MisanthropicAnthropoid

I agree. But it's certainly hard to convince most people of that. I know tons of people who largely agree with their platform but are hung up on voting for the lesser of two evils to keep the greater of two evils out of office.

Wait 'til winter and hit Alta or something. But if you like beaches and history, the Charleston and Savannah suggestions were good.

Okay, for some reason, I'd completely missed where you were going with that one. As far as the anatomical progression, it depends on translation. Last time I saw that verse, it went navel and then hips. Hips are below the navel, last I checked. When I looked it up again (different translation), it went navel and then waist. I didn't realize that it wasn't consistent through translations. (unless my memory is just playing tricks on me, which is possible)

I seem to remember it being ambiguous as to whether or was masturbation or pulling out. I assumed the first, but I certainly could be wrong. I think we're agreed on masturbation. The Bible is inconclusive, definitely doesn't seem to forbid it. However, pron and lust are both to be condemned.

For your first part, if I'm interpreting you correctly, it's crap argument. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making arguments that drinking is supported in the Bible without mentioning that it should be drunk in moderation. That isn't the question. The picking and choosing is based on relevance to the discussion. If the discussion is on how much should be drunk, the moderation passages come into play. If this isn't what you were saying, I'm sorry. As far as the oral sex thing, it appears to me that vulva is being translated as navel. It's the only thing that fits with the anatomical progression of the poem. When I saw that, I thought it was a metaphor for oral sex, but I agree that it was a bit hasty. It certainly is a metaphor, and there are other possible interpretations. I still can't see a biblical argument against oral sex, but it is debatable whether this evidence supports it. Also, more on subject, I stand by my statement; I continue to see arguments against lust but none against masturbation.

If the gospels were false, there's nothing wrong with opposing them. And some of those were waaaaaay out there (like suggesting that Jesus turn Mary into a man so that she could be a true christian). And no, I'm not a KJV guy.

Are you saying the argument for oral sex is like the argument against drinking? Because there's quite a large difference in that drinking is encouraged in the Bible, and oral sex is not prohibited. As far as arguments for oral sex, I don't think it's too loose to equate drinking the sweet wine of the "navel" (the translation of the word for the body part between thighs and hips, moving up) with oral sex. For the innate thing, I'm not quite sure what noun you're referencing with "it," but I'm not denying that there is an innate sense of right and wrong, just that we also have some convictions that are cultural and not innate. In the instance of sex, they're usually Victorian.

The part about the church is probably accurate, the part about the New Testament most certainly isn't. When the NT was written, Christianity was a somewhat despised minority. The believers got themselves jailed pretty much everywhere they went. The New Testament was not at all about organizational control. The Catholic Church made most of that up.

The Bible encourages drinking on many occasions, and there are still some Christian churches that claim it's wrong. Why? I'm guessing that some people personally felt like it was wrong and then tried to find passages in the Bible that could be loosely interpreted to confirm their beliefs.

Another thought, on the argument brought forth in that link. He made the argument that deep down, people know masturbation is wrong. I've ever that identical argument against oral sex. Problem is, oral sex is actually encouraged in the Bible. These innate feelings of what's right and what isn't aren't biblical, they're Victorian.

Without a doubt his best role; he didn't have to act. Other than that, he's pretty useless. alsoneverusescarequotes

'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.' -Lev 15: 16-18. So yes, emitting semen makes one unclean, but it's the same if it's in masturbation or sex. But the "unclean" used here is ceremonial cleanliness, not moral cleanliness. Just like how Israelites are commanded to wash their hands before they eat, they're also commanded to get a bath after masturbation/sex.

I wasn't necessarily looking for a response, I was just jokingly recalling Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch. It was obviously a caricature of those who believe in abstinence. On the subject of masturbation, I haven't seen a good biblical argument against it (including the one you linked). As a matter of fact, I don't think there is one, because I don't think the Bible has any problem with it. There's certainly a problem with looking at a woman lustfully, but you the two don't necessarily have to go hand in hand (especially if you're in your late teens and early 20s). First of all, with all the sexual OT laws, if masturbation were a problem, I would've expected to see it mentioned. But it isn't; the only time masturbation is mentioned in the OT is when a man is struck down for masturbating when he should've been having sex. But, rather than rely completely on an argument from silence, I think we can make an argument from biology that there's no problem. For guys, at least, if you don't actively masturbate, you'll orgasm in your sleep. The expelling of semen is part of the body's natural process. I've actually heard doctors censure patients for not doing it enough. I find it hard to believe that a process that's biologically necessary is morally wrong. Also, that guy that you linked makes circular arguments. He equates masturbation with fornication without any support, and then he cites a whole bunch of arguments against fornication. He doesn't support the argument that masturbation abuses the gift of sex, just claims that it's selfish (which I could see if you were choosing it over coming together with your spouse, but not when sex isn't an option). He doesn't support the argument that it's no better than fornication, just says that sin is enslaving. The only sound argument he makes is when he censures masturbation when tied to looking at a woman lustfully. I agree with this (which is why I think pron is wrong). But I don't think it necessarily bars masturbation. Just my two cents.

Among the stupid things said are such diverse elements as. . .

Wow. I was expecting you to favour option A, but with suicide attached.

It's that distracting and you still need pron to get it done?

C

1 out of 3? FAIL

Yes. And I think either way ought to be bothersome.

He might be able to redeem himself. How many yards will Tommy Maddox throw for this year? Who is the swiftest player in the NFL?

Although you can make an educated guess by researching the barbers and seeing what their haircuts look like. I think the Democratic plan of raising corporate taxes is a good recipe for increasing outsourcing and continuing to screw our economy.

I agree. But if one option isn't strong, voting for the most popular other option (just because it's the most popular other option) is a shot in the dark at best. If more people actually evaluated the stances of all of the parties rather than blindly voting Democrat (for anti-Republicans) or Republican (for anti-Democrats), we'd be a lot better off (assuming, of course, that the people knew what they were doing in making these evaluations).

So because Republican rule brought a bad economy means that Democratic rule will bring a better one? That's disturbing logic.

Sadly, I think a lot of culture has internalized it. I see it a lot in churches. Mother's Day is a time to tell mothers how their families couldn't get on without them (which is a fine message), and Father's Day is a time for pastors to tell Dads that they've failed as leaders and are making mothers do all the work (which is true in a lot of cases, but wow, nice uplifting Father's Day message). Obviously, there are a lot of people about that don't view things that way, but too many do. Also, there are far too many cases where viewing things that way accurately describes things (I kinda wonder if a lot of men aren't starting to live down to the expectations they see for their sex in the media). As far as the cause, I kinda just think it's stereotypes and PC run amok. Way back when people started getting jobs outside of the home, we got the stereotype of the wild, adventurous male in the workplace and the woman doing the housework, raising her kids, taking them to church (this is also where we got the stereotype of women as the more religious sex), and needing to civilize her husband. So that stereotype floated around our culture for a hundred years or so, and then we added PC into the mix, so you couldn't make fun of women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, etc. So because it's un-PC to make fun of so many different groups, white men get made fun of the most, being uncivilized and awkward in domestic life turns into being an awkward, bumbling fool in all areas of life, and the current commercial/sitcom/cartoon portrayal is born.

Seems like a reasonable assessment of America's feelings. Obviously, the prediction depends largely on the debates. It scares me that Obama/Democrats have economic credibility with so much of the country.