It actually is. Withholding sex is grounds for divorce and before “no-fault” (unjust, unilateral) divorce became a thing, it was grounds for at-fault divorce.
2 Likes
IDK on this one. I think a lot of it comes down to the individual in question. There are women who are promiscuous that have or had strict parents (the pastor’s daughter parties hard lol), there are women who have or had parents that didn’t have many rules or oversight to dating that aren’t promiscuous.
I think good parenting can help with the offspring’s decisions, but it isn’t all nurture. Some nature involved too.
We must have grown up in different areas. Everyone discouraged it but short of putting the chastity belt on your daughter and her staying inside all day I’m not sure a foolproof plan exists.
People should make good decisions and have good family members. Call me when that works for everyone because historically it hasn’t at all.
I went to school with kids who had great parents and were intelligent and surprise surprise many of them had sex before they would have been at a responsible place to have babies. Biology has always trumped psychology here.
To me this is the equivalent of trying to solve the obesity epidemic by telling people to eat less cake. Not bad advice but you’re not going to get anywhere with it.
Withholding sex permanently would be grounds for divorce but it used to be that a woman could never refuse her husband. Well she could refuse, and I would like to think most men were OK with that, but if he wanted to, the husband could force himself on his wife and unlike today, it wouldn’t have been considered rape.
1 Like
Peer influence cannot be understated.
1 Like
This is all true. There is no guarantee that children will turn out the way one wants them too, even with involved parenting. Parents can be involved in education and life skills, sports and other activities, provide financial support and love, and yet still have kids that make poor decisions and have poor life outcomes.
Additionally no matter what parents do, they often cannot override societal and peer pressure in some cases. So in the case of a hyper- sexualized and porn riddled society, it might well be in many cases that young people don’t make proper sexual decisions despite parents’ guidance.
However with all that said I’ve seen so many cases in which high-investment parenting does work.
1 Like
This is a very simplistic interpretation of the Bible. Yes the Mosaic Law, which is the covenant agreement between God and the nation of Israel, is not in affect for the Church. But does that mean the Christian should rip Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy out of their Bible? (Some do think so. So there’s that)
I mentioned Lev 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood…” This is a Bible truth that is the premise for the remainder of the verse which pertains to the Mosaic Law. Let me say it again: it is a Bible truth on which this portion of the Mosaic Law is grounded.
You think not. That truth for the Church is validated in Acts 15:29, speaking to Bible truths that the Gentiles need adhere, “That ye should abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep your selves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
Any honest person can see that God honors blood. The life of the flesh is blood.
I think this might be the case. I grew up in a highly economically and ethnically and racially diverse place and noticed the generally different life outcomes of different communities.
If you don’t mind me asking, what part of the country did you grow up in (obviously don’t have to say)? I’m from Queens, NY.
I am not basing my interpretation off the KJ version of Bible. It’s rife with errors (well known by theologians). King James was also known to be a homosexual.
No, Christians shouldn’t ignore many of the lessens of the Old testament, but Mosaic law does not apply. I would like to see the Greek and Aramaic versions of the Acts verse you quote here so that I may be better informed.
Is this a view passed down because there was a simplistic understanding of human anatomy at the time this was written? Was blood equated to the soul? All questions that should be answered.
The life of the FLESH is in the blood. Man is a triune being body (flesh), soul, and spirit.
I don’t see any evidence of that /s.
2 Likes
Are you suggesting that King James was on the translation committee?
I would imagine the suggestion is that the King James version of the bible bears some influence from King James.
1 Like
I have a Greek Interlinear Bible for the KJV, but it is based on the Textus Receptus. The root word for “blood” in Acts 15:29 is alpha, iota, mu, alpha which means blood.
Take the venture to investigate, don’t say you “would like to see”, unless it just isn’t worth your time. I am okay with either choice you make
1 Like
Rural Kansas. Some poverty but a lot of middle class families as well. Probably 90% church going and conservative.
1 Like
I buy in on that. If he is homosexual he allowed the translators to include " sodomite" throughout the Old Testament. (which Marten Woudstra removed all those from the NIV.)
In the New Testament they placed Romans 1:26-27 which is a strong rebuke of homosexual behavior (Which Virginia Mollenkott a stylist on the NIV committee changed “vile affection” to “shameful lusts”, thereby allowing an interpretation that if the lust, or love of two people isn’t shameful there is no sin.)
So, if King James was trying to have the word of God translated to justify his homosexual behavior, he did a pitiful job.
That’s not what it means at all. It was still publicly shamed by the Roman catholic church, so as to appear heterosexual, the translation ensured that homosexuality would explicitly be called out. 1600 did not have June Pride…
King James needed the church’s approval to stay in power.
1 Like
Okay. Might you be suggesting that the AV translators were over stating the conviction of homosexual behavior?
Do you know how the AV differs from the Catholic Bible of your choice as it pertains to homosexuality?
Seems to me for your conspiracy theory to have some validity it would have risen from a difference in condemnation of homosexuality.
I don’t really want to derail this thread further, but in general what you said is exactly what I am saying.
I am saying there are differences in all translations, it’s a giant, long-time game of telephone.
In NIV Matthew 27:
“My God, My God why have you forsaken me?”
The Aramaic Bible (Believed to be older than Greek sometimes)
“My God, My God, for this I was spared”
Something to think about.
Thomas targeted.