But what about birth control?

[Mergath]

I agree with this. However, I also think that teenage girls aren't necessarily interested in sex, but are conditioned to think that they should be having it and pressured into having it by teenage boys. I once read a book by Judge Judy, and she said that she would not tell girls that having sex in wrong, but that it's stupid because the girl will not get anything out of it (except maybe pregnancy, an STD, a reputation, etc). I think what many girls want is actually love and acceptance, and sex is just the price they pay to get it.

 

When I was a teenager, I was definitely horny. Not just, "Gosh, society keeps telling me to have sex, so I'd better go out and get some," but actually wanted it because, you know, it's fun. So did all the other female teens I knew. Teenagers of both sexes have the same hormones screaming at them to have sex. The idea that women don't enjoy sex like men do is an antiquated myth. I'm surprised there are still people who believe that.

 

I can't agree with the idea that sex is a price you pay to get someone to love you. That's one reason it's beneficial to be in a long-term relationship. Not marriage, necessarily, but just a committed relationship. When you're with the same person for an extended period, you get to know what they enjoy, and vice versa. When my dd is seventeen or eighteen, I'll have no problem if she's in a committed, healthy relationship and decides to have sex. *shrug* But then, I don't see sex as immoral, either.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Mergath

[cathmom]

When I was a teenager, I was definitely horny. Not just, "Gosh, society keeps telling me to have sex, so I'd better go out and get some," but actually wanted it because, you know, it's fun. So did all the other female teens I knew. Teenagers of both sexes have the same hormones screaming at them to have sex. The idea that women don't enjoy sex like men do is an antiquated myth. I'm surprised there are still people who believe that.

 

I can't agree with the idea that sex is a price you pay to get someone to love you.

 

Did I say women don't enjoy sex? No, I said that teen girls having sexual relations with teen guys are not likely to really enjoy it. I also did not say that sex is the price all girls/women pay to get someone to love you, but that probably a lot of girls ARE seeking love and acceptance and it seems that sex is part of the bargain. I knew no teen girls who actually enjoyed the sex for its own sake.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that your opinion is that teenage girls do not experience physical sexual pleasure (the big O)?

 

I think they can, but are unlikely to, as Sara so eloquently stated here:

 

Probably not with your average teenage lover. Just guessing here.

[Mergath]

I knew no teen girls who actually enjoyed the sex for its own sake.

 

 

Well, if they aren't enjoying it, they should stop doing it, or find someone they have a better connection with, so the sex is enjoyable.

 

I don't think it's fair, however, to say that teens in general aren't likely to enjoy sex. It's a very individual thing. I enjoyed it a great deal when I was that age. Of course, I was with the same guy for five years, so we had quite a bit of practice. :)

[justamouse]

 

I think it is more of a curiosity and a desire to attach and feel loved, not a physical need as much.

 

*raises hand* I've loved having sex since I first had it at a very young age. I've always been mulitorgasmic, though, too, so maybe that had something to do with it.

 

When I was a teenager, I was definitely horny. Not just, "Gosh, society keeps telling me to have sex, so I'd better go out and get some," but actually wanted it because, you know, it's fun. So did all the other female teens I knew. Teenagers of both sexes have the same hormones screaming at them to have sex. The idea that women don't enjoy sex like men do is an antiquated myth. I'm surprised there are still people who believe that.

 

I can't agree with the idea that sex is a price you pay to get someone to love you. That's one reason it's beneficial to be in a long-term relationship. Not marriage, necessarily, but just a committed relationship. When you're with the same person for an extended period, you get to know what they enjoy, and vice versa. When my dd is seventeen or eighteen, I'll have no problem if she's in a committed, healthy relationship and decides to have sex. *shrug* But then, I don't see sex as immoral, either.

 

What she said. Another horny one, here. And I had long term relationships so there was no ..awkwardness.

 

Did I say women don't enjoy sex? No, I said that teen girls having sexual relations with teen guys are not likely to really enjoy it.

 

Most girls I knew who were having it enjoyed it. I think many religiously brought up girls have deep seated guilt that screws with their pleasure (even into marriage), so in those cases you may be right.

[justamouse]

but if I were *starting* out now, well...I wouldn't start. At *this* point, I've learned that I like privacy & quiet too much. If I'd had a chance to learn that about myself, I would have made the "wiser" decision to stay single. I'm glad I married young enough to be unwise, because *for me* it has meant a fuller life.

 

I'm not far enough along in my particular journey, though, to know how that applies to advice I'd give other people. My only point is that the very thigns that make young marriage unwise for a lot of people...might work in the favor of a few.

 

I'm totally unclear & messing up my words now, so I'm stopping. :o

 

I totally get that. If I was starting now, I'd be single with no kids. I'm not saying that I don't adore my children and husband, but if I didn't get married at 22 I might not have at all. If I didn't get pregnant at 19..if I wasn't as fertile as I am, I would choose to not have children. For me, being unwise and fertile has made my life much different than I would set out to plan. I don't resent them, and I wouldn't change it, I just wouldn't have chosen it for myself.

[Lovedtodeath]

This just now occurred to me. Duh. No one ever said a word to me about how to use Birth Control. Not in school. Not at home. I think that worked out just fine. I did my own research when the need arose. I also asked my doctor. Is that impossible for my child to do? Should I feel the need to spell it all out for her? If you are old enough to have sex surely you can easily find this information. I did.

 

I was a teenager and I was married! (collective gasp!) Oh and no failures in 16 years! (double gasp!) Even though my mom didn't teach me! (triple gasp!)

[phathui5]

I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready.

 

I agree. And I think that we as a society should stop acting like getting married at 18 is the end of the world. Dh and I married when I was 18 and he was 22 and we've done pretty well for ourselves.

