Sex in media boosts teen promiscuity-study

[jake431]

Are you quoting Stalin or is that really your belief?

I can't speak for the Baron, but I'll tell you it's my beliefs.

-Jake

 

[Lincsong]

I believe that religion has a place in society. It however, does not have an official State Religion. But, I also question why this survey is being published now. Like I said earlier, since at least 1973, I've seen Playboys, Dallas', History of the World, Thorn Birds etc. and have teen sex gone up that much since 1973? I would say it has gone up since 1933. But even then, the results were much more hidden. "oh Agnes had to go to Toledo, she has a grave illness that caused her to become bloated" . Or Manuel and Mary got married and boom :eusa_doh: in six months Mary gave birth to Tony.
I remember, when I was around 13 (1982) and my buddy's Dad had a suit case of Playboys and Penthouse's in the shed in the backyard. Heck, we even found some old Playboys from 1967 in Junior High hidden in the store room in Art Class.

 

[jamespowers]

I can't speak for the Baron, but I'll tell you it's my beliefs.

-Jake

You can't be serious.
So you mean you don't want to just leave people alone and let them believe whatever they choose to? You would make religion illegal? Come now. That is just ridiculous. I don't believe it. :eusa_doh:
If you are serious then what becomes of the religious? So much for a tolerant society. The religious have to put up with the irreligious but the converse is not true? That would make one a good Stalinist. I still don't believe you are though.
Now I know you are being facetious. lol

Regards to all,

J

 

[Section10]

If a country wants to destroy religion it should embrace it thoroughly. Give it all the authority it wants and make its membership compulsive. In a short time the church will turn into a meaningless parasite that is nothing more than a burden and a vexation to its citizens.
But if a church is persecuted and driven underground, that is life to its body and steel for its flesh. The church thrives and people will flock to it and willingly die for its principles.

 

[Bebop]

If a country wants to destroy religion it should embrace it thoroughly. Give it all the authority it wants and make its membership compulsive. In a short time the church will turn into a meaningless parasite that is nothing more than a burden and a vexation to its citizens.
But if a church is persecuted and driven underground, that is life to its body and steel for its flesh. The church thrives and people will flock to it and willingly die for its principles.

How would you explain the Middle East and it's "embracing" of religion for thousands of years with it's compulsive participation? [huh] They don't seem to be thinking their religion is meaningless and parasitic. If what you say were true, devil worshiping would be the strongest religion in the world. They are underground and not well liked and have no masses willing to die for the cause.

 

[Bebop]

Actually Stalin did say that. I was just wondering if he was being serious or facetious.
Do we really want a society free of religion? How would you enforce it and what would you do to those who broke the ban? That just gets too close to rounding people up and putting them in camps. I don't want to ever see that again.
Let people believe whatever they want but don't prevent them from believing anything. In Stalinist Russia, they would brainwash children by placing two potted plants side by side. They would tell the children that there is no God and they could prove it. From then on they watered one plant and left the other plant alone. You guessed it, the plant not watered died. They then proclaimed that there was no God and that the government was that which gives one nourishment just as the teacher watered the plant. I don't want to see this junk in our schools here either.
Freedom of religion is fine but freedom from religion is ridiculous. There is no such guarantee. No one forces you to join any particular religion but you just might see a church with a cross on it.

Regards,

J

Freedom from religion does not necessarily mean force people to not practice their religions. You can't force people to not do what they believe in their hearts. That will work about as well as forcing gay people to be straight or straight to be gay. It means make religion a private thing not a public thing as in being gay or straight. It seems that some religions are based on "showing the light" and converting non-believers and they want more followers so they lay it on thick. That is not going to change in this Christian based country. There is no freedom from religion. Interesting turn this thread took.

 

[Lena_Horne]

...Interesting turn this thread took...

I'll say...

Well one could always consider the path that some teenagers (though they are in the minority and constantly hear from all sides that their decision is a futile one) to remain virgins until marriage and take chastity pledges and incorporate Christian values into the daily lives.

While I personally applaud their decision, it is not because they are religious, but because they have made a very responsible, vastly unpopular choice not to follow the crowd.

Unfortunately this has its own set of problems as such teens are much less likely to be prepared when and if they do break their pledge. They are less likely to use protection and are also less likely to be prepared for the emotion/psychological aspect of sex.

When this topic was covered in the news a few months back the story itself made them seem like oddballs or weirdos because they merely chose a different option than their peers. The news crew treated the story as if sex was inevitable, and for most it is. But I believe the fair and decent thing to have done was not to cover the story from the view of two kids going against the grain in a society already saturated with sex but as one of individuals willing to choose an option they have a pefectly sound right to. They didn't feel they were ready to take on the burden (whatever that may be) of sex until they were a part of something more committed. That in my book is commendable.

The person who takes responsibility for their sex life and has enough sense not to approach it until they are no longer so swayed by peer pressure and spontaneity also gets my vote. When you are of the understanding that sex isn't just about yourself and can go from there then I believe that is a good thing. That's about as far as I'm delving into the religion aspect here.

