OT: Wanna know why Kerry lost Ohio?

[Brando70]

Honest question, and I'm going to get a bit graphic here... but we're all adults.


Churches claim homosexuality is wrong. Is it because with persons of the same sex, the sex act has no chance of procreation? That is the same reason that some churches are against birth control right? The belief is that sex is for procreation right?

What if a heterosexual couple engages in similar acts that homosexuals do? Oral and anal sex? Are those acts wrong? They are NOT for procreation. If they are wrong, is the sin of a hetero couple engaging in these acts considered to be as grave as when a homosexual couple does?

Most of us guys... atheist, Catholic, Lutheran or whatever... all enjoy a good hummer every now and then right? Are we going to burn in hell if we're lucky enough to get one?

James, you dirty onanist!

I have a funny story about this. When I was in Catholic school, 12th grade, I had a morality class I was taking, taught by a young, somewhat decent looking priest (a borderline Father Whatawaste).

We got to the obligatory sex part of the course, and talked about birth control. He writes three categories on the board: natural, artificial, and unnatural. Under natural he puts abstinence(!) and the rhythm method. Artificial is basically all birth control devices. Under unnatural, he writes masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex.

For the first time I could remember, something in a religion class bothered me. As a 17-year old male who had collected a few extra base hits by this time, I took offense with two of the things he labeled as unnatural. And he starts yammering on about how the unnatural and artificual are wrong because sex is about procreation, every sperm is sacred, etc.

I raise my hand and point out that, if it is a natural instict to procreate, weren't abstinence and celibacy therefore unnatural? His face goes all red, and he gets pretty bent out of shape. He starts delivering an impassioned but sadly illogical defense of why abstinence was perfectly natural. I felt kind of bad for him, because celibacy must be awfully hard (ba dum bum!).

Somebody then made a comment about gerbil sharing (this was during prime Richard Gere rumor time). Father W didn't know what that was and we had the great honor to explain it to him. He couldn't believe people would do that.

The moral of the story here is we all need to get laid.

[XXXIV]

James
Yes we are going to burn in Hell.

I cant even begin to count the hummers let alone those many lonely nights and days in my Jr High and High School years.....or the other night.

Brando u are correct sir.....We all do need to get laid...again and again and again.

[spooky157]

Under unnatural, he writes masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex.

For the first time I could remember, something in a religion class bothered me. As a 17-year old male who had collected a few extra base hits by this time, I took offense with two of the things he labeled as unnatural.

So you defended anal and which other one?

[Teal]

...BOY, this thread went straight to hell...

[ProvoAnC]

I agree with Teal that it's wrong to say that Biblical laws should have NO basis in making our laws.

I'm a practicing RC, but do (or did) we need the Bible to tell us not to blow someone's head off and take his sneakers? Its not like it was complete anarchy, the Bible comes out, and everyone's like "oh yeah, maybe that is bad."

Maybe this was already brought up; I didn't read through all the pages, just these last few posts. If so, disregard.

[Teal]

Hey, Provo:
We may not need the bible to tell us that now, but it was needed in the beginning, because without Mosaic and Levitical Law, there was no law. And the realization of that law then is why we intrinsically understand it now. Well, that, and the fact that the scriptures declare that God "has written His law on our hearts". It's been passed down through history to the point of being a "duh" sort of understanding, but if it didn't originate somewhere (i.e. from Mosaic law), hard as it may be to believe, we wouldn't automatically know it now.

I hope that was clear...I'm tired...

[Naples39]

Hey, Provo:
We may not need the bible to tell us that now, but it was needed in the beginning, because without Mosaic and Levitical Law, there was no law. And the realization of that law then is why we intrinsically understand it now. Well, that, and the fact that the scriptures declare that God "has written His law on our hearts". It's been passed down through history to the point of being a "duh" sort of understanding, but if it didn't originate somewhere (i.e. from Mosaic law), hard as it may be to believe, we wouldn't automatically know it now.

I hope that was clear...I'm tired...

I'm not very familiar with Levitical and Mosaic law, but it seems to me the Chinese were able to build a pretty damn impressive civilization with laws against things such as murder and stealing, and an emphasis on humane existence without ever knowing these edicts from the Jewish God even existed. Come to think of it, the overarching message of every great philosopher of other cultures such as Confucious or the Buddha closely resembles the laws of the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus, and I can assure those guys never read the western bible.

I apologize if I misunderstood your post teal, but wouldn't the simple history of cultures that were isolated from Christianity and Judaism suggest that human beings don't need the bible to understand the basically elements of humane civilization?

[ProvoAnC]

I'll have to +1 on that. There were many civilizations that had no concept of what the Bible or Levitical, or whatever was and had enough 'morality' to know that you don't go around spearing your neighbor to steal his sheep.

[TRI]

For those disappointed in the outcome of the election, it is NOT the end of the world: there will be another election in 4 years and congressional elections in 2. Lets get back to discussing sports games.

[Teal]

Guys:
Good points. In any case, the basic laws we have now have been passed down throughout history, and that historical perspective cannot be forgotten or dismissed when discussing law today. From the original 10 commandments, the Pharisees devised some 633 laws expounding on the 10. I guess we also got our ability to complicate the simple from history...


Yes, there is a basic staple of moral code that is inherent in society in general. There had to be a starting point somewhere-and therein lies the rub, and we come full circle again as to who originated the starting point...oh,well...you've got to make up your own mind about that, I suppose...

[matthewk]

MattK:

You better study your Catholic cathecism a bit better, because your characterization of the church believing all homosexuals will go to hell is wide of the mark. The Catholic Church's position, according to the cathecism:

PK, I got this from my personal experience with a Catholic church. My wife is Catholic, and beofre we got married she attended a Catholic church. When planning our wedding, we met a number of times with the pastor. During one meeting it was basically spelled out for me by him that thier view was that gay people would not be saved and go to heaven. I have not read all the "official" wiritings of the Catholic church, nor do I have the intrest to. After hearing that, I was pretty much turned off by it. Having someone tell me that my gay uncle was not going to heaven simply because he was gay does not agree with my beliefs.

[Brando70]

Under unnatural, he writes masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex.

For the first time I could remember, something in a religion class bothered me. As a 17-year old male who had collected a few extra base hits by this time, I took offense with two of the things he labeled as unnatural.

So you defended anal and which other one?

Nyuk nyuk nyuk, I should have baked a cake, because I knew that was coming.

[NovaStar]

What's up Teal and others. I am sorry I missed this discussion some of you guys on this board are deep!

To the point concerning other cultures and the laws that sprang forth from them simply based on their being human and the chinese and others who seemed to have had thriving cultures without the benefit of the God of the Jews.

The original 10 commandments were given to the nation of Israel not the whole world, at the time God was not concerned with every nation, he was concerned with his chosen people. The law that he gave was perfect for the social structure of the israelites. It is not a western biblical philosphy.

law defined is a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society, a collection of rules given by one in authority. The law concerning the Jews and their God did not spring forth from men or a man's nature but rather was from God himself (this law was not inherent in human nature but existed in God wisdom) reason being an imperfect creation cannot of himself make a perfect law to rule himself (example, parents make laws for children because children lack the necessary wisdom to rule and govern themselves, the relationship between man and God is the same). Civilizations that follow their own laws have fallen, fall, or will fall. Civilizations that make laws contrary to God's law are allowed to exist to be used tools of balance and righteous fulfillment. The fact that they can make laws is no big deal.

Any other nation that had laws that did come from human nature can parrallel the laws of the Old testament to an extent because every living man has a portion of the God spirit in him (whether he is aware of it or not) The question is how does that nation or man implement and follow the law given...answer, not very effectively. This current Presidential election seems to indicate that there are more than a few americans that seek to attach themselves to the law made by a God they believe in rather than a law that is man made and surely lacking and constantly changing and misinterpreted. The democratic party has a lot of redefining to do.

[Teal]

...boy, Nova...and you call US deep?!? Good to hear from ya, bro...

