|
Patron saint of Bakersfield, via Fresno Pope slights validity of other Christian churches Are some sinners not welcome at church? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Episcopal bishops support gays, snub nose at greater Anglican church KGET on The Colbert Report Hey, you Catholics, get back to confession Where do the palms come from? Jesus was a rich man, the Rev. Dollar says The role of women in church June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Are Christians supposed to be prudes?
"I think sex is there for procreation and a good deal more." — Hugh Hefner
Hef is right. I've seen a lock of back-and-forth talk on these blogs about how uptight Christians can be when it comes to sex and how society has gotten messed up by our "unenlightened" attitudes. Would it shock you to learn that the Bible not only portrays sex as a good thing, but it tells people to have lots of it? Now, before anyone goes jumping to any conclusions, I want to be clear: God intended for sex to be enjoyed in a very specific way — namely, within the confines of marriage. As it says repeatedly in the Old Testament book Song of Solomon — considered the Bible's definitive book on sexuality — "Do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases" (verses 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4). However, God did create us as sexual beings. Genesis 1:27-28 says, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'" Think about that: God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the earth, and, well, there's only one way they could do that. So essentially, since God commanded them to do it, sex is a holy act of worship as long as it is within the confines of marriage. Not that having children is the only reason for husbands and wives to be intimate. I Corinthians 7:3-5 says this: "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone, but to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you due to your lack of self-control." In other words, if husbands and wives aren't coming together in the Biblical sense, there is a strong likelihood that one or the other — if not both — will stray, which could cause the marriage to crumble. One of the Ten Commandments is, "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), and there's no need to if husbands and wives are being intimate on a regular basis. All of that said, the Bible condemns any form of sex that falls outside the one-man, one-woman model as being immoral. Even just looking at someone with lust in your heart is considered adultery (Matthew 5:28). I Corinthians 6:18 has this to say: "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body." Following these teachings may make us seem "uptight" in the eyes of the world — and believe me, being committed to what we call "purity" is easier said than done. However, making the effort doesn't make us prudes, in my view; it just makes good sense. Tell me, Bakersfield: Does waiting on sex until marriage make someone a prude? Or do you think the Bible has it all wrong, that any form of sex between consenting adults should be OK? — Ray Hacke 202 comments from 16 users
posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 19, 2006 at 12:09 PM
I agree with what you say Goat....except the crap learned in Christian schools. When I transferred to a Public Jr High from a Catholic one, they were doing work I had already done two years earlier. And that's with a couple of hours of relgious dogma thrown in! Yeah Random, my real point is how the intelligent design folks are starting to realize that legitimizing their stance is only going to be made through science, and not ancient folklore. Unfortunately there is no real science that can be make their case....at least not yet. Maybe when Michael comes from the clouds swinging his sword about, scientists will take note. Of course, that could just be aliens using our own religion against us like the Spaniards did the indigenous people of the Americas. You think small pox was bad, wait'll ya get a load of Alpha Centauri tape worms! LOL The "Cosmos" type layout is another way for people who actually believe in both science and a God to come to terms with their beliefs. But for a better perspective, they should also read the reviews by the academia who don't have an agenda either way. posted by
anonymous
on Jun 29, 2006 at 05:29 PM
I think that Biblical restrictions worked well when people were married at 14; however, being "pure" until marriage when people are married at 20, 30, or 40 is about as practical as not eating pork, not touching a pig skin, not leaving the house on Saturday, or not wearing a garment that is made of two different fabrics.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 29, 2006 at 05:35 PM
The latter, Ray. . Waiting until marriage doesn't necessarily make you a prude--in fact, "abstinence pledges" have the benefit of widely broadening the range of sexual activity teens engage in, which is generally A Good Thing. (Most of the alternatives won't get you pregnant.) What George Carlin called "good old-fashioned man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick" isn't the only game in town, you know. Sin is just hurting someone else unnecessarily. . But *NOT* waiting until marriage doesn't make you wrong. Paul's letter to the Corinthians is more indicative of *HIS* hangups about sex than God's. The guy who wrote the Song of Solomon was certainly no prude (and no monogamist, either...the plural of "spouse" is "spice.") . Remember St. Augustine was one of the most famous libertines in history before he slowed down and got religion. Didn't he pray "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet"?