[Murphy101]

I agree. And I think that we as a society should stop acting like getting married at 18 is the end of the world. Dh and I married when I was 18 and he was 22 and we've done pretty well for ourselves.

 

:iagree:

Same goes for babies for that matter.

It's a baby. They come in a smallish package and don't really go anywhere on their own for a bit. Time for a learning curve to kick in. Fairly simple to manage and make room for, not an atomic bomb to the known world.:D

 

People need to quit blaming marriage and babies for not living and learning.

[Lovedtodeath]

You know something else I wondered? If my daughter gets married at 17, do I suddenly decide not to pay the same amount that I otherwise would have for her college? It seems society does work that way. Why? Why can't I send her to college married?

[annandatje]

Young people engage in sex for the same reasons that adults do. It is physically exciting and climactic if done properly. It is romantic and tender.

[Rosie_0801]

The idea that women don't enjoy sex like men do is an antiquated myth. I'm surprised there are still people who believe that.

 

I'm not. Men and women's preferred styles (generally speaking) appear to be quite dissimilar. Until the two involved learn to compromise, only one is getting it the way they like it, and that's probably the young man.

 

I can't agree with the idea that sex is a price you pay to get someone to love you.

 

Then you've been lucky :)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by floundering stage. Maybe I'm still foundering and don't know it! :tongue_smilie:

 

Heheh, I think you'd notice.

 

I wasn't sheltered at all.

 

Ah, see that might just be the important difference between our experiences.

 

Rosie

[IsabelC]

This is a really weird stat because it does not match the experience of the teenagers I grew up with. 17% of the teenagers in my high school "Sunday School" ended up premarital sexual relations.

 

11% of my first cousins did.

 

Even among my peers in the public school, the figure was not as high as 70%. I know some were, but I'd have been very surprised to discover it was as high as 1 in 2.

 

What group of people was asked to get this stat?

 

From the report I quoted:

Methods. Data from four cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2002, and event history analysis techniques, including Kaplan-Meier lifetable procedures and Cox proportional-hazards regression models, were used to examine the incidence of premarital sex by gender and historical cohort.

 

(I have not looked at the primary sources myself.)

 

 

I do know that reliable information about sexual behavior is notoriously difficult to get because some people prefer not to disclose (as is their right) and some people lie. Of course they do try to control for this, but I don't honestly expect that the results are completely accurate.

 

One point to consider is that 'teen' is often defined as anything under the age of 20, which is not always helpful, given that for most people, a 19yo making choices about expressing their sexuality is not the same cause for concern as a 13yo.

[Renee in NC]

:iagree:

Same goes for babies for that matter.

It's a baby. They come in a smallish package and don't really go anywhere on their own for a bit. Time for a learning curve to kick in. Fairly simple to manage and make room for, not an atomic bomb to the known world.:D

 

People need to quit blaming marriage and babies for not living and learning.

 

Amen.

 

You know something else I wondered? If my daughter gets married at 17, do I suddenly decide not to pay the same amount that I otherwise would have for her college? It seems society does work that way. Why? Why can't I send her to college married?

 

You can. And I would.

[lionfamily1999]

Really? You never came to a point where you thought "I know what my stance is. I know what issues are important to me." I can't imagine how someone could think people still in the floundering stage should go right ahead and marry anyway. I think we must be using similar words to mean different things. Or maybe dissimilar words to mean similar things. :confused:

 

Rosie

Uh, I'll be 30 on Wednesday and my opinions are still in flux on many things. That's one aspect of our marraige that I love, I am sure of dh. Of all the inconsistant, grey things in this world, he is my constant.

:iagree:

I know when I was younger (even an older teenager although I may have been fairly sheltered) most of my perceptions of things were formed by what my parents told me. It took me time and more exposure to a variety of situations and people to really make some of these ideas my own, while rejecting others.

 

I'm almost 41 years old and I still find myself learning new things and occasionally accepting the validity of a different viewpoint (from these forums quite often) although by this point they are far less likely to truely change my own convictions.

I had time and exposure, I still have time and exposure... I was just married during most of it :p

Yes....

:iagree:

This just now occurred to me. Duh. No one ever said a word to me about how to use Birth Control. Not in school. Not at home. I think that worked out just fine. I did my own research when the need arose. I also asked my doctor. Is that impossible for my child to do? Should I feel the need to spell it all out for her? If you are old enough to have sex surely you can easily find this information. I did.

 

I was a teenager and I was married! (collective gasp!) Oh and no failures in 16 years! (double gasp!) Even though my mom didn't teach me! (triple gasp!)

You must be a genius :ohmy:

I agree. And I think that we as a society should stop acting like getting married at 18 is the end of the world. Dh and I married when I was 18 and he was 22 and we've done pretty well for ourselves.

:iagree:

Same goes for babies for that matter.

It's a baby. They come in a smallish package and don't really go anywhere on their own for a bit. Time for a learning curve to kick in. Fairly simple to manage and make room for, not an atomic bomb to the known world.:D

 

People need to quit blaming marriage and babies for not living and learning.

:iagree:

 

You know something else I wondered? If my daughter gets married at 17, do I suddenly decide not to pay the same amount that I otherwise would have for her college? It seems society does work that way. Why? Why can't I send her to college married?

I don't really know why that is, but I've known other people to go through it. One of the gifts my mom gave me on my wedding day was a code word, socks. Whenever we were in desparate need, I was to tell her or Dad that we needed socks and they would give us a few dollars to get by. My gramma and Mom both had that same code word, so it goes back a few generations and it's a tradition I plan to pass on to my own children. I've always wondered why some parents would basically cut-off their young married children while continuing to pay for their older singles...