Thoughts?

L_H

 

[jamespowers]

It means make religion a private thing not a public thing as in being gay or straight. That is not going to change in this Christian based country. There is no freedom from religion. Interesting turn this thread took.

I don't think I am grasping what you mean here. How would you make religion a private not public thing? How would you enforce it? What would you do to "lawbreakers?" Could you wear a cross around your neck or carry rosary beads in public? I am just not getting the public/private thing and where the lines should be drawn and I want to understand from the other viewpoint.
As far as I am concerned, the gay or straight thing is already private.
Freedom of religion is fine for me but the freedom from religion makes no sense because of the enforcement abuses and tolerance aspect of it. I don't see the Constitutional basis for the from part either. The Constition sets up a permissive rather than mandatory system either way. I prefer that. Seems like that would be the definition of this whole tolerance thing---to me anyway. How about it?

Regards,

J

 

[jake431]

You can't be serious.
So you mean you don't want to just leave people alone and let them believe whatever they choose to? You would make religion illegal? Come now. That is just ridiculous. I don't believe it. :eusa_doh:
If you are serious then what becomes of the religious? So much for a tolerant society. The religious have to put up with the irreligious but the converse is not true? That would make one a good Stalinist. I still don't believe you are though.
Now I know you are being facetious. lol

Regards to all,

J

I honestly believe society would be better off without the input of religion. Didn't say I expect it to happen - you can't put the genie back in the bottle now. For that matter, I don't expect everyone should agree with me. And I would not make religion illegal - if people want to believe - that's fine. But when their morality affects others in terms of telling other people how to live their life and telling them what is right and wrong - I have a problem with it. Don't think pre-marital sex is right? Don't have it. Don't think abortion is okay? Don't have one. But telling other people what to do because of your personal spiritual beliefs? I think that sucks. That's why I feel the way I do about religion.

-Jake

 

[Section10]

Bebop. When I said religion, I should have said Christianity. For me, that's what automatically comes to mind when I think religion. I guess the point I'm making is if you try to forcibly eliminate it, you are only shooting yourself in the foot. I don't mean you personally, I mean a gov't or another special interest group.

 

[herringbonekid]

i agree that you can't force people to give up religion.
i'd rather see a time when mankind has no further use for it.

 

[Section10]

I honestly believe society would be better off without the input of religion. Didn't say I expect it to happen - you can't put the genie back in the bottle now. For that matter, I don't expect everyone should agree with me. And I would not make religion illegal - if people want to believe - that's fine. But when their morality affects others in terms of telling other people how to live their life and telling them what is right and wrong - I have a problem with it. Don't think pre-marital sex is right? Don't have it. Don't think abortion is okay? Don't have one. But telling other people what to do because of your personal spiritual beliefs? I think that sucks. That's why I feel the way I do about religion.

-Jake

You object to the way religion conducts itself in public and you think it ought to change its ways. So you are telling another group to behave in a manner in which you think is right and appropriate. Why you are no different than a church. That's all they are doing. But it's worse since you are expecting them to behave according to what you think is right and it's nothing more than your own personal opinion. Where's the credibility in that? Why do you have the formula which will make the world a better place? Real churches are evangelical by their very nature. To expect otherwise is to nullify what a church is. Personal opinion is just that. We've all got one of those.
I'm an evangelical christian myself, but I don't feel like I'm ramming any of it down anyone's throat. On this thread I only pointed to Christianity when I was specifically asked where I got my values from when it came to teen sex.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

See, the reason i didn't elaborate is because my particular views on religion would certainly get this thread closed. Well, not religion per se, but the particular form of religion that has become prevalent. The organised church in other words. Which tells people what to think. Pre-digested and ready saran-wrapped interpretation of scripture. Don't think: just accept. And give the church some money ... Someone mentioned parasites.

The problem with the quote feature on this forum is that it doesn't quote what the quoted was quoting. This allows people - i suspect intentionally - to make statements that bear no relation to what has gone before. I was replying to someone (don't remember who; my apologies) who said that "religion should try to shape culture". I have no problem with the religious, just the in your face, "you're going to hell if you don't believe in my particular Truth" types. In other words, the ones who try to shape culture. The holier-than-thou attitude, particularly prevalent in the evangelical community, is where my problem comes in. You can congregate and worship all you want; just don't force your religion on my culture. You may have a God looking over you. I do not.

Then there was a stunning leap of logic and communism, that perennial FLounge bugaboo, came into the equation. Katt in Hatt got it right ... again.

bk

 

[Section10]

I've got some free time this AM so please bear with me once more.
If I had said that my views about teen sex were simply my own opinion and nothing else, why should they have any more credibility than any other? But to point elsewhere to an independent authority outside of myself is equally unsatisfactory. Hard to please.

