In exactly what ways should we keep our children ignorant about sex?
September 16th, 2008 by Erich ViethAt DI, we have an extremely conservative fellow visiting the blog these days. He’s trying to convert all of us to his reactionary world view. He clings to his Bible as a book of literal truths and he seems to love everything that Sarah Palin ostensibly stands for. I’d like to issue a challenge to this fellow, who goes by the name “Erik.” To me, he represents many people out there who seem to believe that if you pretend something isn’t important, it isn’t important, even if it IS important. This includes such critical topics as as Iraq, the cobbled together all-too-human nature of the Bible, Global Warming and, of course, sex education.
Please tell me which of the following sexual education topics you would rather that our children not know anything about. Please tell me in what specific ways we should keep children, including teenagers, in the dark.
These topics are actually the chapters of a popular book that I have read. I would wholeheartedly recommend this book to any parent seeking a sex education book for their children: It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health (2004), by Robie H. Harris (Author), Michael Emberley (Illustrator). Here are the topics:
Part I – What is Sex
Girl or Boy, Female or Male (sex and gender)
Making Babies (Sexual Reproduction)
Strong Feelings (Sexual Desire)
Making Love (Sexual intercourse)
Straight and Gay (Heterosexuality and homosexuality)
Part II – Our Bodies
The Human Body (All kinds of bodies)
Outside and Inside (The Female Sex Organs)
Outside and Inside (The Male Sex Organs)
Words (Talking about Bodies and Sex)
Part III – Puberty
Changes and Messages (Puberty and Hormones)
The travels of the Egg (Female Puberty)
The Travels of the Sperm (Male Puberty)
Not all at Once! (Growing and Changing Bodies)
More Changes (Taking care of your Body)
Back and Forth: (Up and Down – New and Changing Feelings)
Perfectly Normal: (Masturbation)
Part IV – Babies and Families
All sorts of Families (Taking care of babies and kids)
Instructions from Mom and Dad (The Cell, genes and chromosomes)
A kind of Sharing: (Cuddling, kissing, touching and sexual intercourse)
Before Birth: (Pregnancy)
What a Trip! (Birth)
Other Arrivals (More ways to have a baby and family, including adoption)
Part V - Decisions
Planning Ahead (postponement, abstinence and birth control)
Laws and Rulings (abortion)
Part VI – Staying Healthy
Talk about it (sexual abuse)
Checkup (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)
Scientists Working Day and Night (HIV and AIDS)
Staying Healthy (Responsible Choices).
So what is it, Erik? Should we avoid teaching our children about puberty? Sexual feelings? Masturbation? Shall we keep our kids from knowing anything about any of these sex-ed topics? Truly, tell me exactly how ignorant you want to keep America’s children and teenagers. Should we keep this book out of America’s public libraries? Should this book even be sold at all? You are aware, aren’t you, that many parents are so mentally stymied about sex (because their own parents thought it better to keep them ignorant) that they don’t have a clue about how to communicate these sex-ed ideas to their kids. Shouldn’t those parents have access to a book like this to provide them with clear information about compelling topics?
Here’s a caveat to those people who want to live in ignorance: you can peek in this book at Amazon–beware that you might learn something.
For a little journey that is pretty amazing, though not unexpected, take a look at the comments regarding this book at Amazon and you’ll be Amazed at the cultural chasm displayed. This book typically gets either 5 stars (from people who want their kids to be informed about these important topics) or 1 star (by people who want to keep their kids ignorant about sex). Too bad Bristol Palin didn’t have a book like this a year ago.
Because you might actually learn something important by reading it, It’s Perfectly Normal is one of the top ten challenged books of 2007, according to the Economist.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
You wrote “At DI, we have an extremely conservative fellow visiting the blog these days. He’s trying to convert all of us to his reactionary world view.”
As I said you “free thinkers” are all the same. You are all for free thinking as long as everyone thinks like you do. When someone contradicts you with a plausible argument then you get defensive and try to attack the character of the one making the argument instead of the argument itself. Did you all go to the same school? You guys are the pretenders, ignoring the facts and making up stuff as you go. I am just relating the reality of the world around us.
Why do kids have to be taught about homosexuality? I know why. Because new people have to be convinced to choose to become homosexuals otherwise they would cease to exist (they do not reproduce). Might as well start when they are kids to have a better chance of convincing them (evil tactics). Question, I do not see the word family mentioned in the outline of chapter one. I suppose the sex is taught separate from marriage. Good job, promote immorality from the very beginning. Are you seeing a pattern here? I sure am. You want to teach people that masturbation is perfectly normal, wow, no shame in your promotion of immorality. If you study the Scriptures you will see that Satan is a master of mixing some or a lot of Truth with just enough of a lie to make it deadly. This is what is being done here in the so called “sex-ed” book, mix some good things with deadly poison. In other words, drink this full glass of 99% clean water with just 1% deadly poison. Next all sorts of families. The family was created to be between one man and one woman, people decided that they thought they knew better than God and started trying all sorts of “different” family types. The results speak for themselves and the sad part is that the innocent ones, the children, are the ones who suffer because of the sins (stupid decisions) of adults. Laws and rulings, the fact that supposedly rational human beings would decide to murder their children, please teach people what abortion is, murder, don’t dress it up with rhetoric that tries to take the sting out of the truth.
Because immorality is heavily promoted one of the unfortunate results is sexual abuse. If immorality were portrayed as it is, shameful, then sexual abuse would decrease. Also STD’s are a direct result of the saturation of immorality. We could eradicate STD’s if we followed God’s plan. As long as immorality is promoted (also in the form of homosexuality) then AIDS will flourish as it has since the “sexual revolution”. As I have said, the Bible gives the best form of sex ed, the only one that will protect a person 100% from STD’s (AIDS). So do you still want to promote immorality and continue putting people at higher risk for STD’s and AIDS or do you want to inform them of the truth that will protect them at all times.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Welcome, Erik. Now the readers can see that I wasn’t exaggerating.
Now, if only there were a way to stop God from making all the OTHER homosexual animals! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
September 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Please study the Scriptures that you seem to think are irrelevant. You are against God when it hurts your argument but try to use God to promote your argument, really nice, double standard all around. Is it like this with all liberals? Oh yeah, I forgot, YES.
God created a perfect world, no homosexuals but mankind decided to sin and brought all kinds of problems into this world. The world became cursed along with the animals. You are looking at the current world and assuming that God caused it to be that way. Assuming is bad but liberals are the best at it.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Erik wrote:–”Why do kids have to be taught about homosexuality? I know why. Because new people have to be convinced to choose to become homosexuals otherwise they would cease to exist”
Tell me something, Erik. Did you have to be told to be a heterosexual? Did you have any difficulty whatever recognizing that you were attracted to girls? Was there the need for some propaganda machine to make sure you wanted to have sex with females?
I seriously doubt it. Which kind of begs the question—why would you assume such a thing must be the case for homosexuals?
You argue from such ridiculous bases that it is difficult to take you seriously. But the folks here are doing a fairly admirable job of treating you so.
The current world is pretty much as it has always been. People have sex. Telling them to keep in marriage has never worked. Marriage is wonderful when it a chosen path, but for so much of history it has been a system for controlling who will pay for the resultant children. Sometimes there has been love, but that is a modern take on marriage. In times past, especially in the Old Testament Levant, it’s mroe a business arrangement among parents.
But people have always done what their impulses have driven them to do. It’s ostrich-like to assume you can just rag on people and scare them into changing behavior which, for some us, there is no reason to change.
In the Old Testament, multiple wives was pretty much a given. If fairness was at all at issue, why not multiple husbands?
But that’s rhetorical.
I would point out, though, that it is not Liberals who seem to have the worst records of hypocrisy concerning matters of sex, but far right conservatives, who talk a straight-and-narrow line and seem to think that entitles them to fuck whoever they please. And when they’re caught, they throw themselves on the mercy of the tribe with claims of “I was weak!” It’s pathetic.
And pretty pointless.
I should stop now. I have other things to do.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Erik, you accuse Erich of having a double standard, but you do the same thing. You use God when it supports your argument, but anything that seems to reveal imperfections in God’s universe you attribute to man’s sins or the very convenient Satan. Homosexuality is an inborn characteristic, like right or left-handedness, no matter how much you don’t want to accept that.