[asta]

Do you have some citations? And I'm always leery when the Old Testament is used for justification of modern morality codes. It's always seemed to me that Old Testament morality is cherry-picked.

 

Cherry picked is an understatement.

 

Just the debates on what porneia *really* means will make your head spin (not to mention why bestiality is in the OT but not the NT...).

 

Gah.

 

I'm waiting for all of the eye plucking to begin.

 

 

a

[justamouse]

I agree. And I think that we as a society should stop acting like getting married at 18 is the end of the world. Dh and I married when I was 18 and he was 22 and we've done pretty well for ourselves.

 

I totally agree with you---BUT I also think that young newlyweds need a metric ton of emotional support and as a society we tend to boot them out of the nest. My dh and I married young (I was young, he was in his 30s) but we lived at his parents house (with the kids) until we had saved up quite a nest egg. His parents lived with his grandparents for years until they could do the same (old skool Italian family). He and I plan on doing the same for our children. I can't see any other way young marrieds can financially support themselves (and go to college or not) where we live.

[ma23peas]

I haven't read all the pages but I can answer the original question.

 

You're focusing on the parts not the whole. I'll try and give an example...take a car for instance...are we telling them how to change the oil and what will happens if we don't? Are we telling them what kind of oil to use? Full synthetic? Half? 10W-30? Do they know the consequences? I think the whole side of it should be "Are we teaching them how to drive?" Do our kids not learn from us at day one? Every step along the way we have been an instructor/encourager/nurturer...it never stops.

 

The difference with me is that I focus on being a good driver and as points come up while I'm driving, I explain them...you don't need to change the oil as often if you use full synthetic, if you keep your tires to the right pressure you'll save in the long run, if you have God as your navigator and trust where He's taking you...you won't go down the wrong road and get lost...

 

To me it is clear that God designed our bodies to be with one partner...std's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, emotional detachment comes from having multiple partners....so I raise my children to know that God has picked out the perfect partner for them...I ask them to pray for him/her even now as I do. All along I teach them what comes from putting pleasure first (obesity, laziness, too much video game play time, etc) and I let them know when we fail at these there is always a way to make it better. It's the same with sex....then ultimately it's up to them, their relationship with God, and their priorities to carry them through. It is my role to grow their skills/ambitions/nurture their heart for God so that their focus will not be self but serving. It's a utopian idealistic place to be...I'm teaching them how to drive in life...we've also read so many books aloud and discussed many issues that have come about because of seeking self...in short, don't have sex unless you are ready and want a baby. All three of mine were under multiple bc methods...luckily we were ready.

[Murphy101]

if you have God as your navigator and trust where He's taking you...you won't go down the wrong road and get lost...

:001_huh: but that is NOT true. People of strong faith go down wrong roads and get lost all the time.

 

 

To me it is clear that God designed our bodies to be with one partner

:iagree:

 

I raise my children to know that God has picked out the perfect partner for them...I ask them to pray for him/her even now as I do. All along I teach them what comes from putting pleasure first (obesity, laziness, too much video game play time, etc) and I let them know when we fail at these there is always a way to make it better.

 

No, not perfect. But for meant for them, yes.:)

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I haven't read all the pages but I can answer the original question.

 

You're focusing on the parts not the whole. I'll try and give an example...take a car for instance...are we telling them how to change the oil and what will happens if we don't? Are we telling them what kind of oil to use? Full synthetic? Half? 10W-30? Do they know the consequences? I think the whole side of it should be "Are we teaching them how to drive?" Do our kids not learn from us at day one? Every step along the way we have been an instructor/encourager/nurturer...it never stops.

 

The difference with me is that I focus on being a good driver and as points come up while I'm driving, I explain them...you don't need to change the oil as often if you use full synthetic, if you keep your tires to the right pressure you'll save in the long run, if you have God as your navigator and trust where He's taking you...you won't go down the wrong road and get lost...

 

To me it is clear that God designed our bodies to be with one partner...std's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, emotional detachment comes from having multiple partners....so I raise my children to know that God has picked out the perfect partner for them...I ask them to pray for him/her even now as I do. All along I teach them what comes from putting pleasure first (obesity, laziness, too much video game play time, etc) and I let them know when we fail at these there is always a way to make it better. It's the same with sex....then ultimately it's up to them, their relationship with God, and their priorities to carry them through. It is my role to grow their skills/ambitions/nurture their heart for God so that their focus will not be self but serving. It's a utopian idealistic place to be...I'm teaching them how to drive in life...we've also read so many books aloud and discussed many issues that have come about because of seeking self...in short, don't have sex unless you are ready and want a baby. All three of mine were under multiple bc methods...luckily we were ready.

 

If this is true (that God designed our bodies to have one partner) then why did all the patriarchs in the OT have multiple partners?

[Murphy101]

If this is true (that God designed our bodies to have one partner) then why did all the patriarchs in the OT have multiple partners?

 

Who is saying God was happy about it?

 

Adam = 1 wife

Noah = 1 wife

Moses = 1 wife

Abraham = 1 wife until his wife got him another woman for the sake of having an heir.

 

So no not all the patriarchs had multiple partners and not all did so bc God or Gods law demanded that of them.

 

And it should be noted the women always were intended for 1 partner.

 

I would propose that the bible is not just Gods word, it is also the written history of a people and some of this people did things extra biblically.:)

[lionfamily1999]

Who is saying God was happy about it?

 

Adam = 1 wife

Noah = 1 wife

Moses = 1 wife

Abraham = 1 wife until his wife got him another woman for the sake of having an heir. And we all know how well that went for all involved.

 

So no not all the patriarchs had multiple partners and not all did so bc God or Gods law demanded that of them.

