dead in Ohio" days. Everyone was angry and nobody had a clue.
OK, here's the point. I can't believe I left it out, because it is probably the most important point (other than the need for a personal relationship with Christ). Interestingly, (my last digression), there is current news that makes the point I'm preparing to make. I'll cover that next.
One of God's commands (not suggestions) is to not commit adultery. That means don't have sex with anyone except your spouse. That is not a command because it irritates the "Big Guy Upstairs". All His commands are for our benefit and mental health. Of course, no one can obey all His commands perfectly all the time. Only Jesus lived the perfect life. But God put His commands in writing so we would know the perfect standard. And when we fall short, or "miss the mark" ("sin"), it ultimately causes us to become separated from God. His mission for us (even greater than the "Great Commission", which is spreading the Good News of the Gospel of Christ) is to have personal relationship with Him, know Him in an intimate way, and in that intimate relationship, we are our best and us being our best "brings glory to God". When we sin, the intimacy with God is broken. If we are believers, He forgives us of our sins and intimacy can be regained. We still bear the scars of our sin (I have some doozies and I have inflicted some on my wife and my kids of picked up some of the backwash just from living in the same house).
But not only does sin inhibit the intimacy between God and people, it also inhibits intimacy between husband and wife. I need to do a quick aside. I'll use my life as example, but I've found much concurrence of what I'm going to say in secular, humanist literature.
When I was promiscuous as a college student, after the fact of being that way I noticed I would have a little case of the guilts. No big deal. But I usually wanted Scotty to "beam me up" ASAP. That was when I was lost. But after I got "saved", it wasn't a minor case of the guilts. I would be heartsick for days. I couldn't believe it because I never was like that before. When I finally met my bride to be, I was so in love with her I didn't want to do anything with her. But after a few dates, my infatuation and old ways combined and I didn't honor my wife, who was keeping herself pure. But she was in love with me too, and the guilt went away. Sex was never a problem during our dating years (3.5) and then we married. The first year was almost as good as the dating years, but then one night she said "no" for the first time. After that the "no's" continued to become more frequent.
Without writing a book, the problem was INTIMACY. When we were dating and having sex the dating dynamics kept the sex good and the love exciting and a little dangerous; eating the forbidden fruit.
Remember in my post I said marriage is first and foremost about submission to one-another. That was a mis-speak. Marriage is first and foremost about intimacy. And the intimacy leads to the complete trust and submission to the other spouse, one to another.
But intimacy never truly occurs until marriage and a maturing of the relationship occurs as a result of the intimacy. That includes the end of the infatuation phase and growth into the deep, intimate love that really only occurs when both parties have the Spirit of Jesus living in their heart. But even if that is the case, if there is unresolved sin in the picture, intimacy WILL NOT HAPPEN to the level that gives that full, rich married life that is immune to divorce.
The adulterous sex of previous partners and even with the person you plan to marry are all sins that must be dealt with in order for intimacy to happen. Most of the major evangelical counselors (Andy Stanley for one, who is my favorite) understand this and say it is the major precipitator of divorce.
It goes like this. Both parties in the marriage are wounded by the sex sin of themselves and their partner. But they have no insight. So the marriage becomes difficult and they don't know why. They may even be having "great sex", but the marriage is still dying or already dead, and they don't even have insight into what's happening. They just know the "thrill is gone". So whether there is extra-marital sex or not, the marriage is in a tailspin and nobody has a clue what to do. Oh yeah, divorce is so common, that must be the answer.
It is not the answer. Oh, you may find Mr or Ms compatible at the online dating place or where ever, but that isn't the answer either. Ultimately, people make one of of few options. They either go through a series of divorces and wind up single, or they find Mr/Ms compatible and do sports and walks on the beach together in a rendition of "I do my thing, you do your thing, we found each other and it's beautiful", or they do the incredibly heavy lifting of finding out how to heal the wounds, repent to one another and slowly find the way back to intimacy.
A friend of mine, a brilliant and successful business man, divorced his wife of 25 years, took some trips for mail-order brides in South America, married one and lives in a mansion in a small city I've never heard of in the Andes. She's a 30 year old "major babe" and he's my age and has less hair than me. He left the wife of his youth and his 3 daughters, one about your age, to live down there with his playmate. They are compatible. The pictures look great, the mansion on the mansion is incredible and the girl is a 10, but DANG. Do you divorce your family?
I digress. It's about the intimacy that will never grow after you're married. It happens all the time. It happened to your parents. Without Christ there is little hope for intimacy in a marriage. But with much sexual sin, it is a disaster.
When I was 19 I was out of control. Probably like your Dad except a bigger talker. I thought I was a genius and knew everything. The longer I live, the more I realize how little I know. But people way smarter than I have taught me what I'm trying to teach you.
I just ask that you consider it.
Gotta get some sleep.
Just remembered the current news. A huge study was done of married women. 30% said they wouldn't remarry their husband if they could do it over again. and 26% said they weren't sure. That leaves only 44% who would stay put with the old boy. I haven't looked at the study, but I'll bet the majority of the respondents had premarital sex. The marriage is dying or dead because of no intimacy. I'm too tired to Google it, but I'm sure it's easy to find.
Bon nuit.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
I think I need some sleep, cause most of that just went right over my head. I'll read it again in the morning and respond.
But it's bonne nuit. Nuit is feminine. And I wouldn't complain if I hadn't seen two films in French in the past week. Sounds better as bonne too. Anyway, sorry for the correction. A bientot.
~C
Visit my blog.
Takes French and says "bonne nuit" when I tuck her in bed and she says her prayers. Thanks for the spelling correction; I'm a fanatic about spelling and grammar. But for some reason the only skill in life I'm really accomplished at is typing; I can fly, faster than I can even believe. But if I don't edit, I find lots of errors like typing the same word twice, or using "their" when I mean "there", or "principal" when I meant "principle". That one burned me when I was unexpectedly published on the headlines of the op-ed page of our paper (we're a city of about 1.3 million). People complemented me on my editorial (which I had no idea they would print because it was snide and contentious, although right on the money). But I was embarrassed because I didn't proof it (just fired it off late one night after becoming angered at my some idiocy in the paper), and typed "principal" instead of "principle", TWICE. I hate it when that happens.
I wrote to you the last time late at night and was sleepy, but I'll admit I don't know French, but when I say goodnight to MY "C" (Caroline), I say "bonne nuit"; but I never have to spell it. Now I know.
I've had a busy weekend and Monday and it appears there are more replies since I last checked. It may be Tuesday (9th) before I can reply.
David
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
Alright. Finally got around to reading it when I'm mostly lucid. I agree with you, to some degree. If sex is the foundation of a marriage, it will fall apart. And using your explanation, God knew this. Thus, He commanded the Jewish women to separate themselves from their husbands for a certain amount of time each month: During their period and for 7 days afterwards. Chadistic Jews today take this to the extreme in that during this period, the woman and the man cannot have any sort of physical contact, even hold the same object. This forces the couple to interact without sex in the picture. Now, Christians don't practice this (at least, no Christian I know does... I hadn't even heard of the custom until recently), for various reasons. However, it does increase the level of intimacy you place in such high regard.
Allow me an anecdote for you. My boyfriend's parents, specifically his father, like to make... sexual jokes around him. He has explained to me that his parents met after his father went to college, and his mother dropped out and had problems with drugs and whatnot. His father now has alluded to the possibility that his mother slept around before they met (she had a fiance at some point), and that they slept together before they got married. My boyfriend is uncertain as to whether this is true or not, but regardless, his mother sinned before she got married to his father. They're still married, and they got married about a year after my parents did. Which means they've lasted 13 or so years longer than my parents. Perhaps this is because of the environment they are in (very conservative, religious area), or perhaps just because they're willing to work through things. But if they did have premarital sex, they, as well as you and your wife, are proof that premarital sex does not cause divorce. It may be a factor, but it is likely not the only factor, whether it affects intimacy or not. I personally think that it's not even the largest factor. But that's my opinion.
I'd appreciate if you responded to the other elements in my last post. I'm curious about what you have to say.
~C
Visit my blog.
to your previous post tomorrow. Just a short comment on the most recent one.
All of my comments are looking at divorce and premarital sex from a macro- perspective. Certainly any one marriage can survive for any number of reasons. My best friend married early to his girlfriend since the 8th grade when they were both 21; they're both 54 now. He has always been a ladies man, has become quite wealthy, and for most of those years of marriage he cheated on his wife. She turned her head the other way for all those years. She is still "madly" in love with him (he's a high profile guy in their very upscale city about 500 miles from where I live).
He has finally calmed down on his womanizing in the last few years. He realized his money and recreational sex, a 65 foot sport fishing boat with captain, multiple multi-million dollar homes, being a local celebrity of sorts, "in with the "in" crowd"; none of that made him happy. He was mad at me for "becoming a religious nut" (as he said about 10 years ago) and we went for over a year without speaking at one point. But since then he's gotten over his anger and we're closer than ever (we've been friends for 31 years). This past fall, we took a "boys trip" hunting in New England, very fancy trip for grouse and woodcock. While we were there I had the opportunity to finally tell him "what happened to me" regarding my Christian "conversion". It turned into a long (and sober) evening and at the end of the evening my good friend acknowledged his acceptance of Christ. The Lord is good.