posted by
petenews
on Jun 29, 2006 at 07:22 PM
No, conservatives are not prudes, they are as horny as the next guy, but they try to hide it at all costs. If they were a bit more honest they would be more creditable, take conservative Christian guru, Rush Limbaugh, his life was just saved by a Florida customs agent when the agent confisicated ( in Bush language) Limbaugh’s stash of other peoples Viagra, 30 to be exact, as Limbaugh was on his way to the Dominican Republic in search of Black booty. The poor potbellied Limbaugh could have easily overdosed or had a heart attack at the excitement had he been armed with these blue pills in an encounter with a local “Ho” as they say in the hood, but he was saved!. It makes you wonder what is in Billy Graham’s or the Popes’ bags when they travel under diplomatic immunity. posted by
paxchristi3
on Jun 29, 2006 at 09:13 PM
Better to be a prude than to be a cool dude sucked into the "whatever floats your boat" mentality of today's society that unceasingly fails to learn its lessons since Christ and his church emerged from the dust of the Roman empire 2,000 years ago, and will continue to go strong while the Western gay agenda culture will become but a faint memory. How's that? Christ guaranteed the "gates of hell" would not prevail against his bride.Witness the implosion of the Anglican Church going on as a result of the American Episcopal Church committing every sin in the book by letting culture lead it rather than letting the church lead the culture. Just like a patient would know better than a doctor and do it his or her way. The article at the following link spells it all out very clearly what we're dealing with. Randomfactor should read what the columnist has to say at the end of his column in answer to his false belief that the church is in decline: Furthermore, a friend of mine who covered the recent Episcopal convention in Columbus, Ohio, for his Web site, www.catholicreport.org, interviewed a delegate, Canon Kendall Harmon, and asked whether he thought what was going on with his church could happen to the Catholic Church. "No," he responded, "because you have a coherent theology." Thank you, brother! But it's all been prophesied, and the antichrists of society that likely will climax with a New World Order that will crack down on the church and further twist the minds of the people seems to be coming to realization. Read this. To conclude my remarks I offer the following words of wisdom: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." -- Mark 8:38 posted by
rebel311
on Jun 29, 2006 at 10:36 PM
God's Law NEVER CHANGES!!! If You think that it is prudish to be a Christian than you should not be one! Hugh is a pervert and scumbag that has made his millions off the degradation of our nation and the world! You are not right at all and if you think that Hugh is right maybe Christianity is not the religion for you!posted by
anonymous
on Jun 30, 2006 at 12:53 AM
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 30, 2006 at 12:55 AM
As usual mucus is his own enemy or is it his own enema, well not to worry…it is always garbage out. Yeah Pope John was a liberal, along with King Henry the VIII, but than they were prudes right? Everyone hates Hefner, but everyone secretly envies him, how many 80 plus lives the life of a twenty year old with a Viagra tab only second to Rush Limbaugh, another liberal, well not many. Yeah, Hef probably does have sex with donkeys, but you cannot blame him at his age he cannot tell the difference between a donkey and a conservative Republiken, but than again both are equally hot. No never, Christian are not prudes, they are dishonest, when someone else strays it is a sin, however when a Christian strays and that happens more of often than not, it is an honest error in judgment caused by the devils influence. It is very Christian to be prude, but it is very libertarian to be Christian, in fact it is a known fact that you can meet more and hotter women in church than you can at the local tavern or saloon. posted by
robbwillis
on Jun 30, 2006 at 12:59 PM
"Are Christians supposed to be prudes?" Is the Pope Catholic? posted by
scbiker
on Jun 30, 2006 at 02:42 PM
NO!
And Pax's response is SO ANTI-CHRIST ITS PATHETIC!
We are taught to esteem others above ourselves. Who are the Christians that should be any different than their example whom is Jesus Christ! Was Christ ever a prude? If your answer is yes, then GO! BE A PRUDE! Being a prude exalts ones self above others.
