Why do you think teenagers are becoming sexually active at such a young age today?

Um, because they’re mammals?  And because we don’t live in a barbaric society where a woman having sex before she’s married automatically destroys her life entirely.

I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Why do you think teenagers are becoming sexually active at such a young age today?

  1. SeeBeeWrite says:

    Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

  2. How dare you suggest such a thing! Everyone knows that sex before marriage is a s.i.n. πŸ˜‰

  3. agnophilo says:

    @PinkSunfireDragon – I don’t know you well enough to know if you’re joking or not.

  4. @agnophilo – Sorry, I’ll make the winky face πŸ˜‰ a little bigger next time. I was joking. πŸ™‚

  5. agnophilo says:

    @PinkSunfireDragon – Ah, didn’t see the winky face – the universally accepted symbol of just kidding.  I apologize.

  6. galthouse says:

    Totally disagree.  Kids are having sex because that is what is on their mind.  They are bombarded with sex everyday in a variety of ways – that I don’t thnk I need to explain.A sex drive is natural yes.  But irresponcible sex is a huge social problem, that stems from poor parenting, in my opinion.  I just think, people should avoid sex, till they are responcible to deal with its ramifications… kids.Why should the offspring of irresponcible sex have to pay the price for the parent’s selfish sexual gradification?

  7. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – You know sex ed + correct use of birth control = no babies right?

  8. galthouse says:

    @agnophilo – Is that how it works?  Really….  That’s what they teach in school, but it doesn’t make a diffrence does it.  Disease is still spread.  Teens are still having babies.I don’t think a mother’s life should be destroyed, but I do think she, AND THE FATHER, need to take responcibility for their actions.  This might mean that they have to wait to go to college for four or more years.  That’s life.  When you mess with sex, birth control or not, and you have a baby, in a way – yeah life ends.I am a father and a husband.  Yes, a part of my life ended when I had a kid.  Life isn’t all about what I want to do anymore.  Its about “what’s best for my kid”.  This is the sacrifice one has to make when they have kids.  This is a sacrifice that frankly most kids can’t handel, or selfishly refuse to handel, and therefore I believe they should not have sex.What’s barbaric about a person taking responcibility for their actions?  If you punch the wall – its gonna hurt.  The problem today is that we have too many kids who only think about themselves and what they want and what isd good for their lives.  So, they in my opinion are not ready to be parents – and therefore are not ready to have sex.

  9. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – My point is a 17 year old can be responsible by not having sex or by educating themselves enough and being responsible enough to have safe sex.  And since teaching kids “keep it in your pants ’till you’re married” doesn’t reduce the number of teens that have sex no matter how you teach it to them, why bother with it?You’re preaching new testament values and pretending it’s about teen pregnancy and disease, both of which are easily avoidable and take a lot less effort for the average teenager than turning down sex.

  10. galthouse says:

    See – my thing is this.  I don’t believe in “premarital sex” being responcible.  I could base this arguement on hundereds of studies that say a child needs a mother and a father because both contribute important influences.  I don’t even have to bring up the New Testiment and what it says.  That is of course my faith, and my personal conviction.I agree with the “why bother with it”.  I really don’t like my tax dollars being spent on teaching ten year olds about sex from the governments point of view.  Nope, don’t like that at all.The problem is that a severteen year old thinks that they are a responcible adult, and they are really not.  They are still kids – growing into adult bodies.  I know VERY few people who look back on their days of being seventeen and think, “man, I was a responcible young adult”.  Nope.  That responcibility typically happens later in life.What happens when the defenses fail?  Then what?  Kill the baby?!?  (Again – VERY selfish and is ALL about what the mother/father wants.  It is a pity that human beings go to the point of comitting murder of the most inocent of inocent just to serve their own desires.)  The kid who is seventeen will say, “well, I am not ready to have a baby!”  And they are right about that.  But if you are not ready to have a baby – Don’t Have Sex till you are ready.  It is the only sure way.That is my perspective on it socially.  Seeing as how my personal feelings on this run much deeper than just it being a social issue, and instead rooted in my faith, I can see how you don’t agree with me.  I can see how “safe sex” seems “ok” to you.  And we will jsut have to disagree – again…

  11. I’m still planning to write back to your last comment!  Just thought I’d let you know I’m not ignoring it.  πŸ™‚   I’ve just been busy trying to survive college, and right now I don’t have enough brain power to write a well-thought out response.  You definitely raised some interesting points, though, which I have been thinking about…

  12. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – My point is you’re arguing your religious beliefs but pretending it’s about other things.  You think sex outside of marriage is sinful, so you are against it.  Just say that up front.But if you want to push it on everyone else you know you have to come up with something non-subjective, so you claim it’s about teen pregnancy and STDs, but it isn’t.And my point was why bother to preach abstinence to kids because the kids in private religious schools that have abstinence drummed into their heads have sex before leaving highschool at the same exact 80% rate as the public school kids, the only difference is the kids from religious anti-sex schools tend not to know a damn thing about safe sex and get pregnant, get STDs, have abortions etc more often.

  13. agnophilo says:

    @goodnessgraceness – Alrighty – which comment was that again?  Sorry, I have bad memory for the internet.

  14. galthouse says:

    @agnophilo – I am not “pretending” it is about other things – I am just trying to engage you on a platform that we both can relate to.  I can’t argue from my faith’s perspective, because you don’t accept my faith and therefore don’t understand or care about all of its intricate dynamics of cause and effects.  (The laws of God are there for a reason – and somethines those reasons are seen when we ignor the laws, and see the resalt.)  You obiviously don’t care about the law of God, or maybe you don’t even believe in a god, so there was no point discussing it from that perspective.  My motives were not to decieve you, or anyone else, but to try and have a conversation without having to bring up my faith.  Was I being untruthful by trying to see things from your perspective?  I thiought that that was part of the point of these “chats”.  To bring out topics and discuss them with an open mind.  That is what I was doing.  I was trying to be objective.  I am a free thinker (as clasified by a personality test) and that is what “free thinkers” do.I agree that teaching abstance in school seems to be a waist of time and money.  I don’t see how this issue can be resolved socially.  There are things the law can’t regulate.  There are motives of the heart the law can’t stop.  It is illegal to murder, but they can’t make laws against hate.  They only make laws about the outcome of it.I don’t know where you get your statistics.  If they are acurate, it would not surprise me.  Coming from that sort of environment, I would think that their reasons for not practicing “safe sex” are not so much ignorance but an illusion of “this is safe because this is a group that doesn’t have sex”.  Which, is not true, this day in age.So, anyway, we CAN agree that the meathods used to prevent teen pregnancy are ineffective.  πŸ™‚  Good talking to you.

  15. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – My point is that you’re not against premarital sex because of condoms and STDs exclusively, you consider all sex outside of marriage to be wrong for religious reasons even though two people who have not had multiple partners having protected sex will not cause STDs or pregnancy and is, from a medical standpoint, responsible behavior.  You still are against it because your reasons are religious, but you insist that they are not and that is disingenuous.  That’s my point.  If you still disagree but for religious reasons, then be up-front about it, don’t just keep insisting you’re right for secular reasons and repeating secular arguments when you are only right by religious ethical standards, if that.So far as the laws of cause and effect, I don’t know why my being an atheist would have any bearing on cause and effect.The “laws of god” are unknown to us, we only have the laws of men who claimed to be inspired by or in communication with god.  And those “laws” allow for slavery, genocide, sexism and any number of atrocities.And by the way, the bible forbids all sex outside of marriage because in biblical days ALL sex was unsafe sex.  To have sex with someone meant to impregnate them, and to have sex with multiple people meant to spread diseases and kill people.  Both of these are positively immoral by modern standards.  However now we have condoms and medical science, and morality *changes* as society changes, making old ethics no longer applicable, like the ones prohibiting sex before marriage.If memory serves christ strictly admonished jews for following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, because the oldness of the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The “old” words he was talking about were 800 years old give or take, and they had long since lost their meaning and relevance.  The words christians follow literally today are more than twice as old as the writings he was admonishing people for following literally…

  16. galthouse says:

