Amazon.com Widgets

« Above The Law | Main | The Simpsons And Evolution »

Links With Your Coffee - Sunday

Avoid waiting for your comments to be approved register using TypeKey

Did you know that if you click on the word Archives at the top of the list of monthly archives you'll see a list of all the posts at onegoodmove.

Cheney in the middle and the smoking gun

Michelle Goldberg on those out of control Christians and here is Michelle with Terry Gross, thanks Peter.

Christian Virgins Overrated you decide.

When the atheists talk to the Christians the results can be interesting. (tip to Erick)

And a little on pro-life Catholics


 

Comments

Thanks for the link, Norm. I was raised Catholic (but never really bought into it), and was so pissed after seeing the story on CNN, I immediately banged that out in about 10 minutes.

You can see video of a creepy purity ball over at PBS. A story on NOW a couple weeks ago was about the South Dakota abortion happenings. http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/215/index.html#video Footage of the ball is towards the end of the No Right to Choose? video, although the whole thing is worth watching. Scary though. You have been warned :)

Request from the TV-less: Any chance of getting your hands on some choice excerpts from the Simpson's "Evilution" episode?

justin

what is scary about a daughter and a father publicly declaring a covenant. more scary than a husband and wife declaring a covenant on their wedding day?

you could call it 'cheesy' or 'corny' and feel squeamish .. i can understand that .. but you call it scary? on what grounds?

and mithras (is that really your name?) i want that show too ... i have a tv but live in a simpsons-less reality... :(

Simpsons, I'm on it but it will probably be tomorrow before you see anything. It's mothers day don't ya know.

the atheist/calvinist discussion was great. one peice i'd like to add: Brain insists that the prior myths were "made up" i.e. not historically true. but one way of looking at these myths (like most myths) is that they discribe landspace management strategies. for example of rites of Eleusis were built around the Percephane/Demeter myths and were the ritual components of the society's planting, harvest, and eatting of wheat. The role of the euchrist had exactly the same role in the mideavel catholic church: it required that all farmers trade their wheat through the feudal structure to ensure the the first crop was stamped with the churches approval and ritual eatten in a "first harvest" ceremony (similar to first salmon ceremonies amoung pacific northwest first peoples where the first caught salmon is eaten as if it were the flesh of a human who sacrificed himself to ensure continued harvest.

Stipe, I think that covenant thing is much more than corny, it is really creepy. As if a female is something to be given away by her dad to some other man. It robs a woman of her right to own her sexuality.

The article on Christian natiobnalism was insightlful and ties in with my earlier posting that the anti-Semetism streak in Christianity that could be observed in the slaughter of Jews in West German territory or the Rhineland was perpetuated by Christian Hitler and his Nazi regime:

A few days before Bush's second inauguration, The New York Times carried a story headlined "Warning from a Student of Democracy's Collapse" about Fritz Stern, a refugee from Nazi Germany, professor emeritus of history at Columbia, and scholar of fascism. It quoted a speech he had given in Germany that drew parallels between Nazism and the American religious right. "Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics," he was quoted saying of prewar Germany, "but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." It's not surprising that Stern is alarmed. Reading his forty-five-year-old book "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology," I shivered at its contemporary resonance. "The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith," he wrote in the introduction. "They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness." Fascism isn't imminent in America. But its language and aesthetics are distressingly common among Christian nationalists. History professor Roger Griffin described the "mobilizing vision" of fascist movements as "the national community rising Phoenix-like after a period of encroaching decadence which all but destroyed it" (his italics). The Ten Commandments has become a potent symbol of this dreamed-for resurrection on the American right.

Jo Ann.

they are not women .. they are children. children dont only aquire sexuality naturally, they are mostly taught it. every woman has the right to their own sexuality just as you say, but if you include children in that i say you are the creepy one.

if the father (parents) arent going to guide their children then they will simply learn everything from the next most influential source.

if the father isnt protecting their exposure to sex then the father is a monster. you seem to object to the allusion of 'ownership' of a child by their parents when in fact if you remove that ownership the child becomes prey to whatever is first on the scene from the outside world.. do you want kids friends at school teaching them about safe sex? do you want movies to determine what is acceptable in the mind of a child?

you have to choose .. either the parents do a good job and release a strong and capable adult to the world or they let the world do a first-come-first-served job?

regardless of our own poor experinces with parents that does not demand a disintergration of the natural source of relational, responsible and loving care for children.

Spare me the holier than thou lecture Stipe. I was referring to the idea that the girl promises to wait to have sex until her father gives her hand in marriage to her husband. I find that creepy. They are young girls now, but their vow is until married.

so...?

SO...?

whats wrong with a daughter sticking to an agreement with her father until she is married?

And, Stipe, I might add, that it is exactly the type of response such as you just delivered which makes religious doctrination so repulsive to me. I know of plenty of parents who raise their children in a manner that would be foreign to your own puritanical view of the world, and these children are emotionally stable, happy adults now.

Apparently when you were young, you were devoid of any sexuality.

Bah.. It is so boring and futile trying to communicate with a puritan. We'll never see the world through the same lens.

jo ann .. watch how you respond for i am just as capable of levelling the same response at you. im asked you a direct question: what is wrong with a young girl honouring a promise to her father until she gets married?

instead of saying it is impossible to communicate with your perception of me, how about answering the question. i dont think its all that hard to answer.

//so...?

SO...?

whats wrong with a daughter sticking to an agreement with her father until she is married?//

Let me put it to you this way. It is nobody's business who we fuck or don't fuck before we get married. That is up to the individual, not their father.

thats a vile statement on its own. im sure you assume a certain age that we must first aquire before receiving such rights.

regardless .. you have still not answered the question ...

I answered it. Don't you get it. I would have never promised my father what I would or would not do before I get married. It was none of his business. Once I turned 18 years old, I was an adult and I was responsible for my life and my sexuality. If you don't think that that answers your question, then there's nothing more that I can say.

As I mentioned before, we think so differently that there is no way for us to ever ever come to an understanding. I am a lot different than you are and my view of morality is different than yours. And I have no desire to get drawn into some long discussion of loose women and Bible stories.

Been there Done that Been there Don't wanna go back ~Procol Harum

no you havent answered my question. youve told me far more than i ever asked about your history, but mine was a perfectly general question and pertinent to the original comment justin made in the second reply to this post. try one more time.

what is wrong with a girl honouring a promise to her father until she gets married?

Asked. Answered. If you can't see my answer to your question, then there's nothing more than I can do. Cheers

ok. so...

i asked: whats wrong with a girl making a promise to her father.

you reply: its wrong because i didnt do it.

please can you try and put aside your fear of what i might say and respond to what i did say.

Stipe, you have just encouraged me just how creepy the idea of a father "holding the keys" to a woman's sexuality.

Your comment here is dead wrong: "they are children. children dont only aquire sexuality naturally, they are mostly taught it."

Not only do you belittle the intelligence of children but their ability to explore their innate natures.

Since when do children asks permission from parents to make out, have sex and have children?

This is their freedom and their responsibility and they will never learn all this without making these decisions themselves and learning to live with it.

Sexuality cannot be taught.

And a girl who is so uncomfortable with her sexuality as to give her father control over it will always be uncomfortable with it as she will never learn to do it on her own terms.

Thank you Kes. You articulated that much better than I could. Be warned, though, that many Americans just do not understand that children have the right to their innate feelings. Many Americans believe that they should repress any urges they have and should feel guilty should they act upon them. No matter how articulate you are in explaining, it will fall on deaf ears. http://www.fstdt.com/ Here, Stipe, here's a place you can go to where girls such as puzzleannie will agree with you. Click on the least helpful analogy link, and you will find yourself amongst like-minded thinkers.

This is giving me a headache. I need to go out and take a long walk and wash these creepy thoughts out of my mind.

Gday!

well kes i must admit i pulled the line "they are children. children dont only aquire sexuality naturally, they are mostly taught it" mostly out of my bum, but i am prepared to let my standards and my point here rest on such a declaration.

i do not belittle the intelligence of children. children are very intelligent and learn very quickly. but they learn the vast majority of their 'facts' from simple observation. the people and sources that they spend the most time with will be their default teachers.

i do not belittle their ability to explore their innate natures either, but without training and guidance from other people they will simply raise themselves as illiterate, antisocial . animals .. basically.

furthermore i do not question a childs ability to do whatever the hell it pleases in spite of all the best training and teaching from all the right sources. if i teach my kid to respect women to the best of my ability and he goes forth to 'subdue and multiply' in an unrestrained fashion then i will not be compelled to accept total responsibility for his actions.

i might as well agree with your statement that "sexuality cannot be taught" because it would do little to aid this debate for me to disagree at this stage and would probably be a semantic argument anyway.

so i will only take issue with your last paragraph: "a girl who is so uncomfortable with her sexuality as to give her father control over it will always be uncomfortable with it as she will never learn to do it on her own terms"

a 'girl' should NOT be uncomfortable with her sexuality because she shouldnt be exposed to sexual situations. if a father is remiss enough to allow his daughter to wander into situations where she is threatened sexually then the father is to blame. it is therefore the father's responsibility to guard the daughter and protect her sexuality.

i freely admit that protection can become over-protection, but the solution to the dangers of over-protection is not no-protection-at-all.

and i do not promote a 'smother' approach to the topic either. that should be very clear from the much maligned footage weve all presumably seen. the fathers and daughters are talking about the issues. they are not hiding behind a curtain of silence.

and my most vital point from a logical view might be that if a child is capable and responsible and liberated enough to be able to make her own sexual decisions then the child should definitely be capable and responsible and liberated enough to be able to allow her father to protect her.

my question remains unanswered so i will turn it into a statement that likewise is impossible to legislate against: there is nothing wrong with a girl promising her father to remain celibate until marriage and honouring that promise, just as there is nothing wrong with a woman promising her groom to remain faithful and honouring that until she dies.

against this statement there is and can be no law, moral or philosophy.

jo ann. must you rely on kes and other websites to answer questions for you? i will not visit your link as i am well aware of the range of opinions i could find if i looked. if i wanted to be accepted and feel 'normal' then i certainly wouldnt be posting on OGM.

please face up to the fact that i asked a simple question and no one has yet answered it.

i am not trying to trick you. i am not trying to set you up so i can sneer or condemn you. but you have passed judgement on girls and fathers you do not know and labelled them as 'scary'. i simply want to know why. i see no sane, logical or good reason why someone would come to that conclusion.

the only reason ive been given is that your personal history may have influenced you so you could not imagine yourself doing such a thing, but i did not ask about you. the subject is the children and the fathers in the video.

youve passed judgement on them, so i pass judgement on you. seems only fair.

The scary part is that it is not a case of the father being 'allowed' to protect her. The scary part is that the father in this context is trying to pass along his patriarchal view of the role of men and women. He is defining what's right for his daughter's sexuality in a fundamentalist, sex only in marriage, only for procreation, way. He is using his 'authority' to coerce obedience to this patriarchal order. He views the decision as his right to make as 'head' of the family. It is not meant to be a choice for her but coerced compliance. As a practical matter only his view holds sway. The discussion is not one of alternatives but why he is right, with the threats of hell and damnation for non-compliance, and yes that is scary.

ok norm . maybe you should have posted the video that describes that situation then maybe we could debate the same issue.

you cannot have this both ways. either a child is under the protection of her father or she is capable of making her own choices.

if she is under the protection of her father then he has the responsibility of protecting her. he does not get a choice in this matter. if her sexuality is threatened then he must protect her.

if she is capable of making her own decisions then her role in any agreement cannot be viewed as coercion.

either way, it is still unbelievable that you consider children at the age portrayed in the video as (potentially) sexually active people.

Certainly a daughter is under the protection of her father and her MOTHER, but that doesn't give them unlimited rights. The child is not a possession. What we have with fundamentalist religious folk is not parenting, but child abuse. Do you consider it okay if a father beats his daughter because he believes spare the rod spoil the child. There is nothing wrong with a father presenting the benefits of abstinence, but to present it as the only option is unrealistic and an abrogation of his responsibility as a father to protect his child. It is scary.

Hi Stipe, Jo does not need me to articulate her points as she is a very expressive lady and she provides a very instinctive view point to a women's right to her own sexuality in defining it and exerting it.

The fact remains is that your view point is so creepy that even Norm and I have to say something about it.

If I do become a father, I will admit to wanting my girl to remain daddy's little girl i.e. not having sex until she's much older but I recognise the futility in imposing a standard on her, which she will definitely rebel against. Here the age-old axiom applies: to love her is to set her free.

For most of us, we learn by trial and error, not just observations. You cleary did not mention that in your rant about children, nor their propensity to experiment on their own. After all, did you masturbate or read your first porn magazine in the company of your parents?

A 'girl', in the early stages, will always be uncomfortable with her sexuality, as will boys.

And by not exposing to sexual situations, you merely compound the problem as an overzealous prison warder cum parent.

Such stituations will occur whether you want them to happen or not. Such as a boy kissing your girl on the lips out of the blue. A familar pat on the bum by a lecherous stranger. The roving eyeballs from the appreciate guys around her.

The father can't be there 24/7 to to guard the daughter and protect her sexuality.

That responsibility remains that of the girl and is her preorgative.

As to how asinine an idea it is to restrain a girl's sexuality. Here's a story for you.

I used to know this girl from a place I worked at. I totally ignored her until she bit me out of the blue. We became friends since.

As she was in a bad way becos of some emotional issues, I found myself going down to the pub she worked at after work almost every night even though I did not like to spend time there as the smoke and alcohol gets stuck in my hair. I guessed I was concerned and protective about her.

After I jokingly told my colleague to keep a rich boyfriend dangling for a year without sex so that he will ask her to marry him, my colleague's bartender partner leaned over to tell me that that's impossible for a woman this days.

My point is that a woman needs to be responsible for her own sexuality and should be prepared to live in the bed she made.

A man's job should not be to protect a woman from herself...

stipe//a 'girl' should NOT be uncomfortable with her sexuality because she shouldnt be exposed to sexual situations//

Like it or not, some of us girls have sexual emotions before that age that you deem appropriate.

stipe//there is nothing wrong with a girl promising her father to remain celibate until marriage and honouring that promise, just as there is nothing wrong with a woman promising her groom to remain faithful and honouring that until she dies//

There is a huge difference. Her "groom" or her lover is the man that she chooses. Her father or mother, like it or not, does not get to decide when and with whom she decides to have a sexual relationship with. This is her decision, and her decision only. It is no one else's business. This SHOULD be ONLY her decision and no one else's.

stipe//youve passed judgement on them//

I'm not passing judgment on anyone. I am a female and I understand what it means to be a female and have sexual feeling towards a male. And I don't want to be considered "loose" for going against anyone's damned rules or for having these feelings.

Norm//It is not meant to be a choice for her but coerced compliance.//

Right on Norm. Girls/boys/women/men can decide for themselves what direction they CHOOSE to follow. Each individual has a right to choose, make mistakes, and decide what she/he wants to do. No man, father or husband, has a monopoly over a woman's or a girl's sexuality. The same applies to the boys/men.

Stipe responds to Norm //you cannot have this both ways. either a child is under the protection of her father or she is capable of making her own choices//

So this is black and white? Cannot the father offer his child his advice and yet allow the child to make his/her own choices?

Stipe//either way, it is still unbelievable that you consider children at the age portrayed in the video as (potentially) sexually active people.//

What??? Did you suddenly become a sexual being when you were 18 years old? Did you not have any sexual feelings when you were 6 years old? Too much information, I would imagine, for a puritain.

Norm//The child is not a possession//

~Kahil Gibran

On children http://leb.net/gibran/ And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children." And he said: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. Uou may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far. Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Kes //A man's job should not be to protect a woman from herself...//

Precisely.

And stop insulting me for quoting intelligent people. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Bravo, Jo! The time has long past that guys need to tell girls what to do.

I still do, of course, with ladies I care about but I more or less know that they will make up their own minds.

this disagreement is getting unweildly. what can we agree on?

fathers are responsible to protect their daughters. i say that is non-negotiable.

daughters have their own sexuality. i say yes.

sexual awareness and education is a delicate and important issue. yes.

over-protection will stunt a childs development. uncontested.

im assuming from what ive read that we all agree on all these points. yet when i ask why is a girl/father covenant a scary thing the only justification i hear is that it must be borne of a tyrannical, abusive dominant male who has no place in our enlightened society.

how about we start easy and work our way up?

if dad tells daughter that the road is dangerous and asks her to promise not to play on the road .. is that 'scary'?

is the best way to learn about the dangers of the road to allow the child to wander around on it till she learns by trial and error?

i say very firmly in both cases - NO! and this maps perfectly onto the much more relevant topic at hand.

it is dads responsibility to actively educate his daughter about sexuality. such education can in no way be confused with repressing her sexuality.

it is dads responsibility to protect his daughter. if he sees her wandering into potentially harmful situations then he must rush in and stop her. this in no way means that he is capable or obliged to be by her side every second of her life.

i have not instructed any standard or belief as ultimate truth throughout this thread. i have only asked the one, simple question - how is it 'scary' for a girl to promise her father to remain celibate until marriage?

there are two ways to answer this question: a) it isnt scary b) give a good reason

you lot havent managed to give any good reasons. all youve managed to do is invent a demonic father.

if youre all as intelligent as you insist each other are then i am not going to challenge that assertion. furthermore i leave you with the question unanswered so you can direct some collective insight into coming up with a rational response.

