'Full-Quiver' Theology

Keith,

If I viewed the Bible as you do, I don't think I would pay much attention to anything it said, because I would view it as untrustworthy.

History is filled with people who had wrong beliefs about God. The world today is almost entirely populated with people who believe something other than the truth. I think you fit in that majority. I do not believe you and I are of the same religion, even though we both would call ourselves Christians. We disagree too much about God, who He is, what He does and has done in history for us to both be Christians.

Gary

I'm sorry. I thought I was posting on another topic.

Hi Gary

My apologies to Jesus Politics for discussing this on his thread abuot something else. We could return to the thread that started this discussion if you want to continue.

Yuo wrote:

"If I viewed the Bible as you do, I don't think I would pay much attention to anything it said, because I would view it as untrustworthy"

If you viewed the Bible as *I* do yuo'd view it this way:
When you read something in the Bible yuo'd react in one of these ways:

1. You'd recognize the truth in what it said

2. You'd find yourself not believing the specific thing it said.

3. You'd not be sure one way or the other that what it said was true.

Reading the Bible would be worth the trouble because of the number of times (1) obtained. And if (2) or (3) obtain, still I recognize that I could be misunderstanding things so it is worth prayerfully reading the Bible again.

"History is filled with people who had wrong beliefs about God. The world today is almost entirely populated with people who believe something other than the truth. I think you fit in that majority. I do not believe you and I are of the same religion, even though we both would call ourselves Christians. We disagree too much about God, who He is, what He does and has done in history for us to both be Christians"

But we and I *do* both believe in those things the *Bible* lists as the requirements for being a Christian. Unless you *don't* believe what jesus said about how we treat the least of these. IT seems to me that you have added to the Biblical definition of Christian requirements that are not biblical. In that sense you are acting as a Pharisee, in my opinion.

yuor Friend
Keith

Keith,

Is how we treat "the least of these" a requirement for salvation?

Getting back on topic,

I think that this so-called "Quiver Theology" (I've never heard the term before), is a logical outcome of the sexual theology of many funadmentalists and extreme conservatives. They demonize sex, unless its in marriage. But its ok in marriage, because it creates children, which creates families, which make God happy. Procreative sex in marriage is valued as the best sex, so of course the products of such procreative sex become highly valued as well.

I would also suspect that the fear of low birth rate among the higher classes in our society (read: white) is also a factor in this theology, but I don't want to push it.

What always surprises me is the fascination with the "Biblical" ideal of sex within marriage only. When you read the Old Testament, its taken for granted that men are sleeping around, engaging prostitutes on the street, and taking multiple wives and/or concubines. Meanwhile, the women are kept from sleeping around because it lowers their bride price. Just look at rules saying that if a man sleeps with an un-betrothed virgin, he owes her father her bride price.

In fact, marriage is hardly the sole outlet for male sexuality, and if women could control their fertility, the reasons for female chastity within marriage slip away as well (escept for the idea of a man's honor is determined by his ability to control his women). Marriage is an arrangement between families for the production of hiers and division of property after death, with other fringe benefits like sharing land or a well. Production of children was necessary for their help with labor, the high child mortality rate, and the general need to keep the "nation" (remember, ancient Hebrews thought of themselves as a race and a nation) alive.

In our modern day, where women can control their fertility (if we don't ban them the drugs that enable them to do it), where in vitro and other techniques can open a close a woman's womb, where marriage is about love as opposed to property, and the world is becoming more and more overpopulated (and membership in God's community is open to all: Jew or Greek, man or woman, slave or free), the sexual and marital mores of the Bible couldn't seem more antiquated.

What we really need is a serious dialogue of what sort of limits, if any, on people's sexuality makes sense for our modern day society. Are there behaviors that are generally so detrimental to the individual we feel compelled to deter them? Are there behaviors so detrimental to community that we feel justified in banning them? How can we follow the example of the authors of the Law, who took the societal forms of their time and infused them with as much justice and fairness as they could?

Hi Gary

I'll will discuss the issue you raised either on the "Gay Invention" thread or by e-mail if you like. But this thread is about something else.

Hi John and JP

A couple of points (maybe a few even:-)

1. The Apostle Paul specifies another reason for marriage other than pro-creation, namely as a legitimate sexual outlet when a couple is burning with sexual desire, lest they fall into sexual sin. I don't see how a bunch of passages saying how much of a blessing children are implies any kind of *obligation* to procreate. Mohler seems to be adding a non-biblical requirement, sort of like a modern day Pharisee who teaches the traditions of man instead of the truth of God.

2. John wrote: "In fact, marriage is hardly the sole outlet for male sexuality, and if women could control their fertility, the reasons for female chastity within marriage slip away as well (escept for the idea of a man's honor is determined by his ability to control his women)"

I don't agree. I think that there are many psychological, emotional and spiritual effects that come from sexual activity, which is what you'd expect for something that is such a powerful drive. It is a mistake to suggest that sex is ever causal, IMO. I think that's why jesus taught what he taught wrt sex.

"What we really need is a serious dialogue of what sort of limits, if any, on people's sexuality makes sense for our modern day society. Are there behaviors that are generally so detrimental to the individual we feel compelled to deter them? Are there behaviors so detrimental to community that we feel justified in banning them? How can we follow the example of the authors of the Law, who took the societal forms of their time and infused them with as much justice and fairness as they could?"

I am not in favor of using the power of the state to regulate sexual behavior between adults who give their consent. I think adultery is a sin but I don't think we ought to pass laws against it, neither should we pass laws against promiscuity. But that doesn't mean that promiscuity and adultery are OK nowadays.

keith

does this man believe that childless couples are cursed? my wife and i have been married 25 years and were unable to have children. in our 30's, we went though the rather agonizing process of fertility treatment without success. we had good friends, also infertile, who tried to adopt, only to have the birth mother change her mind at the last minute. we were honest enough with ourselves to realize that we couldn't handle that emotional devastation, so we gradually adjusted to the idea of being a childless couple. as is often the case, these men make "theological" pronouncements that are devoid of all christian charity.

Just look at it this way-you want to take over the world with your views, or win the world for Christ. God provides the way to do this. Have kids. Lots. Disciple them. If you have 6 kids and they all have six kids, and so on, you'll have a small city. Thousands. Thats making an impact. We are to take dominion by being fruitful and multiplying. Key word. Multiply. 6 x 6 x 6...............

The South Will Rise Again,
Dave

Keith,

The apostle Paul's statements on marriage and sexuality were also highly influenced by his belief that he would live to see Christ's second coming.

I respect your opinion that sex can never be casual, but I disgree strongly. I think that sex can be remarkably casual and/or anonymous and still be healthy. It all depends on the people engaging in it, what they want from the sex, and thier ability to deal with what happens if something doesn't go as planned.

But thats not the point of the quote of me you use. I was looking at the example of the Bible. When I read the OT, I see venerate patriarchs engaging in promiscuous sex, taking multiple wives/concubines, having sex with prostitutes on the street, etc. It that society, it was hardly viewed as wrong (for men). The idea of sex as something bad, but marriage as an okay outlet if you simply couldn't wait, is an outcome of the belief that the second coming is at hand. To maintain Jewish ritual purity, you were not supposed to have engaged in sex. So if you wanted to be as pure as possible when Christ returned, you simply didn't have sex. After all, no one knows the hour of the return. But as it is apparent that Christ did not come again during Pauls life time, this eschatalogical reasoning no longer makes sense, at least for me.

And while you're not in favor of government regulation of consensual adult sexuality, the very idea of "what is consent" and "what is an adult" are far from set in stone. We still need to maturely, as a society, engage in better dialogue of sexual behavior and what role we want society to play, if any, in regulating it.

Comme j’ai eu le bonheur de gagner au LOTTO un montant assez grand je voudrais, dans cette periode de Noël, partager une partie de ma bonne chance avec des gens qui sont plus malheureux. Pas au profiteurs qui n’ont pas vraiement besoin également.
Si vous pensez d’entrer en ligne de compte contacter moi, quand votre demande est serieux et vous avez un but favorable contacter moi.
brian_molko2000@hotmail.com
ou GSM Patrick 0494044963

Hi John G;

You wrote: "I respect your opinion that sex can never be casual, but I disgree strongly. I think that sex can be remarkably casual and/or anonymous and still be healthy. It all depends on the people engaging in it, what they want from the sex, and thier ability to deal with what happens if something doesn't go as planned"

Things not going as planned in perhaps the whole problem. One risk of causal sexual activity is unwanted pregnancy and the risk doesn't only fall on you--unless the woman choses an abortion then there's a child and her future at stake as well.

Keith

Keith,

Things often do go according to plan. The pill is so effective (providing you take it on schedule) that the risk of unplanned pregnancy is virtually zero. Providing your state hasn't been hijcked by the religious Right, EC is available at any prescription counter if our condom breaks.

You take what precautions you can, and accept the risks. Sort of like when you go drinking with friends, or any time you get in a car, or anytime you go hunting.