    @agnophilo – Ok, now it seems you are asuming a gret deal about me and have lumped me into some group that you seem to dispise, for some reason.  You are also ignoring much of my responces and only looking at what you want to see.  I explained my reasons for my responces.  But apparently everyone else is supposed to think “outside the box” except for you.  My reasons are primarilly religous “for myself”.  However socially, I believe that absinance has possitive social and moral effects.  I am not insisting I am right for secular reasons.  This is how I conclude you must have some bias against me, or whatever group you’ve lumped me into.Your “religious or anti-religous” opinins do have a cause and effect.  You judge me by saying that I am enforcing my “moralism” on society.  But you fail to see how you are just as guilty.  You are forcing your “im-moralism” on scoiety.  You, in your own way are trying to change the world you are in, by reasons of what you believe or don’t believe.  There is no difference.  So your effect is the change you try and cause by actions such as this blog, how you vote, how you share your opinions and influence others.I believe you have a distorted view of the laws of God.  Where and how do you come to the conclusion that the Law of God supports slavery, when it clearly teaches the opposit?  The same with genoside.  In no way does the Bbile support that.  You must be confusing the Holy Bible with the Koran.  There is also no truth to the idea that it supports sexism.  The Bible defines two roles, one for man, and one for a woman.  Niegther is supperior, both are equal.  The Bible does make the man the head of his home, BUT by that, He is to lay aside himself as a servant for those in his home, even to the point of death.  You seem to be twisting the principals of scripture into an unfavorable view.You define truth as “relative”, in that it changes as society changes.  That is not truth.  Truth never has to change.  If truth had to change to become accurate – then it was never truth to begin with.  Society’s morals and laws change from generation to genoration but God’s law is perfect and does not change.Your memory of scripture is only slightly correct.  Your understanding of it is entirely incorrect.  The Jews were gulity of “adding” to the law.  They tried to add to the law so that if you obeyed their laws, you would never get close to disobeying God’s law.  However in there attempts to become “holy” they diminished the law and what it actually meant, and made it into something less, so that it was actually something someone could “do”.  The Law is holy and perfect.  The Law of God is impossible to follow perfectly, because we human mortals are imperfect.  God’s law was not just about outward actions, but inner heart motivations.  “Why” you do what you do.Jesus came to free them from the Law.  To disobey God’s law, meant that you are sinful and seperate from God, punishable by damnation.  Jesus, being God and man, was the only perfect being that could keep the Law of God.  So He was the only human who would not be condemned by the Law of God.  Because of this, He was the only one capable of paying the debt of the Law.  (or paying the punishment of breaking the law)  Jesus took the punishment and paid the price for all those that accepted His gift.  When we realize that we can’t make it of our own efforts by being good, and accept the gift of God – that being Jesus Christ, as our saviour, we are promised etternal life with God.  When you accept Jesus’ gift you are set free from the law.  My debt for my sin is paid.  It no longer matters if I sin or not, at least when it comes to where I am going when I die.  Obedience to the law for me now, is a way of showing love and thankfulness for what Jesus has already done for me.The Law of God is too heavy for anyone, and its weight will damn anyone who lives under the law.  The “Spirit” is the part of God that lives inside the Christ follower, and changes him/her from the inside out.  The Spirit frees the Christ follower from the weight of the law.  He changes your heart.  He changes the “why” I do what I do.  The “why” I obey the laws of God.The Laws of God never loose their meaning or relevance.  When I sin, it is not subject to a law that changes with time.  The Law is perfect and does not change.  My “sin” is a fact.  I disobey God’s law.  However, because I have accpeted Jesus’ gift, God looks at it as if I had already paid the debt of my sin.  I am redeemed.

  17. agnophilo says:

