If Not For Grace
Legend-but then so's Keith Richards
- Feb 4, 2005
- 28,116
- 2,268
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
*sigh*
"The possible relationships between sexual permissiveness, sex-role rigidity, and violence at the societal level are examined. Two judges independently rank ordered the levels of sexual permissiveness of a random sample of 17 cultures chosen from the Human Relations Area Files. A second set of two judges rank ordered the rigidity of these cultures' sex roles, and a third set of judges rank ordered the cultures on their levels of intra- and extra-communal violence. An attempt to rank order the degree of achieved masculinity content of the cultures' sex stereotypes failed because judges could not rank them reliably. Sexual permissiveness was uncorrelated with either sex-role rigidity or violence, but sex-role rigidity was highly correlated with violence. The results are interpreted as being incompatible with theories of sex and violence that stress a single physiological or instinctual factor. The results supported two-factor theories which gave more emphasis to social learning principles than to physiological determinants."
Given that I quoted and responded to each part of your post, it should be obvious that I read your post. Still, it's telling that you lambaste me for not paying attention to what's being said, yet in the same breath admit to not paying attention to what's being said.
Is it any surprise that you have trouble finding worthwhile conversations with a hostile tone? The rest of us actually enjoy coming here, and treat each other with respect - me, RickG, Eudaimonist, AV, LittleLambofJesus, good brother... we couldn't have more different views, yet we somehow manage to maintain a modicum of civility. Imagine that! We are able to *gasp* disagree.
So don't fool yourself. If you have a problem with CF, it stems from you, not us.
Not so much guilt as a sense of betrayal that it had been built up by so many people, specifically our neo-pagan/atheist society, as being such a wonderful thing to have sex, that once I lost my only chance to share that first time with the one person I would commit my life to, I realized what a crock all the pro-sexual-revolution claptrap really is.
Interestingly, a lot of my angst regarding sex ties directly into the greed of this present age, as I waited soooooo long to even consider getting married because it is so ridiculously expensive to even cover basic food, clothing and shelter expenses, much less try to pay for a baby. It all boils down to greed, self serving violence against fair economic systems, and the willingness of most people to just sell out for a short term thrill of illicit sex rather than commit to the infinitely more gratifying picture of sex shared in love with a person you've committed to building your life and legacy with.
Ahhhh, Roach. Haven't seen you around lately. I see you've lost none of your charm or sense of the dramatic.
So, because you weren't good at having sex, the, ahem, "neo-pagan/atheist society" is to blame?
Also, since when is a society get labelled "neo-pagan/atheist" when 70% its populace is Christian, and its politics is dominated by placation to said Christians?
So because you had a bad experience, the only logical conclusion is that the whole of society is to blame!
Shane Roach said:Neo-pagan/atheist because that's the values we see today. Abortion? Ancient pagans just exposed their kids.
Human population control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"To halt rapid population increase, Aristotle advocated the use of abortion and the exposure of newborns.[7]"
You may not like it, but these are the commonalities with the past. Discuss it if you want, but insulting me and purposefully twisting my words so you can make cute comments about my sexual prowess is NOT the polite thing to do.
LOL what world do you live in? You just compared neo-pagans to atheists. Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just throwing out words you heard from your pastor?
Most neo-pagans believe in a deity so they can't, by definition, be called atheists.
Also you then quote Aristotle on abortion and tried to link it to this strawman "pagan/atheist" movement you think exists. The ironic thing is that Aristotle wasn't a pagan or an atheist; he believed that the gods were real.
Warning: on the internet you can't just spew ignorance and falsehoods without expecting to be fact-checked.
Go back to your little bible study group if you want to continue that.
Lastly, and this is what made me really upset, even if what you said was true it's just a giant argument from authority fallacy. Who cares what one person says about abortion? Are all of us atheists forced to accept the beliefs of an ancient Greek philosopher?
By that same logic should I lump you in the same group with Fred Phelps and the rest of those Westboro lunatics? According to you I would be much more justified in doing that than you were in your comparison because Fred Phelps is actually a Christian whereas Aristotle wasn't even an atheist.
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_charity.html said:Pliny the Younger even wondered if charities that gave to the poor should be allowed to exist. Plato stated that "a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die." Republic 3.406d-410a. The Roman Philosopher Plautus stated, "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery." Trinummus 2.338-2.339. All told, "classical philosophers regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions--defects of character to be avoided by all rational men. Since mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it was contrary to justice." Stark, op. cit., page 212. As Will Durant wrote, "[c]harity found little scope in this frugal life." Caesar and Christ, page 71.
