|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Questions and comments that might derail other threads... Welcome here!
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
I often find myself MIA from The Ship for a few days at a time (in some cases waaaaaaaaaaaay longer). Upon my return aboard, I invariably come across posts that I would like to engage with... if only the thread hadn't moved on so much that the posts in question have become "so five minutes ago". You know what I'm talking about.
A comment Boogie made on the Bedroom thread in Purg (the upfront-ness of which I really appreciated, by the way, Boogie) has prompted some thinking for me, and I wanted to ask, in response to:
quote:
Once my sons were 18 I bought them double beds and left their sex lives up to them. They have been wonderfully faithful and caring to their partners. One has had three girlfriends over nine years - and is still very good friends with the first two. In fact two of them have become best friends. The other is still with his original girlfriend. I am enormously proud of them both.
whether she -- and others -- would have had the same attitude and action towards a daughter's sexuality and sexual expression.
I am genuinely interested in a discussion, just to be clear, rather than a moral mud slinging match of Christianese and Rob Bell quotes. And seeing as the thread in Purg has moved on, I hoped it would be okay for me to start up this bad boy (Hosts? Okay to proceed?).
I wonder if this might also be a space for other derailing-type questions to be posted and discussed? If so, it might be appropriate to PM the Shippie in question if a direct response is desired, yeah? Otherwise, have at it -- Hostly blessing pending, of course ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Absolutely I would - and I was that daughter in my time. It's where I got my own attitudes from.
It annoys me intensely when people treat girls differently from boys. My youngest son is training to be a pilot - and the two top people on his course are girls. My niece is building her own house with some help from her husband and my bother - but 90% of the work is done by herself and her mum.
I believe very strongly in bringing children up to care about fellow human beings - especially those close to them and those they come into daily contact with. The way to do this, imo, is to show that they themselves are deeply loved. And the way to do this is to never call them stupid or naughty or anything negative, to always address the behaviour - and make sure they do the same.
Once they are adults (ie 18) it's then up to us to trust that this will bear out in all their relationships, sexual or otherwise.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Would I be happy about it? I have no idea. My eldest is 14 and has a good head on her shoulders. I want her to enter a world where she is limited by her talents, not her gender or sexuality.
I believe she is growing up to be an intelligent, confident young woman and she will make her own choices on sex in her own time, and I guess that I will have no choice but to support her. I love her completely and will have no choice but to support her. I will guide and advise, and be there to pick her up if she falls, but once she is an adult, then I can do no more than that – in fact I’ve been able to do very little other than that since she stopped needing me to change her nappies and feed her! That’s parenting.
I hope we’ve brought her up to be discriminating in her choices, including in the bedroom when it’s right for her.
Do I want to follow her around all day with a shotgun in my hand, and hand-pick her choice of husband when she is in her late twenties? Yes! Of course I do! I’m her father! But I can’t, and it would make her angry and miserable, and I don’t want to do that.
Parenting is the hardest job in the world.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
In this thread, ( Aren't the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling? ), I mentioned that the crucifiction was Gods plan and therefore insinuated that people were not to blame. Alogon made the very good point that quote:
It was men who brought the charges, men who shouted "crucify", men who condemned Him to death, and men who pounded the nails in. Were they all just puppets in a bit of divine entertainment?
I thought about starting a new thread but I don't know if it's worth it as I expect this question has been discussed many times before here. Anyone care to give me a run down on what the current thinking on this is? If people are not puppets and had decided not to kill jesus would God have just kept repeating the cycle until someone did? Did God already know it was going to happen the way it happened thus making the question moot?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I mentioned that the crucifiction was Gods plan and therefore insinuated that people were not to blame. Alogon made the very good point that quote:
It was men who brought the charges, men who shouted "crucify", men who condemned Him to death, and men who pounded the nails in. Were they all just puppets in a bit of divine entertainment?
Anyone care to give me a run down on what the current thinking on this is? If people are not puppets and had decided not to kill jesus would God have just kept repeating the cycle until someone did? Did God already know it was going to happen the way it happened thus making the question moot?
I realize theories of Atonement differ, and my position won't make sense to those who think God required punishment for sins and Jesus was punished in our place.
But -- seems to me if the people (and you and me) embraced what Jesus taught, and sought to live Jesus' way and with Jesus' values, there would have been no crucifixion, no one yelling for him to be crucified, and no crucifixion would have been necessary from God's viewpoint.
The crucifixion was about revealing God's love to us -- that no matter how we neglect, abuse, mistreat, neglect, reject God, the love continues. Not one word of condemnation from the cross, only forgiveness. (Go and do likewise when people falsely accuse and abuse you!) And (incredibly) in spite of our abuse and rejection of God and God's ways, God doesn't want to separate from us (no "go to hell") but wants us in His life with him forever!
If we could understand and accept and respond to God's love without the crucifixion, no need for a crucifixion.