I'm thankful his marriage has survived so long with his sweet wife being faithful even while he was not. I know longtime, committed Christian women who divorce their similarly devout Christian husbands for one sexual fling. There are no stereotypes.
But like smoking clearly causes cancer and heart disease, premarital sex is the great degrader of our culture, marriage and the family. I understand it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. But if young folks like yourself have never heard these truths, then they don't even know what the potential risks are or what the options are. One option is, stop having premarital sex. If he leaves you for it, you saved yourself a divorce. If he loves you, he'll respect you for your decision. That's a lot easier than putting toothpaste back in the tube.
Your cultural world is full of opposite messages. I saw MTV recently; how low class and pathetic. MTV treats premarital sex like it is a requirement for anyone to be cool. The bottom line to that is, of course, if you try to be cool, you're not. But that is how deceit is practiced; pray on the young, make poop look like payola, and then the VENDOR (MTV in this analogy) trades their poop for the CUSTOMER'S (the "young people of today") payola. Pretty good deal for MTV and a pile of poop for the young people, who will continue the fruitless pursuit of "cool".
The world is full of this kind of filth. Meanwhile, they won't let the Bible be read in public school or let kids pray. To quote the Wicked Witch of the West, "what a world, what a world".
I'll try to address your other comments tomorrow. I'm teaching Bible Study to young people tonight; gotta finish preparing.
D
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
The old assignation of gender-specific sexual responsibility seems to hold true...if girls do it, they are sluts; guys are just lucky. Let's truly define the word "slut" in the context of sexual behavior:
In our society, a slut is traditionally any female who drops her pants to any male who shows an interest. But look at the reaction towards an adolescent male who exhibits similar behavior...lionized by their peers,
possibly by their fathers, for "getting some" But why? Boys who get girls "in trouble" have certainly gotten their friends to swear they "all screwed her, she was a skag, the school pump;" pick a pejorative. In these cases, the effects of sexual activity can annihilate a scared young girl.
More later, must dash.
but that was not the point. Males are expected by the culture to be the sexual aggressor. But the Sexual Revolution was made possible by females becoming open to sexual behavior before marriage due to the Pill (and the radical "women's movement" that resulted). IF the Pill or some other seamless female controlled contraceptive method had not been invented, the Sexual Revolution would not have occurred. As I said, it was the ladies who's behavior changed; most males are programmed by the culture to be sexual conquerors. I agree the guys became even more emboldened due to the reduced risk of becoming unplanned fathers, but that was minor compared with the freedom the Pill allowed females.
I did not make value judgments or call young ladies names like slut. We all make terrible mistakes in life that have profound impacts on our lives and the lives of others. But we can control our behavior. I lived a terrible life as a college student because of the Sexual Revolution. Again, it seemed like fun at the time. But the trail of devastated lives that I am personally responsible for is a travesty. Our behavior has results that causes great pain and hardship for people. We don't have to behave this way; there is a better way.
I tell my kids the right way to behave is generally the hardest way. It is hard to not follow the crowd, go with the flow, try to be cool (but the truth is, if you try to be cool, you're not). It is hard to say no to premarital sex. It is hard to keep yourself pure when you are "in love" with the right person and you are facing a few years more of college before it "makes sense" to get married. But doing the hard things when you are young for a very short period of time (a matter of a few years really) gives a much better chance of a happier, better life for you, your wife and your children. It is worth the wait. I so wish I had.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
Hopefully, you are not in training to be a journalist. Because if you are you'll never make it. What you did in this article was to just state your personal religious opinion. Or you were playing GOD. You have no right to dictate to other people's conscience. You sin by manipulating scripture to control people. You break the law by dictating to conscience. And it's religious discrimination. Add to that the fact that this article will most definitely turn anyone away from GOD who doesn't already believe in Him.
YOU interpret the bible to mean Adam and Eve were married, but the fact is, the bible makes no mention of any such thing. GOD would hardly say, well you have to stick to Adam, 'cause the fact of the matter was, (if the bible is correct, there WAS NO Tom, Dick, or Harry.) And even if there were Jesus mentioned the fact that GOD didn't like divorce, but He gave it to man, because HE KNEW their nature.
If you look up the history of marriage, you'll find that all such ceremonies were manmade, and the United States Preachers seconded the idea as a 'money-maker'. As did the politicians. Recently our State up the price of a marriage liscence. Do you think that would encourage marriage? What a laugh.
Meddling in people's personal affairs were also considered a sin in the bible. Which you would know, had you ever read the bible. (Women with tinkling feet that run from house to house...) Remember that scripture?
In conclusion, it is beyond me to figure out why you think people should take your word for it, when you are hardly an expert on the subject. No wonder our country is in such a terrible shape.
I think you better go have a little talk with GOD yourself...you have some confessing to do.
Happy New Year, Zena
Bravo, Zena Princess!! Very well said!!
was factually off the mark. She doesn't know the Bible or Who convicts people of sin. It certainly is not me; only God convicts people of sin; David said "it is against you, LORD, that I have sinned". That's after he (King David) stole one of his soldier's wife (Bathsheba) and had the soldier killed. But David's confession was of his sin against "only God". Without God, there is no sin. Murder is no sin without God. But as my signature says below...
I understand the incredulity of those angry at my post. I wouldn't have liked it when I was young. But I never heard anything except how healthy it was to have sex. I also heard that an unborn baby was "undifferentiated tissue mass". But I have a photo of my daughter at about 4 months gestation and she looked like she did when she was born. And that was old technology (she's 14 now).
The popular culture tells us many lies, and has many liars working to lead young people down into the gutter. God is either real or He is a hoax. But atheists are a dying breed; the number 1 most influential atheist of the 20th century, Antony Flew, in 2004 changed his mind (after over 50 years of writing on atheism). He now believes in God. If there is a God Who has revealed Himself to us, Flew agrees it would be the Judeo-Christian God revealed in the Bible; all other "religions" are either philosophy or politics.
In life, it really comes down to this: either Jesus Christ (who we KNOW was a real man who lived in Palestine in the first century) was crucified and then rose bodily from the dead, or he never rose from the dead. If He rose from the dead, He is God. If He didn't then there is no revealed God of the Bible, because the Bible says it is all true. If Jesus did rise and is God, then the Bible is all true; Jesus said it was all true in the Bible. If it is all true, then God's words are for teaching us to live the best life He has for us. We are His children; He loves us more than we can imagine. If He is real, then we believers are His children. That makes us children of the King of Kings; we are therefore true Princes and Princesses. And God's commands, though they are commands, are designed to help us live the best life, the happiest life, the most FUN life.
I can attest to the fun part. Even though my sins as a young man have damaged my marriage, God gives both my wife and me the ability to live above our problems. God lives in our heart and He gives us peace and joy beyond understanding. With Him even hardship is joyful; we can truly give thanks in all things, knowing that He works all things together for good for all His children.
Hang in there Zena. God wants you to be one of His Princesses.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
I agree with you. I'm also an atheist, agnostic, whatever. Amazing, isn't it?
Look, Your ideas of purity before marriage are sound. Emotionally, I will be able to dedicate myself more to a wife if I don't have premarital sex. I believe that sex is important enough to our species and in our culture that it should be treated with respect. I want to say treated as sacred, but I'm trying to make a point.
My point: IF you really want to educate people, to try to protect that which you wish you had protected for yourself, you should drop the religious side of it. Not entirely. But the way you said it, you make it work only for those who completely agree with your beliefs. You have a point, but the way you define your own spirituality is so intertwined with this idea of emotional devotion that you can only express it in religious terms. And, as I said, it makes it sound condescending. Combined with your claims of how non-believers just don't understand, how atheists think they are their own God, all of that, your point about sex gets totally lost.
As I've said, I'm an agnostic. I called myself an atheist for a while too. I was raised Christian, but upon inspection of the faith, I found it didn't work for me. I'm cool with trusting in a power that created the Universe, but I don't think God is White and I don't believe he talks to people. I want to have an intimate relationship with God, and I couldn't do that if, in the back of my head, I was always thinking, "bull. total bull. this book has been edited so many times over the years, to fit so many agendas, this isn't the word of God...". Look, maybe it is. But you know that new History Channel special on how Jesus was a spoiled brat? Because I have chosen to define my relationship with God in no historical or literary terms, that doesn't matter to me. Maybe it would have if I still believed in Christ. Maybe not. But I've found what allows me to know that trust, that faith, and I don't appreciate you lumping me in with the teenaged brat who doesn't want to wake up early on Sunday anymore. Atheism, and whatever the word is for agnostic - agnosticism? - are not dying, and are an important catchall for people who can't find that relationship with a deity of any established religion.
I have little hope that you will get this. Mainly because you said that your religion is the best. That's usually the point where I quit, but this is an important issue for me. Back to you - if you need to discredit other religions to believe in yours, I have little faith that you will be able to deal with the opinion of someone who doesn't believe what you do. I see religions as different ways people have tried to find that connection with God, and I respect them for that purpose. You see them as incorrect definitions of what God is. If you don't see them that way, deal with that statement, because in reading you I have found nothing to suggest otherwise.
I wanted to say this because I fear you have hurt your own cause by tying abstinence to your beliefs, only to have them argued against by people who are well-adjusted and recognize your statements as too narrow, or by people who don't share your beliefs and are insulted that you would make such claims.