When it comes to the in your face behavior of some church groups, I agree with much that is being said here. Some of the things I hear about make me want to beat my head against the wall. But know that it is the fringe elements of any group that you hear the most about. There is a lot of junk that goes on in the name of Christianity and I'll be the first to admit it, but that is no indictment against the real thing. We are all truly free inside to make our own choices. If you will have no God in your life, then most assuredly there will be none. If God is real for you then he most surely is. In the long run, we all hit what we aim at.

 

[John in Covina]

When it comes to religion.....

There is almost an equation here, where those that are followers, and the religion they follow, that they are considered as fools and the religion evil. But the reaction to religion, when focused on Christianity, and to some extent, Judaism always gets people riled up especially on the against side.

When it comes to Christianity, the message gets clouded by other issues, interpetation differences, an distortions. The proponants of Christianty have written mountains of books, spoken billions of words and it doesn't sway those that will not listen or those that will not see. If you have taken a stance that you feel you are protecting yourself from it, chances are you can't be moved.

If you are willing to read, I would suggest a book by C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity" as it gives an account of what changed his outlook on the subject. If not try "The Screwtape Letters" you can really have some fun with that. However I just caution you, that there is more to this world than the visible, and you are not here by accident.

Someone riled against the culture being influenced by religion. In Nazi Germany and through out the conquered areas, many Christian church leaders went to jail or even the concentration camps because of the stance they took against evil. Now you'll be quick to say others supported Nazism, yes, but what were those people, even as church leaders and members actually swayed by, the religion or the culture?

In the end, the reaction against Christianity from the time of Jesus and through history is a clash between culture and the church as a whole. It was a continuation of a falling away that occurs time and again since God introduced himself to man. In Eden, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and became like God, knowing Good and Evil. In such man became wise but seperated from God. Since then the world, it's wisdom and the culture strive to free themselves from God. This reaction of the culture is predicted in a number of places, pointing to how the culture will rally against God and the wisdom of the culture focus on working for that seperation.

"For the WISDOM of this WORLD is FOOLISHNESS with GOD. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. Therefore let no one glory in men." (1 Corinthians 3:18)

For Christians it's a like like some Twilight Zone episode where they are the only ones that knows how to avert a big tragedy, like the sinking of the Titanic, and no one will listen. Many in thend though would rather practice their life as Christians and be wrong about the afterlife then vice a versa.

We are working thru a Philosiphy class here!
What is Morality?

Sincerely,

 

[Lincsong]

For the true believers there need be no explanation. For the non-believers, no explanation will suffice.

 

[jamespowers]

It is hard to imagine our country without the Judeo-Christian model being in the background. Our basic laws were founded on them. Without it we would likely not have things like tolerance and laws that prevent man from taking from the defenseless, be it "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness." These ideas were directly pulled from religion and rights were not attributed to government that allows one to live in liberty they are attributed to being God given and irrevocable by man. I doubt such a government structure could have been established without the founding documents being based on this. Perhaps we take that for granted and now just want to get rid of the references but what will replace them? Government? We know government cannot be trusted to deliver anything, as its real goal is always regulation in the end. Whether it be business, commerce or individual rights they will regulate it to give reason for their existence.
What will replace religion in the background if we move away from it? That is what worries me. I can think of a lot worse things to base government on than the teachings of love, understanding and tolerance. Government degenerates into either a tyranny or a totalitarian state without morals. True there have been totalitarian states that proclaim to be as such but they were not. A government that we can participate in and voice our opposition to without reprisal is far better than the alternative.
The question you have to ask in the long run is who you fear most--government or religion? I don't know about most but I doubt the Pope is going to be knocking at my door anytime soon to drag me off to jail. Who has more power and who should be watched more? My contention is that a secular state without religion is far worse off.
I do have to say that the level of discussion here concerning these issues impresses me. It is on quite a high level without name-calling or belittlement. I appreciate the restraint showed and the logic applied. Ok, now you tell me where I am wrong.

Regards to all,

J

 

[John in Covina]

Two kingdoms

Hi James!

What you are describing is what is called the Two Kingdoms, the Kingdom of the Right and the Kingdom of the Left. Here, we try to balance them as best we can, but it is always a struggle to keep the balance.:eusa_doh:

 

[Section10]

jp has made a good point. It's not good enough just to remove religion from society, you need to replace it with something better. To simply get rid of it leaves a huge hole in society, morality and conscience that cannot be filled with any better alternatives. Plain and simply nothing else works. Society without a strong moral anchor is hopelessly adrift and will turn into a monster.
Christianity in a culture is like salt in a meal.

I agree with hbk's post. I am waiting for the day, too when religion will no longer be necessary. (Because on that day, we will have the real thing).

 

[mysterygal]

well all you have to do is watch the news and see the downfall of man...I agree that the bible shouldn't be pushed down anybody's throat, nobody likes that. But for who reads and understands it, it's a warning of if you get involved in certain things, bad consequences are sure to follow. To totally remove that, it would be a society of a 'anything goes' mentality. Given, there are laws out there for protection, but, how much do you want to remove?