 

And it should be noted the women always were intended for 1 partner.

 

I would propose that the bible is not just Gods word, it is also the written history of a people and some of this people did things extra biblically.:)

:iagree:

[Jugglin'5]

Who is saying God was happy about it?

 

Adam = 1 wife

Noah = 1 wife

Moses = 1 wife

Abraham = 1 wife until his wife got him another woman for the sake of having an heir.

 

So no not all the patriarchs had multiple partners and not all did so bc God or Gods law demanded that of them.

 

And it should be noted the women always were intended for 1 partner.

 

I would propose that the bible is not just Gods word, it is also the written history of a people and some of this people did things extra biblically.:)

 

:iagree:

One of the themes running through the patriarchs' stories is the strife and jealously caused by polygamy. Just like divorce, God tolerated certain culturally entrenched ideas, being a Reformer not a Revolutionary, and tried to mitigate the worst aspects of these practices by regulation to protect the wives involved. But as He makes plain in other places, both Old and New Test., polygamy was not His ideal.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Who is saying God was happy about it?

 

Adam = 1 wife

Noah = 1 wife

Moses = 1 wife

Abraham = 1 wife until his wife got him another woman for the sake of having an heir.

 

So no not all the patriarchs had multiple partners and not all did so bc God or Gods law demanded that of them.

 

And it should be noted the women always were intended for 1 partner.

 

I would propose that the bible is not just Gods word, it is also the written history of a people and some of this people did things extra biblically.:)

 

Well, that sound like a book written by men for men. Men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but each woman may only have one man. :glare:

 

And I'm no expert, but I wonder about how one can assert that people who's actions only appear recorded *in the Bible* can be acting "extra biblically." If it's in the Bible, how can that be "extra biblical?" Or does extra biblical mean something other than "not in the Bible?"

 

I propose that you can't have it both ways. The Bible is either a holy book, God's word as written by men through the inspiration of the Holy spirit, or it is simply a collection of stories which includes the written history of a people.

Edited July 17, 2010 by MeanestMomInMidwest

[Jugglin'5]

Well, that sound like a book written by men for men. Men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but each woman may only have one man. :glare:

 

And I'm no expert, but I wonder about how one can assert that people who's actions only appear recorded *in the Bible* can be acting "extra biblically." If it's in the Bible, how can that be "extra biblical?" Or does extra biblical mean something other than "not in the Bible?"

 

I think Martha meant that just because something happens in the Bible doesn't mean God approves of it. It is a poorly written, uninteresting story that has only perfect characters.

[Renee in NC]

Well, that sound like a book written by men for men. Men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but each woman may only have one man. :glare:

 

And I'm no expert, but I wonder about how one can assert that people who's actions only appear recorded *in the Bible* can be acting "extra biblically." If it's in the Bible, how can that be "extra biblical?" Or does extra biblical mean something other than "not in the Bible?"

 

I propose that you can't have it both ways. The Bible is either a holy book, God's word as written by men through the inspiration of the Holy spirit, or it is simply a collection of stories which includes the written history of a people.

 

Cain murdered Abel in the Bible and God surely didn't approve of that. David basically had Bathsheba's husband killed so he could marry her and God didn't approve of that. The fact that it has the written history of the nation of Israel does not mean that it isn't inspired.

 

I can't think of one situation in the Bible that portrayed polygamy in a positive light.

[lionfamily1999]

Well, that sound like a book written by men for men. Men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but each woman may only have one man. :glare:

 

And I'm no expert, but I wonder about how one can assert that people who's actions only appear recorded *in the Bible* can be acting "extra biblically." If it's in the Bible, how can that be "extra biblical?" Or does extra biblical mean something other than "not in the Bible?"

 

I propose that you can't have it both ways. The Bible is either a holy book, God's word as written by men through the inspiration of the Holy spirit, or it is simply a collection of stories which includes the written history of a people.

Well, I don't think Judas Iscariot was acting according to how God would want him to act. Or David, through the vast majority of life. David ALONE has tons of wrong doing written about in the Bible. It doesn't make the Bible any less the word of God.

[Lovedtodeath]

You can. And I would.

Thank you! Why is it that so many people wouldn't and don't? It just really doesn't make sense. Okay, you want an intimate relationship? No more help from us then. It doesn't make sense.

 

I've always wondered why some parents would basically cut-off their young married children while continuing to pay for their older singles...

Thank you. Oh, and yes, I am a genius. Surely you have noticed.;):tongue_smilie:

 

I totally agree with you---BUT I also think that young newlyweds need a metric ton of emotional support and as a society we tend to boot them out of the nest. My dh and I married young (I was young, he was in his 30s) but we lived at his parents house (with the kids) until we had saved up quite a nest egg. His parents lived with his grandparents for years until they could do the same (old skool Italian family). He and I plan on doing the same for our children. I can't see any other way young marrieds can financially support themselves (and go to college or not) where we live.

YES! This! Why is this so wrong? I completely agree with your plan.

 

I also hear so often that if she is ever going to grow up she needs to raise the baby on her own. Why? Was it this way historically? What about in other cultures? Is it the only way?

[lionfamily1999]

Thank you! Why is it that so many people wouldn't and don't? It just really doesn't make sense. Okay, you want an intimate relationship? No more help from us then. It doesn't make sense.

 

Thank you. Oh, and yes, I am a genius. Surely you have noticed.;):tongue_smilie:

 

 

YES! This! Why is this so wrong? I completely agree with your plan.

 

I also hear so often that if she is ever going to grow up she needs to raise the baby on her own. Why? Was it this way historically? What about in other cultures? Is it the only way?

It's more like, "So you want to be married?" Ironically, it seems many parents would gladly support multiple "intimate" relationships for their dcs, even cover some of the costs (bc).