I'm not going to be back to this. Feel free to respond, but I'm out. I never have much fun arguing religion, and I believe that that's all this post will ever do. It would be cool if somebody would start up this discussion again without a religious basis for the choice.
Fun song: John Lennon's "Imagine"
--
Oh, also: does anybody know the name of the song that plays during the dogfight scene of Cowboy Bebop, The Movie?
If so, please let me know @ gatorrelay251@gmail.com
Best movie EVER. Maybe. Definitely best Anime to hit the U.S.
... but it will have to be later. I hope you will be around to read it. I live my life in the hope that my answers are right. The hope many people share represents the most wonderful life you can live. I hope it will answer your concerns.
Later.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
and I'm wondering should I take the effort to reply to someone who says he's "out".
Let's start with the song "Imagine". Of all the words I can think of to describe "Imagine", fun is probably the last one I would ever come up with. I remember when it was first released (heck, I saw the Beatles live on the Ed Sullivan Show in '64). Imagine is the "National Anthem" for atheists and agnostics. It is the saddest song I've ever heard. And philosophically it is cotton candy. There is nothing deep about it except the despair of those who embrace it. For those who call it fun, it's like saying anthrax or herpes or HIV, or paranoid schizophrenia is fun. OF course, this song was written by the same intellect that wrote "Why Don't We Do It in the Road". All I can say is: DANG!
Next on to the veracity of the Bible. The Bible has NEVER been redacted, edited or changed except for the academic editing done via the various translations. But, for example, the New American Standard Bible (maybe the most accurate although there is debate) is 99.9% faithful to the original manuscripts. People lie to young people about the Bible being changed. The Dead Sea scrolls were written around 100 BC. They include the earliest copies of parts of the Old Testament. They were discovered in the mid-20th Century, the most important archaeological find of the century. They demonstrated that our current translations of certain books (Isaiah and some of the Psalms, and others) are EXACTLY the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls. So if they haven't been changed since 100 BC, then when did it happen?
The changes you refer to are usually claimed to be at the time of the Council of Nicea around 425 AD. With the Scrolls, the OT was obviously not changed. But what about the New Testament. Our earliest copies of the books of the New Testament come from the book of John. John is thought to have written his Gospel around 90 AD, the latest Gospel. There is a part of a parchment dated 110 AD that is in our possession. It does not disagree in the least with our current translations. There are literally thousands of manuscript copies of ALL THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS that date prior to 425 AD. Those manuscripts are the versions all Bibles are based upon.
It is a lie that the Bible has been tampered with. It is a lie that most people will not check; they just hear it and want to believe it.
Regarding Christianity not working for you. Of course not. Christianity is not about you. It is about God. The Good News is God loves you and wants you to know Him and love Him. He will speak to you. I've heard God's voice many times. Do you want to? Just open up your Bible anywhere, and read it out loud. That is God's voice.
The question is not do you hear Him, it is do you understand Him? I didn't when I was lost. I actually tried to read the Bible for several years; I never understood a word of it. But when I stopped rejecting God, He revealed Himself to me and I began to hear His voice and understand what He was saying. But it is only by His regeneration of your dead spirit, which you were born with (it died with Adam) that you can really know Him. When you know Him you learn that your life is about bringing Him glory by being the best you can be for Him. And when you live that way (not perfectly in this life, but an approximation, given we do not lose our sin nature, we just live above it), we have the most joyous, peaceful, and happy life possible. People cannot know the joy of such a life until they have allowed God to be the King of their hearts and life.
It is fine for you to reject God. Easiest thing in the world to do. Most of the world does it. And most of the world then embraces the god that works for them. The favorite one is the one they see in the mirror, made in their own image.
I cannot temper my "good insights" without my faith (I'm not religious; I have been made aware of the realities of life by the Author of life). Without my faith my good insights don't make any sense. If there is no God, go out and get laid. Have your neigbors daughter, or even his wife; after all, it's all about me. Have some fun. Drink up. Abort unwanted children; after all, it's all about ME, not anyone else. That's the real story of John Lennon's disgusting "song". "Imagine it's all about me and what I want it to be...no one will be watching us, why don't we do it in the road???"
I'm sorry you haven't found God. But He knows exactly where you are, and you cannot escape Him. You will eventually have to face Him, one way or another. The good news is, you can walk a million steps or miles away from Him, but He is only one step back. He conscripts no one. You must just accept Him on His terms; His yoke is easy and His burden is light.
It's not that hard. Do you believe in sin? Can you honestly look yourself in the eye (in that mirror where you see god) and say "Not me, I've never sinned". If so, you may never find Him. It is that kind of pride that separates people from God permanently. But if you can acknowledge that you have sinned (and everyone has), then realize sin's consequence is death. That means us all. What keeps us from death? Only the work of Jesus on the cross; the perfect atonement for God's original command (if you sin you will surely die). Only Jesus in all of human history can pay that death price for sinful people; because He is God incarnate Who came to earth for that very purpose; to be our Savior. Because God so loved THE WORLD that He sent His one and only son so that none should perish but have everlasting life. But people who reject Him do perish, because they were already spiritually dead by birth (as sons of Adam).
You only need a Savior if you need to be saved from something. We need to be saved from eternal death because of our sins; eternal death is separation from God for eternity, and THAT is the definition of hell (separation from God). Hell is where God is not. God is everywhere in His creation; it is His creation. He will not allow sinful people into His eternal presence; where He is everything is perfect. So you can keep on sinning without being "fixed" and wind up in eternity without Him. Then you can sing Imagine for eternity and see the lie in it.
But you can choose to listen to His call to all people: "TODAY, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart against His call". If you will just open your heart, He will come into your life forever and feed you, give you spiritual life for eternity (beginning in this life, not when you die).
I guess that's all for now. Peace.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
There is no original documents that exist. The manuscripts of the New Testament which you refer are self-claimed copies a couple hundred years after the birth of Christ at best. There is no originals, only copies, for the Old Testament as well. There is no way to determine how close to the original they are and there is plenty of evidence of scribes editing scriptures to better fit their particular approach towards Judaism better as well.
You are incorrect with your 99.99% accuracy. Look up the facts outside of the comfort zone of Christian apologist writings. I could do it for you, but I want you to take some initiative and am curious if you can do honest investigation.
Another fact you haven't even considered is that the bible you hold is a recent invention by men who weren't prophets or even the pope. A council was held by Emperor Constantine to form the collection from existing gospels that would be the approved scripture. There were hundreds of different sects in Christianity back then and many held to gospels that didn't make the 'cut' into the Bible.
The Gnostic Gospels is what they are referred to now, but the manuscripts they are based off are just as old as the earliest copies we have for the New Testament.
You have also hurt the one person posting here who was on your side but trying to help you communicate your point more effectively. You are so narrow-minded that you couldn't even see this. Why he is 'out' and why I soon will be 'out' as well is that you have consistently demonstrated an inability for genuine discourse and exchange of ideas.
If you really wrote this blog to persuade young people to avoid premarital sex, you would be interested in how to do this better. You aren't. You are more interested in preaching and condemning. Attempting to persuade people by making them feel guilty and worse is one of the many things that turn me off about organized religion.
It was always curious to me that the Gospel, something that is supposed to bring happiness, but is preached so often by people using guilt, fear, shame, and hate.
People focus on everything else besides what Jesus said was the greatest commandments to love God, the second greatest, he says is like to the first greatest, and to love others.
I only know a few Christians who live life according to Jesus' greatest teachings. The rest focus on shame, condemnation, guilt, fear, and churn out hate instead from Jesus' teachings.
But, I am also 'out' now.
Perhaps you will consider my words with humility. Perhaps not. You will prove it soon enough.
Citizen Press Revolution
I never said we had original text of OT or NT. In fact, the most recent copies of the OT are the Dead Sea Scrolls @ 100BC. But as I said (you're incorrect statements are causing me to repeat myself when I said correctly the first time), there are about 25,000 copies of the original texts of all the NT books, all in near UNIFORM agreement with each other, ALL prior to 425AD. I've probably studied more apologetics of all stripes in the last 6 months than any other poster on this site in their life; I have a library of apologetics books dating back to the 1950s. But the gold standard of today is William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith". Craig has debated some of the most respected atheist / professors in public forums and absolutely devastated them on the issues of the historicity of the Bible and the relative philosophical merits of theism versus atheism. Do a search on Amazon.com to easily find the information.
I fear you're just a bomb thrower. You've made erroneous statements throughout your posts. And again, I can make no one feel guilty; conviction comes to all people from God alone. Some just feel guilty and go one the same path, like Judas, and we know where he wound up. Others, like Peter, are convicted of their mistakes, ask God's forgiveness, and receive it. God is the judge of those who do not repent, but to those that do He gives mercy and grace beyond imagination.
You're not well educated on the Gnostics, either. You've just watched a few cable channel docu-dramas on "The DaVinci Code", which is just a fiction novel, with little real history. Dan Brown lied extensively in his forward saying his stuff was true. Yes, there were gnostic writings that were found that were written between 250 and 400 AD. Just nonsense writings from non-Christians. The church was already well established and all it's canon of Scripture was totally established hundreds of years prior to the Council of Nicea. That conclave just made it official as the church became more formalized, given it was already (in 400 years) the dominant "religion" of the civilized world.
