posted
I don't understand if this person is saying that sex outside of marriage should be illegal, because according to Christianity we don't have the right to do it, or if they are just writing for Christians who are trying to come to a decision about whether or not they'll have pre-marital sex. The argument that believing pre-martial sex is okay is a religious position is pretty poor. While some people may incorporate it into their religious beliefs, its not something specific to Taoism (which as far as I can tell lets you make your own choices regarding sex, you don't HAVE to have pre-martial sex).
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beppie, I believe Tao was the last name of a writer to whom this author was responding to. I find it weird that he calls on Hauerwas to back him up against liberal democracy, because as far as I know of Hauerwas' theology, he's not terribly pro-democratic in any capacity.
To elaborate on how I feel about the rest of the article, I do sort of agree with the grain metaphor, but that's not solely a Christian concept. Here at Scarleteen, we tell people to wait until it's right for them, and only then, so in that sense the 'going with the grain' metaphor works. If it's not right, then it can be frustrating or hurtful.
However, on the other hand, I think this guy ends up arguing for what he claims to be arguing against- the role that sex in Christianity is often negative. He says "Oh, we need a positive image of sexuality within Christianity" but then states that only by following God's law (ie: abstinence until marriage) is it right. Same old, same old. It's an argument I've come across in my church circles as well: "Sex is wonderful and a joyous thing, and we should embrace it... but only after marriage." I subscribe to a lot of Christian theology myself, but suffered ostracization as a result of my views on sex as positive and natural whenever it's right for you - in marriage or out of it, in a committed relationship or out of one.
[This message has been edited by wobblyheadedjane (edited 04-20-2005).]
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wobblyheadedjane: Beppie, I believe Tao was the last name of a writer to whom this author was responding to. [This message has been edited by wobblyheadedjane (edited 04-20-2005).]
Yes, I realise that, but I think the author the the article had taken the surname "Tao" to mean that the writer was actually a Taoist.
I swear I'll accept a Christian theocracy when absolute scientific proof that God exists and that Jesus is the son of God is made available in a peer-reviewed study. Until then, hands off my right to do what I want, so long as it does not harm another, or act negatively upon another against that person's will.
Posts: 203 | From: Laguna Niguel, CA, USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think there is any such thing as absolute scientific proof - I mean, a hundred years ago there was absolute scientific proof that other races had smaller skulls, and therefore smaller brains and were inferior, but we all know that isn't true now.
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
a lot of scientific proof isn't proof as much as it is the rejection of other theories.
putting too much faith into science is just as orthodox as putting too much faith into religion. science teaches people to raise questions, not just find answers. evolution is still just a theory, after all
Anyway, for millions of people worldwide, Christianity fits their worldview and lifestyle and they reconcile their sexuality within that framework just fine. for billions of others, they have found their views fit better in te context of hundreds of other faiths like Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and so forth...
So just because we don't have Jesus' DNA on file in a lab somewhere, let's not put down other people's faith because it doesn't quite fit our own needs.
quote:Originally posted by Gumdrop Girl: a lot of scientific proof isn't proof as much as it is the rejection of other theories.
putting too much faith into science is just as orthodox as putting too much faith into religion.
If I was a little smarter a man, I'd say "opa" and truly know what it meant
Anyways, I'm a Christian, I'm a virgin. I'm a bit of a loser too. I've been offered sex. And I've decline. And I didn't do none of the declining for the Lord. I did it because I know for a fact that I am totally not ready for making something that can be so emotionally entangling at this point in my life. I means, if someone wants ta put the Bible to their life, all the power to them! But the minute people start expressing this in grand pushes upon all of society, I declare that hyper-lame and lose respects for these peoples.
Copyright 1998, 2013 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic