A Question I Was Hoping Not To Ponder

Would you consider a serious relationship with someone knowing she believed in premarital chastity?

I've been agonizing over this question for the past week or so. Not so much about the question itself, but whether answering it in a public venue was a good idea. And of course once I realized the nature of my discomfort, I had to face it straight-on. Sometimes I don't like the way my brain works.

Until someone actually asked me the question (thanks bunches for putting me on the spot, by the way), I thought the answer would be a clear no. I think I've written before about what I think about casual sex vs. premarital sex in general, but it bears repeating that I'm on board with the idea of sex being best in a committed, caring relationship. I'll also repeat that I think it very strange to completely cut off such a integral part of our humanity over what seems like outdated, puritanical impulses. I think I've mellowed a little in my attitudes during my recent exposure to other traditions and cultures, but by that I mean I have more respect, when before I thought they were just silly. Are they for me? Probably not.

But in the final analysis, I think the choice is a false one. That is, who ever gets to make a decision like that without having a certain amount of investment in the relationship already? There's really no way of knowing how serious a relationship is going to be at the outset, is there? And not even starting one over an issue like sex feels extremely petty to me, almost like not making a friend just because she isn't going to sleep with you. Not quite that, but close. Do I think it would be a potential source of friction? Well, honestly, yes (No, not that way. Ok, that way too).

Friends are definitely not a help here. I don't think I've ever asked about any of my closest friends' sex lives. And asking my married friends outside of traditions like LDS about whether they even faced that decision? Can't imagine it, except in the most passive, hinted at, blog-related, anonymous-comment ways. And now that I think about it, some of my older friendships are with people who probably don't read my blog (I feel as awkward telling someone I'm a blogger now as I do telling them I'm a Quaker!). Wait, I did have a friend describe a committed relationship as starting out with "and then she seduced me," but I certainly didn't ask. I had some very valuable insight from my last post on sexual morality, but certainly not from facing this specific issue.

Wait, maybe I'm making a false assumption on that front. I assumed that the original questioner was asking me a hypothetical (though now that I think about it, I should probably confirm that), and there isn't a really good reason not to pose this question to my friends, married or single. Hey, what a good reason to tell my friends I have a blog! Ok, remember to delete that before telling anyone. Ok, resolved that I will advertise this post to my friends who don't know I have a blog.

This certainly doesn't cover all traditions that I've come across, but there's something about making the sex act dirty, depraved, and associated with guilt that I've never understood. Maybe that's just an upbringing thing. "Sex is sinful" is another point that I'm able to brush aside. It just doesn't ring true with me, and explaining why is probably redundant.

Someone commented to me that premarital sex is linked with promiscuity, but in my mind, the two issues are separate. Possibly related, but separate and a different conversation. So it's not like the choices are "no sex, or pro-orgy [thanks for the phrasing]."

Another interesting idea is that it's a red flag for a general values mismatch. That's a bit more troubling, and probably requires more thought. In general, I think that good communication can overcome that, but thinking that communication and intellectualizing are the solutions for all problems is probably my Achilles Heel.

I have to admit that part of my ego tells me it wouldn't actually be an issue. Maybe I have too much faith in my devilish tongue (No, not that way. Ok, that way too). What a horrible thing to think, but it's in my head and I'm writing it. On the other hand, there's a lot that can go wrong with convincing someone to reject what can be an important cultural/religious tradition. Success in that case can't be just having sex, it has to be about the other person actually being ok with the decision long-term. Or else, it's just being a jerk. The 20-year-old me who lives inside my head is arguing very strongly with me, but that's the way I feel.

Yeah, I'd better delete that entire last paragraph too. Way too embarrassing.

So I'm throwing this out there to all my ... legions of readers to get their feedback. I'm sure there's some thoughts that haven't passed through my mind. Some considerations I haven't made. Some cultural justifications to premarital chastity I don't know about. Etc. Bring it on, and remember you can always do so anonymously.

And for my old friends reading my blog for the first time, yes, this is really what goes on in my head. And I apologize for that. :-)

Misquoting Jesus - Introduction

Though I've volunteered to blog about chapter 7 of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus), I thought I'd try to put down my reactions for each chapter. And I've been delaying my reading of Journeygal and pilgrimgirl's blog entries on the book in order to keep my reactions "pure." And I -really- want to read their entries, so ...

The introduction is a first-person narrative of Ehrman's religious journey and evolving relationship with the Bible. He foreshadows the twist which his path takes by explaining his desire to learn the Bible and memorize passages from it, but the true inflection point of his story comes when he's at Moody Bible Institute, learning the basics of textual criticism (attempting to reconstruct the original texts):

One of the most pressing of all tasks, therefore, was to ascertain what the originals of the Bible said, given the circumstances that (1) they were inspired and (2) we don't have them. - Misquoting Jesus p. 5

What seems to differentiate Ehrman from his peers at Moody is his intellectual curiosity about the original, inspired words of God.