Here is the bottom line to our disagreement (other than your misrepresentation of the facts, which I find weak debate form). The bottom line is:
1. Christianity is only real if Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus rose from the dead, then He is God, the Bible is all true and you are incorrect on everything you have said.
2. If Christianity in not real, but a philosophy like the other religions, then it is indeed a waste of time, and you are somewhat correct in your feelings.
3. But if Christianity is not real, then there is no revealed God we can know and it is therefore possible that the universe was created out of sheer nothingness, because it's here and if God didn't do it, then it's a greater miracle and more improbable than God.
4. Bottom line is for 4000 plus years there have been "Christians". All the believers of the Old Testament looked forward to the advent of Christ. Since His coming and resurrection, all believers look back to His historical coming. The resurrection is the center of history. For 4000 years, billions of people have believed and been willing to die for their faith. Since the resurrection, Christians have civilized the world in the knowledge that He is real. We know He is real because His indwelling Spirit is a tangible experience. He lives in us and makes Himself known to us. That is why people will suffer and die for Him. That's why I'm sitting up at this late hour writing to you and those that might be following this thread. Because we are commanded to go and make disciples of all people so that none will be condemned but all come to life. Before I was "saved", I thought it was nonsense. I didn't set out to get saved the day it happened. But I was the one that finally had the open mind (yours is still slammed shut) and heard what a person said that made sense. And things changed. I didn't change myself, but He changed me. My changed life has caused others around me, who knew the old me and the new me, to also come to Christ. Not because of "religion", but because it was obvious to them that I had not gone crazy but gone sane. I had not become a "religious" nut but a better man. And it was obvious that I knew the reality of God because I knew Him personally, like my Best Friend. And so my friends opened their hearts and minds, not to me but to God Who had been calling them all along. He's been calling you and revealing Himself to you, too. But you do not want to hear Him. So it goes.
5. That was my bottom line. Your bottom line is that you don't believe. The Bible says people who don't believe suffer "a powerful delusion so they will believe the lie because they hate the truth". That message is in the OT and the NT. It is the mark of lost people. They CANNOT understand the Bible because it can only be understood by being taught by the Holy Spirit when He indwells a person. Then, as Jesus says in John 16 "He will teach you all things".
Bottom line. Believers are taught by God the Holy Spirit living in them. We are taught by the Bible. Nonbelievers can read the Bible but they will always misunderstand it's meaning because the Bible is a spiritual book, and people who are dead spiritually cannot understand spiritual things. Again, that is Jesus and Paul talking, not me.
And of course, as I've said before, my signature below is one of the famous quotes that makes my point...
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
Since this is your thread and you brought it up .... You VASTLY overstate your case.
munc==
I never said we had original text of OT or NT. In fact, the most recent copies of the OT are the Dead Sea Scrolls @ 100BC.
DB=
Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the EARLIEST manuscripts of books of the Hebrew Bible (aka by Christians as the Old Testament). The most recent would be the ones that are right now coming off the printing presses. But I suspect you know that and you simply misspoke. No problem there.
However, there is no complete copy of the Hebrew Bible there. While there are fragments from all books of the Hebrew Bible (except interestingly enough ESTHER) the only books I can remember that are reasonably complete are Isaiah and Daniel (but I may be wrong here).
There are complete copies and fragments of many of the apocryphal and deutero-canonical books that you dismiss, such as ENOCH, BOOK OF NOAH, WISDOM OF SIRACH, TOBIT, and JUDITH among others.
munc==
But as I said (you're incorrect statements are causing me to repeat myself when I said correctly the first time), there are about 25,000 copies of the original texts of all the NT books, all in near UNIFORM agreement with each other, ALL prior to 425AD.
DB=
Nope. There is not a single copy that can be attributed as a copy of an original text. They are all thought to be copies of copies.
There are only 2 reasonably complete copies of the entire bible dated that early, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus contains within it all the books of the apocrypha except the MACCABEES and THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH. The NT part does not contain 1 or 2 TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, or REVELATION.
Codex Sinaiticus contains in addition to the normal canonical books THE SHEPARD OF HERMAS and THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
The rest of the manuscripts dated prior to 425 CE contain only a few books at best. However, most are fragments and quite small ones at that. For example: That "part of a parchment" of the Gospel of John you refer to above is about the size of 3 or 4 postage stamps. Furthermore, just for accuracy it is dated to 125 CE not 110. see: http://www.worldinvisible.com/apologet/jnfrag.htm.
Of the "25,000 copies of the original text of all NT books" we supposedly have dated before 425 CE, other than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus scholars only seem to know of 7. They are referenced as follows:
P66 = written circa 200 CE is a copy of the Gospel of John
P46 = written circa 200 CE contains Romans - Hebrews
P45 = written circa 250 CE contains the Gospels and Acts
P4 = written circa 250 CE is a copy of Luke
P75 = written circa 250 CE contains Luke and John
P47 = written circa 250 CE is a copy of Revelation
P72 = written circa 300 CE contains James - Jude
I'm sure scholars would very much appreciate your telling them where the other 24,993 are.
munc==
I've probably studied more apologetics of all stripes in the last 6 months than any other poster on this site in their life; I have a library of apologetics books dating back to the 1950s. But the gold standard of today is William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith". Craig has debated some of the most respected atheist / professors in public forums and absolutely devastated them on the issues of the historicity of the Bible and the relative philosophical merits of theism versus atheism. Do a search on Amazon.com to easily find the information.
DB=
Really? You are that learned. You hide it well sometimes. Instead of doing an Amazon search I think I let you educate me. Do you mind if I call you "Prof" short for Professor?
Prof==
I fear you're just a bomb thrower. You've made erroneous statements throughout your posts. And again, I can make no one feel guilty; conviction comes to all people from God alone. Some just feel guilty and go one the same path, like Judas, and we know where he wound up. Others, like Peter, are convicted of their mistakes, ask God's forgiveness, and receive it. God is the judge of those who do not repent, but to those that do He gives mercy and grace beyond imagination.
DB=
I suppose that one could argue that accusing people of unpleasant acts could make them feel guilty. I can't help but notice that you accuse Romognino of being a "bomb thrower", making "erroneous statements", and implying that he is taking the same path as Judas. I think you are selling yourself short. Keep trying like that and I am sure you make someone feel guilty.
Prof==
You're not well educated on the Gnostics, either. You've just watched a few cable channel docu-dramas on "The DaVinci Code", which is just a fiction novel, with little real history. Dan Brown lied extensively in his forward saying his stuff was true. Yes, there were gnostic writings that were found that were written between 250 and 400 AD. Just nonsense writings from non-Christians. The church was already well established and all it's canon of Scripture was totally established hundreds of years prior to the Council of Nicea. That conclave just made it official as the church became more formalized, given it was already (in 400 years) the dominant "religion" of the civilized world.
DB=
Again you misrepresent things here. Most people consider the GOSPEL OF THOMAS to be Gnostic. Bart Erhman is the scholar that dates it as being the most recent of anyone I know. His date is 140 CE. John Domminic Crossan is the scholar that dates it as being the oldest of anyone I know. His date is 45 CE. If Crossan is right then that makes THOMAS an earlier and therefore, perhaps a more reliable source into the life of Jesus than any of the Gospels.
The Gnostics were among numerous groups with a WIDE variety of beliefs that believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ as they knew them. Adherents to Gnosticism were numerous as were Marcionites, Docetists, Montanists, Proto-Orthodox and others who believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ as they knew them. It seems to be a matter of luck that the Proto-Orthodox movement eventually won out.
There is no "the" canon. There are several canons. The Council of Nicea came to an agreement on one of them but not all Christians adhere to that canon. In fact, the LARGEST GROUP, the Roman Catholics, don't. There is also an Eastern Orthodox canon, a Slavic canon, and I don't know how many others. In other words, there is still a great deal of diversity in Christian opinion.
Finally, Christianity is the dominant religion in the world ... how so? Because of the number of people who believe it? If that is the case then Islam is #2 and RAPIDLY overtaking Christianity in the number of practitioners. It has been projected that within 25 years Muslims will outnumber Christians. If this is correct then what are you going to do when Christianity is no longer dominant?
Prof==
Bottom line is for 4000 plus years there have been "Christians". ...
DB=
Er ... 4000?? So then you are claiming that all pre-Christian Jews were actually Christians?
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
There are 25,000 manuscript bits, pieces, parts of chapters, entire chapters, entire books and even complete, intact works. But lots and lots of different sources of the same texts, totaling 25,000 individual documents. They are all in sync with each other; ZERO discrepancies that impact doctrine or historical accuracy; just minor punctuation and spelling differences that are anecdotal and obvious scribe errors.
There is NO QUESTION among real Biblical scholars that the text of our Bible is essentially the same as the original text.
You are influenced by ultra-liberal academics who have a supernatural bias. Such "scholars" believe that the supernatural is impossible, and therefore the text of Scripture had to be manipulated. Until recently, guys like Crossan (to the left of most ultra-liberals) were assigning 2nd century dates for the Gospels. But 20th century archaeological findings have blown that nonsense out of the water. Liberal objections to the supernatural (i.e. "God exists") have taken hit after hit in the 20th and continue in the 21st century.