    “Ok, now it seems you are asuming a gretdeal about me and have lumped me into some group that you seem todispise, for some reason.”  Nothing that I’ve said comes remotely close to that.  Please tell me, what “group” have I lumped you into.  Please provide quotes where I do this.”You are also ignoring much of my responcesand only looking at what you want to see.  I explained my reasons formy responces.  But apparently everyone else is supposed to think”outside the box” except for you.”  Each time I replied to the majority of what you said, stop being a dick.”My reasons are primarilly religous”for myself”.  However socially, I believe that absinance has possitivesocial and moral effects.  I am not insisting I am right for secularreasons.  This is how I conclude you must have some bias against me, orwhatever group you’ve lumped me into.”Of course you are.  You’re insisting you’re right of course, and making secular arguments.  You literally just replied to my assertion that you believed premarital sex was wrong for religious reasons but are arguing secular reasons by saying your reasons are mainly religious but you think there are good secular reasons.  You’re doing it in the same breath that you deny having done it.””Your “religious oranti-religous” opinins do have a cause and effect.”  Everything has a cause and effect, you’re now saying something completely different than the cause-effect statement you made before.”You judge me bysaying that I am enforcing my “moralism” on society.  But you fail tosee how you are just as guilty.  You are forcing your “im-moralism” onscoiety.”  Gee, and just when I thought you weren’t a moralizing christian blowhard.”You, in your own way are trying to change the world you arein, by reasons of what you believe or don’t believe.  There is nodifference.  So your effect is the change you try and cause by actionssuch as this blog, how you vote, how you share your opinions andinfluence others.”Yes, we all try to impact the world how we think it should be impacted.  I, in this blog, however, am arguing against your assertion that someone is irresponsible if they have any sex unless it’s inside marriage, no matter how responsibly they go about it.  But rather than rebut my arguments you simply make personal attacks against me, accuse me of “immoralism”, bias etc.”I believe you have a distorted view of thelaws of God.  Where and how do you come to the conclusion that the Lawof God supports slavery, when it clearly teaches the opposit?Yay, I just love debating scripture with christians who haven’t ever actually read the bible…King James took the word “slave” out of the bible completely, and changed words like doulos (greek word for slave) into terms like “bondmaid, bondservant” etc, but some bibles such as the NIV usually interpret them correctly as “slave”.  The following are from the KJV, and it’s obvious they’re talking about slaves when they talk about “selling” and “buying” servants etc.“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to thegood and gentle, but also to the froward” (1 Peter 2:18). “Servants, beobedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, withfear and trembling, in singlenessof your heart, as unto Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). Whatever you do, correct your slaves with physical violence:“A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understandhe will not answer” (Proverbs 29:19). “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have,shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen andbondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).Sometimes it’s okay to beat your slave to death, so long as he dies a few days later:“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dieunder his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day ortwo, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21). Take non-israelites as slaves and own them and their children forever:“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their familiesthat are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall beyour possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for yourchildren after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall beyour bondmen for ever” (Leviticus 25:44-46). “Servants, obey in all things yourmasters according to the flesh;not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart,fearing God” (Colossians 3:22; see also Ephesians 6:5-6). “Exhortservants to be obedient untotheir own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answeringagain; Notpurloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn thedoctrine of God ourSavior in all things” (Titus 2:9-10). Do I need to go on?  The bible, old testament and new is entirely pro-slavery, the closest it comes to admonishing it is to say that israelites should be kind to their hebrew slaves (while brutally ruling over their heathen slaves) and that christians maybe shouldn’t own *other christians*.  Sound familiar?  Like maybe how whites shouldn’t own other whites, but people from other countries was okay?  This is why the church and the southern states in america both considered slavery a god-given right – because it was and STILL IS according to the bible.”The samewith genoside.  In no way does the Bbile support that.”  Again, you haven’t read the thing.Moses was a mass-murderer by order of god.  “Then Moses stood in thegate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him comeunto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together untohim. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his swordby his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp,and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and everyman his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word ofMoses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men”(Exodus 32:26-28). “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20). “If thou shalt hear say . . . Certain men . . . saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword,destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof,with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:12-15). “That whosoeverwould not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whethersmall or great, whether man or woman” (2 Chronicles 15:13). Etc.  Yes the bible does condone and instruct genocide.  It also mentions countless slaughters that supposedly happened with god’s help, some with death tolls ranging into the millions.”You must beconfusing the Holy Bible with the Koran.”  Nope, but I could see how you could make that mistake, they’re so similar.There is also no truth to theidea that it supports sexism.  