You seem to be a very intelligent man. But when you state that homosexuals can be “made” you reveal a very profound misunderstanding of human nature. Tell me Erik, could anyone or anything have made YOU into a homosexual?
September 17th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Erich,
If I sent in a comment that I believe in Martians, would you try to convince me I am wrong?
Why does it matter to you what this person believes?
Seriously. I’d like to know.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Oh come on, Erik. Why do you think there’s so many teen pregnancies these days?
I was taught sexual education at grade 3-5, and I never turned into a sexual deviant. I even was taught about homosexuals, sex, AIDS prevention, condoms, female anatomy, male anatomy…All of it. I benefited from it, seeing as how I’m STD free, and I know how to use a condom. Now, I see kids curious about sex, because they never learned about it at all, and you want to keep them ignorant about prevention? Why? For the love of your insignificant god why? They think pulling out is a safe measure. They grow up confused about what side they’re attracted to, and end up worse off than we ever did.
You need to grow up, and have some sexual education. Then you’d realize that it is in fact needed in the education system at the point when puberty starts in children. Maybe then they wouldn’t be so freaked out by the blood, or the boners.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Here’s a study guide to the “best form of sex ed”: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm
The bible teaches what to do with rape victims (stone them), that only women are infertile, that infertile women can overcome their problem by offering birth mothers to their husbands, that offering your daughters to be raped is the moral thing to do (they will repay you later by having sex with you and bearing your children/grandchildren), that you shouldn’t ever look at a menstruating woman, that “the natural use” of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men, and much much more.
You see, the scriptures really ARE irrelevant.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Huh?: Excellent question.
I know that there are millions of people like Erik out there. In the aggregate, they can swing elections. Bush has appointed many people like Erik to run my government. I think some dialogue is in order so that we can better understand each other. At some point, though (we’re getting close) we’re all going to be repeating ourselves, so it will be time to move on.
I suspect that there are some people tending toward the mindset of Erik, but without the certitude and passion, perhaps some teenagers and young adults. I’d like these exchanges to be available to them, so that they can see the dialogue.
Most interesting to me is that Erik has been repeatedly disproved (when he said that the rate of pregnancy has INCREASED over the past decade, or when Dan Klarman advises him that evolution HAS been documented in the lab, or when he is reminded that it is a rare day when anyone chooses his or her sexual orientation). He has been disproved with objective statistics and credible third party accounts.
Yet we don’t hear him say anything, ever like. “Oh. I was wrong. I didn’t know what I was talking about. I need to understand the things that I am attacking. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the Bible was written by human beings and it is not literally true, and in fact, it is full of some terrible advice, along with some good advice. Maybe I need to actually get to know a gay person as a friend before I dump on them further, in harsh wide-sweeping fashion. Maybe I’m insecure in my own beliefs, which causes me to lash out at anyone who believes differently. Maybe I don’t have to be accusatory every time someone disagrees with me. Maybe I should post LINKS to information that I want to share rather than spinning it wildly and anecdotally. Perhaps I should take the time to read some of the many DI posts that have carefully discussed almost every one of the topics I’ve raised before busting into the site and acting like I’m a know-it-all that can set everyone straight. Maybe I don’t speak for all Christians, but only a small subset permeated with Nietzschean ressentiment.”
For those wanting to see Erik’s other comments, many of them are located under this post: http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/15/palins-religious-baggage/#comment-24438
But back to Huh?’s point: Why? I’m glad we’ve had this vigorous exchange, which has exposed a prominent political viewpoint for what it is. I think it’s been worthwhile. It’s also fascinating to see the extent to which lack of evidence is not a problem for many people. It’s allowed George W. Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin to find many supporters. It’s incredible that so many people can be persuaded without any credible evidence.
This all brings me back to Jonathan Haidt’s thoughtful analysis of why liberals and conservatives talk past one another. This exchange is proof that talking doesn’t work. I hope Haidt is correct, that there is potentially another way to facilitate widespread cooperation between the two major sides in the culture clash that is playing itself out in the U.S.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
• Mark Tiedemann
You wrote “Tell me something, Erik. Did you have to be told to be a heterosexual?”
Is this the best argument that you can come up with? This is the text book argument of free thinkers, not so free if you ask me, there is such uniformity. Brainwashing makes everyone think the same way, see any similarities?
My sexuality was chosen for me. When I was born a male there were 2 options, either celibacy or marriage to a woman. Now, I can choose to be homosexual, which is a sin, but I must be convinced to choose that option. All homosexuals choose to be homosexual, there is no “gay” gene and nothing forces someone to be homosexual.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Mark Tiedemann
Show me how I argue from “such ridiculous bases”. I want proof and not just empty words.
Marriage was instituted by God along with sex, between a man and his wife before sin entered into the picture. After sin entered, people wanted to do their own thing so they did not seem to think marriage was that important. As you know, if people followed God’s plan for marriage and sex then we would not be plagued with STD’s, but wise, “enlightened” minds like yours keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity by the way.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I am not ragging on people or trying to scare them. I am simply informing them of the truth. You guys are the ones trying to cover everything up, sticking your head in the sand does not change the simple facts, we are killing ourselves with STD’s at an alarming rate, something that could be stopped if we would get our heads out of the sand and follow God’s plan.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Be careful about the vulgar language that comes out of your mouth. The Bible speaks on that issue and it is not good
Matthew 12:34-37 34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Now I am pretty sure that you do not care for the Bible but It is speaking directly to you here. You have the choice of listening or not but do not forget that you choose the actions but God chooses the consequences.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
• Mike Pulcinella:
I do not use God at all. I am relating the simple facts. God created a perfect world, no sexual sin (homosexuality) or imperfections. Sin comes into the picture and distorts everything. That is a simple fact. You can choose not to believe it but that does not change the fact. Can you show me an example (scientific example) of the gay gene? There is no proof that it is inborn, but like Hitler said, “If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough then people will begin to believe it”. That is exactly what homosexuals are doing. Read “The Overhauling of Straight America”. Let me change the rhetoric, homosexuals are convinced to choose to be homosexuals. I see a striking similarity among most homosexuals that I know, they were sexually molested as a child. I have one friend who no longer wants to be a homosexual. He became a homosexual when he was convinced by some friends to try it. He did not want to at first but they were insistent and convinced him to be open minded and try new things. He listened and now he is trapped in a deadly lifestyle and wants out. This is what happens when homosexual groups go to elementary schools to teach kids “about” homosexuality.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
• Mobius 1:
Teaching kids that immorality is wrong is not keeping them ignorant. Not teaching kids immoral things is also not keeping them ignorant. On your behalf that is an ignorant argument. I am glad that you are STD free but the sad fact is that 8,000 new teens are not STD free everyday. Condoms do not protect 100% against STD’s, not even close!!! Do not be so naïve. The Bible says that a man will reap what he sows and that God is not mocked, He will judge immorality. You can put a condom on but a condom is not powerful enough to stop God’s judgment. You want proof? 19 million new cases of STD’s every year in the USA. We are killing ourselves. I want to teach kids about prevention. You can prevent STD’s and teen pregnancies by remaining a virgin until marriage and being faithful during marriage. There is only one person who was impregnated while being a virgin and God told us that it would happen and it will not happen again.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
• Stephan
Hey buddy, why don’t you read the Bible text for yourself next time. The Bible says to protect the rape victim by punishing the rapist with death. Otherwise the rape victim is victimized twice, once by being raped and a second time by not seeing the guilty punished. This is typical among free thinkers, they do not see what is there written in black in white and they make up their own ideas. Why do you think rape is at an epidemic level today in the USA? Because the guilty are punished with a slap on the wrist and send back on the streets to rape more innocent victims.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
• Erich Vieth
Get your facts straight, I said teen pregnancies decreased when abstinence was added to the educational program in the 90’s. Do not write what you “wanted” me to say but write what I actually wrote. Maybe I missed that part on the proof in the lab, have we seen an entire new species evolve out of another? Why should I say I was wrong when I was right? I have not seen any answers to the questions on evolution but I guess they cannot be answered so it is better to avoid them, right. Move on to the next topic. That is the way that the liberals work, when defeated just change the subject.