Hi John

I agree that things do often go according to plan, even without taking precautions. A drunk driver doesn't plan to crash his car and often he makes it home just fine; a couple has unprotected sex and most of the time no pregnancy results. You are right that a couple using effective birth control can drastically reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy to a very small percentage. The morality of going out drinking with friends depends too much on circumstances for me to comment, IMO, but there is a moral risk with unprotected sex that is different from the risk of getting into your car . If you risk unprotected sex and the woman you are having sex with becomes pregnant, the choices facing her and you are (a) having an abortion, (b) giving the child up for adoption, (c) forming a committed relationship or (d) leaving the child in a single parent home. Assuming that the woman doesn't choose (a), what is the proper moral choice for you to make? Should the male be *willing* (if the woman wants to) to form a permanent committed relationship with a woman he doesn't love? Should the male not be so willing and force the woman to choose between (a) (b) or (d)? It seems to me that either choice the male makes is immoral. If you drive a car something bad might happen, but I don't see that the choices facing you after the fact are all immoral?

At least that's how I see it.

Keith

Keith, to respond to your questions:

The proper choice for the male to make is to accept responsibility as the father of the child and support the mother as she requires and as he is able. Expecting him to form a committed, co-habitating relationship with her is, however, too much. While there are probably benefits to having two parents in the home, I doubt that two people living together with nothing in common than a one night stand and a child would make good parents while cohabitating. That said, theres no reason why they couldn't make perfectly fine parents without living together. I don't see why two parents living seperately has to be an immoral choice.

I'd like to problematize the situation by removing the possiblity of pregnancy, as you have assumed heterosexual vaginal sex from the begining of this dialogue and I have gone along with that assumption. What if the man has had a vasectomy or the woman has had her tubes tied? What if the sex acts performed can not result in a child? What if the partners are of the same sex? When the arguments on morality hinge on child rearing options in case something goes wrong, it ignores a whole lot of the range of sexual behavior.

HI Gary

You wrote: "he proper choice for the male to make is to accept responsibility as the father of the child and support the mother as she requires and as he is able. Expecting him to form a committed, co-habitating relationship with her is, however, too much. While there are probably benefits to having two parents in the home, I doubt that two people living together with nothing in common than a one night stand and a child would make good parents while cohabitating. That said, theres no reason why they couldn't make perfectly fine parents without living together. I don't see why two parents living seperately has to be an immoral choice."

I agree completely that the "shotgun wedding" solution is immoral for the very reasons you suggest. But not forming the committed relationship cheats the child out of what she deserves, namely a household where she gets to live with both her father and mother. I am suggesting it might be a catch-22. Now if the situation actually arises then the parents have to decide one way or the other, but that's my point: the casual sex risks bring about a situation where there is a moral problem either way.

"I'd like to problematize the situation by removing the possiblity of pregnancy, as you have assumed heterosexual vaginal sex from the begining of this dialogue and I have gone along with that assumption. What if the man has had a vasectomy or the woman has had her tubes tied? What if the sex acts performed can not result in a child? What if the partners are of the same sex? When the arguments on morality hinge on child rearing options in case something goes wrong, it ignores a whole lot of the range of sexual behavior"

That would take the child issue off the table to be sure. But I think there might be other issues. For example, people who have been sexually molested often become sexually permiscuous because they feel like that gives them the control over their bodies that they never had before. Having a casual sexual relationship with them exploits a weakness they have and makes them feel ultimately worse about themselves. Now obviously they wouldn't have told you about such things before the casual encounter, but you'd still be profiting from their tragedy. That doesn't seem worth the risk to me.

keith

Keith,

We can continue to throw counter examples at each other all our lives. You can assert a moral problem to raise a child in a household without two parents (or at least where the two parents are not his or her biological parents), and I can assert that theres nothing wrong with it. You can point to abuse victims who hurt themselves through promiscuous sex, and I can point to people for whom anonymous one-night stands offer the only available sexual outlet because of social taboo.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

(And note, I am definately not Gary.)

Hi Greg

I have enjoyed the discussion. I hope a couple of things though:

1. I hope you haven't gotten the impression that I am being dogmatic about this issue. You have made some good points and I am not as sure about this issue as Gary probably is.

2. I wasn't trying to say that being a single parent is immoral.

3. I think it's sad and wrong when social taboo prevents a homosexual from forming the kind of monagamous relationship that he'd otherwise love to have.

Keith

But we probably are at an impasse. Still,

I just kinda wandered in here and read a little bit. Here's my view. It doesn't matter if you can quote the bible, it doesn't matter what you think god looks like, it doesn't matter what you call your religion, it doesn't matter if you go to church every week, in fact, it doesn't even matter how much you believe in god!!! All that matters is "how much does he believe in you"???????????????????? (my own personal quote, "it doesn't matter how much you believe in god, what matters is does he believe in you?" Me.)

It has been only in the past 75 years that the Church of Jesus Christ has condoned contraception. So for almost 2000 years the church was either wrong, and we have discovered this error, or we have departed from a biblical view of procreation.