I.e. the crucifixion was not absolutely necessary, it was conditionally necessary -- needed only if we humans rejected Jesus. Which we did. And all of us still do even while claiming to follow Jesus, as we pursue comfortable incomes and accumulations of possessions and make little token gestures of concern for the poor like giving an old coat we don't want anymore to a homeless person indirectly through the annual winter coat drive.
How many of us really follow Jesus? When someone takes from us, give them more? Consider the lilies and don't worry about whether we'll have food and clothes tomorrow? Seek God instead of comfort first? Hang out by choice with the social rejects instead of preferring the company of middle class healthy people?
We constantly need the crucifixion, not for it to be happening constantly, but remembering that it did happen and reveals who God is at all times -- absolutely forgiving and life giving, even when we fail day after day to fully believe and follow what Jesus taught us.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
quote:
Boogie: Absolutely I would - and I was that daughter in my time. It's where I got my own attitudes from.
It annoys me intensely when people treat girls differently from boys.
Thanks for replying, Boogie. I also get riotously pissed off when different standards or expectations are applied to girls compared with boys. Growing up, as I did, in a fairly conservative GLE family and church in the country, and attending a Christian private school for the bulk of my Secondary School years, it took me a few years once out of that setting to begin to understand what the disquiet within me concerning "morality" was all about.
And while I acknowledge that there are many acceptable contributing factors to such views (not just regarding sexuality, mind), I still find it interesting to get beneath the sheets with people and find out what's really going on under there.
Thanks for so much for contributing, deano, GS, and BR; actually, Belle, would you mind posting a link to the thread you're referencing? I tried to have a bit of a hunt for it, but....
[ 04. December 2012, 21:30: Message edited by: Mullygrub ]
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
By the way,
quote:
deano: I believe she is growing up to be an intelligent, confident young woman and she will make her own choices on sex in her own time, and I guess that I will have no choice but to support her. I love her completely and will have no choice but to support her. I will guide and advise, and be there to pick her up if she falls, but once she is an adult, then I can do no more than that.
>snip<
I hope we’ve brought her up to be discriminating in her choices, including in the bedroom when it’s right for her.
Thanks for your honesty, deano. Question: what if she decides in her own time to have sex with a partner of her choice while still living in your house?
I'm interested in this because my younger brother, while dating his now-wife, said a couple of times to me that they would never "dishonour" our folks by getting up to anything the parentals wouldn't approve of when staying under their roof (same with her M&D, too). Which basically translated to my bro and his girlie just sleeping together on the sly behind both sets of folks' backs.
Thoughts? And again, thanks for your openness.
[ 04. December 2012, 21:52: Message edited by: Mullygrub ]
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re Boogie, Mollygrub, deano's comments.
Daughters, relationships, sexuality.
I recall fully when they both went on camping trips with their boyfriends approx age 17. I also recall when I was grateful when the boyfriend of one of them started to sleep over with her after some trauma. I paid for her birth control pill and have no interest in knowing the particulars of its necessity (I had also briefed and embarrassed the grade 5 teacher when she started her period, apparently fathers don't usually do that). None of my children are promiscuous, and I had a (for me) difficult conversation with one of them who realized she was not in position in marry, but had to make a commitment to her boyfriend when they were both in university. Marriages are made in heaven and sometimes confirmed in church, other times they start in church. And its okay, even if we wished differently.
We're taking the kids (they are adults now but kids are always your kids) and their boy/girlfriends on a winter holiday and of course they will share beds. I have no right to say 'no', and I have no further ability or credibility to. I still sort of want to control and run things, and I enjoyed it when we as parents were involved in all aspects of their lives. But they grew up, and I am glad for them. I wanted strong and confident children and by God I got them. We could have hardly started laying down the law and disallowing things in their teens, and certainly won't when they're in their 20s. Frankly, the child is the parent to the man at times, particularly with fathers of daughters. YMMV ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
I appreciate your contribution, no prophet, but for fuck's sake, it's Mullygrub. I'm beginning to think you're doing it on porpoise ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It annoys me intensely when people treat girls differently from boys. My youngest son is training to be a pilot - and the two top people on his course are girls. My niece is building her own house with some help from her husband and my bother - but 90% of the work is done by herself and her mum.
The NY Times today had an article discussing the hot toys of the holiday shopping season. They are construction toys such as cranes and lego house kits in pink.
The boom is apparently driven by a desire to give girls the type of toys that encourage spatial and geometric skills and the fact that many fathers are allegedly involved in child care. They remember the construction toys from their own childhood and happily buy the toys in pink for their daughter.
Is this how you visualized progress?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
quote:
Palimpsest: Is this how you visualized progress?
Not I, Palimpsest.
My brother, sister, and I, as children, always had our own tools and things with which to "assist" Dad in the shed; never were they colour-coded depending on our sex.
And even now I find myself vomiting a little bit in my mouth whenever I see fricking "her tools" advertised. My local supermarket had a set for a while. In pink.