Can you prove for one second that the Bible is not literally true? No you can’t so you just say it hoping that people will blindly accept your opinion as fact.
Again, I do know gay people, as well as former gay people. By the way, if homosexuality is not a choice then how can there be former homosexuals? Please do not bring that ridiculous argument that they “were never really true homosexuals to begin with” because you do not have the ability to know the thoughts of others, only God knows that, unless you consider yourself equal with God, many liberals do.
Talk about lashing out at anyone who believes differently. I have used plausible arguments to prove the reality of things and so called free thinkers do not like it because I do not agree with them. Again, it is free thinking as long as you think like “we” do!!!
I have tried to post links (not the document) but for some reason they do not appear so do not continue blaming me for something that is YOUR fault as the moderator.
I am sharing what the Bible says. If people do not like it then they need to take it up with God and not with me, I am just the messenger. Again I am being criticized for sharing my thoughts on a blog that is for “free thinkers”, you need to add a subtitle to define “free thinker” one who thinks like a liberal.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Stephan beat me to the punch, but yes, indeed. Do read the “Sex” excerpts from the Skeptics Annotated Bible for comprehensive sex education. I said comprehensive, not helpful, meaningful, decent or medically accurate. There’s both a long version (See Stephan’s comment above) and a short version: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/short.html
September 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“I have tried to post links (not the document) but for some reason they do not appear so do not continue blaming me for something that is YOUR fault as the moderator.”
Erik: I have posted every word of comment you have sent, except for one extremely long passage. Instead of publishing that long passage, I asked you to post links.
Yesterday night, I went into the spam filter and found one of your comments.
I have no reason to not post your comments with the links. As you can see, I have allowed your comments to come flowing in like water out of a fire hydrant. I’m not censoring you. Your accusation is thus puzzling.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
NARAL is offering this slogan for the McCain campaign:
“McCain-Palin: 15th Century Solutions for the 21st Century.”
September 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Erich and Erik, you guys spend a lot of time on different conversations.
Erich, Erik is convinced of his infallibillity, you can’t change him! Stop trying!
Erik, Erich is convinced of his fallibility, you can’t change him! Stop trying!
As Yoda said; “There is do, and not do. There is no try!”
The two of you need to agree to disagree, and move on with your lives.
God loves you both, even if one of you is an immoral nihilist!
September 17th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I have posted two links one to MassResistance (the video of homosexuals influencing elementary school students) and the link to that long post that I posted. Neither of those have been posted, after I send them they do not even go to the pending section, they just disappear. I want to post them but they will not post. That is not my fault so please stop trying to use the argument that I am not posting links against me.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
back to the Bible quotes that Stephen gave.
As you can see he was wrong about rape and every other so called mistake so you can apologize for giving wrong information and admit that you were wrong and need to pay more attention next time. Can a liberal free thinker do that?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
The argument about evolution is not scientific (evolution vs creationism) the argument is about world view (religion). Evolutionists want to live without restraints so in order to justify their actions they want to say that something came from nothing and life is by chance so it is not very valuable. That is why they can murder innocent babies and still sleep at night. If creation is true then their whole world view falls apart. If creationism is true then God created everything and has the right to tell us what to do (do not murder innocent babies). So let us not miss the forest because of the trees. Liberals demand that evolution is true to justify their worldview (religion) and really could care less about the science involved.
If you want to teach evolution in school and are so sure that it is 100% correct then why are you afraid to allow a different opinion?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Literally, the bible repeatedly says the world is flat, and never once says it is round. It also defines pi = 3.0, making any round earth a hexagon.
Or are these parts just allegory, rather than literal truth?
September 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Erik, you didn’t answer my question. Could ANYONE or any THING turn YOU into a homosexual?
I have bad news for you. Your friend already was a homosexual (or at least bisexual) to some degree before the bad boys “convinced” him to try it. I don’t buy his story one little bit…and neither should you.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that sexuality, like many other human characteristics, lies on a continuum. You can have EX-homosexuals because they were nearer to the center of the continuum of sexuality than someone who is a homosexual for life.OR a heterosexual for life. They lie at the far ends of the spectrum. Just like you can have someone who is extremely right or left handed or perfectly ambidextrous. No difference.
Why should sexuality should be an “either/or” proposition when EVERY OTHER human characteristic (that God supposedly created) isn’t?
P.S. I applaud Erik for the courage to take us all on here at DI. He is obviously strong in his convictions and willing to fight for them. I admire that, even if I disagree with him.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Erik: Please read this aloud, and while you read it put one finger in one of your ears, so that this doesn’t go right through. I am approving everything you send, except for one long passage that (in my opinion) violated Fair Use (I indicated with a truncated version of that comment that you should send the link).
A few of your comments slipped into a special spam filter. I have retrieved those and posted them too. If you want to repost a comment that got lost, send it again.
If I was really trying to censor you, I wouldn’t have posted dozens of your comments. You are getting more than a fair opportunity to be heard. If you don’t believe that, try posting to any other free-thinking site that gets our amount of traffic (between 3,000 - 4,000 visitors per day) and see what happens.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Erik says, “If you want to teach evolution in school and are so sure that it is 100% correct then why are you afraid to allow a different opinion?”
Erik: I’m for teaching creationism (or “Intelligent Design), but only as part of a religion course, not as part of a science course. Therefore, teach it in a religion survey course, or mention it in a biology class as an failed attempt to explain biological phenomena. It is a failed attempt to explain because it does not not support objectively testable propositions.
The way life has evolved on Earth (a spectacular evolution, at least for those of us who are not young earthers) shouts that there is an apparent design, or at least a high degree of interconnectedness among the critters in the biosphere.
The question is whether that apparent “design” can be accounted for by natural selection. Thousands of careful experiments from many scientific fields suggest that the answer is “yes.”
You might want to make a treasure hunt of the inquiry by leaping to the word “God” as an “explanation,” but that is not how science is done. Therefore, you are free to believe that there was a God and that this God created the world, but that is a conclusion that goes beyond the real-world evidence. It is thus not science.
You can yell at skeptics all day long, but one thing they’re not going to do is to go beyond the evidence.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Erik: “If immorality were portrayed as it is, shameful, then sexual abuse would decrease.”
Two words: Catholic. Priests.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
to erik brewer:
i am not taking sides on this debate; however, i do wonder why it is important for you (as well as to erich veith, by the way) to spend so much time trying to convince people who you do not know of your point of view?
if 500 people (none of whom you know) wrote in comments to the effect that everything you say is 100% correct (or 100% incorrect), how would that make any difference to you?
i don’t get it.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Stephen said:
“The bible teaches what to do with rape victims (stone them)”
Erik said:
“The Bible says to protect the rape victim by punishing the rapist with death. Otherwise the rape victim is victimized twice, once by being raped and a second time by not seeing the guilty punished.”
Bible says (Judges 22):
So, actually, it’s a bit more complicated than either Stephen or Erik claim. If you’re in the city and don’t yell loud enough, you get raped, then stoned. Guess you’re out of luck if the rapist thinks of using a gag. If you’re out in the country though, you don’t get stoned.
If dear old dad has already sold you off, uh, I mean betrothed you, your rapist gets the death penalty. If you haven’t yet been sold off, and someone rapes you, they pay a fine and you get to marry your rapist! Sounds like a slap on the wrist for the rapist, and the girl gets victimized twice.
Erik, can you explain why the penalty for raping an unbetrothed woman is so much lighter than for raping a betrothed woman?
It’s really, really difficult for me to understand how someone could read the OT and still consider it a template for wholesome family values. Most of the OT portrays the morality of a primitive tribal society, in which it’s OK to capture and rape another tribe’s virgin girls, but kill all the men and women who have had sex (including some pregnant ones I’m sure.) If you study human history, it’s hard to remain shocked by stories of torture, brutal rape, and murder - they happen all the time, and not just in our primitive past. But I have to admit this little story made me want to throw up and then immediately take a long shower:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jg/19.html#22
I never, ever came across that one in Sunday School. I thought the story of Lot and his daughters was pretty bad, but this is just…
Now, there may be some sort of moral lesson here (more likely some obscure allegory about the 12 tribes of Israel or some such) but I don’t know why anyone would consider letting this book be openly available to minors.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
This is heating up…
Now where did I put my asbestos underwear????