But of all I have ever read about the character of Christ, Prude is not one that was known of him.
a person excessively concerned about propriety and decorum =prude
Giddy yap Christians Time to get your prude on!
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 30, 2006 at 01:32 PM
Sometimes I wonder, Robb.
posted by
paxchristi3
on Jun 30, 2006 at 04:28 PM
You're right, scbiker, I always thought it was ludicrous for anyone to brand those as prudes those who understand that there is no easy road to salvation, considering Christ had told us that the path to obedience to him is narrow and hard to find, and that those who wish to be his disciples need to pick up their crosses and follow him. He made that essential point to the Samaritan woman who came to him at the well and was duly noted by Christ that the man she is with is not her husband and that she had something like four other husbands in the past. Think that was kosher with him?
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 30, 2006 at 10:37 PM
The problem is with decent, church-going folk who want to pass laws to prevent others from doing things they, themselves, secretly do.
posted by
anonymous
on Jun 30, 2006 at 11:10 PM
In today's age the question is: Faithfulness? Whats that? posted by
paxchristi3
on Jul 1, 2006 at 12:33 AM
Adam sez:
posted by
paxchristi3
on Jul 1, 2006 at 12:41 AM
"Who cares if you're prudish or not? Just allow consenting adults to do what they feel like doing and mind your own business. It continually creeps me out reading moral dictates from repressed bible-boobs that twist parables and fables into such an intolerable reality."
Well, Adam, frankly I can picture you on judgment day blubbering before the heavenly court in response to your quote above: "Well, uh, I didn't really mean to say that. I was just joking, y'know ... "
Hopefully they are in a jovial and forgiving mood that day.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 1, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Well, Pax, on Judgement Day I can picture you standing before the Holy Throne and hearing "Contraception? Who the Heaven said anything about banning contraception? Who *HAVE* you been listening to, anyway?" . (Just because I can picture it doesn't make it likely. Or any less likely than your scenario.) . "They" are in a jovial mood? Would that be Jove and His Fellow Deities? posted by
paxchristi3
on Jul 1, 2006 at 07:40 PM
Who the Heaven said anything about banning contraception? Who the Heaven said anything about contraception? Oh, my, I can picture Jesus being ashamed of the presence before his heavenly father of anyone who clings to sinful and adulterous ways. Because the Bible is replete with those who had plenty to say about contraception. To wit:
posted by
paxchristi3
on Jul 1, 2006 at 07:42 PM
That's what I don't like about the new format. The following link got cut off from the previous post. The workings of Satan perhaps? Anyway, here it is: http://www.scripturecatholi...
posted by
joaquinrose
on Jul 2, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Hello boys, Now that you have to behave yourself on a blog or get kicked off some real interaction may happen. Christians should never feel bad if someone calls them a prude. I rather like the fact I give "Excessive concern about propriety and decorum=Prude." The Lord of the bible indeed gave sex as a gift to all of us being that we are made in His image for procreation and recreation ONLY in the confines of marriage. That means as a practicing Christian I and only I have to obey the Lord. You can all just go at it in the sick, perverted way that you always have and then you can also tell me I am a prude. It doesn't matter since I am always willing to give HIM "Excessive concern about propriety and decorum in ALL things which =Prude.
posted by
robbwillis
on Jun 30, 2006 at 06:32 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Jul 2, 2006 at 11:35 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Jul 2, 2006 at 11:40 PM
posted by
joaquinrose
on Jul 3, 2006 at 01:50 AM
Erikbako, Of course you got him in to bed. You must be so proud. Well good for you. posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 3, 2006 at 11:14 AM
So Pax, You can picture some kind of suffering in Heaven as well as Hell? posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 3, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Boredom perhaps, Robb? "Millions have longed for an eternal life who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon..." posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 3, 2006 at 12:38 PM
posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 3, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Bwahahahahahaha!!! "Sinead O'Conner"!!! posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 3, 2006 at 02:37 PM
Y'know, I kinda *LIKED* the original "The Ten Commandments." It was one of *VERY* few movies I've seen that were better than the books they were made from...
