Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
The important question does not regard your feelings about this.
The important question is whether or not this is true.
A mighty fortress is our God
etc
(Never EVER should be played on a guitar, ever!)
I don't have anything against her as a person. She has every right to live the kind of lifestyle she chooses for herself, whether I find the reasons right, or obsessive. When she writes a book on the subject, intending for it to be a guide for other people who suddenly feel guilty about having sown wild oats (sorry, that phrase may apply only to men, but it conveys the idea I want to impart), then the ideas presented in that book become an open topic for discussion.
Going to the exact opposite extreme of being a pass-around groupie in the rock scene is not the only legitimate choice there is. There's also the choice of finding a reliable therapist (or maybe even a really good friend) and working out reasons as to why you are a different person now than you were then.
By what means do you find peace with regard to the wrong that you have done throughout your own life? Just asking.
A good question. I, too, tried the path of joining a repressive religion as a way of dealing with a traffic ticket for drinking while driving, and it didn't make sense to buy into a whole package of beliefs just to keep myself from ever having to confront questions of the responsible use of alcohol.
Some years later, as part of my gaining custody of my son (his mother was about to marry a convicted child rapist) I was ordered by the court to undergo an alcohol evaluation. This was at the prestigious institution of St. Peter's Hospital in Olympia, WA, and after a two hour interrogation by a professional, he concluded that I was not an alcoholic. Still, I did not object to the stipulation in the custody judgment that I refrain from drinking as a condition of his custody.
After my son turned eighteen, and left home, I was free of that solemn obligation, and decided to re-evaluate my drinking with the help of my spouse at that point. I gradually began to have a glass of wine here and there, and by using my still-sharp palate, I was able to find very good wines at decent prices to take over to my in-laws home at holiday gatherings. They were accepting of my decision, and appreciated the opportunity to share in tasting my "finds" at these occasions.
Using reason, with the help of someone who genuinely cares about your well-being, is a way of dealing with any excess.
Thanks for asking.
"Are there women who marry for the sole purpose of procreating, then ultimately divorce to enjoy the single life again?"
Is that a rheotorical question? There are certainly men who fit that description. Two of my best friends, now both separated and on their way to divorce, did just that. For some years they screwed around, playing the field. Then they decided that they wanted to be married and have kids, and found women with similar desires, as well as a desire to stay home and raise the kids. Only then did they realize that these (in both cases older than themselves) women who wanted to stay home and raise their kids weren't exactly what they wanted in a mate. So they both found themselves girlfriends and separated from their wives.
Would have been a lot simpler if they'd just admitted to themselves from the beginning what they really wanted in a wife (a hip soulmate to do things with) rather than marrying and producing 7 children between them who no longer have a father in the household full time.
Very good post.
"the human reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction, the pleasurable nature of which also being ordered toward procreation."
This is also true of eating. God made it pleasurable so one would try to eat and thus sustain oneself.
And I might add, even "wholesome" food is usually "tasty", and even the most indulgent of unnecessary foods provides some measure of sustenance.
Geico is too expensive around here (maybe they have too big of an advertising budget???) but I do love those commercials! The one with the caveman at the therapist's office still is amusing, even after having seen it dozens of times. There are loads of small subtleties that they put in that series that I pick up about every other time I see them.
And I believe that the march of science and progress changes and enlarges upon who we are. Two hundred years ago, unless I was a soldier or sailor, chances are I wouldn't have been able to interact with, or exchange views with more than the few hundred people in my town. Today, I can have conversations and exchange of ideas with people all over the world, as long as we can read and write the same languages.
Does that change human potential? I think it does. And we may have a definitional problem here, because I believe that humans have been constantly evolving. There are those who believe we were created suddenly, and hence, do not change our nature over time.
There are a few on every topic that cannot let someone else's points interfere with their own preconceived notions, and they write like they're getting heavenly points for it.
You're right. Sometimes there are knee-jerk, stupid, obviously-missed-the-point-in-their-enthusiasm-to-make-their-ignorance-known postings here.
But, as a practicing Christian, I don't believe we get brownie points for saying stupid things.
All of the other religions in this world besides yours make claims on your behavior and mine with which you and I will not put up with. When you understand why you will not accept their claims, you will begin to understand why I will not accept the claims of your religion.
You still are not getting across your point there.
Nothing you said has anything to do with human (or any animal) nature. Instinct. Etc.
Everything you're talking about has only to do with environment - what influences behavior, but doesn't drive it.
The sexual urge exists and always has. That doesn't change. THAT is nature. So is the urge to eat and even the urge to tend to be selfish.
And cutting off your head prevents you from thinking. But I don't recommend it. I mean, don't you think that destroying perfectly healthy bodily organs is wrong or even (gasp) evil?
Ya know what? I think many Christians actually fall into the stereotype that liberals use to describe them: that we are sexual prudes.
So a sexual prude is someone who objects to the willful destruction of the reproductive system, or who objects to poisons which prevent the proper operation of the human reproductive system?
I'm having trouble following the logic.
Yet my wife and I really LOVE The Song Of Solomon.
That's good.
We are not pure animals. We only occupy animal type vessels. We need food to live, yet unlike animals, it is more than instinct. We have made it very pleasurable - with God's blessing.