September 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Anyone else think that this is our new Erik’s blog?
http://erikbrewer.wordpress.com
The writing seems similar.
There are very few comments, but there is an apology by Erik for deleting one that ran counter to his post. No wonder he seems sensitive to Erich’s non-existent censorship.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Conceited, aren’t ya? I don’t fear gods judgment, because I don’t fear anything that doesn’t exist.
Want to know why STD’s are being transmitted? Because your abstinence only sex ed that you tout so much, is being punctuated with repeated failure. Getting tested, using preventative measures, and using false facts to make claims that you know nothing about, is not education. Condoms stop 96 - 99% of pregnancies and STD’s. The only reason why STD’s continue, is that people younger than me don’t get the real facts about it at a young age, so they’re taking risks that preventative measures, like sex education, would alleviate.
Quick question: Why are Atheistic countries, like Japan and Sweden, less prone to teen pregnancies and STD influx? One would think that the less religious a country is, the more immoral it would be, yet those two countries have one of the lowest murder and teen pregnancy rates out of the top industrial nations.
But enough about that, lets look at my own experience with a montage of born again christian girls compared to catholic girls.
The one born again girl I dated had very little sexual education, and asked me about everything. Eventually, I found out she was off and dating while we still were ‘together’. I halfway expected it, seeing as how they pull the high and mighty role in life. Oh well, last I heard she’s pregnant with some guys kid, after they had unprotected sex during her fertile stage. Good for her, the ‘miracle of life’ should straighten her out.
My experience with catholic girls was thus, in that 2 of the 3 were nothing buy passing fancies, and that I had no idea what I was doing in the emotional part. I didn’t have a focused sex drive back then, and I didn’t want to do anything stupid. They agreed, and before anything got out of hand, we parted ways. The 3rd one, the one I’m currently with, and I hope to be with for a long time, was well educated on the matter of sexual education, preventative measures, failure rates of birth control, and all that. Basically, the more educated, the better understanding of what sex means in the relationship. Lemme say that again:
The better educated on sex someone is, the better they understand the implications that sex has on relationships.
Is this always true? No, but its better than letting children sit in the dark about it. Sexual education doesn’t cause immorality, which is a laughable concept anyway.
Are you immoral if you enjoy sex? Are you immoral if it turns out that you’re a homosexual? The correct answer is no, but I bet you have a cunning remark insinuating that I’m gay. For shame…And to think this is a progressive country.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Erik Brewer wrote….”All homosexuals choose to be homosexual, there is no “gay” gene ….”
Could you please show me the “straight” gene? In addition to that, could you please share with me what someone with AIS (Androgen insensitivity syndrome) presenting certain specific characteristics (XY genetically but otherwise and in all ways female in appearance) is supposed to do about marriage?
September 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
With so many millions of fundie gay-haters like Erik Brewer in the world, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would actually consciously “choose” to be gay. But that’s not something I’m going to get into.
I am, however, at a total loss to explain why exactly it is fundies like Erik B are (a) so hell-bent on controlling what people (not just Christians, but EVERYBODY) do in the privacy of their bedrooms and (b) so utterly, bafflingly opposed to educating young people about the facts of life, the dangers of STDs and the (often harsh) realities of teen pregnancy. Surely fore-warned is fore-armed, right? I know lots of religious people have this inexplicable idea that “sexual education equals a license to go and just fuck your brains out with whoever” but here’s a newsflash: teenagers, regardless of religion, upbringing or whatever, WILL go and fuck their brains out when they want to and if they’re not adequately informed they’ll make stupid, thoughtless or unsafe choices. Bristol Palin is the archetype, the poster-child for the utter failure of religious abstinence-only so-called “education”. Teenagers are, by nature, impulsive and rash and if you think “don’t ask questions, just DON’T DO IT” qualifies as education you’re simply not fit to be a parent. If you were to just accept the undeniable fact that teenagers, bursting with hormones and new thoughts and new physical developments but lacking the self-control of an adult, will do exactly as they please, you’d realise the way to keep them healthy, safe and enable them to CHOOSE when to become parents is by actually educating them. Telling them “just don’t do it” is neglectful and tantamount to child abuse.
Teenagers may not be adults but you should give them some credit for being able to make the right choice in a situation that they’ve been mentally prepared for, either by you or by a teacher. Hell, teach children about sex *before* their teens and by the time they do start dating they’ll have an arsenal of knowledge about to protect themselves if, by chance, the Virginity Pledge you made them take takes a metaphorical back seat to an actual back seat.
Making kids promise not to do something while simultaneously keeping them in the dark about the possible consequences of breaking that promise is grossly irresponsible. Hypothetical (as I’m not religious): what if no one ever told you the consequences of not accepting Jesus as your savior and just let you wander about blindly? You’d be heading straight to hell because no one ever gave you the “right” information. What if you didn’t teach your kids about Jesus? They might grow up to be atheists!
September 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
vicki
I was waiting for this comment as well. The virgin who is engaged in verse 23 is not raped, look at the words that are on the page before you jump in judgment. She has a chance to cry out and people would hear her because she is in the city but she does not, there is consent here, she is engaged (same as married in the eyes of God but sex is not yet allowed, study a little bit of Jewish history). I knew that you would mention something that was not in the text, like a gag, she has a chance to cry out but does not. Read the text for what is there and not for what you want to see!!! In the country the girl has a chance to cry out and does but no one hears here. She is not punished and should not be because she is a victim, the girl in the city is not. So again the guilty is punished and the victim is protected, as well as other innocent people because the rapist will not have a chance to rape anyone else. In verse 28, again, there is consent, they were found out does not necessarily mean that they were caught in the act, if she becomes pregnant then they will be found out. Again you are trying to distort what is actually written there and God does not like it at all. In fact He has something to say on the subject,
Revelation 22:18-19 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
I am sure that you do not believe what is written but that does not make any difference. God will punish if you do not repent. He wants you to repent and gives you chance after chance. In fact He is reminding you through this message that I am writing. Why don’t you listen to Him?
Ps
You wrote “it’s OK to capture and rape another tribe’s virgin girls,”
Never in the Scriptures will you see God’s people commanded to rape anyone. God hates rape because it destroys the gift of virginity that was meant to be given to a husband/wife on the wedding night. Again you are imposing things that are not there!!!
September 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Mobius 1
How do you get conceited? I do not claim to be the master of wisdom but I do know who He is and where He has placed His wisdom. I am writing everything from the wisdom of God so if you have a problem with it then you need to work it out with God. He would love for you to do that and I would be glad to help. You have to set your pride aside though (just like I did).
How many people have contacted an STD while being a virgin or faithful in marriage? How many people have contacted an STD from immorality (all STD’s come from immorality)? How many have contacted an STD even while using condoms (many because they are not even close to 100% effective)?
You wrote “Condoms stop 96 - 99% of pregnancies and STD’s”
I am so glad that you wrote this misleading statement, I was waiting for it. Condoms are 98% effective at stopping pregnancies but not anywhere near that at stopping STD’s. This is why condoms are so misleading. Everyone assumes that the protection against pregnancies works the same way against STD’s and that is simply false. There are many stats on condoms and protection against STD’s. The best that I have found is that it is 92% effective against STD’s but as low as 30% in other studies. Not looking so promising anymore. Anywhere from 30 to 92% is very risky. Would you play Russian roulette with those odds? Why not? Because it might kill you. That is exactly what STD’s can do as well. Why play with your life? Why encourage other people to play with their lives as well? It just does not make sense, 100% all the time vs. 30 to 92%. I will go with the 100% every time.