 

You are, aren't you :D

 

I wouldn't be anywhere near the parent I am without the input of our combined families.

[silliness7]

 

And I'm no expert, but I wonder about how one can assert that people who's actions only appear recorded *in the Bible* can be acting "extra biblically." If it's in the Bible, how can that be "extra biblical?" Or does extra biblical mean something other than "not in the Bible?"

 

I propose that you can't have it both ways. The Bible is either a holy book, God's word as written by men through the inspiration of the Holy spirit, or it is simply a collection of stories which includes the written history of a people.

 

I think the confusion is that the adjective "biblical" has a couple of meanings. One definition of biblical is that it's IN the Bible. The book of Revelation is a biblical book. The writings of Josephus are extra-biblical.

 

Another way to use it is to say that so and so is living biblically. That is they are living their life according to biblical standards or according to Godly standards or righteously.

 

Not all biblical people (meaning everybody mentioned in the Bible) lived biblical lives (meaning righteous).

 

When the pp said bible characters were living extra-biblically I think she meant to say unrighteously. Yes bible characters lived sinful, ugly lives and our perfect God wrote about it in His Word. Why?

 

The most obvious purpose of God's Word is, obviously to let man know who God is. However another purpose of God's Word is to let man know who MAN is. Man is sinful and lives under God's wrath until redeemed by His Savior and afterwards man still struggles with sin until death. If the Bible were full of stories of perfect, sinless men I would have to throw it out the window as it certainly wouldn't match any reality that I have experienced. And of course, the Bible would then contradict itself as it says many times that there is no one righteous. And of course all that nasty sin of man stands in stark contrast to the beautiful sinlessness of the Savior as it ought.

 

However, I understand the confusion as much of the modern church boils the Bible down into moralistic stories meant to inspire better living. But that's a whole 'nother thread. :001_smile:

 

ETA: I just noticed I contradicted myself by using rightesouly with 2 different definitions. One definition is Perfectly and another definition is Right before God. (which of course happens only when one is IN Christ but doesn't mean the person himself is Perfect.) Oooohhhh the confusion!!!!:lol: I'll stop now.

Edited July 17, 2010 by silliness7

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Cain murdered Abel in the Bible and God surely didn't approve of that. David basically had Bathsheba's husband killed so he could marry her and God didn't approve of that. The fact that it has the written history of the nation of Israel does not mean that it isn't inspired.

 

I can't think of one situation in the Bible that portrayed polygamy in a positive light.

 

I will agree with your first point. As for the second: Can you think of one where polygamy is expressly forbidden?

 

I find it interesting that the NT is essentially mute on the topic of multiple wives (polygamy). In fact, Matthew 22:23-32 indicates that Jesus supported the idea of a childless widow marrying her dead husband's brother in order to provide the dead man with heirs. It does not state, "unless the brother already has a wife."

 

Also, in Timothy, church leaders are counseled to have only one wife in order to more fully dedicate themselves to service of the church, but this advice is not extended to the body of believers.

 

Surely, if the Bible is the word of God, with instructions on how to live one's life and multiple partners is such a grievous sin, it would be strictly prohibited? Or at least mentioned with as much admonition as worshiping false idols, wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, eating shellfish, and women speaking up in church.

 

Renee in FL wrote: "I can't think of one situation in the Bible that portrayed polygamy in a positive light."

 

As far as polygamy ending badly for those in the OT who practiced it, 1 Kings 11 seems to indicate that it was not Soloman's polygamy that led to disaster, but the marrying of wives outside the tribe of Isreal. The writer does not caution against having multiple wives and concubines, rather cautions against marrying pagan idol worshipers because these wives will cause the husband's heart to turn after the foreign gods.

 

And what about Deuteronmy 21 that talks about what a man should do if he marries 2 women, but only loves one. No admonition against having more than 1 wife, simply how to handle multiple wives.

 

Sorry to sidetrack this thread.

[asta]

Well, I don't think Judas Iscariot was acting according to how God would want him to act. Or David, through the vast majority of life. David ALONE has tons of wrong doing written about in the Bible. It doesn't make the Bible any less the word of God.

 

I think he was behaving exactly how he was supposed to behave.

 

Christianity would not have occurred in the manner that it did had Jesus not been betrayed by Judas.

 

IMO, people (especially "literalists") need to decide: if the Bible is going to be the "word of God" then that is indeed what it is going to be, and it is inerrant. If it is in error, if the characters in it are to be called into question, then so must its author.

 

Otherwise, it is a well written book, a creation story among many, the description of a "mythos" in the truest sense of the word; the first half focusing primarily on parable and the second primarily on history (as seen by a small group of people).

 

(also sorry for the sidetrack, but I was just having a conversation about this)

 

 

a

[lionfamily1999]

I think he was behaving exactly how he was supposed to behave.

 

Christianity would not have occurred in the manner that it did had Jesus not been betrayed by Judas.

 

IMO, people (especially "literalists") need to decide: if the Bible is going to be the "word of God" then that is indeed what it is going to be, and it is inerrant. If it is in error, if the characters in it are to be called into question, then so must its author.

 

Otherwise, it is a well written book, a creation story among many, the description of a "mythos" in the truest sense of the word; the first half focusing primarily on parable and the second primarily on history (as seen by a small group of people).

 

(also sorry for the sidetrack, but I was just having a conversation about this)

 

 

a

Snip...

 

Only one person in the Bible was perfect/without sin. That leaves a bunch of other people.

 

The Bible is the Word of God and does not contain falsehoods. All the same, the people in the Bible are all normal people that struggled with sin. God does not want us to sin, but lots of people in the Bible sinned anyway. That does not mean that the Bible is wrong, it means there are people in it that were just like we are today, imperfect.