I don't see maiming and poisoning as fun. I don't think God does either, since he created the human reproductive system for... reproduction.
Refueling can be fun. I love Pizza, nachos, and oysters on the half shell. And Zucchini soup - mmmmm.
Yet you don't stick your finger down your throat after you eat these things, do you? This is analogous to using artificial means of contraception (and also withdrawal). We accept the pleasurable nature of the act (which was instituted by God to bring about procreation) while rejecting the natural, God-ordained, consequences of the act.
Likewise with sex. For animals it is mearely instinctual and required for procreation. For us humans, it is also a major pleasure activity - within the confines of marriage.
The pleasurable nature of intercourse is not an end in itself. Otherwise none of us would be here today.
And then, just like cake is not eaten for it's nutritional value, it is not always pursued for its raw purpose of procreation. It is FUN and also very much enhances the intimate relationship between a husband and wife far beyond the physical.
True. It has a dual purpose. But it's immoral to accept the physically pleasurable nature of the act while rejecting the natural consequences of the act, just as binging and purging is immoral. Both are forms of gluttony.
I'm not one of them. My wife and I celebrate our relationship - often - and not because we want more kids. If God wants us to have more kids, we are not going to be successful at stopping Him!
"If God wants me to eventually stop cheating on my wife, I won't be able to stop him!" Does that sound like the statement of a person who is rationalizing his behavior?
Touche. Probably happens with both sexes. What is different, I guess, is that the group of women I know have taken on characteristics that one would usually apply to a group of bachelors.
You said: And I believe that the march of science and progress changes and enlarges upon who we are.
I never said anything fluffy about "who you are"; I talked about "what you are". All the science and progress in the world won't make you anything other than a human being, with a human nature, which has not changed one iota since Genesis chapter 1.
Since Mr. Jeeves likes to link my Christian beliefs with Marxism, I'll point out to him that the belief that "science and progress" would change human nature, which is what you're defending, is one of the fundamental errors of Marxism-Leninism. Google "New Soviet Man" if you don't believe me.
Wanna hang out sometime? LOL!
None of the major ones endorse promiscuous sex, and most of them specifically prohibit it.
This is a dear friend whom I love very much. Her (Newly-realized) pain is hurtful for me to see.
And I really DID go through the '60's. I USED to think I missed them.
One can handle things at 18-30 that cannot be readily dealt with later, in bitter retrospect.
It is beyond the concept of Sin and Forgiveness. It is something we did to ourselves, eagerly, regardless on any consequences, and without a thought.
A certain Yiddish quote from Portnoy's Complaint comes to mind.."...The brains are buried in the ground."
As a male I am glad I did it all. As a person, I am ...disappointed..is one word.
I've critiqued specifically Catholic teachings on sexuality. Some forms of Christianity are similar to them, many are not. I really don't have a problem with people from mainline Protestant churches who are live and let live as far as sexuality goes.
I believe that human progress is made from approaching the world in a scientific way, using reason. It was science that defied the religious notion that the Earth was the center of the universe, and eventually, people of Western religious backgrounds have come to accept that the Earth is not the center.
Science has assumptions, theories, and even 'constants', but they are all subject to change if enough evidence is presented to the contrary. Yes, it can be tough to demote Pluto from being labeled a planet, but I believe that science accepts the fact that knowledge will change as we learn more ways to discover things about our universe. Religion tries to set things "the way they will be" for all time. Change is accomplished by schism, rather than by reason. People fall away from the old dogma, and drift over to the new one, and that's how religion changes slowly over time, in a glacial fashion.
It made sense to avoid pork and shellfish in the desert climates of the Middle East of millenia ago, and it made sense to have rules that were designed to provide that the main purpose of sex was to produce offspring to work in an agricultural society. It made sense, in a sort of way, for men to keep women's sexuality penned up, in order to help assure the support of children.
Today, we have refrigeration, microscopes to find bacteria in food, DNA tests to establish paternity, and effective means of conception control to separate sexual behavior from baby-making. We have ways to do great evil, as well, such as the means of cloning human embryos, or aborting preborn human beings. Not everything science has given us is wonderful, but societies have a legitimate right to limit the extremes of technology, however, individuals have rights within that to reject or accept the technologies.
I find the comparison between jumping off a cliff, and having a glass of wine with a meal, to be a fallacious one. While many people here will agree with me on that, I also believe that having a sexual relationship with a person you love is not the same as jumping off a cliff either, even though there would be less agreement with me here about that.
So, apparently depriving oneself of having any given "experience" is bad?
I didn't say it was bad. I've chosen not to try skydiving, but if I was giving advice about skydiving, I would expect my advice to have less worth than the advice of someone who has tried it. Millions of people have done it, and the vast majority of them have not gone 'splat', but my beliefs about the subject of skydiving are relevant only to how I live my life, and are of little value to someone asking my opinion about it.
Why are those things "evil"?
If you want "to separate sexual behavior from baby-making," what do you propose to do in those cases where contraception fails? Something like 70% of the abortions Planned Parenthood performs are performed on women who claim their contraception failed.
Your position is internally incoherent. If sex is to be separated from reproduction, you'd better be prepared to defend that separation over the 45 million dead bodies of the children sacrificed to that point of view in this country alone.
If abortion is evil, fornication is evil. One leads to the other as surely as dawn leads to noon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.