Later at his next stop, Wheaton College, Ehrman continues this intellectual path, realizing that reading the earliest texts surviving today means learning the languages they are in. But that bring other complications into his faith:

... the experience of learning Greek became a bit troubling for me and my view of scripture. I came to see early on that the full meaning and nuance of the Greek text of the New Testament could be grasped only when it is read and studied in the original language...[T]his started maing me question my understanding of scripture as the verbally inspired word of God. If the full meaning of the words fo scripture can be grasped only by studying them in Greek...doesn't this mean that most Christians, who don't read ancient languages, will never have complete access ot what God wants them to know? And doesn't this make the doctrine of inspiration a doctrine only for the scholarly elite... What good deos it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language, such as English, that has nothing to do with the original words? - Misquoting Jesus p. 6-7

Though I didn't know the technical details of translation, that's always been a source of friction to me. Anyone who knows two languages is aware of the situations where one language will have a word for a concept that takes a while to explain in the other language through context and example. But instead of doing that a lot of time, we'll give a rough approximation which misses subtleties, nuance, and context. Heck, it even happens in the same language across cultures. Try getting someone from the South to explain the word "bubba" and oftentimes they'll just give the one-word synonym "redneck." But I've heard explanations which took almost 5 minutes to give! I always wondered how, for example, the Psalms could possibly be translated yet rhyme. And all of this presupposes having inspired text as the basis, which we know we don't have. But Ehrman keeps searching for the truth as he understands it, no matter where that search might take him.

There's a bit of dissonance when he describes a major change in his thought a bit later on when he lists a series of inconsistencies or just plain mistakes in the text of the New Testament. Despite the previous sections on not having autographs (original writings) he still seemed to cling to the idea that the words were inerrant until studying at Princeton Theological Seminary.

So back to the issue of not having the autographs, he mentions a startling statistic about the differences in various texts we do have:

[T]here are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. - Misquoting Jesus p. 10

Shocking, even for someone like me who hasn't every really held the Bible as a text of mystical importance.

Ehrman concludes on page 11 that a divinity which would have inspired the autographs could have preserved them and provided versions in later languages as well. I have a problem with this kind of analysis since if someone is going to believe in magic, why not also believe in inspired translation or inspired textual criticism?

This type of narrative is something I have to be careful of since it plays into my prejudices: passionate and intellectually rigorous examination of holy books leads us away from a literalist interpretation of them.

I'm very much looking forward to reading the posts others have done and the comments others have made.

The Comfort of Friendship

After Meeting on Sunday, I had lunch with EVH and a new attender, AA. Great food and great conversation, though we veered a bit more spiritual than I was used to in those situations. I guess that's a side-effect of having someone who's experiencing Quakerism for the first time. EVH is on the verge of some serious grilling by her exam board, so here's to you EVH. Knock-em-dead! But not literally. Always interesting to hear people I know discuss their spirituality, and EVH being a smarty is especially interesting to listen to (Pretty and smart? Deadly combination). She mentioned the comfort of ritual, which definitely resonated with me. We also chatted a bit about Quaker Clearness Committees. It's such a unique process that I really can't hear enough about it. Jana mentioned it once as well, and I still ask her to tell the story every once-in-a-while, usually trying to pretend (badly) that it's for someone else's benefit. Oops, I might have done that to EVH as well.

Maybe I was mumbling, but EVH always seemed to mis-hear me in the funniest way possible. Though that was a two-way street: At one point I thought she was saying she was very into scarification (instead of her actual "I am respectful of it" stance). It's odd where I draw my lines. I'm respectful of piercing and tatoo'ing in most of their forms, but scarification is something I have a difficult time with.

Actually, I noticed AA had a semi-elaborate tribal tattoo around one ankle, that I meant to ask the story behind. She has an interesting narrative, coming from a Unitarian Universalist background. Finally hearing about that tradition made me all the more interested in checking it out some time (beliefnet tells me I'm a 100% match). Also interesting was the "tour of faiths" she's put herself through. I found it difficult enough to go to my first Meeting, and that was a tradition I was familiar with! The prospect of visiting others without knowing whether it's a waste of time or not sounds really intimidating to me. And she didn't just visit, it sounds like she checked out various Bible studies as well. Wow. Maybe I can shortcut all that by picking her brain. :-) Also of note was her dance with various grad-school programs. As someone gearing up to go back to school, I'm always interested in hearing about other experiences in those situations.

[EDIT: added 11:04am]
I mentioned my experience at LDS Institute, and how the singing made me nostalgic, especially since there we sang a song at the rise of meeting (tougher in the absence of hymn books, but still fun). We all agreed that music can be a powerful, positive experience.

I missed Kathy, David, Bonnie, Shana, Ryan, and the Remys, but it was a lovely afternoon with fascinating company.

Did I already mention dinner with the Remys in a previous post? Well, I won't go back and re-visit that too much except to say that I find it amazing to see their kids growing like weeds. It's perhaps easier to see in CatGirl, with her jumping and prancing (and not doing homework). I swear she grew a couple centimeters while I was eating dinner. But GameBoy is clearly growing too, though perhaps less obviously. He doesn't prance per se, but after marching with him for over an hour on Saturday and seeing him at dinner Sunday, it's a little shocking to compare him to my memories from just a few months back. I guess it's just that age. Is he at that age when boys are actually behind girls in growth? I seem to remember it being somewhere around that 12-14 year range when, in swimming, girls would dominate boys in the same age group. That ends, but not soon enough, it seemed.

I Didn't Even Get The T-Shirt

Saturday morning, I had a really cool 20-mile ride with EB. Relaxed the whole way, but had fun. Damn my new bike is awesome! On the return leg, got a call from John Remy. Promised to call him back, and did on the way back home. He was proposing a morning activity. I had plans in the early evening, but was up for something. What followed was a slowly unrolling story about meeting up with the American Friends Service Committee to march. Well, I was game but needed to leave around 4:30 to meet a friend for dinner. It eventually came out that John wanted to march then head over to say hello to the same friend. Nice.

Missed the AFSC rally point, but managed to meet up with them at the greater rally point. On the way we passed by a very surreal scene of an ambulance with red-lights flashing in front of a building with a display of what looked like emergency-vehicle lights, which started to flash. Wish I had taken a picture, but there were some people standing in front of the display and we made the on-site decision to respect their privacy.

At the rally point, it looked like a few hundred people showed up, which made me wonder about the street-shutdowns and police presence. Lots of cops on bikes, so I asked one about the frame he was riding. He was on a Raleigh, but they had bikes built on Giant as well. Interesting. The march got going and I suddenly realized that there were several thousand people around us. John, GameBoy, and I made plans to meet at various locations if we got separated, which were totally inadequate in retrospect. At various times, John, GameBoy, and I all got to carry the eight-foot tall AFSC sign proclaiming that "There Is No Way To Peace. Peace Is The Way." AFSC seemed to be in the "slow" lane of the march, so we got to see various groups pass us by. Snapped the following shot of one of the louder drumming and shouting groups.

We ended up passing on the rally, and getting lunch in Little Tokyo. At that point, my knee was really acting up. I ended up limping the rest of the day. GameBoy gamely ordered half a chicken with gohan and soba. Wow. It was a late lunch for me, so I just had udon. Yummy!

We spent a tiny amount of time in the Little Tokyo branch of the public library. I wish I spent more time in the area (in general, not just on the day).

On Sunday morning, my mother excitedly text-messaged me that I had made the paper. As I told the attenders of Meeting that morning, there are two young, handsome guys to the right of the "I [Heart] Our Troops" sign. And next to them are JohnR and I! Sunday 1/28/2007 LA Times, page A14.


Stopped to visit with SL before heading back home. John and I both prattled on about what we thought about the surge. I think I'm pretty married to the idea that what we're doing now is a mistake, and that there are more informed people than I who should be spending all their time and energy on a graceful exit plan. Blah blah blah. It was a full day.

Liar

Nice chat with the Remy's yesterday. I ended up staying for dinner, which John made (Mapo Tofu with TVP instead of pork. Yummy to the point that I need to make it myself).

I'll refer to them as a single unit, since that's how I think of them. No, not really, but I'll do it because it's easier for me to write.

JJ: So, we don't mean to pry, but how did the date go?

me: Great! Did I tell you I got a straight-razor shave that morning? It was awesome!

JJ: Ha, ha! Does that mean you don't want to talk about it?

me: No, no. You're fine. I really enjoyed myself and the time really flew by. But there was a really uncomfortable moment I want to ask you about. We were talking when one of her roommates burst into the room. Well, that might be the wrong word to use, since the door was open. But she barged in and started ... lecturing might be the right word. Anyway, she started lecturing us about dating morality!

JJ: What?!

me: Yeah, and this went on and on! I don't remember the roommates exact words, but she accused my date of ... Umm, the phrase was "flirt to convert." And what did she say to me... "Leading the flock astray" or something like that. Have you heard either of those phrases?

Jana: [horrified] Yes! Oh my goodness!

John: [skeptical] Is this a true story?

me: No, but it's damn funny.

They didn't even let me get to my punchline:

me: I was so offended that I put my pants on and left!

Stop endgaming me, John!

Short Sweet Zinger

SL: Don't they say 'knowing that you know nothing is the first step to wisdom?'

me: Yeah, but don't they also say that the last part of wisdom is "dumb?"

How NOT to Deflect Attention

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.