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:
By the way,
quote:
deano: I believe she is growing up to be an intelligent, confident young woman and she will make her own choices on sex in her own time, and I guess that I will have no choice but to support her. I love her completely and will have no choice but to support her. I will guide and advise, and be there to pick her up if she falls, but once she is an adult, then I can do no more than that.
>snip<
I hope we’ve brought her up to be discriminating in her choices, including in the bedroom when it’s right for her.
Thanks for your honesty, deano. Question: what if she decides in her own time to have sex with a partner of her choice while still living in your house?
I'm interested in this because my younger brother, while dating his now-wife, said a couple of times to me that they would never "dishonour" our folks by getting up to anything the parentals wouldn't approve of when staying under their roof (same with her M&D, too). Which basically translated to my bro and his girlie just sleeping together on the sly behind both sets of folks' backs.
Thoughts? And again, thanks for your openness.
Coming from an older Bible Class generation, in groups in which sex before marriage was regarded as not an option, I had a few hang-ups of my own to recognise.
Buut when my very level headed daughter, in her later teens, switched from our older family doctor and registered with a younger man, I guessed it was a sexually active situation with contraceptive advice needed. She was certainly very discreet when living at home, and when she brought a young man home for a visit he insisted that he wouldn't share her bed unless she'd made sure it was okay with her mother. (Her Dad???)
All my generation of Bible Class stalwarts have learned to accept children's arrangement, some married, some de facto, some gay, some hetero.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Frankly, the child is the parent to the man at times, particularly with fathers of daughters. YMMV
This stage worries me far more. My brothers and I have cared for my Mum for four years now. It's been a painful journey for her from confident woman to her complete baby-like dependence. Any time my sons show signs of looking after me I inwardly wince.
Life is full of stages and I can see the next one on the (hopefully far) horizon!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The boom is apparently driven by a desire to give girls the type of toys that encourage spatial and geometric skills and the fact that many fathers are allegedly involved in child care. They remember the construction toys from their own childhood and happily buy the toys in pink for their daughter.
Is this how you visualized progress?
No, not at all - but thank God for Lego!
If I get any granddaughters they will be swamped in Lego.
<typo - can't spell>
[ 05. December 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Sorry to be a cynic, but today it seems teenagers of both sexes are going to have sex/make love (call it what you will) regardless of parental advice and trust.
Unfortunately, accidents happen. Great-/Grandchildren appear when least expected and with parents too young to support them financially, however loved the grand- or greatgrand-children are.
And I still think, when push comes to shove, daughters generally (with the splendid exceptions shown in this thread!) are treated differently. Mainly, I think, because it's them wot has the babies.
Told you I was a cynic! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:
I appreciate your contribution, no prophet, but for fuck's sake, it's Mullygrub. I'm beginning to think you're doing it on porpoise
Certainly not. I never realized I was misspelling. I won't in the future. On purpose or porpoise and their negations. I think I saw it as I thought it was, not as it is, like my silly brains see so much of the world. I unreservedly apologise for mistaking.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In this thread, ( Aren't the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling? ), I mentioned that the crucifiction was Gods plan and therefore insinuated that people were not to blame. Alogon made the very good point that quote:
It was men who brought the charges, men who shouted "crucify", men who condemned Him to death, and men who pounded the nails in. Were they all just puppets in a bit of divine entertainment?
...Anyone care to give me a run down on what the current thinking on this is? If people are not puppets and had decided not to kill jesus would God have just kept repeating the cycle until someone did? Did God already know it was going to happen the way it happened thus making the question moot?
I think James Alison's interpretation in Living In The End Times is tremendously helpful here. Whilst Alogon is of course right that Jesus' death was perpetrated through the intentional plotting of his enemies with the help of the Roman authorities.. what Alison suggests is that Jesus not only submitted to his death but took charge of his death and made of it a sort of theater in which redemption was played out; and in which a way of depending on the "utterly vivacious" God in the midst of violence was opened up.
I'm probably doing a bad job of representing Alison's thought but if you are interested I can look for a suitable quotation when it isn't past my bed time.
However, I think we can see this in the way that Jesus courts his opponents in the Temple, arranges the Last Supper, and answers to the charges against him, and in the way he takes on the role of the suffering servant.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post but to answer the question: In short I think it is perfectly possible to maintain the culpability of the perpetrators of Jesus' crucifixion and that it was something that Jesus chose in response to God's will.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Anyone care to give me a run down on what the current thinking on this is?
I can tell you what my current thinking on it is: God manifested himself in his creation (as Jesus Christ) precisely because things had gotten so bad that people were about to lose their freedom to choose salvation. Given that this was the situation, it was inevitable that the religious leaders in power would eventually respond by trying to have him killed. (Although, of course, that inevitability did not imply a lack of culpability.) Allowing them to have him killed was not his goal, but was a necessary means to achieve his goal of redemption for all of the human race.
@Brother Oscar: I like that idea and would be interested in any quotation you care to dig up.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