 

Jonah is a quick and easy read of someone that struggled to hide from God and did his best to do the wrong thing. It's not telling us to run from God and revel in the destruction of those we didn't wish to save. It's a cautionary story about someone that did.

 

Peter is an excellent NT example. Jesus was pretty clear when he told Peter he was wrong.

Edited July 17, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[Murphy101]

Well, that sound like a book written by men for men. Men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but each woman may only have one man. :glare:

 

Maybe. One could also look at it as protecting women and offering some assurance of some provision for their children. My dh says he can't imagine any woman wanting to marry more than one man. But more than one wife has lamented that an extra wife for house and kid chores might not be all bad.;).

 

And I'm no expert, but I wonder about how one can assert that people who's actions only appear recorded *in the Bible* can be acting "extra biblically." If it's in the Bible, how can that be "extra biblical?" Or does extra biblical mean something other than "not in the Bible?"

 

I propose that you can't have it both ways. The Bible is either a holy book, God's word as written by men through the inspiration of the Holy spirit, or it is simply a collection of stories which includes the written history of a people.

 

Well I said it with a smile bc there's plenty not in the bible and there's plenty in the bible that shouldn't be attributed to Gods plan for man.

 

For my purposes I was referring to the POV that anything in the bible = godly and okay. That is extra biblical in the sense that the bible does not make that claim.

 

So even if all the patriarchs did have multiple wives and even if the bible doesn't say not to do it, that does not mean that polygamy or polyandry is open for christians to live.

 

I suppose one could claim Adam and Eve weren't married when they "knew" each other.

 

Rebecca was more clear than myself.

 

I will agree with your first point. As for the second: Can you think of one where polygamy is expressly forbidden?

 

I find it interesting that the NT is essentially mute on the topic of multiple wives (polygamy). In fact, Matthew 22:23-32 indicates that Jesus supported the idea of a childless widow marrying her dead husband's brother in order to provide the dead man with heirs. It does not state, "unless the brother already has a wife."

 

Also, in Timothy, church leaders are counseled to have only one wife in order to more fully dedicate themselves to service of the church, but this advice is not extended to the body of believers.

 

Surely, if the Bible is the word of God, with instructions on how to live one's life and multiple partners is such a grievous sin, it would be strictly prohibited? Or at least mentioned with as much admonition as worshiping false idols, wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, eating shellfish, and women speaking up in church.

 

Renee in FL wrote: "I can't think of one situation in the Bible that portrayed polygamy in a positive light."

 

As far as polygamy ending badly for those in the OT who practiced it, 1 Kings 11 seems to indicate that it was not Soloman's polygamy that led to disaster, but the marrying of wives outside the tribe of Isreal. The writer does not caution against having multiple wives and concubines, rather cautions against marrying pagan idol worshipers because these wives will cause the husband's heart to turn after the foreign gods.

 

And what about Deuteronmy 21 that talks about what a man should do if he marries 2 women, but only loves one. No admonition against having more than 1 wife, simply how to handle multiple wives.

 

Sorry to sidetrack this thread.

[ma23peas]

:001_huh: but that is NOT true. People of strong faith go down wrong roads and get lost all the time.

:)

 

My statement was true!! Just because people suffer does not mean that was not the right road! We have had many instances where someone not of faith and on the outside looking in would say that they were glad they weren't on our road....we had 2 mortgages for 31 months...had to live a year with my husband working in another state seeing him only on weekends....but we never got lost and our faith/TRUST was strengthened...what I am saying is that it is when you STOP trusting and looking for His Hand, being obedient (a tough one) and start seeking self you are BOUND for wrong roads and losing your way.

 

Each 'suffering' we've had has been used to bring others to know Him...I have a very badly abused Tennessee Walking Horse that is going to be used to teach God's ways to foster children...had we not had two house payments I would have been able to pay much more for a horse (long story how we got him) and would not have had the joyous experience we've had rehabilitating this horse and now riding him...many of my horsey friends would have already sold him and not put the time into him he needed...I thought I was buying a saddle club horse and got a horse that was drugged and so fearful of humans/touch etc. that it's taken us 2 years to put a saddle on him...but the lessons he's learned in that time will perfectly show the story of a walk with God...it's about trusting Him to lead you there....but when we take our focus off of Him and being obedient we are bound for failure...

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

My statement was true!! Just because people suffer does not mean that was not the right road!

 

Tara

 

O/T No. Suffering is a different point. I agree with the above statement.

 

But that isn't what you said. You wrote that if the trust in God they won't get lost or go down the wrong road - this is not true. Many people of great faith make many mistakes and get very lost. Sure God finds them and they hopefully find their way back to the right path or God makes the path they are on met His purpose for them, but I still say even people of strong faith get lost.

 

Of course, I simply do not associate having a map and knowing where I am on it with how good a Christian I am. Some of the worst Christians I've ever met were mighty certain of themselves.

[Renee in NC]

I agree that the Bible never expressly prohibits polygamy. However, I am not a sola scriptura believer, so that doesn't affect what I believe about polygamy. I know that others will not agree with me.

[Rosie_0801]

Uh, I'll be 30 on Wednesday and my opinions are still in flux on many things.

 

I wasn't talking about opinions. I was talking about knowing what issues are important to us. I believe being politically informed is important. I think eating properly is important. I'm not necessarily good at those things, I am not completely sure what "properly" entails yet, but I keep plugging away. Those sorts of things direct my life.

 

Rosie- turned 30 in January :)

[lionfamily1999]

I wasn't talking about opinions. I was talking about knowing what issues are important to us. I believe being politically informed is important. I think eating properly is important. I'm not necessarily good at those things, I am not completely sure what "properly" entails yet, but I keep plugging away. Those sorts of things direct my life.