Just because a person claims to be born again means nothing. A person can claim to be a dog but that does not make him one. A person who is born again is changed from the inside out. I have been born again. I was a terrible person, the sinner of sinners and a skeptic as well. I thought that the Bible was full of mistakes and lies even though I had never taken the time to study It. I just listened to liberal ideas like the ones mentioned on this blog. I met someone who taught me how to study the Bible and I began to study It for what It was and not for what I wanted It to be. I realized that I was wrong and that those who had fed me all the misleading info about the Bible were wrong too. I realized that I needed forgiveness and a changed heart. I repented and God completely changed me, my thought life, and my actions. That is what it means to be born again. You become a totally different person on the inside and it leads to an outer change as well (speaking of actions). So just because you had an experience with a girl who claimed to be born again does not mean that all are like that.
I am sorry that you have to date so many girls. God wants you to have one woman for life and truly be happy with her but you are not waiting for her, instead you are going from one to the next looking for happiness and not finding it. There is a better way, trust me, I found it.
Practical sex ed (the act of sex) takes place in the marriage. That is the place where you learn together. Sex ed is good when immorality is not glorified and virginity is not mocked. The way that you speak of sex ed glorifies immorality and mocks virginity so that is wrong because you are encouraging teens to put their lives and futures in danger with getting an STD. Virginity before and fidelity during marriage will protect you 100% of the time, prove me wrong on that statement and then we will talk (rape and cheating consist of immorality so they are not valid responses because as I said, stop immorality then you stop STD’s).
Sex with your spouse is blessed by God. Homosexuality is a sin and punished by God along with all immorality.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I am beginning to wonder if some of you guys can read. I do not hate homosexuals. Let me repeat I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. I hate sin. Homosexuality is sin so I hate homosexuality but not the homosexuals who practice it. Can you get this through your heads? Please leave off the name calling (a trend among free thinkers, liberals, and homosexuals).
September 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
1 in 20,000 have AIS, roughly 15,000 people. Most of them have a mild form of it and function as a man or woman with mild effects (side effects) so a woman marries a man and a man marries a woman.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
• mandrellian
I have been waiting for this comment as well. I do not want people to sin because sin is like a virus, spreading itself all around. We live together in this society so the sin of one affects others (especially sexual sin). If homosexuals are “hell-bent” on being homosexual and want to keep it in the privacy of their own homes then I have no control over that. On the other hand, when they leave their bedrooms and come out into society spreading their agenda then I have every right to speak out and not allow my rights to be infringed upon, especially the rights of my children. If homosexuals want to keep it in the privacy of their own bedrooms then why are they so “hell-bent” on getting their propaganda into public schools. As long as homosexuals impose their lifestyle onto society I will speak out.
I want to teach people about the dangers of STD’s and that you can be protected 100% of the time by remaining a virgin until marriage and be faithful in marriage. You want to warn them of the dangers of STD’s and then put a condom in their hands (encouraging them on to immorality) and putting them at risk of STD’s because condoms do not protect 100% and you know that for a fact!!!
Teens are intelligent and if they are presented the facts as they are then they will be better equipped to make right choices. When immorality is glorified then they will be more inclined to be immoral. The sex ed that you speak of leads them to immorality.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Dan
You are wrong, the Bible says from the four corners of the earth, do you understand what figure of speech is? We use expressions like this all the time in English, it means from every part of the earth. Weak argument on your behalf, you are searching hard but you will not find mistakes. If you see what you think is a mistake, try this, study the passage in context and you will be amazed that everything is correct. Jumping to conclusions too early, only leads to mistakes.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Mike Pulcinella
I could choose to be a homosexual but I will not because I do not want to sin against God and God chose my sexuality for me when He decided to make me a man.
My friend had never considered homosexuality, never had any homosexual “feelings”. He was convinced into trying. Now he is a slave to something that is killing him. It is sad to see someone whose life is being ruined because of homosexuality.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Peter Magellan Says:
you wrote “Two words: Catholic. Priests.”
I was hoping that someone would bring that argument. Because of sin even if a person is told not to sin he still does it. That is why the heart/mind has to be changed along with the character. This is where repentance and being born again comes in. When a person trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ and chooses to become His disciple (follower) through repentance (admitting what sin is, that he is a sinner, and turning away from sin) then he/she will have the ability to say no to sin (even sexual sin/immorality). That is available for all, even you guys on this site. Being set free from slavery to sin is an amazing thing and I want all people to be able to experience it.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Ha, my “anti-spam” word was “Darwin”
Erik: you’ve just ticked another box on my fundie bingo card - the alleged “spreading of the gay agenda”. I assume that means, to you & your brethren, something like “the nasty old gays lurk around schoolyards and try and “recruit” or “convert” honest little god-fearing Christian hetero kids into Team Homo.” That’s such a mindblowingly retarded piece of copy+paste fundamentalist bullshit propaganda I’m not even going to respond to it … except to say this: the only “agenda” gay people have is to get people like you to leave them the hell alone. And if anyone’s forcing anything onto anyone, it’s (as usual) the American Religious Right forcing their own narrow morality down the throats of anyone & everyone - the prime example being this vehement opposition to sex education.
Then you laid this golden egg:
“I want to teach people about the dangers of STD’s and that you can be protected 100% of the time by remaining a virgin until marriage and be faithful in marriage. You want to warn them of the dangers of STD’s and then put a condom in their hands (encouraging them on to immorality) and putting them at risk of STD’s because condoms do not protect 100% and you know that for a fact!!!”
You’re absolutely right there. The effectiveness of condoms is actually closer to between 95-98% if I recall correctly. A shitload more effective than barking “don’t do it” at a teenager. Hell, spouting this “condoms don’t really work all that well” sounds like the kind of homicidal bullshit the Vatican spreads around.
OF COURSE people will be free of STDs if they don’t have sex. That’s such an obvious non-argument it’s like saying “you don’t need to learn to swim - just stay out of the water, dumbass.” But here is my point, AGAIN: teenagers WILL do what they want, regardless of how earnestly they promise you that they’ll do what YOU want. Making them promise not to have sex is just plain ineffective - the high teen pregnancy rates in abstinence-only areas speak to that. Do I need to mention how well “abstinence only” education worked for Bristol Palin again? Like I said, she’s the damned poster child of AO! The sex-ed I’m talking about isn’t about your subjective morality, it’s about REality. Some teenagers WILL have sex before they’re married and some of those WILL get pregnant or get an STD. Not all of them, but some. And some of those un-educated teens who promised to stay pure and then fucked around cluelessly may then, without knowing it, contract a disease and then continue fucking around, perhaps even infecting a teenager who DOES have a clue and usually takes precautions - or, worse, they could even infect a child they babysit for (and possibly the child’s family), or the family doctor, or a recipient of the blood they kindly donated to the Red Cross, or the next boyfriend or girlfriend they kiss. This is because many STDs don’t require traditional vaginal intercourse to spread between people. The point: effective sex-ed isn’t just to keep “immoral” teenagers free of pregnancy and disease, it’s in the interest of everybody. It’s a freaking public health issue!! Each individual bears a degree of responsibility for the wellbeing of their entire community, and every single school student should be taught that as part of any sex-ed class. Naively believing kids will do what they’re told went out with the year 1959.
“Teens are intelligent and if they are presented the facts as they are then they will be better equipped to make right choices. When immorality is glorified then they will be more inclined to be immoral. The sex ed that you speak of leads them to immorality.”
Who the hell is glorifying immorality? The completely subjective topic of immorality aside, I agree with that first sentence there 100% and that’s all I’m advocating - tell kids exactly what can happen if/when they have sex and, most importantly, how they can avoid those undesirable outcomes. Just lay it out for them: “unprotected sex CAN equal babies, diseases or both. IF you do end up having sex with someone (because you’re a randy teenager and it’s likely that you MIGHT), here’s how to avoid a result you don’t want. And, now that you know how what can happen if you do it, dont’ do it.”
Yours is a ridiculous position, Erik. On one hand you say you want to “educate” kids and make them aware of the potential dangers of sex, but on the other hand you don’t want to follow it up with action & arm them with the knowledge to avoid illness or unwanted pregnancy. It’s reprehensible, counter-intuitive and arse-backwards. I haven’t (and won’t) advocate handing out condoms in class or giving fellatio lessons or whatever it is you think I want. However, not telling kids about condoms for example - or, in your case flat-out lying about their effectiveness - is bordering on criminal. Because of HIV, sex without precautions can equal an early death these days. Better safe than dead, even if you are acting like a little slut, right?
