Thank you, JosephW, for your educational posts on the hypocrisy of organized religion. I look forward to the day when humans on this planet will finally accept and embrace the very fact that there are no deities watching over us and controlling our fates. There are only us humans, and we need to start doing a better job of taking care of ourselves or we will soon face extinction caused by our own foolishness.

Comment by bitblt — October 26, 2007 @ 3:45 pm

Well, how wonderfully heterosexist and religiously intolerant of you. When did the US become a “nation for Christian people”, you arrogant piece of tripe? I certainly do not see any evidence for that notion in our Declaration of Independence nor in our Constitution.
As for your heterosexist attitude on marriage, are you willing to put an amendment in the Constitution banning divorce? Without that, how can there be a marriage of “forever”? Are you willing to have the Constitution amended to barring infertile couples from marrying? Without that, there can be no “offspring” for the marriage.
I put forth the proposition that the government has no legitimate interest in creating “stable homes”. If you’re going to go down that route, why is a loving same-sex relationship outside the concept of a “stable home”? If a husband and wife decide that, in the interests of maintaining a “stable home”, they want to bring in another person (whether on occasion or as a permanent deal), does the government have a “right” to say “that’s not stable”? Why is a one-man/one-woman marriage somehow more “stable” than a one-man/ten-women or one-woman/five men marriage? (Certainly in the latter case, the woman will be more than financially well-cared for.) Even in the Bible, the one-man/one-woman “model” is ignored in the generations after Adam and Eve. Hell, the man who is revered by the three major Western religions had sexual relations outside his “marriage” and fathered a son by that woman (the story of Abraham and Hagar, if you need a mental boost). The patriarch Jacob not only had to work 7 years to earn the right to marry, he got the wrong wife; he then worked another 7 years to earn the right to marry his real choice. On top of that, he fathered (legitimate) children by two other women. Then, there’s the great King, David, and his relationships. (Don’t forget his real relationship with Jonathan–whom he loved more than any woman. Take that however you wish.) And, of course, the wise Solomon–who had a reputed 1000 wiveS and concubines.
The simple reality is that the one-man/one-woman deal was an invention of the Church for ROYALTY and inheritance issues, not the common folk. (Read up on the history of “common-law” marriage. Under that status, any man who shared a residence with a woman was treated as “married” under the law, regardless of how the Church saw it.) The Quran allows Muslim men to marry up to four wives with the provision that he treats them all equally. The Medieval Christian Church allowed for priests and bishops to marry (the Eastern Orthodox also allows for priests to marry, while a bishop can only be married if he was in that state before his elevation to bishop) and even allowed for same-sex relationships to have a status on par with marriage.

For those who say sexual orientation is/can be a choice—-did you choose your sexual orientation? If you say you did, you really don’t know much about yourself!

You sound just like the fanatical Islamics you claim to hate! They agree with you.

A homosexual teacher doesn’t do any more harm to their students than a heterosexual one.

In contrast, he does remark in Matthew that the Creator intended that sexual expression be between a man and a woman in a marriage. Christ paraphrases Genesis when he makes the statement about the Creator’s intent.

I believe this passage in Genesis should settle almost all questions of sexual morality as far as Christians are concerned. If you don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it’s irrelevant whether or not you think I’m accurately presenting this information from the Bible.

Comment by bitblt — October 26, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

Actually, there’s NO evidence that Yeshua said any such thing. The Gospel of Matthew is presumed by scholars to have been written no earlier than 50 YEARS after the widely-accepted date of the Crucifixion.
As for the Genesis “Creator’s intent” notion, I’d point out to you that intent is an INVENTION. (Reread the first two chapters of Genesis and explain how there are two DIFFERING accounts of the creation of Man. It’s in the second account–not in the first–that brings up the “man cleaves to his wife” malarkey.) This particular “intent” is no different than the little stories parents make up about “thunder is the sound of God bowling”. Whoever wrote down what became Genesis 2 wrote that story to act as an explanation for why most people pair up in the man/woman fashion. (I’d note that Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages made up a reason for the discrepancy between Gen 1 and Gen 2 and called it Lilith and made her the reason for all the evils in the world because she wouldn’t submit to being Adam’s “inferior”–some of the more inventive tales suggested that Lilith’s most egregious offense was her insistence on being “on top” during sex. None of this, of course, appears in the Bible itself, but it remains popular in theological circles.) Also, Gen 2 seems to have been first written down during the period of the Babylonian captivity while Gen 1’s origin seems to be much older.
I’d also point out that nearly all the “sexual morality” aspect of Christianity didn’t originate with Yeshus, but rather with Paul and later Church theologians (most especially, Augustine). The early Christian communities were explicitly told that celibacy was the proper behavior for Christians, but for THOSE WHO COULDN’T CONTROL THEIR BASER URGES, then they should confine those urges to within the state of marriage. Of course, who wrote these “rules”? Why, it was Paul, of course.
And, one other note of major importance: The whole of the New Testament as we know it today wasn’t compiled until nearly three hundred years after the generally accepted date of the Crucifixion. During that compilation process, literally hundreds of tales (considered by many Christian communities as being of great importance) were rejected out of hand–one of the “reasons” was the contradictory nature of many of the stories, yet there are contradictions within the finished product anyway. Also, of those texts that became canon, many are believed to have been made official only from altered or edited versions.

Comment by NoMoreBush — October 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm

Take a gander at your post in #108 — you are making a morality judgment there that is not yours to make. I am quite familiar with all the quaint little right wing sites that pick and choose al a carte what to believe in the Bible.

Don’t believe an anonymous poster on the INet making a judgement is violating any particular “right.”

#108 is simply exercising a little discernment – the church word we use to mean , “know the difference between right and wrong.”

The simple fact is that not every way of living is equal, not every religion is equal, not every lifestyle is equal, and not every thing that’s legal should be done.

Yes, yes, in Matthew Jesus did preach about “Mosaic law” which I believe includes the Levitican Code, much, much, much of which clearly is not followed today.

Jesus quotes Genesis which would be before any laws were given. The Matthew quote that > is straight out of Genesis. The one flesh qualifier – that is, marriage – is probably older than religion.

God’s grace and the relationship of Christians to the Old Testament are recurrent themes in the New Testament. However, if you want to understand this better – especially why Christians don’t do animal sacrifices – you’ll have to read some of the books written by the Apostle Paul. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and made a point of saying that Gentiles didn’t have to become Jews to become Christians and
that Christ was the perfect sacrifice – why Christians don’t do animal sacrifice.

I recommend the book of Romans in which the Apostle Paul tells Christians about God’s grace. In addition, the other epistles of Paul cover issues of Gentiles becoming part of what was at the time a sect of Judaism – Christianity.

Otherwise, I believe we should hear much more about perhaps instituting a constitutional ban on divorce — but, of course, that would the majority of the pious right wing water carriers and politicians. And, of course, there would be many more stonings of our neighbors than currently exists.

If the U.S. were a Christian nation, then I’d support constitutional amendments along the lines of “A marriage is between a man and a woman,” and “A marriage will last as long as both the man and woman live.”

But, since the U.S. is not a Christian nation but a nation for Christian people I’d just as happily support a consensus agreement among the people. A consensus agreement that the ideal relationship for sexual expression is one man one woman forever in a marriage. It is the best relationship to protect the physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of the man, the woman, and the offspring of that marriage. It is the best relationship to support the interest of the government – stable homes.
In short a consensus agreement that there should be no more single mothers and no more abandoned children.
I’d still support a, “A marriage is between a man and a woman,” amendment.

You might notice the on TP “good advice” is usually one of the missing ingredients. Everyone on TP seems to know what’s wrong with everything, but they seems short on suggestions as to how to make it better.

I equally care that my government not do injustice to very well-established principles of equality, which form the foundations of our government, by discrimminating against entire classes of its taxpaying cititzens based on ANY religious principles,particularly those espoused in the grand comic book known as the Bible.

I don’t want my government to force Christians to accept evil in the name of equality, in the name of tolerance, or in the name of diversity.

I suspect this would be the end of the U.S. It wouldn’t be worth preserving.

Like I said, I don’t care how you live your life, I just don’t want the govt to sanction or reward it. ;)

I equally care that my government not do injustice to very well-established principles of equality, which form the foundations of our government, by discrimminating against entire classes of its taxpaying cititzens based on ANY religious principles,particularly those espoused in the grand comic book known as the Bible.

believe rape and spousal abuse are not immutable characteristics — that is, those are matters of choice. But thanks again for equating me with a rapist and a wife beater.
.
.
.
Comment by NoMoreBush — October 26, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

If you search amazon.com with rape evolution, you’ll find a number of titles along the lines of this one: A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion

So, someone thinks that rapes my have an immutable component.

bitblt did not equate NoMoreBush with a rapist and a wife beater. NoMoreBush did that.

bitblt stays aware that not all posters on the INet are as they present themselves.

bitblt does equate adultery with homosexuality. Both practices are sexual sins and both are detrimental to their practitioners. Neither practice, according to Christ, is what the Creator intended.

Please show me where I’ve “purported to be superior” to anyone. On the contrary, I acknowledge that I’m a sinner just like everyone else on this earth. My temptations just don’t happen to be the same as yours. I’m sure your friend has pointed out to you the Biblical references that prohibit homosexuality and that Jesus said that a man and a woman should be joined together in marriage. And while this is where the cries of “cafeteria Christian” usually start, I’m sure you also know that there are laws that were given in the Old Testament that we no longer follow because they were meant for the Jews or because they are no longer needed since Jesus became the only sacrifice needed. That doesn’t mean we no longer follow the moral prohibitions as opposed to the cultural ones. Do you think that everything we could possilby do that Jesus didn’t specifically mention is ok, or just homosexuality. As for how you live your life, that is between you and God. It makes no difference to me. I do care when it comes to my government saying that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality and should be treated the same. ;)

Again, where did Christ condemn homosexuality??? Cannot find it, can you. Thanks for playing anyway — you can collect your year’s supply of Rice A Roni as a consolation prize.

Yes, how immoral of us. What a “gay lifestyle” we lead. While you are preaching morality over something you know nothing about, please do cite what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality. NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So take your piety and shove it up your ignorant a$$. I am sick of the likes of you purporting to be so superior that you believe it your right to make decisions about morality.

Comment by NoMoreBush — October 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

Christ also said nothing about rape or about spousal abuse. However, there’s no reason to think he endorsed these practices.

In contrast, he does remark in Matthew that the Creator intended that sexual expression be between a man and a woman in a marriage. Christ paraphrases Genesis when he makes the statement about the Creator’s intent.

I believe this passage in Genesis should settle almost all questions of sexual morality as far as Christians are concerned. If you don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it’s irrelevant whether or not you think I’m accurately presenting this information from the Bible.

In addition, Christ raised the standard of morality to ultra-heights when he remarks that adultery is not only about physical relationships but also about attitude. This is the famous Jimmy Carter “Playboy” interview, “…committed lust in my heart,” remark.

He also remarked that hating someone was the same as murder.

Yes, how immoral of us. What a “gay lifestyle” we lead. While you are preaching morality over something you know nothing about, please do cite what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality. NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So take your piety and shove it up your ignorant a$$. I am sick of the likes of you purporting to be so superior that you believe it your right to make decisions about morality.