New Study about Virginity Pledges

[sunshine]

I'm not God either, but this formatting thing does give me a certain sense of power :D

I want power

 

 

What's the difference? Time issue?

Bill

 

I tried to quote everything, but the answer is not a time issue but a heart issue.

 

:D I am probably failing at this quoting thing again.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not God either, but this formatting thing does give me a certain sense of power :D

 

right on!

 

 

Don't ask me, I'm still trying to figure it out. Jesus seems to be saying it's OK to blaspheme his part of the triune god-head, but not the spirit part, but if they are all one then....it all seems like dangerous ground to me.

'cept He's NOT saying that..... --

 

 

 

What's the difference? Time issue?

--.....HEART issue.

 

Breaking a oath to God seems like a bad one to me, but maybe I'm funny that way.

we all have our preferences and biases ;)

 

 

Is this the fault of the theologians?

 

yup. they are all fallible humans. not a single one of them is completely right. :D

 

You hit the nail on head here Peep :D

of course i did! :coolgleamA:

 

 

I just never knew how wide the depurates were between the numerous streams of the faith, the WTM board has been a education for unschooled me.

 

 

boy howdy, amen and AMEN. Now if only Eliana would weigh in.....

[Peek a Boo]

Why?

 

-------

These men are doing their research using credible sources of information and they are being published in peer-reviewed journals, not just The New Yorker.

 

 

what makes the word of a bunch of teens credible???

 

even adults are known to lie on studies, and people's input w/o staff observation is always under question.

[stripe]

if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses.

That is funny.

 

I got lost somehow between p. 2 of this thread, when I was wondering why these things had to be done in public, and here on p. 26. I guess if everyone is a virgin (it's the norm), there's no need to declare it!

 

Which reminds me of a girl I once knew, who managed to incorporate mentioning her (and others') virginity into conversation on a daily basis, until one day she announced she very much was not one.....to no one's surprise.

 

I agree with the comment about not really supporting young people getting married. We don't need 40 year old men making virginity pledges; we need weddings!

 

.... But I see this has grown into a religious discussion that I do not comprehend.

Edited December 31, 2008 by stripe

[Lovedtodeath]

I did not quote all that I am replying to. I did not read all previous posts. I do not agree with what some other Christians are saying and to disbelieve the Bible based on what they say is not what anyone should do.

You would have to admit the Dark Side theology on salvation directly contradicts the assertion you made that "we" choose God and God doesn't choose us. I'm open to a certain amount of complexity, but on this point the two positions are completely incompatible.

Jesus and the Apostle Paul both stated that false teachings would creep in and create sects. Additionally, not all Christians belive in the Trinity. It is not hard to find. You can even find it at Wikipedia.

 

How's that a problem? It's a plain reading of the text. Man's nature in the story clearly changed upon gaining the knowledge of good and evil. Man becomes more "god-like", God says that himself.

Where does God say this? I think your sentence below is assuming that the lie from Satan the Devil was in fact true.

 

"Disobedience" of orders by beings lacking the ability to reason right from wrong has no moral value, and can't be considered "sin".

 

And to curse future generations for the morally-neutral disobedience of an ancestors who actions they had nothing what-so-ever to do with is unjust in the extreme.

That is why God made a plan to save the descendants right then and there. Of course, destroying Adam and Eve would have condemned all of their descendents to non-existance.

 

With God all things are possible and it is only with his help that some of us can forgive ourselves for major sins.

 

And finally, denying being with Jesus is different than denying Jesus as the Christ.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[Nicole M]

what makes the word of a bunch of teens credible???

 

even adults are known to lie on studies, and people's input w/o staff observation is always under question.

 

Did you read the article? The stats are about teen pregnancies. Pretty hard to hide that.

[Spy Car]

I hope I sounded nice in that last reply. I just got home, got the kids to bed, have to go ice skating tomorrow ( and don't want to), had a migraine last night, had a demerol hangover today, so I may sound grumpy. So I am going to say one thing and go to bed...

 

Regarding the Doctrine of Election, the way that I see it most clearly is that Man, dead in his sins, could not reach out to a Sovereign, Loving God, because

Dead men cannot do anything to help themselves. They are dead, and that indicates lifelessness and unable to reach out.

So a loving God reached down and pulled us from death, brought us to life, washed us from our sins (which no man is sinless and if you say you have never sinned lied, lusted, coveted, anger etc...as named in the Bible as sins, then you are a liar and the truth is not in you.)

and after washing us from our sins, presents us to Himself (Triune God), as blameless and Holy. Pretty simple.

 

I do believe this. Completely. Without doubt and with full knowledge that this is true. But I understand why the unbeliever does not. And I will not mock him/her. But I know I will be mocked for my belief and that is okay. Just not on this board okay? This is my safe place:D

 

I hope you feel better Sunshine. You didn't sound grumpy to me (but maybe I'm a poor judge :D).

 

This "doctrine of election" does seem to pretty well rule out the idea that we choose God, correct? At least according to Dark Side theology. I wasn't wrong thinking this is the case, right?

 

Anyway, you won't be mocked my me.

 

Bill (who isn't religious but shrinks from being referred to [even in a collective sense] as "the unbeliever" :tongue_smilie: )

[JenniferB]

Originally Posted by Spy Car

You would have to admit the Dark Side theology on salvation directly contradicts the assertion you made that "we" choose God and God doesn't choose us. I'm open to a certain amount of complexity, but on this point the two positions are completely incompatible.

 

 

 

I am glad that you are reading the Dark Side. BUt I wouldn't try to understand with Man's understanding. A Preacher who was in his 70"s told me that The Doctrine of Election (which is what the Dark Side believes) was for the mature believer. You have to be a Believer first then the understanding comes because

 

1 Corinthians 1:18

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

and

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

The strength of the Believer does not come from his own belief but from a supernatural belief that is given at the time of salvation. That is why it is so baffling to the unbeliever, they cannot understand why we would believe in an Invisible God. God gives us the belief, he gives us faith

 

Ephesians 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

 

and

Romans 10:17

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

 

So Faith is a gift, Belief is a gift, both are supernatural, and neither one does the unbeliever have. But they can pray for it.

 

I hope I sounded nice in that last reply. I just got home, got the kids to bed, have to go ice skating tomorrow ( and don't want to), had a migraine last night, had a demerol hangover today, so I may sound grumpy. So I am going to say one thing and go to bed...

 

Regarding the Doctrine of Election, the way that I see it most clearly is that Man, dead in his sins, could not reach out to a Sovereign, Loving God, because

Dead men cannot do anything to help themselves. They are dead, and that indicates lifelessness and unable to reach out.

So a loving God reached down and pulled us from death, brought us to life, washed us from our sins (which no man is sinless and if you say you have never sinned lied, lusted, coveted, anger etc...as named in the Bible as sins, then you are a liar and the truth is not in you.)

and after washing us from our sins, presents us to Himself (Triune God), as blameless and Holy. Pretty simple.

 

I do believe this. Completely. Without doubt and with full knowledge that this is true. But I understand why the unbeliever does not. And I will not mock him/her. But I know I will be mocked for my belief and that is okay. Just not on this board okay? This is my safe place:D

 

Sunshine,

 

You said it just right both times. I've been reading this thread all day and wondering how to respond to the many theological questions and comments. I think you stated it very well, and your scripture references are spot on. One can explain the fallen state of man, and Christ's redemption intellectually, but it does not make sense unless there has been a work of the Holy Spirit to awaken the spirit of the one who is listening/reading, as Jesus often said, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

 

Oh, I'm not saying that these discussions are fruitless, don't get me wrong. Just that it's impossible to fully explain something in intellectual terms that only the Spirit can reveal and bring to light.

 

On the point of the OT, I've really gained some insight in reading this discussion. At the time of reading the first post if it had been a poll asking if we were "for" or "against" virginity pledges, I probably would have voted "for", because I've met a few couples who have been very blessed by their pure courtships. But now, after reading all these responses, I'm not so sure I would be "for" them. I am definitely "for" remaining virgin until married for both genders, but I'm reconsidering my position on virginity pledges. As I think about it more, a Christian doesn't normally make pledges about lifestyles. Professing Christ as Savior and submitting to water baptism is pledge enough to God and to man that one intends to follow the ways of Christ. All other pledges would be redundant, and as others have said, they could place one action of following Christ higher than another, when it's all important, especially love, which is above all.

 

So, anyway, great discussion. I've been blessed to have read all the responses.

Edited December 31, 2008 by JenniferB

[Zelda]

Why? I just read the whole article and it's fascinating. And part are downright funny. About the pledge movements:

 

"Bearman and Brückner have also identified a peculiar dilemma: in some schools, if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses. Pledgers apparently gather strength from the sense that they are an embattled minority; once their numbers exceed thirty per cent, and proclaimed chastity becomes the norm, that special identity is lost. With such a fragile formula, it’s hard to imagine how educators can ever get it right: once the self-proclaimed virgin clique hits the thirty-one-per-cent mark, suddenly it’s Sodom and Gomorrah."

 

These men are doing their research using credible sources of information and they are being published in peer-reviewed journals, not just The New Yorker.

 

Thank you Catherine, for bringing this up.

 

Because its in the New Yorker (I don't care where else it is). Because its a social science. Because its not statistical so much as subjective interpretation of numbers.

[JenniferB]

Bill (who isn't religious but shrinks from being referred to [even in a collective sense] as "the unbeliever" :tongue_smilie: )

 

Maybe we can just call you "the one who is not yet a believer" ;)

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/PUBLICATIONS/AfterThePromise.pdf I am certain that this will not change minds but for those who are interested in reading who sponsored the study, what methods were utilized , it is fascinating. It was featured in a peer reviewed journal aptly named, Adolescent Health. Of course it is authored by two Yale grads thus not a trustworthy source...please this is ridiculous. Disagree with their underlying beliefs , criticize their specific methods including the manner in which the data was gathered but suggesting that a study of this import is to be disregarded and scoffed at due to the presumed socioeconomic/political leanings of the authors is not satisfactory. Read the darn thing and then tear it to pieces if you wish but for gosh sakes I am a bit surprised by the responses here that clearly demonstrate that the study was not read. Articles about the study are not the same thing. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505765/description#description Link to description of said journal . Not the New Yorker etc

Edited December 31, 2008 by elizabeth
more detail

[Zelda]

http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/PUBLICATIONS/AfterThePromise.pdf I am certain that this will not change minds but for those who are interested in reading who sponsored the study, what methods were utilized , it is fascinating. It was featured in a peer reviewed journal aptly named, Adolescent Health. Of course it is authored by two Yale grads thus not a trustworthy source...please this is ridiculous. Disagree with their underlying beliefs , criticize their specific methods including the manner in which the data was gathered but suggesting that a study of this import is to be disregarded and scoffed at due to the presumed socioeconomic/political leanings of the authors is not satisfactory. Read the darn thing and then tear it to pieces if you wish but for gosh sakes I am a bit surprised by the responses here that clearly demonstrate that the study was not read. Articles about the study are not the same thing. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505765/description#description Link to description of said journal . Not the New Yorker etc

 

One person's fascinating is another person's ridiculous. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Medical journals are not the end all and be all of science, btw. The kind of machinations that go into getting published would probably surprise people who think medical journals are the same as medical fact. Not to mention that we're dealing with a subjective "science" here.

[sunshine]

Bill

 

I hope you feel better Sunshine. You didn't sound grumpy to me (but maybe I'm a poor judge :D).

 

This "doctrine of election" does seem to pretty well rule out the idea that we choose God, correct? At least according to Dark Side theology. I wasn't wrong thinking this is the case, right?

 

Anyway, you won't be mocked my me.

 

Bill (who isn't religious but shrinks from being referred to [even in a collective sense] as "the unbeliever" :tongue_smilie: )

 

 

Well here I am at this unGodly hour of the morning which I always pray that I can sleep through but between the puppy needing to pee and the newly six year old sleeping in a puddle next to me (meaning a change of sheets, clothes and baths for everyone) here I am back on this board.

 

I will no longer call you an unbeliever there SpyCar!! I love that, it made me smile at this ridiculously bright time of the morning!

 

And I especially love the comment by someone that I as usual couldn't figure out how to quote who said "this is becoming a religous conversation that I don't understand!" I feel like that sometimes too!!:D

 

I really don't want to go do grown up things like wash sheets but I have to, but there is the Sugar Monster factor that will allow me to attack young unsuspecting children fast asleep in their beds and cannot run!! Kisses on the sleeping brow of a child, is there anything sweeter?

[beansprouts]

I really don't want to go do grown up things like wash sheets but I have to, but there is the Sugar Monster factor that will allow me to attack young unsuspecting children fast asleep in their beds and cannot run!! Kisses on the sleeping brow of a child, is there anything sweeter?

 

I am a Sugar Monster, too. Toddler hugs are also very sweet. I just love those little arms wrapped around my neck. And don't forget those tiny little toes and bellies that demand to be bitten... :001_smile:

 

I hope you got some rest, Sunshine!

 

So what should Bill's title be, if not "The Unbeliever"? :D

[Catherine]

I'm not ready to throw out all social science and peer-reviewed journals. But isn't it just a little too facile to reject an entire branch of inquiry because one doesn't agree with its conclusions? Or maybe I'm making too big an assumption about your statement rejecting research journals. I'll say this-research is one way of looking at a problem, of trying out solutions. What method do YOU use?

[mommaduck]

One person's fascinating is another person's ridiculous. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Medical journals are not the end all and be all of science, btw. The kind of machinations that go into getting published would probably surprise people who think medical journals are the same as medical fact. Not to mention that we're dealing with a subjective "science" here.

 

:iagree:Hear, hear! Thank you!

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not ready to throw out all social science and peer-reviewed journals. But isn't it just a little too facile to reject an entire branch of inquiry because one doesn't agree with its conclusions? Or maybe I'm making too big an assumption about your statement rejecting research journals. I'll say this-research is one way of looking at a problem, of trying out solutions. What method do YOU use?

 

Did you read the article? The stats are about teen pregnancies. Pretty hard to hide that.

 

 

teen pregnancies [that aren't aborted w/o parental or staff knowledge] are easy to observe.

reported STD's are easy to observe.

 

The why's and behavior that LED to those pregnancies aren't quite as obvious or researchable.

 

Kinda like the studies researching p*nis size: when measured in a lab by staff, the results are always a bit less than when they rely on men to report it themselves.

People lie consistently.

Taking the word of teens as to what led to their state of pregnancy --or boys who say they are/ aren't having sex-- is NOT a credible form of REAL research. In fact, I would say those studies themselves are more facile than what real research into this type of behavior would demand.

 

Another variable: how many 'pledgers' had sex 'safely' [because they sure didn't want to get CAUGHT lol] and never ended up pg or w/ an STD? and you bet they wouldn't report THAT to any study. And how many took a pledge but sure wouldn't admit to it because of the 'social stigma' of their particular crowd?

 

so yeah..... If your understanding of truth is to take people at their word in a "peer reviewed study" then we will absolutely differ on what truth is.

[Peek a Boo]

http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/PUBLICATIONS/AfterThePromise.pdf Read the darn thing and then tear it to pieces if you wish but for gosh sakes I am a bit surprised by the responses here that clearly demonstrate that the study was not read.

 

 

yeah... and do a search through the documents for "self reported."

[Perry]

Self-reported doesn't make it worthless.

 

There is always the issue of false, incomplete, or incorrect information when you do research. But when you are comparing groups, it's only a serious issue if the difference in quality of information occurs at different rates between the groups.

 

In the Virginity Pledge study, they matched the subjects on as many factors as possible, so the groups were as alike as they could possibly be, with the only difference being whether or not they pledged. Obviously, the groups can never be EXACTLY the same, but this matching technique is pretty good. It is assumed that there will be some errors in the information- technically we would call it "misclassification bias".

 

Here is a discussion of misclassification bias from an epidemiology lecture:

Misclassification bias: This is systematic distortion of estimates resulting from inaccuracy in measurement of classification of study variables. The probability of misclassification may be the same in all study groups (nondifferential misclassification) or may vary between groups (differential misclassification). Non-differential misclassification generally dilutes the exposure effect (toward to null effect) (Copeland, 1977). It is worse when the proportions of subjects misclassified differ between the study groups (differential misclassification). Such a differential between cases and controls may mask an association or cause a spurious one. This type of misclassification is rare when exposures are recorded before the outcome is known (as in cohort design). This bias usually results from deeper investigation or surveillance of cases. Typical sources of misclassification/information bias are:

- variation among observers and among instruments

- variation in the underlying characteristic

- misunderstanding of questions by study subjects (interview or questionnaire)

- incomplete or inaccurate record data

 

In the Virginity Pledge study, non-differential misclassification is assumed, meaning there is some inaccuracy in the reported information, but it should occur at about the same rate in each group. There is not likely to be any differential misclassification because of the study design. The effect of non-differential misclassification is well known - it UNDERESTIMATES the true association. So if anything, if the kids in this study are lying, it means that the difference is actually larger than reported. Edited December 31, 2008 by Perry

[lionfamily1999]

I heard plenty of honesty when we were exposed to the DARE program. And abstinence programs. I don't think the DARE program fails because of the program, i think it fails because of the reason it was needed in the first place: an abundance of drugs and a lack of solid parental/authoritarian relationships. Ditto w/ abstinence programs.

 

Apparently, traditional sex ed programs 'fail' too --teen pregnancies and STD's are still too numerous to point to a huge success rate. And that's just the ones that are reported. Back to my original post about the word of a bunch of teens when it comes to sex. "Pick a study- any study" ;)

 

 

 

 

it sounds like you have heard a different version of DARE/ abstinence programs than i have. I'm sure there's just as much variance in the effectiveness of sex ed programs too.....

That could be very true. While the officer in charge showed us many ways to get high, the ultimate result he gave us was death or insanity. Once you see so many people use drugs and remain living and sane, you question everything else he taught you.

 

I should've included regular sex ed. They take another extreme approach (sex is normal, natural and healthy implying lack of sex is the opposite).

[Zelda]

I'm not ready to throw out all social science and peer-reviewed journals. But isn't it just a little too facile to reject an entire branch of inquiry because one doesn't agree with its conclusions? Or maybe I'm making too big an assumption about your statement rejecting research journals. I'll say this-research is one way of looking at a problem, of trying out solutions. What method do YOU use?

 

No, I do not discard all studies published in professional journals. I spend a good deal of my time each morning reading medical journals on a particular subject. Because of how specific my area of interest is I'm able to see which studies were done well and which were heavily manipulated in desperate attempts to get published.

 

Virginity pledges are not an area of specific interest to me so I'm loathe to spend a bunch of time reading the study and evaluating the data. So I used the following formula:

 

New Yorker liberal agenda + Unbridled support of anti-Christian community + Highly subjective data + Highly subjective field of science = Significant doubt as to the objectivity of the results

 

Notice that I always expressed doubt and nothing more. Facile? Perhaps. But part of gathering knowledge of the world around you is to simplify some of your decisions by basing them on what you already know.

[Peek a Boo]

Self-reported doesn't make it worthless.

-----

So if anything, if the kids in this study are lying, it means that the difference is actually larger than reported.

 

I agree that self-reported doesn't make it worthless, it just makes it worth less ;)

 

and as I mentioned, I would be very skeptical as to which way the kids are lying, so to which extreme the difference would be larger is up for grabs.

Esp on an issue like teen sex.

 

it has been an interesting discussion to follow tho :)

[Vida Winter]

 

New Yorker liberal agenda + Unbridled support of anti-Christian community + Highly subjective data + Highly subjective field of science = Significant doubt as to the objectivity of the results

 

.

 

I like your formula, Zelda!

 

You have verbalized what each of us does every single day of our lives. We make assumptions. We filter information. If we did not have the ability to do this, we would have too much information to process.