No one appreciates your condescending tone. You have the key point right though. It is a matter of responsibility. It is irresponsible to make abstinence the only acceptable solution for their daughters, and use their trusted position as a father to insist on that option. That may not be the position of all at the ball, but I think we can all agree it is the majority position. It's scary because the single option is not realistic and leads to more problems than it solves, STD's abortions etc. That is scary. You may not consider that a good reason and we can agree to disagree, but just because you say it's so doesn't make it true. Further no one has to invent demonic fathers from among fundamentalists they are quite common in my opinion. I'm not going to say that you're a moron. I'll leave that question unanswered and judge from your response if you're rational or not.

First off, where is it that I claimed to be intelligent? I am just giving you my opinion, for what it's worth.

You have boiled it down to this one simple question.//i have only asked the one, simple question - how is it 'scary' for a girl to promise her father to remain celibate until marriage?//

It has to do with the mentality that goes with making such a promise which has already been explained to you.

Furthermore, shouldn't this be what the mother should be doing? Why the father?

For a father to have his daughter promise that she will remain celibate until marriage is something that places a lot of stress on the daughter. After that she is left with three options when she decides that she wants to have a sexual relationship with a man, but is not ready to get married.

Option 1 - Go ahead and marry the man so that she won't break her promise. In this option, she is fulfulling her father's wishes. This is not fair to the man, as this woman is marrying him just because this is the only way for her to satisfy her sexual desires.

Option 2 She decides not to have a sexual relationship to avoid having to marry the guy, and spends her years being sexually frustrated.

Option 3 She does not marry the man, but goes ahead and has a sexual relationship with him and feels very guilty about it because she knows that she has broken her promise to her father.

In this manner, the father continues to dominate her life, causing her to either marry before she is prepared to get married, to be sexually frustrated, or to feel guilty and end up with emotional problems. That a father would put his daughter through this sort of thing is scary.

But then, that's what religion is all about to some people, now isn't it? It's about making people feel guilty about perfectly natural desires.

i see that reason norm and i raise you a pizza.

stipes question answered - the girls promises are scary because abstinence is unrealistic.

scratches head

well .. i cant argue with that.

g'night.

Hi Stipe, I think your crtics here have more than explained why they find your view point on parent's being the guardian of their daughter's sexuality was creepy.

It's up to you whether you want to accept this or not. I'm not interested in fighting over this issue over semantics.

Speaking of which, have you made such a covenant with your dad on the issue of your sexuality? If you did, is it from your experience that you are advocating your view?

I have been meaning to ask the pro-abstinence, pro-no choice and extreme parental guidance crowd this question. And a few others.

When you ask your kids to practise abstinence, have you done the same? Second questions, if you did, are you sure you want your children to go through what you went through?

Remember those movies where a mother tries to raise her daughter as a pure being because of regret over her own torrid ways when she was young?

That also happens in real life where parents use their children as a clutch or as moral or spiritual redemption from their sinful past. Invariably their children will rebel and become what they are not supposed to be.

Their parents’ lessons do not stick on their kids because they have yet to experience such lessons themselves. This also applies to parents who fail to practise their own lessons.

The funny thing is that anyone who has practised abstinence or save himself for marriage may very well not preach it to his parents, especially when these people are normally tormented about it by the people around hum or made to seen deviant or feel inadequate in all sorts of social situations.

The “40-year old Virgin” was a movie that made fun of a virgin’s feelings of sexual inadequacy, social humiliation and being constantly judged in adequate by those arounf him, isn’t it?

That’s the reason why closet gays or closet virgins like to stay discreet, so that they won’t be pummelled by the mainstream normal crowd who healthily promiscuous, even if they do support abstinence as a principle or on faith.

Although they believe that abstinence is a good thing, their actions in real life are to ostracise those who enact it. After going through this crap, why would anyone ever encourage children to do the same?

My personal view is that it is the fault of many religions and holier than though parents that make having any sense of morality or moral standards so hard.

Moral standards are invariably phrased in tough absolute terms and then people are judged by them. Those who fail the standards are condemned while those who meet the standards are ostracised as they give others pressure for not living up to the same standards. Damned if you do. And damned if you don't...

This self-righteousness in whichever institutions, which seeks to define morality, sickens me every time I'm told I will go to hell for not believing in Christ, irrespective of what do or what type of person I am or swallowing claims from people that I have no morals because I have no religion.

As a parent, I will tell my kids to believe in the things that they want to believe, within reason and based on objective sources, and not to just believe what I believe in.

All of us have our own choices to make. And we have to live with their consequences. No other judgement, moral or otherwise need to be passed on us. Whether someone have sex or not should not bother anyone or his or her religion because that’s the person’s choice. And that’s what he has to learn to live with.

From people who practise abstinence for purely idealistic reasons to those who don’t but are still preaching it, a common refrain is that it does not protect one from AIDS or causing unwanted pregnancy the moment one wants to have sex. Only a good working knowledge of condoms will do that.

A girl's abstinence pledge to father, instead of fiancée or husband, is creepy because it gives father control of the daughter's sexuality.

I have told you that it is not the responsibility of the father in this issue, beyond advising her on the use of protection and reminding her that the moment you give a young guy what he wants, he is likely to dump you eventually because he is not at an age that he will settle down with a girl for the rest of his life at the point of time.

If you really feel protective, just update your girl on all the come-on lines, emotional blackmail and hard luck stories that the players used to hit on girls. Bring your girl to a bar and show her how a guy hit on a girl even.

Trust me; guys are short on imagination as they tend to stick to a few proven tactics that works with them. Improvisation is never their strong suit.

Most still have not got it into their heads that a lady will give you her number and e-mail address, even if you did not ask for it, when she feels comfortable with you. Only the dicks and the players will still try to ask, while engaging in a show and awe or charmingly witty but extremely superficial approach.

If you still feel that you need a proverbial chastity belt to lock up your daughter's chastity until she get married, be aware that your daughter's peers will make her the butt end of jokes, eroding her self-esteem while enhancing her sense of sexual inadequacy over time.

In that case, I will advise you to go the extra mile and have her tutored at home, so she will be kept at a safe distance from all men and women who don't think like her.

Remember Rapunzel in her tower? Such stories merely illustrate a guy's deep-set preoccupation with locking up sexuality or bondage for their exclusive access, which can easily be directed to the women under your charge. Why else would letting down one-hair gain the connotation of loosening up?

Well, you don't have to accept this view point of course. My University lecturer was appalled by my insinuations that a lot of children's tales contain inherent masochistic and paedophile undercurrents, which parents and their children blithely miss during story -telling time.

My point is simple. Things that may look innocent on the surface are far more complex when you go deeper. Same thing with giving a father trusteeship over his daughter’s chastity.

Aw crap .. I can't keep this up. I'm being a pansy. I can argue with that. Time to smack you lot with some truth.

Disclaimer – this post may present ideas you don’t agree with. Unfortunately for me to remain a rational entity I must agree with what I believe. In doing so I must insist upon my right to apply practices and judge others actions against the standard of truth. Any failure at any stage on my part leaves me a liar and the truth intact.

Apology – a long post, also when one speaks truth it cuts deep into the sensibilities of those who reject it. People may feel mortally offended. I'm not going to pretend that it’s not anger or that my writing is not responsible.

Question – why are you threatened?

Prediction - those who agree with what I write here will agree with it entirely, those who disagree will attack every part of my discourse. If a person is convinced to change their mind by what I write then it will be a full-blown miracle and completely independant of my notable skill as a writer and communicator.

Up to this point I have not stated my viewpoint on parents being the guardian of their daughter's sexuality. Here's a statement: parents are morally, philosophically and logically responsible for every aspect of their child’s life. This starts at birth where the child is totally dependant. The parents are immediately called upon to make every decision for and about that child. You cannot argue with this.

As the child grows the parent's responsibility is to protect, teach and train the child in every aspect of life. Protection must come first for without adequate protection, teaching and training will likely become irrelevant. If the child seeks protection elsewhere they will also find their teaching and training from a similar source. You may disagree with this but only if you insist that children are not influenced by the people and resources in their life. Protection must also come first because if the child is dead then teaching and training are even more irrelevant. You cannot argue with this.

As the child grows the responsibility for protection, teaching and training needs to change hands. The child’s assumption of responsibility should grow with the child and should reflect their level of competence and ability. At no point will the child benefit from being severed from the security of the family. You may disagree with this but you will need to show how the separation of families is an inherently good thing.