posted by
joaquinrose
on Jul 3, 2006 at 02:51 PM
Randomfactor, Can't you tell the difference between Hollywood and the Word of God? Well let me tell you a thing or two... the movie SHOULD have inspired you to seek God but if it didn't and you don't believe in the bible why are you on this blog except to trash Christians? Speak with authority on those subjects you know best and you will become believable and may even convince someone on your point but that doesn't happen with you, does it? How come? Until you know all other side's point of view everything you say is just pure venom. Don't read the bible with your head, use your heart since this is a relationship with the One that created you, He is strong and powerful enough to communicate with you if you let him. posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 3, 2006 at 03:18 PM
Don't let him fool you. Random knows Jesus. In fact he was on the film crew for Jesus' first video.... http://www.youtube.com/watc...
posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 3, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Or, you could think with your head and pump blood with your heart. Glad nobody accused me of only coming here to trash Chrisitians. They're so entertaining, I'd hate for them to feel bad just because of their whacky beliefs. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 3, 2006 at 06:01 PM
If there really were a God, this *^*$%&$ interface wouldn't have swallowed my post.
Certainly I can tell the difference between "The Ten Commandments" and the Bible. Just because both are works of fiction doesn't make them all that confusing. I've examined both closely.
DeMille's version was just better done.
My participation here on this blog is not intended to "trash Christians," but rather to trash the unspoken assumption (Ray's, and I'm sure yours as well) that the only "faith" worth discussing is that based on the Bible. And the further dangerous assumption that when faith and reality conflict, reality must be the one to give way.
That assumption has led to the wreckage of our country. That's why the Founding Fathers established a secular, not a Christian, state. Learn from them--they had much more on the ball than our current crop of "faithful" politicians. That's why George Washington so opposed a national religion.
Jefferson had their number: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P... posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 3, 2006 at 06:44 PM
Why do Christians have guys like this representing them..... posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 3, 2006 at 07:18 PM
Antiex, might be because the country as a whole has guys like *THIS* representing *US*:
http://www.symbolman.com/sh...
And the world is watching, inbetween dry-heaves. posted by
joaquinrose
on Jul 3, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Antiextremism & Randofactor: If you read the bible even as fiction or a novel you would know that God asks only for a relationship with Him that requires your faith. I've done your version of life which was belief in an uncaring god bent on pushing my buttons but at some point I grew up and realized I was blaming everyone but myself. You blame us(Christians) for all the ills in the world and bashing us makes you feel good. I understand that. Randomfactor: There is absoultely no chance a real child of God would consider the words of our revered Founding Fathers as law. What I learned from our Founding Fathers is that MOST, NOT ALL had a deep and abiding respect for God and some perhaps didn't believe in God still they didn't spend their waking days and nights tearing down that belief in other people and trying to limit liberties or blame them for shortcomings. Blaming is what Nero did in the Coloseum in Rome while killing the Christians. Thomas Jefferson was a great leader who inspite of dissenting opinions on a Creator with most of the signers of the Constitution come to mind as such a person who dissented but respected. You can interpret his writings one way as freedom FROM religious influences while I read it as freedom OF religion. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 10, 2006 at 02:14 PM
And: http://www.ethicalatheist.c... (I didn't see "The Passion of the Christ" for the same reasons, Robb. And my kids are the same as yours, ethical, productive members of society. One's a teacher.) posted by
HelenEmbry
on Jul 4, 2006 at 05:20 AM
Ray, you put that quite accurately. What more can I say.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 4, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Joaquinrose, you understand absolutely nothing. I don't blame Christians for all the ills in the world. I blame Christians for the ills in the world *WHEN THEY TRY TO IMPOSE THEIR MYTHOLOGY* in such a way as to make things worse. . When they try to keep loving couples from adopting children who need a good home. When they deny those same couples the same basic rights and privileges they themselves enjoy. When they force schools to teach "abstinence-only" education knowing it will result in unnecessary disease and pregnancy. When they try to outlaw contraception and access to abortion. When they oppose the vitally-important teaching of science in favor of their own fairy tales. When they try to blame natural disasters on a "vengeful God" who