 

Rosie- turned 30 in January :)

:lol:Nope still debating...................... I like food too much to be sure.

[Rosie_0801]

:lol:Nope still debating...................... I like food too much to be sure.

 

Huh? What are you debating? You seem quite convicted that food is desirable. :D

 

Rosie

[Smithie]

"I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready."

 

That's pretty much where I come down on it - and what I would choose, if I got to make this choice on my children's behalf, is a few premarital sexual relationships with all their attendant joys and heartaches, followed by a choice of life partner made when they are fully prepared for their profession/vocation, ready to leave off being a dependant in my household and establish a household of their own, and hopefully gearing themselves up for some purposeful procreation.

 

Sex is a great pleasure. Unintended pregnancy and exposure to STDs are hazards to guard against. A+B=BC in this family. It sounds from that study Rosie linked to like we're pretty typical Jews. ;)

 

This is a really interesting thread. I think there's a valid argument to be made for almost any POV on this issue - which probably means that there's a sound parenting strategy to be employed in service of almost any POV.

 

One exception - giving a kid a condom put on their penis is like giving them a silencer to put on their gun? Having sex is an equivalent transgression to committing murder? What Bible are you reading? :confused: No matter how much a family may advocate for abstinence, I don't see that there's much Scriptural support for equating consensual fornication between unwed young people with the taking of a human life in terms of the damage done either to the individuals or the community. The end result of sex, after all, is a new life - and that is only a POSSIBLE consequence of sex. I shudder at the notion of teaching a child that sexual impurity is a sin of the same kind or degree as commiting murder. That's a heavy load for young shoulders - especially if your creed teaches that masturbation is also a form of sexual impurity. I can think of no better way to condition an adolescent to believe that they are bad, weak, selfish, dirty, unworthy... you get the point. Believe what you want to about abstinence, but keep your mortal and venial sins a bit distinct, YKWIM? As C.S. Lewis said, the sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

"I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready."

 

That's pretty much where I come down on it - and what I would choose, if I got to make this choice on my children's behalf, is a few premarital sexual relationships with all their attendant joys and heartaches, followed by a choice of life partner made when they are fully prepared for their profession/vocation, ready to leave off being a dependant in my household and establish a household of their own, and hopefully gearing themselves up for some purposeful procreation.

 

Sex is a great pleasure. Unintended pregnancy and exposure to STDs are hazards to guard against. A+B=BC in this family. It sounds from that study Rosie linked to like we're pretty typical Jews. ;)

 

This is a really interesting thread. I think there's a valid argument to be made for almost any POV on this issue - which probably means that there's a sound parenting strategy to be employed in service of almost any POV.

 

One exception - giving a kid a condom put on their penis is like giving them a silencer to put on their gun? Having sex is an equivalent transgression to committing murder? What Bible are you reading? :confused: No matter how much a family may advocate for abstinence, I don't see that there's much Scriptural support for equating consensual fornication between unwed young people with the taking of a human life in terms of the damage done either to the individuals or the community. The end result of sex, after all, is a new life - and that is only a POSSIBLE consequence of sex. I shudder at the notion of teaching a child that sexual impurity is a sin of the same kind or degree as commiting murder. That's a heavy load for young shoulders - especially if your creed teaches that masturbation is also a form of sexual impurity. I can think of no better way to condition an adolescent to believe that they are bad, weak, selfish, dirty, unworthy... you get the point. Believe what you want to about abstinence, but keep your mortal and venial sins a bit distinct, YKWIM? As C.S. Lewis said, the sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.

 

Nicely put. Thank you.

[Christy B]

 

One exception - giving a kid a condom put on their penis is like giving them a silencer to put on their gun? Having sex is an equivalent transgression to committing murder? What Bible are you reading? :confused: No matter how much a family may advocate for abstinence, I don't see that there's much Scriptural support for equating consensual fornication between unwed young people with the taking of a human life in terms of the damage done either to the individuals or the community.

 

 

:iagree:

 

As a Christian, I have discovered that I need to remember that there are a host of other people on this planet who do not share my conviction on the issue of pre- or extra- or multi- marital sex.

 

On the other hand, the act of murder is universally accepted as a crime by every major religion and non-religious moral code.

 

(I am talking about human response and perception of "sin" or "crime"; not the theological position that all sins are in a sense equal, in that all sins exclude us from self-righteousness and thus none of us are perfect in the sight of God. IMO, that is a distinctly separate theological issue and not really pertinent to Smithie's comment.)

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't think that all sins are equal.:confused: Am I supposed to?

[Murphy101]

I don't think that all sins are equal.:confused: Am I supposed to?

 

Depends what religion you profess. Catholics do not think all sins are equal.:)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Depends what religion you profess. Catholics do not think all sins are equal.:)

Thanks. I generally go off of what the Bible says on the matter.:tongue_smilie:;) Yeah, snarky... but silly snarky I hope. I know not everyone agrees.:)

[Murphy101]

Thanks. I generally go off of what the Bible says on the matter.:tongue_smilie:;) Yeah, snarky... but silly snarky I hope. I know not everyone agrees.:)

 

Well Catholics are not sola scriptura....;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I knew that too.

[Sara R]

One exception - giving a kid a condom put on their penis is like giving them a silencer to put on their gun? Having sex is an equivalent transgression to committing murder? What Bible are you reading? :confused: No matter how much a family may advocate for abstinence, I don't see that there's much Scriptural support for equating consensual fornication between unwed young people with the taking of a human life in terms of the damage done either to the individuals or the community. The end result of sex, after all, is a new life - and that is only a POSSIBLE consequence of sex. I shudder at the notion of teaching a child that sexual impurity is a sin of the same kind or degree as commiting murder.