As the child grows the above process will develop individual confidence and competence. There is ample evidence in every person's life that confidence and competence are incomplete. These shortcomings are only evidence that humans are not perfect. They are not evidence that the above process is wrong, unrealistic or in need of an overhaul. It is implicit that parents strive to responsibly achieve what they can and to ask for help when they need it.

Quick Check – anyone angry yet? Why?

I do not accept any process that allows a child to wander into situations unprotected, untaught or untrained. This is not an issue over semantics. Our individual stories, however, are semantics. It matters very little what my dad’s response to my sexuality was. It only matters what I do as a father. Were my father a perfect example of a responsible and loving parent then perhaps I might be better equipped for the job, but that does not excuse me from my responsibility. Similarly the stories and movies that teach a substandard form of parenting are no guide to what my responsibility is as a parent.

The issue of human failure, substandard parenting or rebellious children, may be unavoidable, but it does not therefore become the standard for raising a child. Consequences are the result of human failure. Consequences come firstly and unavoidably before anything we can “learn from our mistakes”. The first line of protection against consequences must be avoidance of failure. To institute failure as the teacher will only lead universally and catastrophically to more consequences. You cannot argue with this. You could abandon all hope, responsibility & logic and allow failure to teach your children. You might even try to rescue hope and use it to wave as a white flag to consequence. Maybe it will show a little mercy and leave your child somewhat intact and functional.

Up to this point I have made no statement on the notion of abstinence. Here’s one: abstinence is the safest form of sexual expression. You can disagree with this. You can say that abstinence is not a form of sexual expression, but you would then have to show how abstinence is not a valid and morally acceptable choice to make. Here’s another statement: abstinence is realistic. You could disagree with this, but you would then have to show how people who practice abstinence are universally inferior versions of humanity.

Up to this point I have made no necessary connection between raising a responsible child and insisting on abstinence before marriage. Here's a connection: if you raise a child according to these very high standards they will be as prepared as possible to make abstinence the natural decision. This connection renders unnecessary all rules and regulations and stigmas and dogmas relating to sex. Be a consistently responsible and good parent and you will produce responsible and good children. Neglect protection, teaching and training and you might be lucky enough to raise a kid who still likes you even though they have to suffer the consequences of their failures that you allowed them to walk into. You cannot disagree with this. You may consider the demands too difficult and impossible to achieve but those standards are non-negotiable. Insisting they are unfair is to deny reality.

Moral standards are invariably linked to absolute terms and people will always fail them without help. If they weren’t absolutes they wouldn’t be standards. If we were capable of meeting the standards we wouldn’t need help. If we weren’t judged by them they, likewise, wouldn’t be standards. Up to this point I have made no statement on religious fundamentalism. Here’s one: religious fundamentalism is protection, teaching and training from God. You cannot argue with this. You can assert that God does not exist, but you are then exempting yourself from responsibility to his standards. You are also exempting yourself from the consequences he warns about. If you exempt yourself from consequences then you exempt yourself from reality.

Prediction – if you weren’t threatened before this paragraph, you are now.

Plea – stay with me a little longer. I'm almost done.

Quality Control - everything i propose follows logically once a believer accepts God's plan. Everything I've written must be torn down by those who reject God.

Christian fundamentalism teaches us to honour our parents. It teaches fathers to protect the family with his life. It teaches husbands and wives to remain faithful to each other. It teaches everyone to keep sex within the responsible and safe environment of marriage. Often the bible teaches these concepts in unsubtle and dictatory ways. The bible doesn’t encourage you calmly to stay away from failure. It acts exactly as if you were a six-year-old chasing a rubber ball onto a freeway. It screams incoherently and crash tackles you into the pavement. If you can turn that situation around and call the teacher evil then it is not you, but I, who have nothing left to say.

I hope I have presented myself clearly here. I know my views are not going to be popular on this website. For that I make no apology and I know of no other way to present the truth.

Finally, as always, the decision is yours to make. I say God is your creator and cares more for you than for the rest of existence. I say the bible is his perfect word to teach and correct us. I say Jesus sets you free and that the Holy Spirit helps us to be perfect parents. I say you have free-will to make whatever decision you choose. And I finally say that there is no middle ground in this battle. Either you accept everything I say, or you reject everything I say.

I only quote an intelligent person when I say: “All of us have our own choices to make. And we have to live with the() consequences. No other judgement, moral or otherwise need to be passed on us.

Choose well.

Hi Stipe, here you go painting the people here with a brush when all we did was to express an opinion and substantiate it.

Your sweeping claims are not substantiated by personal example, not by facts even.

For example, Christian fundamentalism DOES NOT teach people to honour our parents and their parents.

Christian preachers wants Chinese to stop practising our ancient customs of paying respects to our ancestors as they keep seeing it as a form of worship when we see it as a way of showing respects in action and in heart as without our ancestors, there won't be ours. Fact, no faith required.

This practise was around way before Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism appear in China.

Thus Christianity in China and Chinese culture stands for an abandonment of the value of filial piety and has been condemned as such. You can read more here:

When Celestial Kingdoms Collide 17 May 06

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/opinion/17Brockey.html?th&emc=th

No one should preach abstinence unless he practises it himself because he won't have any moral grounds or experience to help people in making any decision about abstinence.

As someone who practises abstinence, I am in a stronger position to comment on its efficacy as a way to avoid AIDS or prevent abortion than people who don't practise it and yet preach it as a solution for the cures of the world. After all, it's only BS if you don't practise what you preach.

That's all I am going to write about here as I am not offended by your attempt at avoiding the points raised here by digressing raising discussion about issues that were not covered in this thread like religious fundamentalism.

The issue here is children and sexuality and the role of a father in it. Brining in religion to support your position and right to control your child's sexuality is way off base, especially when we consider the outbreak of paedophile cases against children by the Church.

I have this to say though to you.

Without your parents, there won't be you. And without their parents, your own parents wouldn't be here. How have you honoured your genetic creator, who created you in fact, reality and body? These are the people who care for you for much if not all of your existence.

What have you done in return for them? Do you honour their memory? Take good care of your parents? Strange that in a country where Christian fundamentalism is so strong, the idea of living with and taking care of your parents is stigmatised and parent abandonment to the devices is the norm.

As long you have God, is it the case that you don't need your parents, your grand parents or even honour the memory of your ancestors? Even though you won't be here without them or their care?

As for the Bible, everything about it is translated imperfectly from non-English languages and even Jesus divinity is voted into being by the Church council in 325 AD based on a slanted interpretation of the phrase that "Jesus was begotten, not made" and begotten is a word that includes both the connotation of created or sired.

I say Jesus died, trying to save the Jews as he himself said so when he was alive repeatedly and he warned his Disciples not to have anything to do with or preach to non-Jews or Gentiles. He was a Jew and Christianity started as a Jewish sect after all.

I agree you have free will but blind faith in religious fundamentalism robs you of the ability to question your own faith and you are the poorer for it. My sympathies.

And in your black and white world where there is no middle ground in this battle, where one either accepts everything I say, or reject everything you say, Christianity will always be the religion most remembered for its bigotry, religious intolerance and for its role as the religion that creates the most conflict and bloodshed in the history of men.

Of all major religions, Christianity stands out as the only one which does not witness a Golden age in world history under its theocratic rule, where incidents like the Dark, Ages, Inquisitions, Crusades and repeated slaughter of Jews define its bloody imprint in the passage of the world.

As a follower delver of truth, who recognise that journey to enlightenment is a life-long one; I know for a fact that this journey requires one to have the humility to constantly seek knowledge, rather than to take it for granted on blind faith.

And I have nothing but pity for the blind who only knows that there are no other paths to salvation, other than your own.

Stipe, no one is offended by what you said here.

You have our sympathies. Go in peace.

One last point. If man indeed has free will, he would not need to bring religion into his life to rationale every aspects of his life, right down to his own sexuality. That is clearly not the practise of free will, but the surrender of it. To have free will and practise humilty while you are at it, we have to experience life and take self-ownership and self-responsibility for our thoughts, actions and convictions.

sorry typo:

"And in your black and white world where there is no middle ground in this battle, where one either accepts everything you say, or reject everything you say, Christianity will always as a DIVISIVE religion most remembered for its bigotry, religious intolerance and for its role as the religion that creates the most conflict and bloodshed in the history of men."

Stipe, Guess you really gave it to us, huh? Guess you smacked us with some truth. Your holier-than-thou rhetoric I have read before. It's not like you're the only religious fanatic I've ever met. My sister is a relgious fundamentalist and as for respecting parents, well, it is the atheist daughter, moi, who really respects her father. My father has Alzheimer's and I have been working for over 5 months to get him out of this nursing home and living with me. It is my holier than thou, bitch of a sister, and my dad's wife, another fundamentalist, who have insisted that he stay in this stinking rotten nursing home that my father is miserable in.