coincidentally reinforces their bigotry. . I don't believe in an "uncaring God bent on pushing my buttons." That's more your style. . What you *FAILED* to learn from the Founding Fathers is that very few of them believed in a *CHRISTIAN* God. That's why the phrase "Nature and Nature's God" apperars in the Declaration. That's why the United States is not a Christian nation, and I hope never will be. . I've no doubt that true believers such as yourself consider their faith more important than the law. About 20 of them, five years ago, flew airliners into inhabited buildings to demonstrate their faith. Another one ordered the torture of innocents and guilty alike, in violation of international law and treaty. . That's what faith over fact will get you. Today I celebrate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and most especially Jefferson, who "swor[e] upon the altar of almighty God" that he would oppose the churches in their bid for power. posted by
joaquinrose
on Jul 4, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Randomfactor, You bet my faith is better than the law, that's exactly what Christians are saying. I am not a Muslim and they believe completely different than I do although they may be as ferverous as I am. If their ultimate blessing is 72 virgins no wonder they do things like this. The problem with your statement is that in the time of our country's birth those Founding Fathers thought putting "In God we trust" (Undetermined by which god that they meant) on their money and many monuments. And they fashioned the laws we had then and some of what we have now based on the bible. Don't try to tell me otherwise, but because we as a people believe that we can change laws or repeal laws without consequences we now are seeing the fruit of our labors. If it was good for the Founding Fathers to use the bible for a model then it's still good enough for me. The bible is NOT a set of rules despite or inspite of what you think. Should you ever read it as God wanting a personal relationship with you HIS chosen people (Jews & Gentiles alike) it will change your life and way of thinking. People that use the bible to beat you up are wrong. All along I've simply been saying that you really haven't read it for what it is and why it was written. I've read your BIBLE called Atheism. I know you want ME to live by what you believe. How different from ME are YOU? NOT AT ALL.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 5, 2006 at 08:49 AM
And that's why any zealous religion should not be mixed with government. The Founding Fathers didn't put "In God We Trust" on the money. More importantly, they deliberately left it out of the Declaration and Constitution. But I won't "try to tell you otherwise," since you're more comfortable with the lies you've been told. I *WILL* point out another example of how you've been lied to, for the education of others. . By the way, it's entirely possible that the "72 virgins" thing is a mistranslation. Imagine their surprise when they're handed a box of white raisins... . The Bible is a set of myths. Nothing wrong with that set of myths, but it makes a poor basis for government. You have obviously not read the "Bible called atheism," and you have no clue how I want you to live. What I want you to do is live your own life, and let others live theirs. I suspect that's 180 degrees different from your intention, which is to fit everyone else into your shoebox. posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 5, 2006 at 12:17 PM
I have nothing against Christians Joaquin. I have something against HYPOCRITICAL Christians. You know, like 95% of the so called Christian leadership. Where are the TRUE leaders of the Christian faith? It's been hijacked just as the Muslim religion has been hijacked by extremism. At least the Muslim extremists may actually believe in what they're doing, misguided as they are. Not like Pat Roberston, Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popov, Jim Baker, Benny Hinn, Jesse Jackson....and a host of other charlatons making money off of desperate people's ills. A band of High Tech Gypsies is what they are. I think the teachings of Jesus are marvelous, myth or not. Too bad a lot of Christians talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. It's time for REAL Christians to come to the forefront. Where are the true Christians to take back their beliefs from these yahoos. Rich yahoos who are laughing at Christians all the way to the bank. As for "In God we Trust", our forefathers DID NOT make that our motto. It was first put on Florida Bank Notes in 1863, and did not become an official motto until Dwight Eisenhower's administration in the 50s. There were just as many Deists as Christians in the midst of our forefathers. There is NO DOUBT that they wanted a seperation of Church and State. No, that doesn't mean they were anti christian. That means they understood WHY immigrants came to America in the first place. That was to get away from religious persecution. Christians were going after other Christians for, (excuse the pun) Christ's sake!. There intent was that you can believe in any diety you desire, or none at all, but religion needs to stay out of government. Of course some of the basic tenants are based on the morals of the day, which were Christian. But are those morals any better than Buddhas?
The argument that our forefathers were Christians, and therefore we need a theocracy, is simply untrue. Certainly some of the forefathers believed in Christianity. "The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY." But those same morals can be found in a plethora of other religions. Others were not Christian. Thomas Paine was a Deist. Jefferson actually wrote his own Bible.! He agreed with me that the basic tenants of Christianity were a good thing, but a lot of it was hocus pocus. John Adams wrote after our first encounter with Muslims at Tripoli... " As the government of the United States of America is NOT in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949
When Ben Franklin wanted there to be a clergyman at their meetings to bless it, it was voted down. Franklin later became quite disillsusioned with Christians, and became more like Jefferson, believing that the teachings of Christ were good, but that he wasn't necessarily a God. Article VI, paragraph 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added) Even a Southern Baptist convention in 1963 concluded....Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. Ulysses Grant wrote....No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community. Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (q.v.) requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof There were more slave owning forefathers than Christian forefathers. Does that mean that slavery is okay because our forefathers had them? Not all our forefathers were Christians. And even the ones that were, understood the importance of seperation. Look at the violent history of religion in government. The Crusades, the Inquistion, witch trials, Islamic terrorism, Israel taking over the Palestinian land because God told them it was theres. The Church of England whacking Catholic Monks.
Theocracies suck! I'll stick with the Constitution. I have no problem with "In God we Trust" taking over E Pluribus Unum, I have no problem with one nation under God, I do have a problem with the Christian agenda being government policy. Even Christians can't get on the same page. posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 5, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Athiests have a bible? Must be kinda short...
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 5, 2006 at 03:13 PM
Y'know, Robb, I went looking for "The Atheist Bible" and found nothing...there's a commercial opportunity there, especially if I get the tax-free status. There is a website, though: http://www.atheistbible.net...
posted by
paxchristi3
on Jul 5, 2006 at 06:28 PM
"I hope the evangelicals [who claim Founders as their own kind] and the people who say the Founders were atheists or agnostics," Professor Holmes says, "will do more reading."From: http://www.csmonitor.com/20... posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 5, 2006 at 06:44 PM
Me too, Pax. They were men who clearly saw the dangers of *ANY* authoritarian religion getting the reins of power. . "It's important for Americans to be in touch with that spirit of toleration, of respect for science and free inquiry, that most of the Founding Fathers believed in," says Roger Hickey, codirector of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group in Washington."It's important for Americans to be in touch with that spirit of toleration, of respect for science and free inquiry, that most of the Founding Fathers believed in," says Roger Hickey, codirector of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 5, 2006 at 07:00 PM
posted by
paxchristi3
on Jul 5, 2006 at 08:30 PM
Soooo, you admiring groupies of the Founding Fathers (Randomfactor included), would you think the clause against the establishment of religion also would prevent the establishment of secularism and unbelief, an even more dangerous prospect? Read on and see who's really being hypocrites:http://catholiceducation.or... posted by
anonymous
on Jul 6, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Forget those 72 virgens, give me one horny Christian women who has been around the block a few times anyday! Yes sir, one of those prude by day but good by night.
posted by
joaquinrose
on Jul 10, 2006 at 02:57 PM
robbwillis, Don't like the sweeping comments about secular humanism do you? I don't like the sweeping gernalization of Christianity you and many writers on this blog make. I didn't mean your daughter specifically but I'm talking about what morals are being allowed in the name of secular humanism. So maybe you're the exception to the rule and that's good but all of those types of behavior and results I listed run rampant in this country , a country that has forgotten what is good about it. Many laws were written based on the bible. Deny it all you want but when legislatures started changing laws based on secular humanism chaos resulted... ie... today's chaos. You can pass all the laws you want to relieve people of their responsiblities for their behavior in the name of compassion??? uh... secular humanism and turn around and legislate me... the TAXPAYER to foot the bill and still tell me (Christians) are trying to restrict your rights when it's actually the other way around. Our readers recommend: |
