steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:34 am
Read through the article. Lots of valid points...
our ministry really hammers on purity among our youth, that of which I am thankful.
One thing that stuck out, though:
“Christian sex is the best sex."
Can't say I disagree....
TMI
Since it’s Bunny Trails .. (i’m not invited to the topic) .. i’m ok with that.
i read through the article. i was a bit puzzled at the length, but more than that, he seemed to type-cast all non-Christians as sexually immoral/amoral, i don’t think this is accurate. Neto describes, even remote peoples establish traditional nuclear families with moral boundaries.
i believe morality began in The Garden, and, altho supported and refined by Jesus in the NT, it’s fairly universal.
possibly, the author is steeped in contemporary “developed world” amorality, which is 100% understandable, but myopic.
it’s more complex than that. not all non-Christian cultures are hedonistic.
1 example. A recent Neto contribution:
Neto wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:05 am
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:03 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:52 pm
I'm curious how anyone here would respond to the question of a marriage in a society which has no formal marriage licensing process, such as in a pre-literate society, or among the very isolated or very poor favella (squatters settlement).
I personally think what matters is how their own society regards these unions.
But this can quickly get mired in your question here about letting the secular society define what marriage is.
I'm not sure how to answer that,
because I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the Brazilian Indian tribe among whom we lived, where they were illiterate, had no documents of any kind (including birth certificates), but still had a high expectation for the permanence of the marriages in that society. There was also no type of ceremony. ("Divorce" was not unheard of, but very rare.)
That would probably describe marriage in biblical times as well, wouldn't it?
I think that in many ways, yes.
But the glaring difference to me is that these people to whom I am referring live in, or in juxtaposition to, a larger society that "requires" some additional formalities, or documentation. My quandary is that I see the society in which these people live as "determining" (not in a legal sense, but in terms of cultural attitudes toward the couple) which co habitations are deemed 'marriages', and which are what some would call "shacking up".
In the case of the Indian culture, there is no such thing as "shacking up".
(There was traditionally some "messing around" prior to marriage, and in some cases this might have involved multiple persons before a permanent relationship was "found" & formed,
but their objective is to form a permanent union, one that brings children into the world.
(One of the divorces that we know of was, in fact, because of infertility. It was blamed on the woman, but judging from the childlessness of the second marriage, the fault lie with the man. There is another case in which a man considered leaving his wife over the same issue, but a Brazilian missionary who also lived & worked there at that time; he & his wife were also childless at that time, and he convinced the man to stay with his wife. It is likely that in most cases of infertility the 'fault' DOES lie with the man, due primarily to having suffered high fevers repeatedly or over a long period of time, usually from malaria.)
In the case of the extremely poor city dwellers, they are not a distinct cultural group, but rather a social sub-group, so it is a bit more difficult to think what they should do to "authenticate" their marriages. (I don't know what the actual cost of a civil marriage license is, but I suspect that the larger society would not regard that as a full marriage either - it would require a ceremony in the Catholic church, and that would be of considerable expense.)
There is, of course, another Brazilian sub-culture there, the isolated back-water Brazilian communities that are days or weeks travel away from any officiating government office, and there is still the church issue involved.
It may seem odd, but of these three groups I've mentioned here, the native culture is the one that is the most morally upright.
(They have said that the non-Indians living near them "live like animals".)
It is disappointing that “those who have so much” have so little regard for anything, putting the carnal above all.
It’s not “normal” within God-created humanity, it’s sick distortion and dedicated ignorance.
We could all be made better by taking a broader view of “what people are doing” - like Neto has in his lifetime.
i havahunch many would be surprised at how unnatural they are. God breathed morality into mankind from the start.
it was the serpent, or falling to temptation, that muddied the waters.
Lastly, i’m glad for you and your family that the value of purity / self esteem / value of life, is taught to your children.
Too many children-teens-young people are being told they are no more than barnyard animals, victims of carnal instincts.
Given instructions, drugs, paraphernalia, abortions, to enable, then mitigate damages for “mistakes.”
What evil, discouraging messages. Esp for those in the “most entitled,” best educated, wealthiest cultures!!
It almost seems impossible. Yet.
Scriptures warn about material wealth. And, human reasoning.
No need to look far.
It’s probable, it’s not that people have too little, but perhaps they/we have too much.
Being creatures of comfort, that’s not a popular notion.