However, there is ZERO evidence for late dating the Gospels and certainly not Paul, who wrote all of his works prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There is still plenty of old "late date" liberal nonsense in print, but even Crossan (who I heard say Paul wrote in the 80's & 90's 25 years ago) cannot argue with what the rocks of Palestine have yielded. All the evidence is for a canon of Scripture that is identical to what the early church (first century) used. The ultra-liberal viewpoint is bankrupt; also known as DISPROVEN.
One last point. Absolutely all Jewish believers prior to Christ were Christians. They were looking forward to the Messiah (Christ)coming. Unfortunately, after He (Jesus, the Jew Who is the Messiah) came He was not recognized by certain sects of the Jews. Ultimately the Jews that believed (there were hundreds of thousands) continued with the true faith while the apostates reorganized outside Palestine (in Rome by the permission of the Roman Emperor) and that is the Jewish religion that remains today. We still have the same OT texts, and we all worship the One God YHWH, but their early leaders missed the coming of Messiah (the same one's that ordered Jesus' death; the Sanhedrin); they miss Jesus Who is YHWH incarnate. But since that time, a remnant of Jews (who are a race, not a religion), have accepted Jesus as Messiah.
Certain notable OT Biblical Christians (followers of Messiah) are Adam, Eve, Able, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Japheth, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Benjamin, Moses, Joshuah, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshak and Abednego and all the Minor Prophets. That's the short list of exemplars, and I probably missed a few. In the NT, at Jesus' Transfiguration, He met with Elijah and Moses on the mountain top with 3 of His disciples. Jesus said elsewhere in the Gospels tht Moses "looked forward to His coming and rejoiced at the thought". Sounds like a Christian to me.
By the way, DB, that's not my claim. Just read the Bible; it's all right there in the OT and NT.
On an aside, liberal education is not for believing; it's for learning how to tell the difference between poop and payola (in case you haven't figured it out yet, liberalism is the poop). Believe that stuff and you'll only wind up in academia and won't be fit to work in the real world, because it is undocumented psychobabble. I take that back, it is documented, but it's just documented by the revisionists (like the wacko Gnostics of old, or Crossan).
Wish I had time to go point by point, but I've got to take the fam out to the Japanese Steak House so I can get shrimp tails thrown at me at great expense. yahoo.
No offense intended; just a blast of reality.
Have a good week-end; I'll get back when I know I won't get yelled at by my family for "typing to people I don't know" instead of hanging out with them. I keep telling them it is ministry. They assure me it's not their particular calling.
All kidding aside, best wishes and no offense intended personally.
David
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
Early New Testament Manuscripts
Thanks for the response Professor Dave, but I think you have a few things wrong yourself
Prof==
There are 25,000 manuscript bits, pieces, parts of chapters, entire chapters, entire books and even complete, intact works. But lots and lots of different sources of the same texts, totaling 25,000 individual documents. They are all in sync with each other; ZERO discrepancies that impact doctrine or historical accuracy; just minor punctuation and spelling differences that are anecdotal and obvious scribe errors.
DB=
While it is true we have a lot of manuscripts of New Testament documents, even including the scraps of papyrus, we do not have anywhere near to 25,000 DATED BEFORE 425 CE. Here is every one (even the fragment dated before 425 CE.
1. Papyrus 52 = ~125 to 150 CE (This is the piece of the Gospel of John)
2. Papyrus 32 = ~200
3. Papyrus 64; Papyrus 67; Papyrus 4 = ~ 200 CE (These are thought to be part of the same codex)
4. Papyrus 66 = Late 2nd Century
5. Papyrus 90 = Late 2nd Century
6. Papyrus 98 = Late 2nd Century
7. Papyrus 104 = Late 2nd Century
8. Papyrus 23 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
9. Papyrus 38 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
10. Papyrus 45 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
11. Papyrus 46 = ~ 200 CE
12. Papyrus 75 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
13. Papyrus 77 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
14. Papyrus 103 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
15. Aland # 0189 = Late 2nd or early 3rd Century
16. Papyrus 1 = 3rd Century
17. Papyrus 5 = Early 3rd Century
18. Papyrus 9 = 3rd Century
19. Papyrus 12 = Late 3rd Century
20. Papyrus 15 = 3rd Century
21. Papyrus 20 = 3rd Century
22. Papyrus 22 = 3rd Century
23. Papyrus 27 = 3rd Century
24. Papyrus 28 = Late 3rd Century
25. Papyrus 29 = 3rd Century
26. Papyrus 30 = 3rd Century
27. Papyrus 37 = 3rd Century
28. Papyrus 39 = 3rd Century
29. Papyrus 40 = 3rd Century
30. Papyrus 47 = 3rd Century
31. Papyrus 48 = Early to mid 3rd Century
32. Papyrus 49 = 3rd Century
33. Papyrus 53 = 3rd Century
34. Papyrus 65 = 3rd Century
35. Papyrus 69 = 3rd Century
36. Papyrus 80 = 3rd Century
37. Papyrus 87 = 3rd Century
38. Papyrus 91 = 3rd Century
39. Papyrus 95 = 3rd Century
40. Papyrus 101 = 3rd Century
41. Papyrus 106 = 3rd Century
42. Papyrus 107 = 3rd Century
43. Papyrus 108 = 3rd Century
44. Papyrus 109 = 3rd Century
45. Papyrus 111 = 3rd Century
46. Papyrus 113 = 3rd Century
47. Papyrus 114 = 3rd Century
48. Papyrus 118 = 3rd Century
49. Papyrus 13 = 3rd or 4th Century
50. Papyrus 16 = 3rd or 4th Century
51. Papyrus 17 = Late 3rd or Early 4th Century
52. Papyrus 18 = 3rd or 4th Century
53. Papyrus 24 = Late 3rd or Early 4th Century
54. Papyrus 70 = 3rd or 4th Century
55. Papyrus 72 = 3rd or 4th Century
56. Papyrus 78 = 3rd or 4th Century
57. Papyrus 86 = ~300 CE
58. Papyrus 92 = 3rd or 4th Century
59. Papyrus 100 = 3rd or 4th Century
60. Papyrus 102 = 3rd or Early 4th Century
61. Papyrus 115 = 3rd or 4th Century
62. Aland # 0162 = ~300 CE
63. Aland # 0171 = ~300 CE
64. Aland # 0220 = ~300 CE
65. Aland # 0232 = ~300 CE
66. Codex Sinaiticus = 4th Century
67. Codex Vaticanus = 4th Century
Most of those are small fragments. Many were found in a garbage dump in Oxyrhyncus, Egypt. Only 9 of them have enough text to lead credence to your claim of biblical consistency. That is 24,933 less than you claim.
There are a lot of NT manuscripts AFTER this time. Depending upon what cut-off period you want you can come up with as many manuscripts as you want. There are somewhat over 5,000 Greek manuscripts that MAY be datable as being before the year 1000.
Prof==
There is NO QUESTION among real Biblical scholars that the text of our Bible is essentially the same as the original text
DB=
What does “essentially the same” really mean? For the most part I think the bible translations we use relatively accurately express what was in the original texts. But there are some significant differences as well. For instance, the pericope in John about Jesus saying to the crowd wanting to stone the adultress that he is without sin should cast the first stone is not in any of the earliest manuscripts above that should have it.
Prof==
You are influenced by ultra-liberal academics who have a supernatural bias. Such "scholars" believe that the supernatural is impossible, and therefore the text of Scripture had to be manipulated. Until recently, guys like Crossan (to the left of most ultra-liberals) were assigning 2nd century dates for the Gospels. But 20th century archaeological findings have blown that nonsense out of the water. Liberal objections to the supernatural (i.e. "God exists") have taken hit after hit in the 20th and continue in the 21st century.
DB=
I am influenced by good scholarship. You are influenced by what you want to hear. Crossan has NEVER advocated a 2nd Century date for the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). John is late first century. All I said about Crossan is that he dated the Gospel of Thomas early … earlier than most. But EVERYBODY dates it earlier than 250 CE which you claimed.
Prof==
However, there is ZERO evidence for late dating the Gospels and certainly not Paul, who wrote all of his works prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There is still plenty of old "late date" liberal nonsense in print, but even Crossan (who I heard say Paul wrote in the 80's & 90's 25 years ago) cannot argue with what the rocks of Palestine have yielded. All the evidence is for a canon of Scripture that is identical to what the early church (first century) used. The ultra-liberal viewpoint is bankrupt; also known as DISPROVEN.
DB=
Neither Crossan nor anyone I know have EVER dated the TRUE Pauline epistles that late. However, only 7 of the Pauline epistles (Romans, Phillipians, Galations, Philemon, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, and 1st Thessalonians) were actually written by Paul. The rest were forgeries and were written much later than those.
Prof==
One last point. Absolutely all Jewish believers prior to Christ were Christians. They were looking forward to the Messiah (Christ)coming. Unfortunately, after He (Jesus, the Jew Who is the Messiah) came He was not recognized by certain sects of the Jews. Ultimately the Jews that believed (there were hundreds of thousands) continued with the true faith while the apostates reorganized outside Palestine (in Rome by the permission of the Roman Emperor) and that is the Jewish religion that remains today. We still have the same OT texts, and we all worship the One God YHWH, but their early leaders missed the coming of Messiah (the same one's that ordered Jesus' death; the Sanhedrin); they miss Jesus Who is YHWH incarnate. But since that time, a remnant of Jews (who are a race, not a religion), have accepted Jesus as Messiah.