Like I said, effective sex-ed is NOT about arming kids to go out and fuck each other silly. Sex-ed is a public health issue that affects EVERYBODY. To exclude a significant portion of the population (the very people who happen to have the strongest sexual desires and the least self-control) from receiving that education isn’t just denying those kids the truth; it’s denying society as a whole of a large number of educated, informed young people who know how to avoid potentially risky behaviour.
TL;DR version:
Sex Ed is and should remain a public health issue, to be taught subjectively and without bias; not a private religious issue to be laden with sectarian dogma.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Erik: I have a question for you. Let’s assume a man and a woman get married and (only after the marriage!) start having sex. Let’s assume that they are in good all round health. Let’s assume that they only want two children. But let’s also assume that if they have unprotected sex for the next 20 years they will likely have 10 children.
Based on your interpretation of the Bible, what are their options (if there are any options)? Should they simply stop having sex after two children? Should they welcome as many children as “God” delivers to them? May they use condoms? May they use any form of the pill or any other method of birth control? May they use “rhythm” (sometimes known as “natural family planning”?
Assume, further, that you are the leader of the United States, and you have the power to take any or all birth control pills/devices off the market. You have the power to totally outlaw abortions, if that is what you choose to do. What, exactly would you do?
And while you’re at it: What would you do about the “gay problem” if you were a dictator? Would you allow gays to teach in public schools, even if they were excellent teachers? Would you allow civil unions or marriages for gays? Would you force gays to undergo “re-education”? Would you enact any laws forbidding gays to express any affection (hand-holding or kissing) in public? Would you fund AIDS research, or would you just consider AIDS to be God’s will to serve as a natural consequence to those who have gay sex?
In sum: Please paint the picture of how would run your utopia in terms of sex and reproductive rights? This is your big chance. Lots of people are waiting . . .
September 17th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
If a woman cries out in the city and no one hears her, is she still being raped? Anyway, so glad to hear that the woman is getting stoned to death for consenting to sex. I was worried there for a minute. Serves her right, the slut. Oh wait, what if she was unconscious when he did the nasty? Now my brain is starting to hurt again.
Re: rape as part of the Israelites foreign policy:
Here are Moses’ instruction to his army about what to do with MIdianite civilians.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31)
Admittedly it doesn’t spell out what they were supposed to do with the virgin girls. Maybe Moses and his homies needed secretaries. We do know from other Bible stories that Israelites had concubines, and the concubines’ duties included sexual services. That’s rape. However you try to explain this away, the text clearly says that the survivors of this genocide are to be the personal property of the perpetrators.
Oh, and I see we’re at the stage of passive-aggressive threats of eternal torture. Nice. I’m starting to miss Karl, he was much nicer and he was more original.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:30 am
“Maybe Moses and his homies needed secretaries.”
LOL, Vicki - must remember that one for future debates!
Erik B, you seem very fond of Bible quotes; here’s a Shakespeare one for you:
“Zounds! I was never so bethump’d with words…”
September 18th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Karl got scared of Jehovah and went away. Maybe that would work with Erik, too?
September 18th, 2008 at 6:52 am
You think the bible is the literal word of god.
You think your scare tactic of pointing out ‘fallacies’ with teaching kids going through puberty what will happen if a couple has unprotected sex, and how to prevent babies or disease, actually works.
You think I was even remotely intimidated by your words. I was chuckling at your inability to reconcile fact from fiction.
Not once when I received sexual education did I see immorality taught, nor virginity mocked. Nor did I ever take sex for granted. Anal, vaginal, or oral, I was not going to just go and hump the first girl I date. Seeing as how dated around, not necessarily for sex, but for feeling out reason, I can tell you that, as an atheist, relationships don’t come easy.
Ah, but when the time came, I was ready. I knew what to do, how to do it, and, by science, I did it. God had nothing to do with anything in my life, and I’ve been better for it. Also, growing up is a hard thing to do, going through several shitty relationships is part of the deal. If god had done the one man for one woman deal correctly, each penis would have a matching vagina. A square dick trying to go into a star vagina would pretty much negate all the pesky dating trial and error.
Which is what sexual education is about negating altogether. That trial and error part can be greatly alleviated with a good dose of education, so the error is not as deadly. Abstinence only education is worthless, the facts prove that. It is YOU who cannot apparently read, or comprehend, since you miss the point completely.
Also…you don’t hate homosexuals…but you hate homosexuality? Don’t you see the paradox in that statement? Homosexuals don’t choose to be gay, you negligent plebeian. I suppose you hate all the gay animals out there? Kill your dog, because humping the weaker male is a show of dominance. Film it for true internet proof, so we can see how much you hate homosexuality.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Proj: There’s a saying, “Let a sleeping dog lie.” But, alas, Karl has returned!
September 18th, 2008 at 7:57 am
And what’s become of Larry J.Carter?
September 18th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Erik wrote: “I was waiting for this comment as well. The virgin who is engaged in verse 23 is not raped, look at the words that are on the page before you jump in judgment.”
Back at you—look at the words Vikki wrote. Her point is that in the city, if the woman is gagged or simply didn’t cry out loud enough, it is presumed she was not raped. And since most rapes do involve some sort of threat not to scream, this pretty much removes any kind of judgment, yours or theirs.
Conversely, if a woman wanted to just have a fling, all she needed to do was go out into the country, where it is presumed no one could possible (!) hear her scream, and she can do whatever the hell she wants.
These rules don’t pass moral muster. I suppose since you’re such a follower, that if one of your daughters ends up pregnant out of wedlock, you might consider stoning her?
September 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Mobius 1 raises some excellent points. He reminds me of the following:
Those people who have very limited (or no) sexual encounters by the time they are young adults are often overwhelmed with the anticipation of sex or the intensity of sex, jumping to the conclusion that sex = true love. The all-too-easy matching of real-life penises and vaginas thus leads to many “star” personalities getting married to “square” personalities, the wedding occurring just as that huge burst of sexual excitement is about to start wearing off. “Oh my God! What happened? We don’t have anything in common except our matching penis and vagina!”
The solution to this (and I admit that it’s not a perfect solution, because I’m talking of the real world) is that young adults should have well-protected sex with at least a couple partners before committing to “the one.” This allows one to put sex in the proper perspective when evaluating potential long-term mates. Sex is great for decades when one chooses a largely compatible partner. Otherwise, sex is a mere novelty, and it eventually loses much of its luster.
The Bible is obsessed with sexuality, and much of the “advice” it offers is bizarre, as documented here http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm . The Bible says nothing about being careful to marry someone who is truly compatible with you in terms of emotions, personality and interests. This lack of Bible attention to OTHER aspects of relationships is not surprising, because back when the Bible was written, women were treated as property and they were expected to function primarily as baby-making and baby-raising machinery. This is yet another reason why I would never refer a confused teenager to the Bible for advice on sex (or love).
September 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Erik wrote “The sex ed that you speak of leads them to immorality.”
That is simply not born out by the facts. It’s not only wrong, but a false syllogism.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Which is why the smart move is to, as Erich says, to have a few different partners, until you decide you want a mate for life. A better prepared individual will not make so many mistakes when it comes to sex, love, and infatuation.
Infatuation is what most \’protected\’ people feel when they have sex for the first time without proper education on the matter. Since I got out there, had the education at the young age, I didn\’t have to learn the hard way that sex doesn\’t equal love. Am I going to cheat on the girl I\’m with now, because I\’ve had sex ed? No, but you imply that I will anyway, because sex ed, according to you, aspires to teach young men to fornicate willy nilly, as long as they wear a condom, so I, by your opinion, am a walking penis just ready to chase tail
Funnily enough, your bible also propagates that tactic, but without respect to the woman. And without the birth control aspect. Miidianite virginal women were taken as concubines by the Israelites in the old testament…Wasn\’t that all about promiscuity and sex? What a lovely moral lesson.
I\’m sorry (not really) but if you continue down this road of \’logic\’, you\’ll never be able to salvage your argument here.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
“Can you show me an example (scientific example) of the gay gene?”
