Wow, FlipperJo, I'm surprised by that since I was married to a man who was Catholic and he said the nuns made him feel like a pervert for having sexual feelings.
He said they made sex dirty and it messed him up for many years. Toward his final years, he had turned to leather and bondage as the only way to find fulfillment.

I, too, am uncomfortable with co-ed sex education classes. During teenage years, it's tough for girls to speak out in regular classrooms, never mind something so personal. When I grew up, the education classes weren't co-ed and it was weird enough.

When I taught school on the reservation, I worked with the school counselor to get a small group of at-risk girls in one class. I taught English to them on an individualized basis, but we also discussed other things. I had a nurse come in and we went to the courthouse to watch a hearing. Life stuff. Because of the tribe and being white, I had to be careful. But there were over 300 teenage births a year on the reservation, so there was a impetus to get some education going. Many of these girls were having babies to have someone to love them because their home lives were very bad. Poor reasoning, I know, but I don't remember my teenage years as steller for decision-making! LOL.

number 5, my husband, too, said the nuns of his childhood were mean. the catholic church has come a long way in sex ed. but i'm not sure they are going the right direction.

casey, how fortunate those girls were to have you! the ed. system lost a good life teacher when you retired.

'Many of these girls were having babies, to have someone to love them ...'. I believe that is so true Casey.... when one of my daughters became pregnant at 16, i believe it was in a very large part, because of our inability as parents to give her the affection that she so needed .....

Some of you have mentioned sex education as taught within the church and the behavior of certain nuns .....

We all know that thousands more women in the past, went into the convent then now, but i doubt the reasons were always spiritual. Death or severe lifetime complications because of pregnancy and childbirthing was a very real possibility, (and apparently still is some nations with poor health services). Birth control was not easily available and certainly not approved of by the church. Nor was there a possibility of getting out of a bad marriage...... surely the convent may have seemed the lesser of two evils to more than a few.....

When i read the 'lives of the saints', over and over again, it seemed to be girls/women who maintaned their 'virginity' at all costs, were somehow deemed saints more than others, the unmarried, or those who did not remarry after the death of a spouse, seem to have been cannonized more than the married of either gender, these teachings, the requirement of celebacy and the whole concept that the mother of Jesus, being forever a virgin , certainly implies that no sex is better than having sex....... whether that is the intent or not......

Kids are constantly exposed to an education about sex, through television and other outlets..... unfortunately, the messages seldom seem to speak of sacrifice, tenderness or responsibility which is certainly part of love........

[ January 29, 2006, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: norma ]

Jesus had brothers and sisters. How could Mary have remained a virgin after the birth of Christ? Why would Joseph who gets absolutely no recognition, remain celebate also....? He was, after all, a flesh and blood male.
Jesus certainlly had brothers. Women were not mentioned as much in the lineage of families as men, but I'm sure in a society lacking birth control, he had sisters.
Mary only had to be a virgin for the conception and birth of Christ, not thruoghout her life.

There is no proof that Jesus had brothers and sisters. When it mentions "brethren" in the NT, it could have meant any family relations, like cousins. To back that up, go to the OT where it mentions Abraham and Lot being "brethren". Lot was Abraham's nephew.
If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why would he "give" His mother to John while He was dying on the cross? John took Mary into his home that very day - this would not have been proper if Mary had other children that should have taken care of her.
Why is it hard to believe that Mary remained a virgin after having Jesus? Did she not conceive a human child through the Holy Spirit?
BTW - did anyone ever think about where those 46 chromosomes of Jesus came from? If Mary gave Him 23 from her egg, and there was no sperm to contribute the other 23, where did they come from?

My personal opinion is that Jesus was not "born" in the normal way. When He resurrected from the dead, He would appear in a room where the doors were locked. Why couldn't He have come from Mary's womb the same way? Pain in childbirth was part of the curse on Eve (and us!) after the fall, but Mary was exempt from all those curses, if she was conceived w/o original sin.

[ January 31, 2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Bluebird ]

I'm not sure, BLuebird, I'll have to look it up again, but it does refer to one of the disciples as the brother of Jesus and in translation it doesn't maan as you are my sisters, it means flesh and blood just as Adam "knew" Eve and she concieved and bara a son.
It infers intimacy in much more than a "Philadelphia sort of way". I have studied the Greek and Hebrew translations of much of the scripture.
It wouldn't at all interfere with the holiness of Christ or make him any less the son of God. What it would do is take the diety away from Mary and place it squarely on the shoulders of God born in the flesh as a man and also give Christ the complete experience of manhood, down to the future expeience of having step brothers and sisters. After all, the brothers and sisters sired by Mary and Joseph would be the step brothers and sisters of Christ since his biological father was God.
It has never been hard for me to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin with God as his sire placed in the womb of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.
But to think that Mary had to remain a virgin while married to Joseph goes against the very teachings of Christ that a man and his wife "come together often" in the marriage bed.
Joseph was, after all, a man and a good respectable man at that who listened and obeyed the voice of God.
The diefication of Mary was incorporated into the Catholic faith during the time that the pagan religion was threatening to overtake Catholicism. The female goddesses of that time were worshipped and incorporated into faith right along with Easter eggs and the such. It was the only way the Faith could self perpetuate.

The Catholic Church does not and has never, deified Mary. Read the Catechism or any encyclical ever written about her.
Jesus having brothers and sisters wouldn't take away anything from Him, but if it's not true, it's not true. There is no evidence of it. Mary and Joseph agreed to marry, with him knowing that she had taken a vow of chastity. It was a marriage of convenience, probably so his kids (he was a widower)would have a mother. If Mary was planning on having children, why would she say to Gabriel "How can this be, since I know not a man?"...she was already "betrothed" to Joseph, which in the Jewish faith, meant married!
why would Joseph want to "put her away quietly" instead of just letting people think it was his child? He obviously loved and respected her.

The following is from a National Geographic article on the James ossuary:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox_2.html
QUOTE:
Jesus and James

Whether Jesus was the son of God is a theological problem, said Lemaire. But historians don't doubt the existence of either James or Jesus; both are mentioned frequently in early historical accounts.

Following the death of Jesus in 29 A.D., James assumed leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem until he himself was martyred in 62 A.D. According to biblical accounts, he was one of the first apostles to see Jesus after his resurrection.

He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters. But the exact nature of these relationships—whether they were full siblings by blood, half siblings, or cousins—has been open to interpretation.

"If you're Catholic, you think they're cousins because the perpetual virginity of Mary is official church doctrine," said Witheringon. "But there are a lot of problems in the historical record with that."

"When James is referred to as the 'brother of our lord' in the New Testament, the word used means 'blood brother,'" he continued. "It would have to be qualified in context to mean something different."

A second interpretation is that James and the other siblings are half-brothers and -sisters, Joseph's children from a prior marriage.
END QUOTE

This seems to be one of those points that you could argue circles in, depending on what doctrine you have been taught and follow and how you choose to interpret it.