DB=
None were looking for Jesus. Very few Jews in Jesus’ time believed he was the Messiah as well. Deutero-Isaiah of the Old Testament refers to Cyrus, the Persian King as the Messiah and is the only person directly called that. Simon Bar Kochbah circa 135 CE is the only person I know who got recognition as the Messiah by a member of the Sanhedrin who were the leaders of the Jews. Quite a few Hasidic Jews will be very surprised to hear that they don’t have a religion. No pre-Jesus Jew ever referred to himself as a Christian. No pre-Jesus Jew ever thought of Jesus as his personal savior. No pre-Jesus Jew ever followed the teachings of Christ because Christ hadn’t taught anything yet. I think it is pretty ludicrous to call anybody a Christian who never even heard of Jesus Christ.
Prof==
Certain notable OT Biblical Christians (followers of Messiah) are Adam, Eve, Able, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Japheth, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Benjamin, Moses, Joshuah, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshak and Abednego and all the Minor Prophets. That's the short list of exemplars, and I probably missed a few. In the NT, at Jesus' Transfiguration, He met with Elijah and Moses on the mountain top with 3 of His disciples. Jesus said elsewhere in the Gospels tht Moses "looked forward to His coming and rejoiced at the thought". Sounds like a Christian to me.
DB=
There was no Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem or Japheth as recognizable historical figures. The historicity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Benjamin, Moses, and Joshua is almost certainly false. Besides Japheth was supposedly the progenitor of the Pagan Greeks and other Europeans. David and Solomon were historical. Elijah and Elisha less likely. Isaiah was historical. There are problems with the historicity of Ezekiel. Jeremiah was historical. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshak, and Abednego were made up. The minor prophets were historical. None of them considered themselves Christians. I don’t place much faith in the story of the transfiguration of Jesus.
Prof==
By the way, DB, that's not my claim. Just read the Bible; it's all right there in the OT and NT.
DB=
I’ve read the bible. Several different translations in fact. I have also gone out of my way to learn the history of the time and what both critical and Evangelical scholars have to say about it. And, by the way, most do not agree with you.
Regards,
Darwin’s Beagle
I don't have enough background to argue with you, so I'm not going to try. Nice argument. I just wanted to add something one of my friends told me. Back in Jesus' time, there were countless people (Jews) proclaiming the end of the world. The rest just aren't remembered now because they didn't have good publicity like Jesus did (in Paul... or maybe Peter... or both... I can't remember what he said). Now, this was taught in a Jewish history class, so it's most probably biased, but it's something to think about anyway.
~C
Visit my blog.
There was no shortage of people who have been thought of as a messiah by some of their followers. Besides Cyrus (whose God was Baal) and Simon Bar Kochbah I mentioned above, one could included Josiah, several members of the Hasmodean family during the Maccabean revolt of the 2nd century BCE, Appolonius of Tyrana, and even recent people like Joseph Smith (of Mormon fame), the Rev. Sun Yun Moon, Jim Jones, and David Koresh.
The question that interests me is why did the story of Jesus succeed and even better stories (like that of Appolonius of Tyrana) fail? I don't have a good answer there. But then again I don't have a good answer for why Mohammed's story succeeded either. Perhaps it was just luck of the draw.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
and you are probably correct on that point. I do this blogging "off the cuff". I don't sit around with all my source materials ready to cut and paste; too time consuming and I'm a busy business and family man. I've been reading and studying non-stop since I finished graduate school in 1977. As I've mentioned, since then I've probably read more books per year than the average college student does (I read for the joy of learning versus most students, but certainly not all, who read to get a degree). The mistake I made was typical of my approach. I've read a lot and know my material, but I missed a small detail.
The 25,000 ancient manuscript portions are "ancient" manuscripts. My mistake was in saying they were pre-Nicea. But they are certainly pre-Gutenberg. But the point is they (along with Dead Sea Scrolls) demonstrate the veracity of Biblical text. Your 67 pre-Nicene manuscripts line up perfectly with the text we read today.
You believe in Crossan. Crossan is an atheist (to be fair he may be an agnostic). He does not believe in the supernatural (some "priest"). He is biased beyond belief, and his scholarship is colored by his a priori commitment to his ideology ("the supernatural does not exist"). Crossan rejects some of Paul's writings because Crossan rejects man's ability to know the future; so if any NT or OT books have clear prophesy, then they cannot be written prior to the event. I heard Crossan say this on an NPR radio interview last year. I have not studied the texts he rejects from that perspective (although I have taught Ephesians for years; to say Paul didn't write it is total ignorance of Paul, his missions work and travels, his calling by Christ and the doctrine he was commissioned by Him to teach). Hardly any Biblical scholars reject Paul's authorship of the other books you missed (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon). The authorship of Hebrews is unknown; almost all scholars agree on that uncertainty. Many (including me, not that I am a "scholar"), believe Hebrews is a collaboration between Paul and Barnabus. It is likely that Barnabus was the scribe (even though he was a powerful believer in the Lord and Paul's traveling companion) and Paul was his prime source of doctrine. Clearly (in Acts 15 I think, I'm running out of time) Paul and Barnabus were commissioned by James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem to deal with the issue of the "Judiazers" (sic). Given the commission, the book of Hebrews would be the perfect apologetic to such a group. The tone and style of Hebrews is not Paul's, but certainly most of the doctrine is his and the genius insights can only be by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through one or more powerful intellects.
Crossan's academic counterpart, William Lane Craig, is a better, more accomplished and unbiased scholar. His book "Reasonable Faith", is the gold standard for contemporary Christian apologetics. It's inexpensive and available on Amazon; buy it and read it; you seem to be a fine student. You seem to be a person who really wants to learn. With a moniker like "Darwin's Beagle", it sounds like you are poured in concrete on your beliefs, which is not a good thing. But an open mind is always able to learn the truth. Atheism and naturalism are false, unprovable metaphysical constructs. Lane proves that and demonstrates that theism in general and Christianity in particular are the best and only rational options for origins of existence and living a sane and happy life.
I've been working on a new project lately and haven't had time to respond before now. Also had to go to Mexico and catch a bunch of sailfish. Never fear, we released all of them healthy and well. We use soft leaders and heavy enough equipment to get them to the boat after one good run; we don't wear them out on light tackle, which can exhaust and kill some fish. I'm not at all adverse to killing fish to eat, but sailfish are so much fun to catch that everyone releases them. Their numbers (along with most other billfish other than swords, which are so good to eat that they can be overfished) are strong.
I realize I quote my sources and you quote yours and they are totally at odds with one another. It is because of the above cited "supernatural bias". That bias is the foundation for Darwinism, atheism, socialism and all the other intolerant "-isms" the world suffers under. You may say that the world suffers under religion as well, and that would be correct about all false religion and even true religion when it is used by fallen men for their own personal gain versus God's glory.
My point is this: you can never know the truth of what you believe; you can only become more and more indoctrinated so as to become dogmatic (pun intended, Beagle). On the other hand, the Bible teaches (see 1 John) that Christians KNOW the fact of God's existence because the Holy Spirit, Who indwells the spirit of the believer, makes His existence known to us in a tangible, certain and undeniable way. I know it is true because He has revealed Himself to me for many years. You can say it is a delusion. But the Bible says it, I knew it before I ever learned those Bible texts, and literally billions of Christians have known it for 4000 or more years. Remember that all the "believing" Jews of the OT were Christians; looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, Christ. The Jews that practice the form of Judaism established after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD are not Christians because they reject Jesus as Christ. The orthodox still look forward to Messiah, and a remnant will eventually believe in Him when He returns; also many come to Him every day in present time.
So my point is, I know what I know by the revelation of God of Himself to me. I know the reality of Him far better than I know the reality of anything else. God is real. Jesus is real. But He is a "perfect Gentleman", as a believer said the other day. He forces Himself on no one. Faith is not an intellectual exercise, although the intellectual side is fun and fascinating. The Christian life is not about being healthy, wealthy and wise, even though God does bless some of us with those things for "a season". But everything in life is about Him, not us.
It seems to me that a smart young man like yourself would want to know if there really is a God. You cannot learn God's reality by reading people who have already made up their minds that God doesn't exist. All atheism (and most agnosticism) are founded on the emotional desire of the individual to not have to be subordinate to anyone, especially a God Who is a killjoy and requires worship and obedience. Of course, God is none of those things. But if the fun in life is drugs, sex, rock & roll, or even just "I do my thing, you do your thing, I am not in this world to live up to your expectations...", then God will be someOne to hate and dispute His existence. "Imagine" will be your hymn to yourself and having it all your way (I wonder if John Lennon imagined he would be murdered pointlessly by a lunatic? "Imagine" that).
Only in God is there sanity. Only in His will is there true love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (even Crossan believes Paul wrote that; Galatians 5:22). Why would millions believe in Him while the few struggle to prove the impossible: that the universe popped into existence out of pure nothingness? Remember that so-called "vacuum fluctuations" just push back the "popping into existence" one step. Eventually "something" came into existence by way of pure nothing. And to believe that "something" (material) could exist for eternity is a far greater and more impossible leap than believing the possibility of an all-powerful eternal and immortal Spirit (God) who is not tangible in any material sense.
This thread just seems to keep on going; people keep reading, so that's a good thing. I hope you are doing well in 2007 (the year of our Lord!). You're a smart kid, Beagle. Just don't close your mind and heart to sanity. It's worth the effort; Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart.
David
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
I will state on first hand I am a Christian, and have read into all these issues from the blog topic. I cannot directly quote, but everything he says about God and marriage is true.
I am thankful that somone out there has enough guts to put themselves on the line for what they believe. Then to take so much ridicule with a lot of grace and understanding.
But on to the issue. I believe everything you said is correct. God is great, and full of forgiving grace, but he sets down firm guidlines on what should and should not happen. Hence the ten commandments. Then there is all the scripture that supports and calrifies the ideas and rules put forth by the ten commandments. I love it that you argue theology as well as fact. People tend to be to ready to scorn others for their religious beliefs, but they are simply opinions. As are most of the other blogs on this website, they are nothing but opinions.
God tells us that sex is to be reserved for marriage. You cannot argue the fact that premaritial sex does not give you a bad reputation, it does. Anyway, you can see it all around, espicailly for me, that those who are pure before marriage, their marriage survives longer, normally until death itself. Thus fulfilling the "til death" part of a marriage vow.
Anyways, what is the point of sex before marriage. It just means that you will compare it with all the other people you had sex with. If you cannot find something better to do with your time, rahter than having sex, you need to relook you priorities. Be creative, build a relationship, not an infatuation.
(and the point of the Apostle Paul) regarding the message of the cross being foolishness to those who are perishing, but being the power of God to us who are being saved. All believers who have been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit through the finished work of Jesus have a God perspective because God is living in us. So the message of the cross is OBVIOUS REALITY to believers. That message is the Gospel; that God came to earth as as a baby, grew into a man, lived a perfect life and died to pay the price for all the sin for all mankind. Those who do not understand don't really believe in sin nor are they concerned that it is degrading their hearts and their lives. If you live in a pig pen and being a pig is all you know, you don't realize that you're doing anything abnormal.
But we were made in God's image, and once filled with His Spirit we can live above the sin and nastiness of the pig pen that yields divorce, abortion, drug addiction, abused and neurotic kids. Unfortunately, some of the victims of the Sexual Revolution are some of the students with posts hostile to the message of sanity and truth. And unfortunately, they can't see the truth because from the pig pen, all they can see are pigs and mud.
Now that is analogy. I'm not saying they are really pigs, they're just lost people who God loves and wants to save. But He cannot save people who will not come to Him, even though He is humble and gentle in spirit.
I'm not a student, as I suppose you know from reading my post. I'm an adult who has learned from the nonsense of my lost early life. I carry many scars from my depravity, and so do a number of other people. But HE has forgiven me, I believe I am at peace with all I have injured (that I can find to make peace with; the bad thing is we injure people we'll never see again; it makes me sick to remember some of those:-((
But God's mercy is greater than our sin. He is always good, even when we are rotten. God bless you, Stinko. I love to hear from believers who are your age. God will bless you with a godly wife in His timing. I have prayed He will send her to you and that you will both stay pure until He has blessed you in his perfect union.
David
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
Abstinence is just a figment of your imagination in a sexually blooming society. What was considered wrong before is now accepted behavior. Premarital sex is not the determining factor for divorce. You had premarital sex didn't you? You're still married to your wife who is twelve years younger than you. So, where is your divorce?? You got the milk for free, yet and still you bought the cow. That is so degrading I cannot believe you used that analogy. So, now all I or any other woman is for that matter is a set of utters??? I'm far from a feminist, but that even offends me. You helped start the era of sexual exploration, so, if you want to blame anyone for the growing levels of promiscuity, then blame yourself. You were there and you participated. You encouraged women to behave in this manner just as much as anyone else. Are you man enough to accept your responsibility in this situation?
Guess what. Let me let you in on a secert. I am a senior in high school. And guess what, I have yet to have any sex.
Also, he is attacking this on a societal and religous level. In Christianty, it is a sin to have pre-marital relations. He is also saying that you need to restrain yourself untill marriage. He unfortunately made the mistake of having premarital sex. In this blog he is trying to warn against it, and fix the problem he partial started. He is doing the responsible thing, taking responsibilty for the actions and things he created. Not blaming it on someone else, like you are.
Get some responsibilty, take responsibilty for your personal actions, rather than blaming somone else.
Also, I can name at least fifty people in my calss of 150, that are still virgins. I will never divulge their names though.
Ok...I'm glad you're a virgin. WAIT! I wish I had waited, but I thought I was doing the right thing and that I was ready. That's why after I initially lost my virginity I didn't have sex again for several years. I take full responsibility of my actions daily. He's almost two and the best thing to happen to me, even if it wasn't the way I always dreamed it would be. I never claimed to be blameless. I know I'm far from perfect, but I am responsible for more than most people could handle. I do it alone...daily. I'm proud of myself and nothing anyone can say can take that away.
Stay a virgin sweetie. It's hard but worth it.
It doesn't matter what religion you are. Pre-marital sex is not something that you want to indulge in. There's a new strain of STD that is out. It's called HPV. Read other sites to get more information about it. But it doesn't matter if you wear a condom when you're having sex. HPV can still be transmitted simply by sexual contact.
1. How is HPV transmitted?
Genital HPV infection is spread through sexual contact—primarily vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse. It is possible, though less likely, for the virus to be transmitted by sexual contact without intercourse. Rarely, a pregnant woman will pass HPV to her baby during vaginal delivery, resulting in laryngeal papillomatosis (warts on the voice box).
http://www.labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/hpv/faq.html
If that's the case, you'd probably have to wear full body condom to be safe. And actually, there is no such thing as safe sex, just safer sex. And judging by the way some guys store condoms (in their wallets), there might not even be safer sex. If you're wondering what I mean by that, then actually read the instructions for storage on the box of condoms. Personally, I am a Christian, and just looking at the history of sex in the last 50 years, things have not taken a good turn. Roughly 50 years ago, the only strains of STDs that existed were all able to be cured with a shot of antibiotics (syphilis, gonorrhea). Since more and more people have engaged in pre-marital sex, a number of new STDs have emerged that have no cure (HIV, AIDS, Herpes, etc.). I think God is trying to tell us something.
HPV is not new. It's just becoming more talked about. Especially since it causes certain types of cervical cancer.
I would still have to say it's newer than STDs such as syphilis. But thank you for making your point.
I'm an eighteen year old born-again Christian female and I have to say, I understand what you're saying and I agree with you for the most part; I just don't think you're going about it the right way. First of all, your title is kind of hurtful, especially to kids whose parents are divorced because of the reasons your talking about and maybe even more so to the kids whose parents are divorced, but for a different reason. Also, it seems sort of like you're condescending to those who don't share your beliefs. Everyone has the right to believe in something different. That's why God gave us free will. He could have created us as mindless robots who followed Him unconditionally and without question, but without choice, there's no love...it's just force. God wants us to choose to come to Him, just like you chose to come to Him. =)
Other than that, I suppose I agree with you on mostly everything. I'd have to read your post again. Oh...and to the person above me who commented, I think you need to be careful with thinking about certain repercussions as direct punishments from God. It could be a punishment, but it also might not be...thinking of everything as a punishment from God could mess with your perception of Him as He really is...a kind and merciful God who freely forgives those who repent, but disciplines out of love...not anger.
...and I struggle with it. I write that way naturally because of my anger at the nonsense my lost generation (Baby Boomers, likely including your parents) has bequeathed to the children. As a Christian, maybe you have taken a survey on your spiritual gifts. I've done it several times over the years and one of mine (unbeknownst to me) is "prophesy". That doesn't mean I can predict the future specifically, but that I have a heart for sinners who need a strong admonition about reality and the way they live. Remember John the Baptist? He was a firebrand, not a wimp.
I would rather call a spade a spade and convict (and possibly insult) someone than pansy about with "I respect your beliefs" when the beliefs are Satanic garbage designed to lead astray not only the individual but also others that individual might influence. Many of today's generation have been indoctrinated by extreme, socialist / feminist ideology that includes silencing "paternal" morality and strength. The ultimate "Parent" (as referenced in the catch-phrase "paternal") is God Almighty, YHWH, the Great I AM, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Reality is all about His truth, yet it is His truth that is rejected and trashed by the radical feminist ideology of the public school system; the removal of prayer and Bible teaching in public schools, the tolerance of almost anything (diversity, you know) except Christian values. All of this leads to a continuation of the zeitgeist that kids are going to have sex, so we might as well teach them to do it safely. And that is a lie because as the above post points about about HPV, there is no safe sex except married sex by married partners.
You are right that it may be hurtful to kids whose parents are divorced. But I grew up on the front lines of the sexual revolution. The majority of the girls I had sex with in those days have been divorced. I know many men and women who are on their 3rd or 4th marriages. They are also mothers and fathers. So it's possible that some of their kids may be reading this thread. It's not about being ugly or hurtful; the title of this thread is just a very hard truth. According to my friends who are professional Christian counselors, the incidence of divorce among couples who marry as virgins is enormously lower than those who marry with at least one partner who is sexually experienced prior to marriage (this is not about people who have lost a spouse due to death).