My favorite part, though, was your punch line of "choose well".

Stipe, you are so full of yourself.

Kes:

My sweeping claims are substantiated by personal example and by facts. The fact that you haven't responded to anything I actually wrote only leads me to be more sure of myself.

You're responses are limited to:

a) one example of Christian fundamentalism clashing with Chinese culture. Chinese ancestor veneration is for honouring dead people. The bible clearly states that honouring dead people is wrong just as clearly as it instructs people to honour their (living implied) parents. Again, if you wish to reject the bible’s standards you have the will to do so.

b) one proposal that nobody should preach unless s/he practises the same thing.

c) one demonstrably false accusation that I have derailed this thread.

d) one incorrect string of assumptions incorporating where I live and how people in that country (I presume this is a false generalisation) treat their parents and dead ancestors.

e) one incongruity where you allow me the ability to choose as I see fit but immediately take that ability away when I choose Christianity.

f) one accurate portrayal of a bloody history where Jesus’ work is responsible for dividing nations, people groups and families directly down the middle.

g) one admission that you still do not know the truth.

Kes. My post was the truth on this matter. Either point out the truth in a clearer way than my writing has allowed or reject everything I have said. But please stay on topic. The topic is something along the lines of – Parental Responsibility.

One last point. If man indeed has free will is it not an act of free will to choose to give up that free will and follow revealed truth?

Jo Ann: Yeah I really did give it to yous. I really did say that Christians must honour their parents. Your story sounds difficult and it would be remiss of me to treat it frivolously. I wish you all success in your endeavours with your family.

My previous post was of an entirely separate nature. Would you like to respond to my post? Or can I take it that your series of rejections are not going to change and that you are lost?

If so then that is the only tragedy.

Stipe, I answered you as best that I could. Apparently you are too much of an intellectual heavy weight for me to handle.

no jo ann. i asked the questions: why are you angry? and why do you feel threatened?

you are the worlds leading expert on how you feel. please post a response to the questions i asked and enlighten us all.

Stipe, you are acting like a pompous prick and trying to get me angry so that you can feel important. This little fishy will not take the bait. Go trolling in some other pond.

Little fish swims off to a different pond to have some fun. Maybe smoke a joint and engage in other amoral activities (wide grin)

Stipe, your sweeping claims have NOT been substantiated by personal example or facts.

Have you honoured an agreement between you and your father not to have sex until marriage? If not, you have no moral grounds in preaching this as a positive measure.

When I say abstinence does not help one prevent against AIDS or unwanted pregnancies, I have more credibility than those who never practised it as I have practise this for over 30 years. I do believe in saving myself for marriage as a personal choice but I will not recommend it to anyone because the people around me really gave me a hard time about it and I know for a fact that abstinence cannot serve as a replacement for birth control or protection.

The fact remains that you are the one WHO DID NOT respond to most of the points I raised stem from the fact that you have no proof and you have problem acknowledging the truth and experience behind my points.

The only way that you can be sure about anything you write is to totally disregard all points raised here which presents an interesting question. Why are you discussing the matter with us if you have made up your mind about the things you believe in, irrespective of truth, facts, personal experience which point to the very opposite that you believed in.

Face the fact. You can't handle the truth. You can't handle admitting mistakes. And you have your religion to thank for it.

You religion has successfully stopped you from exercising any free will beyond a blind faith in what you believe in.

Last time I checked, hubris, self-deception and self-righteous were major sins, unless you are not much of a Christian in the first place.

Well, you are in good company than as Bush with his self-avowed faith in Christianity, has shown just how resistant he is to facts and present reality that are at odds with what he wants to believe.

Everybody, kindly note that Stipe has asserted the right to use the Bible to impose judgements on non-Christian culture and civilisations that have been around way before Christianity or Judaism for that matter appeared.

This is clearly an act of a religious bigot from a DIVISIVE religion whose intolerance have caused wards, bloodshed and deaths of innocent lives in history.

My response is directed clearly to STIPE'S LIE that Christian fundamentalism honours filial piety.

Instead, Christianity has attacked the ancient Chinese custom of HONOURING THE MEMORY of our ancestors, our parents, our loved ones such as your dead husband, wife and kids by burning incense. Chinese do not pray to our loved ones for favours as a diety, merely as a sign of paying respect and honoruiong thos who have loved us, cared for us and have created us in body and heart.

Christians have extended these attacks to all countries that have a Chinese culture and population in the world.

Your denial of this fact points to your abject reluctance to face the truth and that you live in a bubble divorced from reality.

Christianity has never been part of the 5000-year Chinese culture and civilisation and is in no position to make any judgements on Chinese culture, especially in a way that distorts Chinese customs and beliefs, so as to promote itself.

Your Bible does not define Chinese culture and civilisation especially when it is an IMPERFECT work of man based on subjective and misleading translations of ancient Greek texts, which have already been lost to the passage of time. That accounts for the multitude of Biblical contradictions, false insertions of stories and myths such as Jesus was walking on water when modern scholars have discovered the statement can apply to him walking beside water.

Only a religious fundamentalist BIGOT will think that the Bible gives the right to Christians to judge Chinese culture and civilisation when Christianity has been at the heart of almost every religious conflict and bloodshed in history.

As a non-Chinese, how can you judge something that you do not know or have not experienced.

That fact remains that Christianity wants its followers to worship Jesus and God to the extent of belittling the practise of filial piety to ones parents and ancestors, who are factually the creators of all of us. Your religion can’t handle any type of competition to God and Jesus. Odd that such an insecure religion can convince its followers that it knows the truth of the world.

Why not you get your own daughter to read what you write here? And ask her if she agrees with you? Or us?

“You have also avoided answering my questions to you as a Christian. Without your parents, there won't be you. And without their parents, your own parents wouldn't be here. How have you honoured your genetic creator, who created you in fact, reality and body? These are the people who care for you for much if not all of your existence. What have you done in return for them? Do you honour their memory? Take good care of your parents? Strange that in a country where Christian fundamentalism is so strong, the idea of living with and taking care of your parents is stigmatised and parent abandonment to their own devices is the norm.”

As I clearly pointed out, nothing that Stipe asserts as truths are based on his personal experiences. That is clearly the truth here, regardless the fact that you acknowledge this or not.

As for the comments against you, unlike you, your critics have supported their comments on you based on facts and their personal experience, when you have not extended the same courtesy.

Strange that when someone like Stipe who claims to have all the answers, based on a book he read that was written by men, to have so much problems in answering simple questions?

: >

For your information, one of my ancestors was among the first Christian priests in China but he repented and went back to Buddhism. And I have spent 10 years in missionary schools i.e. 6 years of Buddhist missionary school and the next 4 years in A Christian missionary high school.

I am no stranger to faith or Christianity, so kindly do not cook up tall tales based on the Bible because I have read it to. Read it and you know that jesus was sent for the Jews, tried to save the Jews and died for the Jews.

And I for one will not want to tarnish his sacrifice by claiming that he resurrected and regretted his acts when he was alive to want to save the Gentiles or non-Jews as well, whom Jesus did not want to have anything to do because he was a religious rascist.

That's just my view. Feel free to continue making up a perfect religion based on an IMPERFECT book on a Jewish god with its many contradictions and lies.

The rest of us will continue to exercise free will when it comes living in the real world.

once again kes you are way off target. my posts are all about a promise between a father and a daughter. i may have to think carefully on the issues youve raised in your previous two posts, but they are completely diversionary from the infallible points i raised in my long post ...

when i say (for example) "parents are morally, philosophically and logically responsible for every aspect of their child’s life" you have to respond to what i said as being somehow out of line. attacking what you guess about my personal life, nationality and cultural awareness does not change the status of what i said. comparing me to other people does not diminish the truth in what i posted.

if you want to talk about hudson taylor then you can email me instead of sending this thread into a tailspin.

demanding that i meet your standards and ignore my own does not reduce the truth of what i wrote.

you might well say the same of me, but then you never claimed anything you said to be true... it will always be easier to tear down what someone else builds than to build something yourself. how about you post your ideas on what parental responsibility should be and compare them to the demands of what you believe and then against reality. how long would you be able to insist on being a representative of truth?

so far my position has only been tested as far as my right to state it has been attacked. it should be perfectly obvious by now that assaulting a persons right to an opinion will never change the opinion. and if that opinion is true the fallibility of its owner is simply not an issue.

look at me .. im so ticked off ive wandered way off topic as well ..

You can assert that God does not exist, but you are then exempting yourself from responsibility to his standards. You are also exempting yourself from the consequences he warns about. If you exempt yourself from consequences then you exempt yourself from reality.