Homosexual, as well as bisexual, behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood as most species have yet to be studied.[3] A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
God Done IT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
September 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Erik Brewer:
The first thing that I want you to know is that I believe in the creator God of the Bible. I know that you believe as well, however the attitude that comes through when you post on this site is all wrong. Obviously you harbor a lot of anger towards those who hold liberal points of view. Maybe you feel that they are part of the lie you believed before you believed God. Whatever the reason, I want to urge you to back off. Turn off the computer and spend some time searching your heart. Here are some comments you have posted:
“This is typical among free thinkers, they do not see what is there written in black in white and they make up their own ideas.”
“I was waiting for the character attacks and name calling, very common among liberals and free thinkers. If you cannot beat the argument try to smear the one with the argument.”
These comments reveal much bitterness towards men and women who hold liberal points of view (not just against the points of view). Keep in mind that all people have been created in the image of God. Look at Genesis 9:6, this indicates that whatever you do to any person here on earth (including verbal or written attack), it is as if you are doing it to God himself.
You may believe that you are just stating facts and not making attacks, but look at what you wrote here:
“Be careful about the vulgar language that comes out of your mouth. The Bible speaks on that issue and it is not good. Matthew 12:34-37 34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 ‘The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.’”
Erik, don’t you know that that passage is not directed towards non-Christians but towards the Pharisees, the religious leaders? Those religious leaders thought they knew it all and thought they had the authority to condemn others. Specifically, they thought they could attribute the works of God done by Jesus to Satan. This is why Jesus condemned them in the passage you cited. How dare you use this passage in reference to vulgar language and against a set of people who claim not to believe the Bible? This passage has much more to do with you than it does with them.
I am sure you know that only God can change someone’s heart so that they see the truth of the Bible. This means that your attacks are not accomplishing anything. Attacking those who believe differently than you do will only serve to frustrate both you and them. Instead, you might try looking for elements of truth and beauty in what they believe. (They are there, whether you believe it or not). Then you might have some common ground; something to actually talk about instead of worthless bickering.
By the way, my anti-spam word is hopeful. Appropriate, I think.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Check out this recent post by Ebonmuse (of “Daylight Atheism”) on the topic of polygamy:
Ebonmuse then directs us to the following passages, among many others:
For the full post, visit Daylight Atheism.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:47 am
• mandrellian
Why are homosexuals so insistent on getting curriculum in public schools that “teach” (brainwash) little kids (why do they not try with grown people who can think for themselves?)? You know why, because they need new “converts” and in order to do that they prey on young minds that are forming. Get them hooked when they are young (McDonald’s motto). Of course you are not going to respond because you do not have any other arguiment except for the ones that your buddies have already used. As I said, “free thinkers” all think alike.
Again, watch your words because they reveal what kind of heart you have and if you use nasty words then that reveals what kind of heart that you have. Have your gay days at home and not at public schools. Have your beloved gay pride parades at home, why do you have to force it upon the public?
Tell the truth and stop telling lies, either you are telling lies or you yourself have been deceived. Condoms protect 98% against pregnancies but nowhere near that well against STD’s.
Here is a thought for you (can you think outside the box?). Illegal drugs are illegal because they are dangerous (they can kill you). According to your method of teaching sex ed, we should teach kids how to use illegal drugs in a “safer” way. You say that kids will have sex anyway (glorifying immorality) so they need to have “safer” sex (which any sex outside of marriage puts you at risk). Your argument “since kids are going to use illegal drugs anyway, let’s teach them how to do it in a safer way”. Would that ever be taught in schools? Of course not. Same logic with your sex ed!
So you admit that there is a better way than your so called sex ed!!!! I was waiting for that. I do not gamble but if I did I would play the bests odds (can you get better than 100%?) I am a realist; I know people will be disobedient to God because of sin. That does not mean that we should encourage immorality, it means that we should discourage it because it is already a problem. Again, condoms do not protect the way that some claim (anywhere from 30% to 92%). Those are not good odds. There are other STD’s that condoms do not protect against at all. Again, you are putting teens at risk by encouraging immorality. Think in a rational way (you are a free thinker aren’t you?). Immorality is unprotected sex, If you practice morality then you will be protected at all times.
As I said “free thinkers” are free as long as you agree with them but if you have a different/better opinion they turn into very narrow minded thinkers!!!
• Erich Vieth
Here is your problem. You assume that a married couple cannot use condoms (remember 98% effective against pregnancies). Since they practice morality then they are not in danger of STD’s so they do not need “protection” against STD’s.
By the way, it is not based on “my” interpretation. The Bible has ONE interpretation. Be careful with the type of Birth control. There are some that stop fertilization but then there are others that allow fertilization but do not allow the embryo to implant, that is murder. You can find out which is which with a little research.
Abortion is murder, I know that the liberal argument is always “what about rape and incest?” Look at how many abortions are done because of rape and incest, not even 1%. So 99% of abortions are done because of “other” reasons.
Homosexuality is a direct attack on society. The bedrock of society is the family (Look in Genesis and you will see that God built society starting with a husband and his wife). Homosexuals are directly attacking the foundation of society and as you know if the foundation is broken then the building will fall. I do not want society to crumble but if the foundation is attacked and destroyed then you know what the results will be. People can try to destroy STD’s (AIDS) all that they want but they will not succeed as long as they are disobedient to God (promoting immorality). You know that the worse thing about immorality is the fact that innocent people have to suffer because of the sins of others. The baby born with AIDS because the mother and father were immoral is victim. I do not want more victims therefore I fight against immorality.
Again, these are not my ideas, these are God’s ideas and I am just the messenger.
• Vicki Baker
You are reading what is not there when I am just telling you what is written in black and white. It does not take a genius to see that one is making stuff up (you) and I am seeing what is there. You can assume all day long but the facts are there, why not use them? She is stoned because she is practicing immorality (she is engaged, study what that means in Jewish history). If the two who practice immorality are not punished then their immorality will spread. Also there is a victim here, the man who was engaged to her. She showed her true “face” by committing immorality.
I just want you to “think” a little bit. Assuming is not thinking!!!
Againm you are reading into what is being said. He never said “sleep with or rape” those women. Look at the whole context of the passage as well as why God says to put to death the Midianites. Learn how to study and think instead of running to someone who has grabbed a verse without trying to understand what is there (a pattern among “free thinkers”). Having concubines was not God’s idea, in fact they were sinning against God when they took concubines. Not many in Israel had concubines though so do not assume that it was rampant (assumption brings all kinds of errors).
I will never threaten anyone. God on the other hand does. I want to warn people of the danger ahead. So you are against warning people of immanent danger, nice!
• Mobius 1
I know that the Bible is the literal Word of God. Every promise that He has said has come true and the future ones will as well. I hope that you live long enough to see them. His Word says that He will change a person’s heart/mind/life and He has done it over and over again in every generation. He also said that Israel would not be wiped out and they have not been since their creation (although many have tried).
All I have brought is fact. You guys have brought a lot of fiction. Look at Vicki’s reading in to what she wants to see in the Scriptures.
God is in the business of relationships (good/holy ones). When you step outside of His blessing you also step outside of His protection.
Trial and error in marriage/sexuality is ridicoulous. God has a better way, His way. He will bring the right woman to the right man at the right time. They will marry and live in marriage according to God’s Word/plan. I l have lived it and live it everyday and know many, many others who have and are following the same path. My friend, it works but you have to step out on faith and try it.
There is no paradox in hating sin and loving the sinner. If you can’t understand that then I would advise you to use that “free thinking” brain of yours to think a little. The reason that there are gay animals is because of the fall of mankind into sin!!! Homosexuality is sin. Homosexuality is a choice. People may be more inclined to homosexuality than others, I understand that. Should we excuse murders because they are more inclined to rage and anger? No way, why? Because murder is a choice just like homosexuality is a choice. It is all about choices.
.
• Mark Tiedemann
You are assuming again. It is clear that this woman had a chance to cry out for help but she did not, she consented to the act. Read what is there. I know you do not want to admit it because your argument crumbles when you have to admit the truth of what is there. Sorry man, take your loss and move on.