[Slumberland]

That's all well and good, but we're talking about an administration that worked hard to set the legal groundwork for torture, in the case of the Iraqi detainees. The Bush administration does a good job of selling itself as the party of God's own choosing, but that's all it is... salesmanship.

[Brando70]

Nova, that is a very good post. However, the problem I have with putting something like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is that the TC violate the first amendment -- not just the nebulous church and state, the establishment of a religion. The first, second, and third commandments (honoring God above all others, not taking the Lord's name in vain, and keeping holy the Sabbath) imply imposing a specific pair of religions on people. That is un-Constitutional.

Furthermore, I have heard others argue that the 10 Commandments are the basis for our own laws. That is simply not true. Really, only three are directly related: not killing, not stealing, and not bearing false witness. Honoring your mother and father is only required until you're 18. Adultery, while grounds for divorce, is not really a crime. And the statute of not coveting your neighbors goods, frankly, flies in the face of American culture. Our economy (and in many ways, capitalism itself) are built on coveting what we do not have.

I think it is great for people to have strong faith and be able to express it. I can understand why some Christians feel belittled in our current culture. I would not really have a problem with most Bible passages being put on some government building (or with passages from other religious texts).

But the idea that we were founded on some strict Judeo-Christian ideology simply doesn't mesh with our history. The colonists who came here were often fleeing blanket religious laws and bigotry. Puritans in the Northeast, Roman Catholics in Maryland, etc. They were Christain, their morals were certainly influenced by Christianity, but I don't think they intended to create a Christian state. They wanted a place where people could pratice their beliefs without interference, so long as those beliefs didn't infringe on the rights of others. While we have not often lived up to that ideal, I believe that is the ideal.

[Teal]

"the establishment of a religion."



Just a question for you to consider, Brando: Which religion exactly do you think gets established by the 10 commandments being placed in public? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Truth is, all three accept the 10 commandments. As far as the commandments being on display in public, I'm ambivalent about it. It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I think that it's an issue of much ado about nothing...on both sides of the argument. The people who fall on their swords over a man made replica, either way, have some serious issues. We're swatting at knats and swallowing camels, to quote a line.

There is no establishment or favoritism involved in the display of the 10 commandments, as it touches all three of the major world religions, but whether it's on display in a courthouse or not doesn't matter to me personally...

[NovaStar]

I wholeheartedly agree, it is all salesmanship in the political arena, with that being said, the Democrats had better take some refresher courses in salesmanship 101.

Yeah, Teal, you guys are deep. I am just going with flow.

[Teal]

"They were Christain, their morals were certainly influenced by Christianity, but I don't think they intended to create a Christian state. They wanted a place where people could pratice their beliefs without interference, so long as those beliefs didn't infringe on the rights of others. While we have not often lived up to that ideal, I believe that is the ideal."



I wasn't there, Brando, but I'm fairly certain from the Salem witch trials, to the public square stocks, that the Puritans and Quakers weren't interested in the rights of others to practice hedonism or even another methodology of Christianity. They came here to have the freedom to practice Christianity the way they saw fit, rather than having the Church of England tell them how to do it. It had nothing to do with freeing others to worship the way they want, and who they want. For more on that matter, ask the Native Americans...

[JRod]

"the establishment of a religion."

There is no establishment or favoritism involved in the display of the 10 commandments, as it touches all three of the major world religions, but whether it's on display in a courthouse or not doesn't matter to me personally...

Let's be real about this...no evangelical is cliaming to have the 10 commandments in a court house because it will help touch the Islam religion.

You are living if your own world if you think that.

The religious zealots are taking America down a path that can only lead to more division and persecution.

I don't understand how prayer in school helps anything. What are they praying for? That their Prom Date gives it up. That they get an A on a test. That Jesus will help the football team but make their opponents lose. Talk about trivial.

I don't understand how the ten commandments in the courthouse does any good. Are we saying that a courthouse is void of all laws that why must remind the Judges of the ten commandments.

At the end of the day this isn't about faith and doing the "lord's good work". Its all about furthing the Christian Agenda just to say look what we did. And that's what is scary that so many people believe that their should be more church in state.

[Slumberland]

The Democrats had better take some refresher courses in salesmanship 101.

True!

[wco81]

Were the Founding Fathers Puritan? Not sure if they were or not.

Puritans thought plays and any kind of fiction was wrong. Obviously this viewpoint wasn't codified into any law.

Our civil laws flow from English common law. And I'm pretty sure there were civilizations of antiquity which prohibited things like murder and that those civilizations preceded what the Israelites claim were laws directly from God.

[NovaStar]

Brando, very good post as well. But I agree with what Teal said. The recognition of God does not establish a religion, it establishes a faith and the undeniable rights endowed upon us by our Creator. If one were to interpret Creator/God strictly as an establishment of a religion, well then the declaration of independence itself would be unconstitutional as it establishes a belief in a Creator...God. The term God is a catchall phrase for a higher being, it transcends any one religion. So for consistencies sake the declaration should not be publicly displayed on governmental property either.

It is interesting to note that the founding fathers themselves were christian men. The rights which we all enjoy, abuse, take for granted etc... are granted to us, as the forfathers stated in the declaration of independence, by the Creator/God. The names of the first states/colonies are biblical related,Maryland is named for Mary, Virginia is named after the fact that Mary was a Virgin and Philadephia name after one of the seven churches in revelations. So there is no escaping the fact that the the forefathers definitely believed that the rights we all enjoy and that are the life's blood of the Constitution of the United States are given to us by God the Creator.

Again, the 10 commandments establish law for the Israelites, Adultery is consistent with stealing. On the one hand you can steal a man's possesions, on the other you can steal his mate (by having intercourse with her) both scenerios breach the social contract, that contract being loving one another as you would love yourself. We all owe this duty to one another, so a breach of the commandments breach the very purpose and foundation of any established ordered societal law.

But to your point, I really see no need to put the 10 commandments on display, it is quite irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.

[Brando70]

"They were Christain, their morals were certainly influenced by Christianity, but I don't think they intended to create a Christian state. They wanted a place where people could pratice their beliefs without interference, so long as those beliefs didn't infringe on the rights of others. While we have not often lived up to that ideal, I believe that is the ideal."



I wasn't there, Brando, but I'm fairly certain from the Salem witch trials, to the public square stocks, that the Puritans and Quakers weren't interested in the rights of others to practice hedonism or even another methodology of Christianity. They came here to have the freedom to practice Christianity the way they saw fit, rather than having the Church of England tell them how to do it. It had nothing to do with freeing others to worship the way they want, and who they want. For more on that matter, ask the Native Americans...

Actually, Salem was what I thought of when I said they have not lived up to the ideal. Or Mormons, who went through such bad persecution, they went to the wilds of Utah to practice their religion. At the time of the founding, yes, the idea to freely express Christian beliefs of different sorts was foremost on their minds. But our society does adapt and change, and the Constitution was meant to do the same. Look at the rights of blacks and women, for instance.

I think the idea of what religious beliefs would be tolerated -- including having no religious beliefs -- can change as well. I lived in a heavily Muslim area of Brooklyn for a while, and actually observed people doing their daily prayers. They were also doing what most immigrants do -- working their way up the ladder of society. Those people should be able to worship freely and not feel like, because they are not Christians, they don't belong in America.

In many ways, there is less religious intolerance than ever. Anti-Semetism has moved to the fringes of society. Anti-Catholicism, which was strong enough that John F. Kennedy had to address it, has also moved to the margins. Mormons have flourished. I don't want to see evangelical Christians experience the kind of bigotry those groups did (I experienced bits of anti-Catholic sentiment myself as a kid). However, the Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims of this society never wanted to have their specific beliefs be the beliefs of everyone. I think the problem we have now is that many evangelicals are pushing for Christian rule and more Christian laws, while secularlists are going out of their way to strip religion from public life. I don't agree with either approach and think we have to find some common ground.