Say's who, you. You've provided no evidence that a god exists, or that he has standards. Simply stating it is so no matter how strongly you believe it simply doesn't cut it. You need to present evidence and give reasons why you think your 'standards' are better than other standards. You're pathetic appeal to authority isn't good enough. A god is not necessary for ethical behavior or for leading a moral life. It seems to me that it is you who has exempted himself from reality.

says him. god speaks through the bible. as i say, youre free to reject god as real, but then you also reject his standards. perhaps you might pay them lip service anyway.

either way it matters little what i assert. it takes a personal decision to come to faith in god so youre right ... my well reasoned and logical appeal to the authority of gods standards for parents means nothing unless you accept it.

and i agree that one does not need to believe in god to live morally or ethically .. unfortunately morals and ethics will not save you. nor will abiding by morals and ethics help you protect your daughter.

i do not provide any proof that god exists because that is beyond the scope of this discussion. all i do is state the standards for parenting and where i believe those standards came from.

i am not obliged to state their source because we all agree that they stand on their own. but the presumption of other posters demanded that i set the record straight.

could we possibly agree that you reject god but somehow come to the same conclusions as him about parenting?

"There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings. --Nietzsche"

That's right, it matters not a bit in a secular discussion that you think the standards come from a god. You must state secular reasons for your standards, and defend them without appeals to your imaginary beings. In short keep your god delusions to yourself they have no place in this discussion. Further if you believe we all agree the standards you've presented stand on their own, you're nuts.

i can and have stated secular reasons for my standards: abstinence is the only safe sexual practice outside of a life-long, single partner commitment. protection of the child must come before the childs right to assert its free will. statements like that stand on their own two feet. you cant argue with them.

that the bible says the same things is either a lucky guess on the part of a guy wandering in the desert 3000 years ago, or the bible is indeed inspired by the one living god who created the world and everything in it.

indeed the entire theological side to this thread could have been left out entirely if the standards i promoted could have been accepted on their own merit. instead ive been forced to respond from under the label of 'puritan' and 'religious fundamentalist'.

while i am quite capable of justifying my beliefs i do not consider them in any way relevant to my original line of questioning which was directed at an irrational response i percieved. at the time i didnt think the response was justified and nothing said yet has changed my mind.

if you dont agree with the standards i asserted then please state where and why. arguing against me by declaring me insane or denying my ability to think for myself is to completely ignore what i have written.

A father could lock his daughter in her room until she became an adult guaranteeing that she would practice abstinence, but no one thinks that is a good idea. I think this comes down to the problem absolutist standards entail. Tell me if I'm wrong. A fundamentalist sees abstinence as the only option, and views failure as a sin that should be punished. The punishment may be a STD because the fundamentalist refuses to educate the daughter on how to avoid STDs if she does have sex. The punishment may an unwanted pregnancy. The idea that a father would want his daughter punished in that way, is in my opinion sick and disgusting. It is a result of the non-thinking called faith that fundamentalist use in place of rational thought. A standard that includes such thinking is what I consider scary.

Little fishy returns from playing in another pond and notes that the other fish are still diligently engaging Ichthus. Against her better judgment, she decideds to weigh in, knowing full well that this in an exercise in futility

Stipe//you seem to object to the allusion of 'ownership' of a child by their parents when in fact if you remove that ownership the child becomes prey...//

Stipe//abstinence is the only safe sexual practice outside of a life-long, single partner commitment.//

Not driving or riding in a vehicle is the only way to avoid getting killed in a motor vehicle accident.

So Stipe, should fathers make a covenant with their possessions, otherwise known as their daughers, that they will never get in a vehicle? What does God have to say about this? We all await with baited breath to be smacked with some more truth.

That's not fair Jo Ann there is nothing in the bible about driving cars and using seat belts.

Stipe, I caught you lying again, man.

My points have supported very clearly my position against the role of a parent in governing the sexuality of one's daughter on humanistic grounds at a personal level. Not religious level, which was originally not part of this discussion

You are the one who brought in others topics i.e. religious fundamentalism or Hudson Taylor, which was not mentioned in this discussion on parenthood because you have no proof and no personal experience to justify any of the claims you made here. Fact.

You can deny this but you are clearly lying and your previous posts are the best proof.

In this thread, you are the one attacking people and passing holier-than thou judgement on people and topics, which you have no personal experience and cannot lead by personal example.

One example is your religious-motivated attacks on Chinese culture and customs despite your lack of experience or knowledge in this matter as a non-Chinese purely based on the bigotry of your religious text, the Bible, which was never written with the Chinese in mind. And which was written by people based on a subjective interpretation of texts that are passed by men.

It is not you who is being attacked by people who are simply sharing you their personal experiences and knowledge of reality such as Jo and the plight of his father and my own personal gripes over my abstinence, which are highly personal.

The fact remains that our experiences do not blend well with yours as our experiences are grounded in reality while your religion has made you stay in a bubble, divorced from reality, as Norm pointed out.

Have you ever asked the question, why in an overwhelmingly Christian country like US with more than 80% professing a Christian faith, that America still evidenced the highest rates in violence and crime? The issue is clearly not due to a lack of faith, but its very impotence, especially when staunch Christians fight against gun control laws.

What Stipe shows is clearly an inability to question the views of his own faith when reality paints a totally different picture. And Stipe here is trying to remind us of the practise of freewill?

My point is simple and is one that I made in all my posts. It's all BS unless you practise what you preach. Being a Christian does not spare you from being held to this point.

Unlike you, I preach only what I practise and I can take responsibility for my advice to others and I have taken my own advice and I understand all its hidden ramifications.

Unlike you, I can take personal responsibility for my own thoughts, actions and behaviour because I am adult who does not require adult supervision nor a shepherd because I am anything but a dumb unthinking sheep.

One’s moral standards should come from one’s innate moral convictions, not from a set of moral standards supposedly passed from god. Only a person with no innate moral fibre will depend on such outside standards.

And unlike you, I will not seek to cover up my misdeeds by giving others the sin you yourself made, i.e. by not leading a personal example for those points you raise while I and Jo Ann shared with you our painful personal experiences that led to the forming of our views.

Stipe, your points present a clear load of rubbish that I can most certainly debunk with reagrds to you asserting total control of your child’s sexuality until he or she gets married. Your statements do not stand on anything, except hot air and BS.

You have no proof, secular or otherwise as you claim, that “abstinence is the only safe sexual practice outside of a life-long, single partner commitment.” Have you done yourself?

If you did practise abstinence for decades as I did, you should know that abstinence only postpones the act of having sex. It does not teach anyone how to protect himself against AIDS and unwanted preganancies. Only proper working knowledge of a condom come closes to doing that.

As someone who does not practise it in life, you have no grounds for asserting it works, when it does not. So stick your religious-induced fantasy about abstinence approach right back to the bubble your church created and stop trying to mislead others it works when you have no proof it does. If you did, you would not parrot your religious fundamentalist beliefs as much as you did.

What secular proof have you provided in your posts? I see none. Lying again, stipe?

Your false beliefs about abstinence as the “ONLY safe sexual practise” will endanger a child as studies have shown that 80% of teenagers who break their abstinence 1 -2 years after their abstinence pledges engage in sex without condoms. The moment they stopped having abstinence, they are in perpetual danger from AIDS and unwanted pregnancies, even if their partners are their wife or husband to be.

“The protection of the child must come before the child’s right to assert its free will.” Where does that come from the Bible? Or did you pull it out of your ass, which you admit that you have a tendency to do?

Remember free will? It's not free until you actually practise it. It's the God 101 that they teach after the Dark Ages,when Christianity had totalitarian control over all aspects of life for a Christian in Europe to disastrous effects.

Most laws determine that a child is an adult when he or she hits 18 or 21. A child will only learn how to protect himself or herself though living life on their own terms. You yourself deliberately avoided the issues I raise about parenthood in my posts, so I’ll restate them here again.

“If I do become a father, I will admit to wanting my girl to remain daddy's little girl i.e. not having sex until she's much older but I recognise the futility in imposing a standard on her, which she will definitely rebel against. Here the age-old axiom applies: to love her is to set her free. For most of us, we learn by trial and error, not just observations. You clearly did not mention that in your rant about children, or their propensity to experiment on their own.

After all, did you masturbate or read your first porn magazine in the company of your parents? <<<<<<<<<< A 'girl', in the early stages, will always be uncomfortable with her sexuality, as will boys. And by not exposing to sexual situations, you merely compound the problem as an overzealous prison warder cum parent. Such situations will occur whether you want them to happen or not. Such as a boy kissing your girl on the lips out of the blue. A familiar pat on the bum by a lecherous stranger. The roving eyeballs from the appreciate guys around her. The father can't be there 24/7 to guard the daughter and protect her sexuality. That responsibility remains that of the girl and is her prerogative. ”

For once, kindly leave religious out of your statements. Kindly substantiate your points by personal example and experiences to show you actually practise what you believe before foisting your crap on your children.

Until you do, your child will hate you for making her feel so inadequate in social situations and your peers will just regard you as a braying loon.

Let's talk about some uncomfortable facts.

Abstinence does not work in practise. Studies in US have concluded as much.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/05/60minutesona1.html

Abstinence only postpones the act of having sex, which will happen sooner or later. As a measure to protect oneself against AIDS, it is hardly effective at all as shown in the CBS clip i.e. 94% of people who take abstinence pledges end up having sex without a condom after 1 and 1/2 years.

You still have not explained to me why the Catholic Church and other pro-abstinence churches does not preach people to use condoms as properly used it has a 97% chance to prevent unwanted pregnancy and AIDS.

Improperly used, it still has an 84% chance to protect one against AIDS and unwanted pregnancy.

Why would anyone want to preach an abstinence approach that has a 95% failure rate to prevent promiscuous behaviour?

However, I give credit to the Catholic Church which still respects the voice of reason:

Ideals Collide as Vatican Rethinks Condom Ban

By IAN FISHER Published: May 2, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/europe/02pope.html?hp&ex=1146542400&en=2d47ad070fa3bed3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Many Youths Disregard Their Virginity Pledges, Harvard Study Says

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-virginity7may07,1,6880552.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

BOSTON — Virginity pledges, in which young people vow to abstain from sex until marriage, have little staying power among those who take them, a Harvard study has found.

More than half of the adolescents who make the signed public promises give up on their pledges within a year, according to the study released last week.

a father COULD lock his daughter in her room, Norm, till she got married, but that father would not be GOOD. by any standards. when i promote standards of truth they do not force me to ignore other standards of truth. abstinence is the best way before marriage - true. locking a girl away is bad - true. no conflict. only responsibility.

Not driving or riding in a vehicle IS the BEST way to avoid getting killed in a motor vehicle accident Jo Ann. but a responsible parent will guide and teach their children on how to drive when it is appropriate. the parent should not leave keys lying around, tell the kids about seatbelts and then ignore everything the kid does because its 'their right'.

of course they can get into a vehicle, but they cannot go immediately driving on the freeway. of course they can practice driving, but not immediately in the rain.

i do think this is a good analogy to use in comparison to the issue at hand. an honest assessment of the driving situation should reveal a lot about the relationship situation. feel free to continue this line of thought.

jo ann brought up puritanism and religious indoctrination and kes, you brought up missionaries to china yourself. then you accuse me of lying? i also stated when i mentioned hudson taylor (in passing) that it was off topic and if you wanted to discuss such matters then you should email me.

i am not attacking people, i have not accused anyone of anything they havent freely admitted to. i am juging what i see as an illogical response to a father and daughter covenant caught on film.

my experiences have nothing to do with this discussion, but by definition everything we do is reality. asserting that all your experiences are grounded in reality and insisting mine are not is a direct violation of logic. my standards are grounded in reality, my experiences have no impact on the truth.

i indicated a long time ago that when i present truth it will have to be defended against by those who reject it. when i say the bible forbids worshipping dead people and writes off honouring dead people as a waste of time i am not attacking chinese culture. i am setting a standard. if chinese culture cannot measure up to the standard of truth then obviously chinese culture is going to defend itself. just as any other culture (all of them) that falls short of gods standards will be forced to either reject gods standards or change.

the same situation is true for individuals. i am not attacking you or jo ann. i am setting a standard. if you feel you must reject that standard then there is nothing i can do. but in rejecting the standard you will be forced to attack the standard. and the only means of attacking truth is to shoot the messenger. me. i think youll find that all of the attacks have been unidirectional. and not the direction you have indicated.

i warn you again. do not question my experience or situation or use it to attack the solidarity of my points.

your 'simple point' that "It's all BS unless you practise what you preach" is easily dismissed. it does not even approach reality. i can say what is right and wrong independently of what i practice. a 12 year old who has never smoked can say "smoking kills" and be right, a 30 year old who has never smoked can say "smoking kills" and be right, a 40 year old current chain smoker, dying of lung cancer can say "smoking kills" and be right. the source of truth does not change the truth. my situation and life choices have no impact on what the truth is. the only thing that is important is how a person who hears the truth responds to it.

admittedly it is easier to listen to and respect someone whose actions you see as moral and agreeable, but it takes a miracle to see truth when your nature is to reject it.

thus i will not comment on my own situation, consider it a small mercy on my part, for the truth stands regardless of how i have failed to meet your standards.

have you ever considered what might happen if two people who live up to gods standards meet each other, fall in love and decide to honour a commitment to each other till death?

finally in your last two posts we have some facts that i might have some trouble dismissing. Let's talk about some uncomfortable facts. abstinence pledges dont work most of the time. using this as evidence one might be able to justify a frightened or creeped out response to the video im assuming weve all seen.

but what if they do work? what is wrong with a boy honouring gods standards as taught by his family meeting a girl honouring gods standards as taught by her family and the two of them falling in love and honouring a new covenant to remain faithful until death parts them. there is nothing scary or wrong with that.

i think we agree that with failure comes consequences, but do not pretend that just because most fail to meet gods standards that it is impossible. and do not pretend that a majority failing excuses humanity from the consequences and responsibility we all have in life.

Stipe I wrote,

Tell me if I'm wrong? A fundamentalist sees abstinence as the only option, and views failure as a sin that should be punished. The punishment may be a STD because the fundamentalist refuses to educate the daughter on how to avoid STDs if she does have sex. The punishment may be an unwanted pregnancy.

I see no denial that your view is that this is part of taking responsibility. Answer the question. Do you consider sex outside of marriage a sin? Do you consider the sexually transmitted disease a young woman might get because her partner didn't use a condom punishment for committing a sin? Is this part of what you meant by saying failing doesn't excuse one from consequences and responsibility?

semantically id use the word 'consequence' instead of punishment. a consequence is something that happens directly because of an action, a punishment is something imposed upon the victim arbitrarily.

when i said "do not pretend that a majority failing excuses humanity from the consequences and responsibility we all have in life" i was referring to the argument that says abstinence is unrealistic. i agree abstinence is not easy in a world saturated with explicit sexual references, but i believe in gods standards and that he can help us to achieve them through faith.

anything that does not measure up to gods standard is sin. so you could go your whole life abstinant and still be a sinner if you failed to acknowledge the standard god has set.

so yes - sex outside of marriage is sin and the natural consequences are well known. but the gift of god is eternal life.

if i may share a revelation - and this is completely off topic so i apologise for any tangents it spawns. if you wish to test a christian, ask him/her if s/he has sinned since accepting jesus.

yes means they still need salvation. no means they are saved.

not the perfect test because only god can do that .. but an interesting one if you ever wish to debunk a psycho christian ...

there .. dont tell me i never bring anything useful into our debates .. ;)

And just to clarify, her father is a good father for refusing to educate her about condoms and letting her suffer the consequences? I understand that she is responsible for her own actions, but you don't consider her father as being negligent in her education? He is still a good father, though by educating his daughter about condoms she may have avoided a pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease?

mm .. yes that is a valid point and i think it gets to the heart of this matter.

the extent to which telling her how a condom works undermines gods standard is the question. if i am teaching my daughter about relationships and i believe i can teach her well enough and trust her to refrain from sex until she finds a husband then the moment i mention condoms i immediately undermine gods standards.

and i already know that the rest of the world is heavily indoctrinated toward 'safe' sex rather than abstinance. so indeed it requires a great deal of faith in god and a huge amount of trust between family members to take this path.

but it must be an all or nothing effort. faith in god requires total faith in god. any faith in condoms is misplaced faith. faith in a daughters right to choose is misplaced faith.

as with all my posts it comes down to a choice. either you choose gods way and his standards and all that goes with them, or you reject god and do whatever the hell you want.

Stipe, if you had just said all of this from the beginning, you could have saved us all a lot of wasted effort. I knew that this was an exercise in futility. That's it. I'm never engaging a fundamentalist again in a conversation.

And today is Saturday, not Sunday, and yet I feel like I've been to church reading your response.

And, yes, today is a beautiful Saturday afternoon. What AM I doing here in front of the computer?? Yikes. I need to get a life.

Have a great day all.

er .. does that mean you agree with me?

and it may not be sunday there but it is here .. ;)

Stipe:

the moment i mention condoms i immediately undermine gods standards.

House:

Hmm, I see. That's not fair. We were having fun! It's hard to keep sniping rationally when you throw a bomb like that in there.

A few new lies by Stipe that I need to point out here.

Stipes was the one who brought out in the religious point out of the blue and the context of the discussion of parental control over a daughter’s sexuality i.e. “Christian fundamentalism teaches us to honour our parents.” in his post at May 18, 2006 02:18 AM

I merely highlighted that he was lying about this point by pointing out that Christian evangelism has been attacking WORLDWIDE Chinese culture and rites that promote filial piety and paying respects to elders and loved ones, not just China as he claimed.

This is a fact and history which he refuses to acknowledge as he cannot accept the reality that “Christian fundamentalism DOES NOT teach us to honour our parents.” Are there any Christian rites or holidays dedicated to honoring parents or ones’ loved ones who passed away? No, the religion only wants its followers to pay respects to the memory of Jesus, rather than one’s ancestors and loves ones who created us and cared for us.

Fact.

===

Stipe: “says him. God speaks through the bible.”

Says you are more like it, Stipe. God does not speak through the Bible. That’s a fact, regardless of whether you want to live in a lie or not, which is a sin by the way based on the same Bible.

The Bible is a snap shot of Christian writings written 60-100 years after Jesus’ death by authors who were never identified whose original writings in Greek and other dead languages have been lost in the passage of time.

If God was speaking through the Bible as you claimed, he would have done it in a language that is still alive today and he would not allow the original writings to get lost. So the Bible is obviously not God’s words. Fact.

The dead Church clergy at the Church Council in 325 speaks through the Bible as they compiled and edited Christian’s writings into the Bible, wanted future Christians to say or believe in like a dumb sheep that have to rely on the clergy as a medium to reach God. Kindly note that this Council excluded writings attributed to Jesus himself who wrote as a man!

Strange that the Protestant Movement led by Luther was suppose to end such blind faith and reliance on the clergy to define one’s beliefs from the Christian theocratic rule that created the Dark Ages in Europe, when the clergy via preaching through the Bible controlled the lives of the masses in every aspect. No Golden or Enlighten age appeared as GOD DID NOT SPEAK THROUGH THE BIBLE.

The Church clergy did. This is Fact and History.

And as long as Christianity and Christians do not learn from their mistakes of the past and recognize the fallibilities in their faith and the Bible, they will keep making these mistakes for all to see.

After all, he who does not know his history is condemned to repeat it.

Fact again.

Stipes is really doing a fantastic job at promoting “Christian fundamentalism” here.

God III House IIIII

Stipe, your comment just proves that you are just talk: your 'simple point' that "It's all BS unless you practise what you preach" is easily dismissed. it does not even approach reality.”

You are not the one living in reality.

Stop trying to gear this discussion to religious beliefs when it is clear that you have not practise abstinence nor have a covenant with your dad not to have sex before marriage.

On what grounds do you have to preach these practises to others, let alone your children if you did not practise it?

And what is your basis for saying abstinence is the “ONLY safe sexual practise? Blind faith, when abstinence is not about the practise or sex, merely its postponement?

Your daughter will still have a possibility of getting AIDS or pregnant once she has sex before or after marriage if she does not use a condom.

As someone who practises abstinence for decades, I am in a better position to tell you and other pro-abstinence crowd that it does not help protect someone from sexual disease or unwanted pregnancies. If you want to say different, kindly practise abstinence for at least 5 years before trying to sell it to others.

Rationalising your position purely on your superficially held religious beliefs is a shallow dodge when practising what you preach is treasured by all religions, although your Christian fundamentalism may not have such moral standards.

You said you have provided secular sources on supporting abstinence only approach but you did not do so. Secular studies have clearly pointed that such an approach does not work, regardless of whether you accept it or not. And by my own personal experience, I can tell you that abstinence is not the only safe sexual practise. It’s not even a practise as it is postponing sex, get it?

There is utterly no solidarity OR SUBSTANCE TO YOUR POINTS.

Do you even listen to yourself? Your point: “Not driving or riding in a vehicle IS the BEST way to avoid getting killed in a motor vehicle accident Jo Ann. but a responsible parent will guide and teach their children on how to drive when it is appropriate. the parent should not leave keys lying around, tell the kids about seatbelts and then ignore everything the kid does because it’s 'their right'. of course they can get into a vehicle, but they cannot go immediately driving on the freeway. of course they can practice driving, but not immediately in the rain. i do think this is a good analogy to use in comparison to the issue at hand. an honest assessment of the driving situation should reveal a lot about the relationship situation. feel free to continue this line of thought.”

Sorry, a responsible parent would not try to teach his or her child how to drive because he is not a professional in teaching such a topic. There are professional instructors who teach and will be invigilating your child in driving tests.

Your analogy is good in that it debunks your shallow and simplistic statements for a parent to control his child’s sexuality until marriage.

There are way too many things that a parent can’t teach a child and which cannot be taught ably by a parent. A parent cannot be there for his child 24/7 and thus the parent must trust the child to make her own decision and learn by trial and error like all of us here.

Things will happen, regardless of what you wish. Such as a boy kissing your girl on the lips out of the blue. A familiar pat on the bum by a lecherous stranger. The roving eyeballs from the appreciate guys around her. Situations like this will crop up, making a girl uncomfortable with her sexuality.

And by trying to lock up her sexuality as a parent until her marriage, you will condemn her to social infant, with no idea on how to act in any social circumstances that involve a boy and girl.

The fact remains that you don’t trust your child to do anything right without parental guidance in all aspects of her life and no sane person is going to agree with it here.

I suggest that you take this up with your psychiatrist before trying to brainwash anyone further. And remember this, practise what you preach because talk is cheap OR a load of BS.

Kes//And what is your basis for saying abstinence is the “ONLY safe sexual practise?//

Kes, his basis is that God told him so. You're wasting your time on him, my friend.

As Norm stated with his hilarious House comment, sniping rationally doesn't work with someone who just keeps dropping the God-said-so bomb.

Hi Jo, I understand and I agree with what you say but I always feel sad when a person's faith can blind him to himself, the world and those around him. Just take a look at this line from Stipe:

"faith in god requires total faith in god. any faith in condoms is misplaced faith. faith in a daughters right to choose is misplaced faith."

What is misplaces is faith in god in preventing abortions and AIDS or sexual behaviour with a 95% failure rate? Faith in proper use of condoms has a 97% success rate with correect practise or 86% with incorrect practise. Obviously, stipe is divorced from the real world.

But what makes me sad is his distrust of his own daughter to make the right decision. It is probably a distrust fostered by his Christian fundamentalism that seek to condemn people on their failings and weakenesses.

That's why I always feel that all Christians lack faith. Because faith starts from within, and should not be enforced from without like belieiving in a GOD that make you a good person.

Faith is not a denial of a human's basic instincts such as sexual impulse. Faith does not start with doubting oneself or condemning oneself for human fallibilities.

Faith starts by identifying those things that matter you most and then to protect them and embody them in life in heart, mind and body. This is the truest form of faith that is undertaken without any expectations of rewards or a quick route to Heaven.

That’s why I believe in doing things only if it means something to me. And I will keep doing it, regardless of any peer pressure or outside influence.

And after doing it, only then do I think I have the right to share my experience of this matter along with all its ramifications. After all, a moral standard is all about leading by personal example.

Those who seek to preach but not practise is just trying to evade their lack of personal responsibility by imposing moral standards as the province of God, instead of them as their proponents.

They have no faith in their words and thus need God to bolter themselves. They have no real faith in what they preach. Sad, isn’t it?

unbelievable. kes i think youve read one too many pieces of chinese written history.

and the misrepresentation of what i have clearly stated is absolutely unbelievable.

you have your victory. farewell.

What is unbelievable is your refusal to accept anything in the real world that contradicts your perception of your religion.

The attacks by Christianity on Chinese culture and customs have been documented and researched by scholars.

What is also truly unbelievable is your refusal to accept the need to practise what you preach before preaching it to others. That says a lot about you and your faith.

There's no victory to be had here. Just a clear case of a lost cause.

By all means, do what you plan to do with your kids. Just make sure you can live with the consequences.

The people here have spent more than enough time and effort in giving you advice based on our own personal experiences. And you spend all the time disregarding our points and passing holier-than-thou judgements on us instead.

What is unbelievable is your refusal to accept anything in the real world that contradicts your perception of your religion.

The attacks by Christianity on Chinese culture and customs have been documented and researched by scholars.

What is also truly unbelievable is your refusal to accept the need to practise what you preach before preaching it to others. That says a lot about you and your faith.

There's no victory to be had here. Just a clear case of a lost cause.

By all means, do what you plan to do with your kids. Just make sure you can live with the consequences.

The people here have spent more than enough time and effort in giving you advice based on our own personal experiences. And you spend all the time disregarding our points and passing holier-than-thou judgements on us instead.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives