slippery slope news...

[schmosef]

What's the % have to do with the point that Gurm was making? Nothing.

[lowlifecat]

Foul heathen satan-science. BURN IT! BURN THE WITCHES!

speaking of witches. When i was younger (much younger than today) i had quite a few friends in the Montreal Pagan Community.

I'm still good buddies with one of them who incidently helped me get my current job at M****x. Her daughter is my roommate and the apartement is definitly un-christian!

/meow

[TransformX]

About the bible and sex:
1. Onan's sin was as said, NOT masturbation, that's interpretation.
2. According to the OT, a man's responsibilities for his wife are her clothes, food and season. Season means her moon cycle, a man is OBLIGATED to have sex with his wife to her satisfaction.
3. The bible speaks of homosexuality and beastiality, both which are sentenced for death.
4. Lesbianism is never mentioned.
5. Neither is Oral sex, so some consider it 'kosher' while others (more religious ones) don't.

[KvHagedorn]

Seems like most Italian films I have seen are practically a comedy pitting horniness against the Church.

Honestly, people are human. That's what Jesus meant when he said we are all sinners.. it wasn't an insult.. just matter of fact. The rules are all laid out, and we probably won't go by them all all the time, since we're only human. What makes the difference imho is our attitude. Do we accept them as even being the rules and have respect for them as being a cohesive force that keeps society sane? Quiz yourself on your attitudes on sex and religion.. Do you:

A) Subscribe dutifully to all provisions as dictated by scripture and church doctrine and if you slip just a little, berate yourself and pay heavy penance?

B) Jack off and suck pussy and maybe even do some weird kinky stuff as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or whatever, but keep it to yourself and repent in old age if you feel the need.

C) March in the street in support of public legitimization of whatever lifestyle you want to pursue, if it differs from traditionally accepted norms. Tell everyone you meet that all religion is evil.

You're a fricken nutjob if you answer A or C. You need to shut your mouths and quit accusing the 95% of all people who answered "B" of being C if you answered A and A if you answered C. End of story.

[Gurm]

Seems like most Italian films I have seen are practically a comedy pitting horniness against the Church.

Honestly, people are human. That's what Jesus meant when he said we are all sinners.. it wasn't an insult.. just matter of fact. The rules are all laid out, and we probably won't go by them all all the time, since we're only human. What makes the difference imho is our attitude. Do we accept them as even being the rules and have respect for them as being a cohesive force that keeps society sane? Quiz yourself on your attitudes on sex and religion.. Do you:

A) Subscribe dutifully to all provisions as dictated by scripture and church doctrine and if you slip just a little, berate yourself and pay heavy penance?

B) Jack off and suck pussy and maybe even do some weird kinky stuff as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or whatever, but keep it to yourself and repent in old age if you feel the need.

C) March in the street in support of public legitimization of whatever lifestyle you want to pursue, if it differs from traditionally accepted norms. Tell everyone you meet that all religion is evil.

You're a fricken nutjob if you answer A or C. You need to shut your mouths and quit accusing the 95% of all people who answered "B" of being C if you answered A and A if you answered C. End of story.

This post illustrates a gigantic problem - that people feel the need to decide that there are rules and that it's "ok to break them" in the first place.

That's the problem here.

As long as there are people out there who DO think that all of these things are "sinful" or "wrong" or "against God", EVEN IF they then decide that it's OK "so long as it doesn't hurt anyone"... then there will be a finite yet nontrivial number of them who not only believe that these things LITERALLY are sinful and "from Satan" or "against God" and even a substantial number who feel this so strongly that they find it necessary to try to impose that belief on others.

Case in point - it has recently become illegal in some parts of this country to own pornography or sex toys AT ALL. Not just "you can't buy them here", but it's a FELONY TO OWN THEM. It's relatively ridiculous. What's next - making it illegal to masturbate? We WERE making progress. MOST of the states in the union had taken their felony prohibitions against masturbation, oral, and anal sex off the books. But not any more - some are putting them back, and even making them harsher!

The "moral majority" - which, by the way, is neither MORAL nor a MAJORITY - has been exercising its clout to enforce a series of antiquated notions on THE REST OF US.

It's hard for any of US to imagine feeling ANY guilt over foreplay with our spouses, or over giving our wives (or husbands for the ladies reading this) the satisfaction they desire and deserve. But there's a MUCH LARGER number of people than you'd imagine that DOES find it to be disgusting and sinful and wans to STOP US FROM DOING IT.

And that's the real danger. People willing to do ANYTHING - from legislation to buying votes to bullying and intimidation - to force their morality on others... and not seeing that the very act of doing so is in and of itself immoral.


------------

So to reply to your post, the PROBLEM is the VERY WAY YOU WORDED B. You worded it as though it were NECESSARY to feel at least a BIT guilty about perfectly natural normal things. I don't, and I hope you don't - but I bet you do. At least a little. And that's the problem, because you are helping to perpetuate a system that is wrong.

[KvHagedorn]

The 4th amendment is an elegant thing.

[KvHagedorn]

So to reply to your post, the PROBLEM is the VERY WAY YOU WORDED B. You worded it as though it were NECESSARY to feel at least a BIT guilty about perfectly natural normal things. I don't, and I hope you don't - but I bet you do. At least a little. And that's the problem, because you are helping to perpetuate a system that is wrong.

Um.. no I don't. Not in the least. But I accept that there are certain rules that keep society sane and "normal." There is also common decency. You don't do it in public or talk about the anal sex you had last night with Cindy Lou in accounting or whatever. That's just wrong imho. As far as foreplay and so forth being evil and against God, maybe it is, but I don't feel like I'm making an affront. It's not in that spirit at all, and if He wants to damn me to hell for it, so be it. You are talking about things which are in the same league as the most nitpicky parts of Leviticus. NO ONE NORMAL follows all those directives to the letter.

I notice you didn't address the other side of things.. there are an equal number of wackos who answer C. They are every bit as much a problem as those who answer A.

[Gurm]

Um.. no I don't. Not in the least. But I accept that there are certain rules that keep society sane and "normal." There is also common decency.

Define "normal" and "common".

You don't do it in public or talk about the anal sex you had last night with Cindy Lou in accounting or whatever. That's just wrong imho.

That depends. Cindy Lou is a saucy minx, she likes a nice ribald anecdote as much as the next chap!

I notice you didn't address the other side of things.. there are an equal number of wackos who answer C. They are every bit as much a problem as those who answer A.

Now here we can COMPLETELY agree. But it wasn't really the scope of the original post. I think that freaky libertine "DOWN WITH MORALITY" weirdos are just as bad, if not potentially worse.

[lowlifecat]

I notice you didn't address the other side of things.. there are an equal number of wackos who answer C. They are every bit as much a problem as those who answer A.

Now here we can COMPLETELY agree. But it wasn't really the scope of the original post. I think that freaky libertine "DOWN WITH MORALITY" weirdos are just as bad, if not potentially worse.

'scuse me for jumping in chaps.

I just got a small question; how can you decry people for being vocal against the 'moral majority' (as it pertains things such as sex, adultry etc..). Yet on the other hand decry other people for not being vocal against those who also CLAIM they speak for the 'moral majority' (as it pertains to such things as terrorism, violence, blood etc..).

You can't have it both ways. Both are really a small vocal minority who try to force thier fundemental beliefs upon those around them. Or at the very least try and give the impression that they speak for everyone.

/meow

Edit: The number in the corner says this is post #69. I want to get this strait; is this kosher or not?

[KvHagedorn]

Edit: The number in the corner says this is post #69. I want to get this strait; is this kosher or not?

As long as you aren't doing it with a pig, I think it's probably fine.

[Gurm]

'scuse me for jumping in chaps.

I just got a small question; how can you decry people for being vocal against the 'moral majority' (as it pertains things such as sex, adultry etc..).

Here we're talking about Christians, just so we're clear.

Yet on the other hand decry other people for not being vocal against those who also CLAIM they speak for the 'moral majority' (as it pertains to such things as terrorism, violence, blood etc..).

Ahhhh. Now we're talking about Muslims. You're off-topic, fella. But hey, I might deign to answer anyway. Read on!

You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can.

Both are really a small vocal minority who try to force thier fundemental beliefs upon those around them. Or at the very least try and give the impression that they speak for everyone.

You're confused. See, I'm not "decrying" anyone who speaks out against the moral majority. I'm decrying the "antithesis" types, who are in fact spouting out their OWN agenda - in this case libertine amorality. I'm all for people who stand up and say "hey, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, what I do with my wife in my bedroom is none of your damn business and you've got trouble on your hands if you try to make legislation about it!"

Similarly, I'm all for people who stand up and say "Hey, Mr. Allah-Calls-Jihad, we don't want to blow shit up!"

However, while people DO the former, nobody does the latter - which is pretty much my problem with Islam at the moment.

[schmosef]

'scuse me for jumping in chaps.

I just got a small question; how can you decry people for being vocal against the 'moral majority' (as it pertains things such as sex, adultry etc..). Yet on the other hand decry other people for not being vocal against those who also CLAIM they speak for the 'moral majority' (as it pertains to such things as terrorism, violence, blood etc..).

You can't have it both ways. Both are really a small vocal minority who try to force thier fundemental beliefs upon those around them. Or at the very least try and give the impression that they speak for everyone.

/meow

Edit: The number in the corner says this is post #69. I want to get this strait; is this kosher or not?

Once more, moral relativism at it's finest!

Kind of like Gurm's point that some Christians believe that all sin is equally bad and that those Christians are out to lunch, figuratively speaking.

Why don't you come back to the thread where you called me an Islamophobe and debate me on point? ... because you can't.

[az]

Found this somewhere:

Sometimes I wonder how would our present society look like if the old
Polynesian taboos won. Imagine if free sex would be deemed normal and
desirable, while free eating penalized...

Milton Holt would be caught with a $21,000 restaurant bill, for one. Shops
selling pornographic obscenities such as "Modern Kitchen" , and "Family
Cookbook" would multiply in Waikiki. The sidewalk on Kuhio would be full of
lunchwagen after 10pm. A few demagogue wannabes would try to whip up a
public outcry harping on family values, but no one would give a hoot.

The Church would hold that eating serves to preserve the human race, and
not "some lowly pursuit of animalistic urges" We'd be allowed to chose
_one_ kind of meal to eat for our whole life - and that would be it! We
could announce the choice in a big cathedral during a very moving
celebration... to the sounds of organ music, you would walk up with a lunch
plate wrapped into white curtain ... a guy dressed funny would hold a
speech to which you would have to answera serious "I do"... after, you
would invite the large public to a party where everyone would make love.

There would be a public referendum whether two foods belonging to the same
group should be allowed to marry. A few demagogue wannabes would try to
whip up a public outcry harping on family values, but no one would give a
hoot.

Swinger pubs would prosper on each corner. The biggest fast fling chain
would be McDonalds, offering the McLibido for 66 cents including shower
("your everyday great value") and KFC with their "Lovin' made just the way
you like". Drug usage would hit hte rock bottom as people would rather
spend 66 cents at McDonalds to get light-headed.

Bill Clinton would face questioning for not sleeping with enough women.
Also for eating various foods, to which he would answer that he only chewed
but didn't swallow. 12,000 laws would be enacted to curtail free eating,
out of which 11,998 here in Hawaii. The internet would be 80% food
pictures. A few demagogue wannabes would try to whip up a public outcry
harping on family values, but no one would give a hoot.

Humans being always obsessed with stuff that's forbidden or made difficult
to obtain, eating would soon take on a whole different dimension. It
wouldn't be just eating, it would mean so much more ! You would have to
question your _feelings_ about your chosen meal type if you are going
already to spend your life with it. The media would be full of articles,
like "How to find a mutually nurturing relationship with chicken katsu"
"What to do if your roast beef doesn't understand you" and "Should you
give the best years of your life to zucchini?" Scientists would argue that
a balanced diet consists of several different meals, but we would know they
are just a bunch of sicko, depraved perverts !

Oh well. We just have to outlaw something even if that makes no sense,
don't we. I wish we outlawed outlawing once already.

[Technoid]

Actually if the Eunuch is that way by choice, that's a sin. Your body is a temple, you see, and mutilating it is a major sin.

How come you condone it then?

[schmosef]

How come you condone it then?