The people reporting the highest levels of satisfaction in marriage, including sexual satisfaction and frequency, are those who married as virgins. This is the message we've got to get out. You want to have a great sex life? Study hard, get a good job, stay pure until marriage and find that right person God has for you, and then get married. All marriage is difficult. Mine would be impossible but by God's mercy and grace. He is actually healing mine as we speak, after 19 years. But it has been 19 years that would have resulted in divorce for the vast majority; we have only survived, again, by His divine intervention. He is always GOOD (thank you, Lord Jesus!). Divorce is the great killer of the family. Divorce begets divorce. It is a disaster of the first rank. And a good marriage blessed by God (the Lord is giving my sweet wife and me a taste of His redemptive healing after all these years) is probably the happiest state a human being can be in, believe me. It is worth fighting for. Meanwhile, the poor young lady with her 2 year old son above is living the reality of the culture the Sexual Revolution has wrought. I am proud of her too; she had her precious son and is doing the right thing for him and herself. But what a struggle she is facing. Let's keep her in our prayers; Lord, please send her a godly man to be her husband; heal her and give her baby a family that will teach him to grow into a man who will avoid the mistakes of his parents. That, by the way, is my prayer for both my kids. And God is blessing them.
Take a stand, Super. You called me on my insensitivity. How about calling others on their stupid self-and-other destructive "lifestyle choices". I am pleased you are a sister in Christ. Be a strong Christian woman. Love your neighbor enough to let them know the truth and save them from drowning in the lies of the culture. "Tolerance for diversity" is devil-speak for "tolerate them straight to hell, taking as many others with them as possible". We love our fellow sinner, but hate the enemy who has confused and deceived so many. Our job is to fight the enemy and be the Lord's instrument that some might be saved.
Peace.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The Apostle Paul
JESSAMINE Q.
Well, I am not going to answer this from a religious standpoint but from an scientific observationist view.
Since the sexual revolution:
Population has increased due to the number of single parents and people having sex outside of marriage. Before we hit the 20th century the population was still at the 1 billion mark. But when the sexual revolution came the population boomed up to an amazing 4 billion, and in an even shorter period of time 6.5 billion.
Abortion increase; obviously, more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions.
Increase in rape and decrease in sexual respect. ( I agree that sex is a beautiful thing. But I believe it should be shared between two people who are in love and yes, married. But because of this increase in sex with anyone and everyone, sex has become an array of many nasty aspects such as porn and rape. If a man or woman is forced to wait until marriage to have sex then this will prove their internal love for you and further gain their respect. But if you give it up easy like most do, then most likely your partner was in lust instead of love. By waiting your partner can gain the love for your internal qualities which creates the foundation for a loving relationship.)
Increase in Sexually transmitted diseases (Obviously if you have a one night stand with someone you don't know the risk of getting a disease goes up. But I plan on having my mate tested before we get married because you never know.)
Increase in lust, decrease in love
Increase in children without two parents.
Increase in poverty because mothers or fathers trying to raise kids on their own are most likely struggling (I would know since my mom was a single parent.)
I do not agree with the way marriage was arranged and handled in the olden days, but I also do not agree with the lack of respect towards love and marriage today. It seems as if we have went from one extreme to the other. Loveless and controlled marriages to careless mating marriages of today.
Marriage to me is the significant event in which you become one family, one person with someone who loves you for you. But if you gave it up before marriage, things could start to cool off because most likely he or she lusted for you, not really loved you.
JESSAMINE Q.
But that said I respect everyone wish to do what they want, otherwise we wouldn't have freewill. I respect other people's beliefs. If you want to have sex before marriage then that is your choice, but it is quite coincidental that all the things that God tells us to do are usually the best for us. Who would have thought premarital sex could lead to so many problems? God.
Sorry I had to bring it out form a religious viewpoint. (Only God is allowed to Judge, not us imperfect, sinful humans. I love all my neighbors just the same and what they choose to do with their lives is between God and them. I could only hope that they choose to the thing beneficial towards their overall health. I am human, but I try to never talk abusively towards my neighbor no matter how much he or she can test my nerves)
God told the writers of the Bible to stone sinners and to have slaves. Is that right? God also punished a man, by giving him dark-skinned children because he sinned. Is it wrong to be dark-skinned? Clearly everything "god" says isn't best for us. Why do we always base our arguments on a being that you have never met or spoken to. God sounds a lot like Hitler to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return--
What do you do???? You've raised them right but they still go to school everyday, watch TV and are in this world where they get influenced by who knows what and your sweet young thing is not so sweet anymore. It is not all the parents fault, notice I said not ALL. Teenagers will be teenagers and no matter what they think they know everything about everything so as a mother what do you do.. put her on the pill and give her the sex talk while crossing your fingers or just say to yourself, I have a good daughter she would never have pre-marital sex. If you think that your crazy!!! My daughter is on the pill not cuz she is having sex, that I know of, but because she might be and I don't want any mis-haps by a couple of know-everything teenagers to effect the rest of their lives.
JESSAMINE Q.
I am very happy to say that I am still a virgin. By my own choice. I guess what worked for my mother was to not push me to do certain things but to let me know the possible effects of doing those things. I had a lot of examples, my mom is a single parent and struggles night and day to take care of us. So I had good examples to follow as to why I shouldn't have pre-marital sex. My mom also instilled in me a great fear and reverence for her and for my life. I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt her, but I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt myself as well. I also know bible principles had a great influence on the choices I made in my life. I geuss I was really weird too. My mom told me I could date at 15 but I never wanted to. My mom kept me busy in music and I also started attending college at 13. So I was a pretty occupied child. I didn't have time for all that other stuff. I was serving God, focusing on my education, working in order to help out our struggling family, and on top of that I am an aspiring violinist. So I guess being kept busy, having restrictions but with reasons as to why I have those restrictions, not too many restrictions, and deep respect for my parents and most importantly God, kept me on the straight and narrow.
Yes, I plan on one day getting married, but only when all my education is taken care of. God and mom taught me patience above all else. Be patient for the things that you want. I will be patient when it comes to my overall success and when I start dating I will be patient and search hard for the right man who will love me for my internal qualities, who will respect my beliefs and me, and who will want me forever or until we die. I think that is the best thing you can do for your kids, teach them patience. But don't irritate them to the point where they don't want to listen to you.
Of course, we all make mistakes and teenagers will be teenagers, but hopefully they didn't make that mistake because of the lack of good parenting. And if they do make a mistake because of peer pressure hopefully they will get a second chance to not make that mistake again meaning hopefully they won't get pregnant or contract some kind of disease.
Oh, I was homeschooled, too. :)
JESSAMINE Q.
I also just wrote a ten page essay on how parents unknowingly make a their children grow up faster and make the wrong choices. The questions you should ask yourself:
What kind of toys do I buy for my children and at what age? It is sad to see how many young girls get the skinny and sexually beautiful Barbie doll at the young age of 3 years old. You'd be surprise how young kids start thinking about self-image and this doll does not help. Also, violent toys for young boys.
What television programs do I let my children watch? Do they discuss things that I feel are not ready to be discussed to my child?
Do I place heavy responsibility on my child at a really early age? (This one I am a little skeptical about. I had heavy responsibility as a young child because of my mom's struggles, but because of this responsibility, yes, I matured faster and was able to start making decisions earlier. I didn't throw tantrums like most nine year olds did. But the down side to this is that your child might not have friends their own age because of their increased maturity. Don't throw heavy responsibility on your kids, but give them some so that they are not spoiled.)
Do you place unneccessary guilt on your children? Do you make them believe that your faults are actually their faults? When bad things happen to you, do you make them feel as if it happened to them as well?
What clothes do you let your children wear?
Are your children more into inside video games than outside pleasures?
Are all children in the house being treated equally in house regardless of gender and age?
Are you too afraid to discipline your children?
Do you show outside love for your children?
There are many more
Jessamine
http://www.progressiveu.org/232211-my-sex-life-may-offend
My boyfriend and I have sex. And we are obviously not married. We didn't do it because we thought it would be great to do it all the time. We did it because we love each other, and we thought it was the next step.
Are you a psychologist because I have no idea where you get your facts about women having multiple divorces because they had premarital sex, or people who have premarital sex end up having a marriage based on sex.
My best friend's parents had a child before they were married, and they have one the longest, happiest marriages of most of the couples I know. I really wish you wouldn't just make up statistics that you think are right or make sense. And don't bash Atheists, because we're the only right ones here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return--
You have caught a lot of grief over this post but I want to give my support! This post is proof that God works through everyday Christians. I made my decision almost three years ago. It was a promise between myself and God. I wanted to remain pure. Since then I have had three boyfriends who both could not handle my decision. It really shook my confidence in myself and my decision. When your surrounded by so much sex and pressure, it's hard not to doubt. Your pep talk came at just the right time. Thank you.
"He will do it if you ask Him and trust Him with your life."
>.<
Now if, you'd make that same argument with out trying to get people to follow your religion...I understand it has made a difference in your life and that's really great ^_^ but good grief man, you're getting a bit too preachy, not about life but your religion. One size doesn't fit all :) but besides that, this blog was a decent read.
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M