Of course some people who call themselves Christians do un-Christian thing. The amazing thing to watch is how often the Bible is spot on in its predictions of how things will pan out, and then people act as if there is no proof of God.1 Tim 6:4-6
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain
KJV
Were you a Christian at the time (If we can ask)?Truthfully-Not a drop of guilt.
it comes down to teaching kids to wait til they are ready to have sex. hopefully when they marry but if they cant wait til then at least wait til they are ready enough to have sex and deal with what might come after
good points.i agree i would want kids to at least know what protection is if they cant wait. i would even tell my kids if they cant wait at least do it in there own beds vs renting a cheap motel room.
That wouldn't be such a Christian attitude, being that kind of parent.i would never be a dad that would turn his back on his daughter or son if they came to me and said they had sex.
to me parents that do that are jerks. and they push there kids away and there kids get even worse.
You still can't. Look at women in Afghanistan covered from head to toe and you can be certain there is still rape there. What's more these women are "blamed" for their rape, even though it's not a sexually promiscuous society.
I did feel guilt and shame when I lost my virginity. It was basically a case of playing doctor gone too far, and because I had it pounded into my brain that being a virgin was the most important thing I could be my guilt was very well understood.
I never regreted it though. Back then it was "well what's done is done", but now I'm actually glad I did because my first married experience with my husband is not going to be a shock, painful or awkward.
One thing I would want to know: If you're in a loving relationship with a good person why the HECK should they be so possessive and awkward about your past experience? I don't understand that kind of infantile thinking, like "You're mine and only mine." You're telling me you are actually jealous about the first awkward (and probably painful) sexual experience your spouse had?! In my opinion someone who holds your loss of hymen or whatever against you isn't worth it.
Neo-pagans and atheists today have the same values as pagans of old, is my point
See, the problem is that you assume that the beliefs of one atheist are also the beliefs of all atheists.
Unlike religious people, most atheists are free-thinkers. I know this is a concept you don't understand since you are used to being told what to believe; but atheism isn't a religion with set beliefs like Christianity.
Atheism has no tenants, dogma, clergy, political ideology, places of congregation, or statements of faith.
Atheism is NOT a religion... it's only a label for a specific position about one issue... the existence of deities.
You can have right-wing and left-wing atheists; you can have atheists who believe in ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, or even an afterlife; there are crazy atheists and some genius atheists out there.
The only thing you can say about any atheist that would be universally correct would be that he or she does not see sufficient evidence to accept any currently available claims about the existence of a deity.
I really don't appreciated you telling me what I and all other atheists believe. Have you even asked one atheist what they thought about any of those issues you mentioned?
Personally I don't believe in any of those draconian ideas that you quoted earlier and I don't know any atheists who do.
Instead of sitting there making stuff up, why don't you actually go here and ask atheists what they believe:
The Thinking Atheist Forum - The Free Thinking Life - Positive Atheism.
That is, if you actually care about accurately representing us. But if you just want to continue to slander us then by all means stay on this forum.
Just out of curiosity, and apologies if this question has already been addressed (too lazy to check the entire thread), but...
- Are people expected to feel any kind of guilt/shame when they lose their virginity?
- If so, why?
In other words, everyone has a law. If you sin against god, with or without a law, you will perish, according to the Bible. God's law is the law that leads to God. Note that it also strongly implies that the conscience goads people in the general direction of God's law, saying, "do by nature the things contained in the law...." That theme is repeated here -Rom 2:12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
KJV
Now, having said that, if one does things that one knows others believe is wrong, and they do not feel guilt, they are not necessarily guilty! People sometimes cling to poor values en masse. The individual in question could be clinging to a real and truthful value when society has given itself in general over to poor values. Still, there is also the kind of person who feels no guilt or shame because they just do not care about other people, much less how other people feel about their behavior. I believe this type of person fits into this mold -Rom 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse :
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
KJV
Interesting that it specifically says "forbidding to marry" and never "forbidding sex." And also this about being judged over food. Most folks read this in terms of Jewish food prohibitions and Catholics refusing to let their priesthood marry, but it looks as if the world is unfolding such that the literal truth of it will be the doing away of all marriage laws, and I don't think I have to tell anyone about the increasingly p.c. fad of holding people nigh legally accountable for their diet.1 Tim 4:1-4
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
KJV
See, the problem is that you assume that the beliefs of one atheist are also the beliefs of all atheists.
Unlike religious people, most atheists are free-thinkers
well for some people fear if they have sex before they marry will go to hell
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?