The Bible defines two roles, one forman, and one for a woman.”  That is the definition of sexism.  Sexism is treating someone differently based solely on their gender, and the bible tells you to do this a lot.”Niegther is supperior, both are equal.  TheBible does make the man the head of his home.”Neither is superior… except in the home.  Sorry, but that’s still superior.  The bible says women are to be subject to the wills of their husbands, they cannot even make a promise to anyone because their husband can reverse any promise they make.  Hell, in the bible women are only created as a last ditch effort to please man once the animals fail to keep adam company.  Throughout the bible women are treated as an inferior sub-species that exists solely to please man.”BUT by that, He is to layaside himself as a servant for those in his home, even to the point ofdeath.”  Show me the part where it says he is a servant to his wife.”You seem to be twisting the principals of scripture into anunfavorable view.”I really don’t need to…”You define truth as “relative”, in that itchanges as society changes.”  No, I said morality changes with the situation.  If I took out a gun and blew someone’s head off, that would be positively immoral.  However if they brandished a bomb and said in ten seconds they were going to blow up 1,000 people, that changes the situation morally, does it not?  Even the bible says that to everything there is a season, even killing.  That is an expression of moral relativism.  How can you aknowledge that there is a time to KILL and not allow for the possibility of a time to fuck?  I suppose fucking is morally worse than killing?Just as the bomb changed the situation, so too did birth control change the situation where you could have sex with someone without impregnating them.  So too did the situation with pork and shellfish which in the desert spoil almost immediately change with the invention of refrigerators and preservatives and expiration date labels etc.  Now we can eat these foods and not die from food poisoning.  Use your brain.”That is not truth.  Truth never has tochange.  If truth had to change to become accurate – then it was nevertruth to begin with.”  “Truth” is an ambiguous term and often is subject to the situation.”Society’s morals and laws change from generationto genoration but God’s law is perfect and does not change.”Oh so god’s law didn’t change when jesus died for our sins?  I thought it did.”Yourmemory of scripture is only slightly correct.”  You don’t seem to know much about scripture at all actually.  I would guess you’ve read some portion of the new testament and not much else.”Your understanding of itis entirely incorrect.”It’s one thing to claim it, another to demonstrate it to be true.”The Jews were gulity of “adding” to the law. They tried to add to the law so that if you obeyed their laws, youwould never get close to disobeying God’s law.  However in thereattempts to become “holy” they diminished the law and what it actuallymeant, and made it into something less, so that it was actuallysomething someone could “do”.  The Law is holy and perfect.  The Law ofGod is impossible to follow perfectly, because we human mortals areimperfect.  God’s law was not just about outward actions, but innerheart motivations.  “Why” you do what you do.”None of this has anything to do with what you are responding to.  My guess is you haven’t got a clue what scripture I was referring to.”Jesus came tofree them from the Law.  To disobey God’s law, meant that you aresinful and seperate from God, punishable by damnation.  Jesus, beingGod and man, was the only perfect being that could keep the Law ofGod.”  Actually he broke one of the commandments when he worked on the sabbath and told someone else to as well, then when they wanted to execute him he said he was god’s son so he can do whatever he pleases.  But whatever, he “perfectly” obeyed the law, blah blah.”So He was the only human who would not be condemned by the Law ofGod.  Because of this, He was the only one capable of paying the debtof the Law.”  A newborn baby hasn’t broken any of the laws of god, and when I baptise them they should be completely without sin, right?  So if I break their neck and burn them can I remove sin from myself?  Oh wait, killing innocent people is a barbaric and evil act…  Hmmm, so many conflicts in the logic of your religion.”(or paying the punishment of breaking the law)  Jesus tookthe punishment and paid the price for all those that accepted Hisgift.  When we realize that we can’t make it of our own efforts bybeing good, and accept the gift of God – that being Jesus Christ, asour saviour, we are promised etternal life with God.  When you acceptJesus’ gift you are set free from the law.  My debt for my sin ispaid.  It no longer matters if I sin or not, at least when it comes towhere I am going when I die.  Obedience to the law for me now, is a wayof showing love and thankfulness for what Jesus has already done for me.”Jesus didn’t do anything for you, any more than the animals sacrificed by barbaric bronze-age jews did anything for them.  Human sacrifice and animal sacrifice are arcane, idiotic concepts you would consider positively immoral in any other religion, as you should.  The idea that the purer the thing you destroy/kill the better it is for your soul is downright evil.  The idea that you can get rid of your “sin” (a magical substance that does not exist I might add) by killing someone, or that others can kill someone and remove your “sin” is again downright evil.”TheLaw of God is too heavy for anyone, and its weight will damn anyone wholives under the law.  The “Spirit” is the part of God that lives insidethe Christ follower, and changes him/her from the inside out.  TheSpirit frees the Christ follower from the weight of the law.  Hechanges your heart.  He changes the “why” I do what I do.  The “why” Iobey the laws of God.”Mythological mumbo jumbo.  The “Law of God is too heavy and will damn everyone who lives under it?  The same law you said was holy and perfect in every way?  The idea that there is an omnipotent perfect god who designedly created this complicated mess is just silly.  No I think man created this convoluted system.”The Laws of God never loose theirmeaning or relevance.”  Again, spoken like someone who never cracked open a bible in their life.”When I sin, it is not subject to a law thatchanges with time.  The Law is perfect and does not change.  My “sin”is a fact.  I disobey God’s law.  However, because I have accpetedJesus’ gift, God looks at it as if I had already paid the debt of mysin.  I am redeemed.”Again with the law not changing – this isn’t even theologically true.

  18. galthouse says:

    When I said, “Ok, now it seems you are asuming a gret deal about me and have lumped me into some group that you seem to dispise, for some reason.”  it was not in particularly what you said, but what I was sensing.  Why?  Because of the wording of your responces, the choice of words, and your knowledge of the scripture, yet your slant against it.  I assume you have been exposed to something “Christian” and however it was presented to you, it has possibly turned you against it in such a fasion that I find unusual for the average person.  I could be completely wrong – but I am being upfront, on how I am recieving you.  It is further confirmed in my mind in this most recent responce.  The “moralizing christina blowhard”, comment seems to be a dead give-away.  If this is wrong – then perhaps you can asses for me how I am getting this impression.No need to call me a “dick”.  If you thin I am being to nit-picky – I am sorry.  I will be more gracious.I am not insisting that I am right.  I merely stated my opinion, prerspective, whatever.  Do I beleive I am right, yes, but then so do you.  Why is that so offensive?  Does this make me “better”, holier” “wiser”, “more moral person”.  No.  I am a messed up person, who makes lots of mistakes.  (I’m sure we can agree there.  haha)  Remember, I don’t believe I am measured by my works, or my performance.  The same with you.  In fact if we were to measure works – you just might be a better person than me.  I don’t know.”Everything has a cause and effect, you’re now saying something completely different than the cause-effect statement you made before”.  Ok, I don’t understand you, here.  What was so different?  It would seem we both agree on “Cause and effect”.  My point was that sex outside of marriage will have an effect on society – just like no sex outside of marriage will have an effect on society.  My opinion is that it would be a negative effect, due to unplanned pregnancy, kids having kids, kids not being ready for parent-hood, etc… while you think that “safe sex” is the answer.  Am I right?”Yes, we all try to impact the world how we think it should be impacted.  I, in this blog, however, am arguing against your assertion that someone is irresponsible if they have any sex unless it’s inside marriage, no matter how responsibly they go about it.  But rather than rebut my arguments you simply make personal attacks against me, accuse me of “immoralism”, bias etc.”A negative evaluation of a topic is not a personal attack on you.  If you feel I am calling you an “immoral person” then know this.  I too am an “immoral person”.”Yay, I just love debating scripture with christians who haven’t ever actually read the bible…”  Ok…. I have read the Bible – but I don’t get the same meaining out of it that you are implying.  This is a common topic of those who oppose the Bible, and I can see you might get this wrong, because it is a difficult topic to cover and understand.  Slavery, that was practiced by the United States was “man stealing”.  Humans were kidnapped, taken from their homes, sold at auction, and forced to labor.  But there is also the term indentured servant.  There are acounts of many people coming to this nation as “indentured servants” which is neigther biblical nor unbiblical.  Criminals who owed a debt to society were forced to work, to pay off their crime.  To this day, this is an exceptable form of punishment.  The Bible does not support the slavery such as the Africans suffered.  (Exodus 21:16)  “And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”  The “slavery” much of your quotes describe, is that of an indentured servant.  You might disagree with me on this – but there are those who know the Bible far better than me, and this is their understanding of it, and I agree with them. “Show me the part where it says he is a servant to his wife.”Ephesians – 5:25 etc… “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.  In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body.”  Jesus Christ gaveup himself for the church, to the point of giving up his life.  So, husbands are to serve their wives accordingly. These replys are getting a little long.  If you’d like me to continue I will, but you’ve already aloud me to take up too much space on your blog.  I should not have gotten so carried away.  Let me know if you wuld like me to continue – otherwise let us agree to disagree for now.I hope you got a good job, because if I remeber, you were looking for one.  I’m sure the state of our economy are not making it easy.  I hope you and your family are in good health. I appologise for mis-spellings, and bad gramor.  It has been a long day, and well… I am tired as I am writing this.  Best wishes.

  19. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – You claim you weren’t calling me an “immoral person” but what you said was that you were “moralizing” and that I, on the other hand, was “immoralizing”.  Which is condescending and insulting and more than warrants any curt remarks I sent your way.And to answer your question no, I’m not saying safe sex is *the* answer, I am saying it’s *an* answer.  One you refuse to accept.You keep insisting premarital sex is bad because it causes pregnancy and disease etc, and you refuse to admit that people can have sex and not get pregnant and not get diseases, and in fact countless millions do so daily.  They are just as responsible morally as someone who keeps it in their pants until marriage.  But you won’t admit that, again because your reasons for believing premarital sex is bad are not secular, they are religious.The bit about slavery isn’t even worth responding to, I already went over all of that in my response and quoted plenty of scripture references that tell you to “man steal” all the foriegners you want, and showed that the “kinder, gentler” slavery quotes refer to israelites.  That quote you gave about no manstealing… read the rest of the chapter sometime, it regulates the buying and selling of slaves and includes that happy fun verse about how it’s okay to beat your slave to death so long as he doesn’t die immediately.  In the SAME CHAPTER as the quote you gave supposedly proving that it wasn’t “harsh” slavery that they were allowing for.  You don’t believe what you’re saying because your super-knowledgable (and super-anonymous) unnamed friends do, you believe it because you can’t deal with it not being true.  Because if the god of the bible killed children and condoned the slaughter of innocent people and instructed people to own slaves and did all of the things that the biblical god DOES in fact do, then that would make him a monster not worth worshipping even if he did exist.  And for whatever personal reasons you want to go on worshipping this god.The bit of scripture about husbands also was not what I asked for.Thanks for trying to be nice but you not aknowleding your previous insults and blatantly ignoring my slavery quotes kind of pisses me off.Feel free to respond at whatever length you want, that’s what xanga is for.

  20. galthouse says:

    @agnophilo – I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.  I am not trying to.  Obviously this is personal to you.  You are getting angry, and those emotions are hindering what I’d like to see from a Xanga conversation.I was hoping we could talk without getting emotionally involved to the point that our ego was on the line.  I was never wanting to debate you, because then it becomes about winning or losing and well – I don’t care about that.  This isn’t a competition for me.Since, it seems I have been negligent of your feelings.  I will bow out here.  I am truely sorry.

  21. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – Your apology is generic and doesn’t ring true because you don’t apologize *for* anything, you just say “I’m sorry”.Do you even know what you’re apologizing for?  Or are you just saying that because you think you’ve offended me?If you want to apologize then say what you’ve done that you shouldn’t have and apologize *for* something.  That will mean something to me.  Your apology is also somewhat backhanded since you accuse me of being offended because my “ego is on the line”, even though I’ve said specifically what it is I find offensive.I’m sorry, but you can’t condescend to someone and then when they get offended imply that it’s because their ego is too big.

  22. galthouse says:

    I am sorry that I hurt your feelings by expressing my point of view.  I am sorry that you find it so offensive.  I am sorry that I can’t seem to help you get through that offense.  I am sorry that I am unable to help you soften your anger.Friend, anger is a binder.  If you are offended by everything that is contrary to your point of view, you will never be able to explor opinions that are outside your perspective.  I wish I knew how to communicate that to you, without it being “offensive” to you.  but I can not.  You need to learn to get over the offensiveness of others words, and look at it objectively.  The same with the scripture.  Your anger against it has distored your perspective.  This platform of anger and intolerance is no place to have an intelligent discussion.

  23. agnophilo says:

    @galthouse – Sorry, but “I’m sorry you’re such an angry asshole” isn’t an apology.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s