Erich
The Bible does guide us in the art of sexuality. You finally admit that yourself, sex ed from the Bible, you finally got it. It is not bizarre. Do not confuse what you do not understand with bizarre. The Bible teaches that God is the author of marriage so He initiates it at the right time between the right people. He knows better than you do my friend, I know that is hard for you to admit.
• Mark Tiedemann
Sex ed that glorifies immorality (putting condom in a teen’s hand) is wrong because you give teens false security. Again condoms do not protect the way that it is portrayed.
• Mobius 1
I do not want used goods and neither does my wife. Sex before marriage is used goods. God has given us the gift of virginity to share with husband and wife in marriage so when you try things out before hand then you do not have anything to give to your husband/wife. I would rather learn how to have sex with my wife then have her or I come into the marriage with our dirty experiences.
Wow, you read into everything don’t you. Can you not read the words in black and white on the page? There is no mention of a concubine here. Also God does not teach the idea of having concubines (living together before marriage is like having a concubine by the way). He teaches marriage between husband and wife! Learn how to read and you will know that.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
• Ben
No God did not create homosexuality. The animal kingdom was cursed along with mankind because of sin!!! Read the Bible for yourself for a change and you might see that.
Plus you have not shown the “gay” gene!!!
•
Monica Kozeny
I am so glad that you believe in God. I apologize if I come off strong. I love God and love people and that is why I speak out. Sin is killing people and immoral people who practice sin are promoting their lifestyle to no end. This causes innocent people to suffer. God always wants to protect the innocent. As a believer I am called to be salt. Salt stops decay among other things. Sin causes decay so I must speak out against sin (decay). I love the way believers are told to be quiet while immoral people are commended for preaching their way of life in the streets (homosexual gay pride parades).
From what I have seen, liberals are the most anti-God people on this earth. They promote their agenda for everyone to hear. I, the one who has the Truth of the Word of God, am expected to sit back and not get involved. I am against the liberal argument and not he liberal himself (love the sinner but hate the sin). I apologize for coming off strong. I am called to defend the Word of God and I will do it.
I like the way that you defend those who attack me but chastise me for pointing out what was obvious.
Pharisees were not Christians, they were non-Christians. Please do not equate religious with Christian. God is not impressed by religious people. He wants people who will follow Him completely. I have never condemned anyone. The Word of God however has ALREADY CONDEMED SIN. If you do not like that then your problem is not with me it is with God (please work it out). This is a direct quote against vulgar language and much much more.
Again I am attacking the ideas. I am sorry if I can off a little strong. I have to stand up for what the Word says and take on the enemies of Jesus Christ (study Covenant and you will know what I am talking about). Those who speak against the Word of God and Jesus Christ are enemies of God so I must speak. I do it to introduce them to the Truth. If I remain silent then they will not hear the Word.
I appreciate your comment. By the way a little bit of poison poisons the entire glass of clean pure water.
• Erich Vieth
Again, God never called people to take concubines. Can you show me a direct quote that says that? God created marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Seven hundred wives!” “Three hundred concubines!” Damn, it IS good to be the king!
September 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Erik Brewer says above: "The Bible has ONE interpretation."
If this were true, one wonders why there are thousands of competing Christian denominations, synods, and sects all differing primarily in their interpretation of some point or other of The Bible.
What of the Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Muslim sects that all also claim this unique, correct interpretation of the Bible?
What about Herman Cummings, who claims to be the “foremost terrestrial authority on the book of Genesis.” and vocally denounces many common fundamentalist ideals.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
• Dan Klarmann
People can be wrong (are wrong many times) because of the sin factor. Man being wrong does not make the Bible wrong. God has One train of thought and develops it in His Scriptures. He also gives the Holy Spirit to born again Christians so that they can understand God’s thought.
If the Scriptures are studied in a systematic way with the revelation of the Holy Spirit then the right interpretation can be made. Many times people rush through a passage and try to give their own interpretation of what God says. Just let God speak, you will be amazed.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Erik wrote:—”Why are homosexuals so insistent on getting curriculum in public schools that “teach” (brainwash) little kids (why do they not try with grown people who can think for themselves?)? You know why, because they need new “converts” and in order to do that they prey on young minds that are forming.”
Bullshit.
The best way to overcome fear of a group people know little or nothing about is to educate people about that group. You dispell fear and hate in the glaring light of information. That’s why they call it Enlightenment. In exactly the same way African-Americans insisted on black studies programs in the 70s, so the majority population would get the information needed to stop believing all the stereotypes and misinformation put out by true propagandists. The same way American Indians pushed for serious courses on their history, so Americans in general would stop acting as if all they ever wanted to do was kill, scalp, and hunt buffalo. To learn about someone is to learn not to fear them. A lesson obviously lost on you.
You say you do not hate gays—yet in putting forth this bile, you paint a picture of them that can only produce fear if believed, and fear leads to hate, and hate leads to violence, and we all know where that ends up. Your doing your level, christian best to make sure your children never know about the boogie men you seem bent on seeing around every textbook.
I think this has passed the point of entertaining.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“The Bible has ONE interpretation.” You should consider the many faces of Christianity: http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Just a reminder that the example of “homosexual brainwashing in public schools” that Erik linked to was actually from a private religious school. Another example of grumpypilgrim’s comment above. Is Erik suggesting that the government should interfere with the curricula of private religious schools who are not teaching his interpretation of the Bible?
Another question for Erik: do you think death by torture (stoning) is an appropriate punishment for adultery? Why or why not?
September 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Read the Bible for yourself for a change and you might see that.”
Erik, with all due respect, I never want to be anything like you or any other religious extremists such as Phelps and Bin Laden. I refuse to be part of your Cruel (imaginary) God’s Kingdom. So I’m keeping the bible away from myself and my loved ones, and when I go to hotels I use the bible pages to clean my holy regions. (anti-spam word = irked)
September 20th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Ben, there’s an invention called toilet paper.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:13 am
This is where I get the conceited feeling from, whenever you post. You assume you’re even posting the truth, when really you’re just spouting right wing propaganda and young earth creationist bullshit.
1. The bible is not true, because, in practice and research, the prophecies that come from my dog are more accurate than the bible. You seem to forget that the bible was written a few decades after all the events supposedly happened, and that it was written over a few more decades by different people. Shit was added, taken out, misconstrued, and its an overall grabbag of shit.
Ever heard of Tyre? According to the bible, it was supposed to be completely leveled, and turned into a desolate wasteland, never to be settled again, ever. Well now…Go take some time to google it. It still exists, and is thriving. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html Should dampen your words on the prophecy part a bit, but I doubt you’ll look.
Wait…wait just a minute, did you call all women who have had sex before marriage ‘used goods’? You incredibly sexist male, your bible was written during a time when women were considered inferior.
I know a certain brunette who would be happy to castrate you and cast your useless junk into a vat of hydrochloric acid, and I hope your wife realizes your sexist shit before she ends up another baby-machine.
Ah, but progress scares you…Getting children educated about sex, pregnancy prevention, and std’s violates your sensibilities. How come, then, do I see educated people making educated decisions about having sex, not having kids when they can’t support them, and making relationships that last, when your touted abstinence only sex ed is responsible for the rise in teen pregnancy?
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf will take you to a summary of AO versus comprehensive sex ed.
Sorry (not really), but AO fails. Exceptional failure. Stop supporting something patently hazardous for our youth, you sexist pig.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:39 am
• Mark Tiedemann
Big propaganda term used here, “educate”. Hitler “educated” the Germans about the Hebrews, Lenin and Stallion also “educated” the Russians about communism etc. History goes on and on about your “education”. Cut through the rhetoric and you see “education” for you really means propaganda.
Here you go again comparing genetics with choices. African Americans have no choice but to be that way because that is the way they are born. Homosexuals, on the other hand, make a choice to be homosexual every single day. Comparing apples to oranges is a great propaganda tool that you guys use. Better to compare homosexuals to murders because both are a choice and both cause terrible destruction.
Calling things out as they are is not hateful. If homosexuality leaves death and destruction in its wake and you guys cover that up and I am trying to warn people then who is the vile one? Answer that question for me.
• grumpypilgrim
The argument that you have