 

FYI, Mormons do teach that sexual sins are second to murder in seriousness. It's scripture in the Book of Mormon. Why? One of our apostles, Elder Holland, gave a talk about it:

 

Setting aside sins against the Holy Ghost for a moment as a special category unto themselves, it is LDS doctrine that sexual transgression is second only to murder in the Lord's list of life's most serious sins. By assigning such rank to a physical appetite so conspicuously evident in all of us, what is God trying to tell us about its place in his plan for all men and women in mortality? I submit to you he is doing precisely that--commenting about the very plan of life itself. Clearly God's greatest concerns regarding mortality are how one gets into this world and how one gets out of it. These two most important issues in our very personal and carefully supervised progress are the two issues that he as our Creator and Father and Guide wishes most to reserve to himself. These are the two matters that he has repeatedly told us he wants us never to take illegally, illicitly, unfaithfully, without sanction.

 

As for the taking of life, we are generally quite responsible. Most people, it seems to me, readily sense the sanctity of life and as a rule do not run up to friends, put a loaded revolver to their heads, and cavalierly pull the trigger. Furthermore, when there is a click of the hammer rather than an explosion of lead, and a possible tragedy seems to have been averted, no one in such a circumstance would be so stupid as to sigh, "Oh, good. I didn't go all the way."

 

But in the significance and sanctity of giving life, some of us are not so responsible, and in the larger world swirling around us we find near criminal irresponsibility. What would in the case of taking life bring absolute horror and demand grim justice, in the case of giving life brings dirty jokes and four-letter lyrics and crass carnality on the silver screen, home-owned or downtown.

 

Full text here. This doctrine makes sense to me. Premarital sex often leads to a child growing up without his father in the home. That has a huge impact on not only the child's life, but often multiple generations as well.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Sara R

[naturegirl7]

Haven't had a chance to read thru all 26 pages of replies but here is my take.

 

I would rather my child have premartial SAFE sex (in any of its forms) than simply teach waiting for marriage. And by safe I do not mean that the girl is on BC pills. I mean CONDOMS. (and BC pills if she wants to really be smart about preventing pregnancy)

 

The risk of unplanned pregnancy is huge and life altering yes - but even more huge and life altering is the risk of STDs.

Maybe you'd get lucky and get one that clears up easily with antibiotics (if they are under medical care and it is detected!). Or maybe not quite as lucky and get one one like herpes or HPV (warts) that is uncurable, painful, and has outbreaks. But even these "minor" ones can lead to infertility and increased risk for female reproductive organ cancer. Or maybe you'd be really unlucky and get a death sentence like HIV.

 

 

Also - I think it is incredibly sad that the focus of teenagers having sex comes down to preventing a pregnancy. If that is all they are walking away with, they are incredibly lucky. STDs needs to be a much much bigger focus.

 

Further more, as a nurse, I can tell you that younger kids are having non-vag sexual experiences at very early ages - the fear of pregancy and the definition of sex as vag penetration has led to a HUGE trend in very young girls (think middle school aged girls!) engaging in unprotected Oral and even Anal. Both of which put them into a much much much higher risk catergory for STDs - but it is "safe" in their minds cuz they can't get pregnant! STDs of the throat are becoming much more common in teens and preteens. And easily preventable but just putting on a condom!

 

 

Personally, I'd rather see my child "sin" and have the chance to repent for that sin than be dealing with the drastic reprocussions of not using a condom. I was raised Catholic and while I was encourage to wait to have sex, my mom always made a much bigger deal about STDs than about the pregnancy aspect. I truly thank her for that!

 

That said, I don't believe that sex is a sin. Or even that premartial sex is sinful. I think sex is beautiful and natural and FUN, and can be especially so with someone you love.

Sex is much more than a physical lusty union, but also an affirmation of life (and love) - a moment of pure bliss that is the essence of the life and all that is divine. I don't believe that our bodies or ANY of their functions are shameful or sinful.

On the flip side of that, I do believe that our bodies are our temples, and think it is a sad shame (or even "sinful" although I dont personally use that word the definition does fit well) that so many people (kids and adults alike) choose to abuse and disrespect their temples. Even more sad when they have not been properly equipped with the information to make an informed choice....

[naturegirl7]

okay, now for my not so intellectual post - but actually really illustrates my POV.

 

We had playgroup friends that have a DC the same age as our DS. They were in a committed relationship (now married but not happily) and decided to have sex while seniors in HS. They went to a very religious private school and were not taught sex ed. Their parents did not teach them either. They didn't hangout with kids from outside of their church or school.

 

They date for a while junior year and in their senior year decided to engage in a sexual relationship - they were both each other's first. They didn't think about STDs. They did think about preventing pregnancy though. Based upon the limited information their peers were able to share with them - they decided to use Moutain Dew as a means of BC. I am totally serious - Mountain Dew!! This was apparently the method of choice for their little social group, often paired with going in the hottub on a regular basis. All I can figure is that someone's parents talked about infertility and things to cut out to increase your man's count and the kids overheard it. Even years later, this still blows my mind.....

 

They had no real clue about real BC and she was not about to go to the doctor and have her parents get a bill for it, or risk being seen at the local planned parenthood. As a result she had a babe in arms at her HS graduation. They got married per their parents decision, but definitely would not have if they hadn't gotten pregnant. Their lives would have been dramatically different if they felt they had a choice or someone they could talk to openly about sex. Or in the very least knew the basics of birth control.... I mean seriously - Mountain Dew?! That is such a disservice to those kids - and to the child they created.