Elder

I'm not entirely sure on this topic. My Father spanked me. Somewhere around my parents house is a 4 foot wooden plank with all of our autographs carved into it and a bullsey drawn onto the business end of it. I never felt abused nor do I resent my father doing it. I was a kid who needed occasional correction. I learned some valued lessons at the end of that board. On the other hand, I noticed that as time went on, my Father used it less and less. I don't think he ever touches that board anymore, and he still has 8 kids at home, who, while they are for the most part well mannered, still need occasional correction. I should probably ask my Dad why he stopped. If he found a better way, then it would be worth knowing. Or perhaps he felt the need to use a punishment that would not tempt his anger. I have no kids of my own now, so I have no personal experience with spanking other than being on the recieving end, and based off that experience alone, I have no problem with the practice.

Good grief! No one appreciates valuable experiences. 1st of all, yes love involves pain... Ya'll know who said it.However, that certainly is not the only aspect, although it certainly draws much more attention. There is tenderness in love, there is purpose in love, there are those quiet moments of holding eachother in a non-sexual way that can be heaven. There are those moments when you have made it through the pain that make it all worth it (yes they do come). 2nd of all, as I said, nobody appreciates experience. It's the hard times that make you grow. I count every tear I've shed, especially those over love lost, as a reminder that I'm still human and that my heart, while broken, is still alive and well. It's when there are no tears over loss that I worry about whether I have cut myself off from my emotions. I've loved, I've lost, and I can honestly look back and say I'm better for it. Don't be afraid of loss. I've made that mistake too and it is a mistake. I would rather have a long lasting relationship with ups and downs and end up a widow than even an hour of the greatest sex in the universe, because then I'd know that the sex I was having for a lifetime meant something. Which leads me to point 3. I really hate it when love and sex are separated. To my way of thinking, there is a significant difference between having sex and making love, and it should be obvious what I prefer. I want it to be more than just my body and my instincts, I want it to be my heart that's involved. I want to love and be loved. Yes, it's high risk, but it's definitely worth it.

Alright, Mr. Gosthacked, I must say I've already countered your replies and arguements with my initial post, so I see no particular reason to reply with anything more than this: read the arguement and come up with your own reply, please don't spew out the same atheist arguements I've heard my entire life. I hate to say it, but you really do Atheists no credit with your posts. I expected better. Figleaf, congratulations you have made an intelligent arguement, which I will be more than happy to reply to: 1. I was referring mostly to New Testament Doctrine, and I do share your oppinion that the Old Testament does not always reflect the peaceful ideals that I see in Christianity. I still read it, as there are other moral lessons to learn from it, mostly concerning justice and obedience. However if one looks hard enough at it (and few ever do), you can find lessons of peace, love and faith in the Old Testament as well. 2. I hate to say it, but I can actually argue this point with you. You seem to have missed my point concerning Religions role in war, so I'll break it down: A. I was pointing out that it is the tool, rather than the cause, as many anti-religionists would believe. B. That tool is no longer effective in a negative fashion in the Western World due to extensive legal control. C. That tool, like any other, can be used not only for evil by warmongers, but for good by freedom fighters, idealists and those who would inspire others to do great things, and it is still effective for this purpose and is doing it today. I can't quote any statistics, but I'd guess that Organized religion is responsible for a very very very substantial part of humanitarian aid world wide. Further more, it is Organized Religion that is making the attempt to actually change people from bad to good, which does more than one might think. What could be more powerful than to take a man or woman and make him or her a better man or woman? It's what this world needs. Religion definitely is power, and all power can be used for either good or evil. 3. I really don't see the difference between Stalin misusing Marxism and the medieval governments misusing Religion, any argument concerning Marxism aside. As for your point on Hitler, I am grateful for the enlightenment there and you have a very good point, although you still see a rather secular government persecuting religious groups.

Now that would probably be the opposite of what I'm trying to convey. I'd like to think we as civilized people are past that point. You take shortcuts, you lose. Besides, what good is all that desert out there if there's no one living in it, and don't say oil as 1. People are worth more than oil and 2. do you really think that even if all the locals were gone any other nation would let us just take the oil? On the other hand, one could also consider the war on terror a religious war in this sense: It is a war against an ideal. What is relgion but a set of beliefs and ideals. With this war we fight the ideal or belief that one can and should use fear and destruction to cause a revolution. Thankyou for that idea.

A little over a week ago, I was having a nice polite discussion with a co-worker of mine concerning our religious beliefs. He made the comment that he was not a fan of organized religion as he attributed most of our wars, deaths and other attrocities to it. While I didn't go into great arguement on the subject (I had no intention of a religious debate in the work place) I did politely give my opinion on the matter. Since then I have thought on the subject, and I'd like to put out some of my points and ideas so that y'all can debate them, tear them apart, misconstrue them, twist them, take them on to wild tangeants, or maybe even support them. Here we go: 1. A detailed look at Christian Doctrine (I really don't have the knowledge to speak for any other faith at the moment, although those who do please do make yourselves heard) shows no basis, encouragement, or condonement for any of the attrocities commited in the name of God. I know full well that they still happened, but I have yet to know of any faith that could truly control it's people, just as I have yet to know of any one, religious or not, who completely lives up to their own ideals or beliefs. 2. While religion definitely does have a disturbing tendancy to become involved in war, I don't believe it to be the root of war. Rather I see it as a corrupt political leader's pathetic excuse, or occasionally their manipulative motivational tool (I also count in this religions leaders with political power). I see this as the case with the Crusade, where you have christian kings and rulers fighting for land that has been fought over for far longer that Islam or Christianity have been upon the earth, all the while telling their devout subjects that it was God's will and using faith and devotion (both good qualities) for evil purposes. I would like to point out that this sort of exploitation is no longer an issue in either of our nations as we have come to the enlightened idea that our religious leaders should not also be our political leaders. Thus, we see a certain lack of holy wars or inquisitions in the western world today. I further point out that religion has also been used for positive purposes in war. In the American Revolution, men fought and died believing that God entitled men and women to certain rights, and brought us beautiful democracy because of it. One cannot really separate religion from this. After all, what greater basis can one give to the belief that all men are created equal. 3. Now this last comment may ruffle some feathers, but it seems to me that Atheism is no Saint in this matter either. In the regimes of both Stalin and Hitler we do not see one faith preying upon another, but rather the lack of faith persecuting those of various religions and religion related cultures, among others. I'm not sure, but I can't really think of any other single body counts that really top those. Quite frankly, I'm tired of people condemning western religion for war. It's no longer an issue in the western world. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of you who want to argue with this. Please, be my guest.

Does it occur to anyone that they may just be waiting for us to let our guard down? Bin Laden was out and about blowing up embassys long before 9/11. It was only after that that a crusade against terrorism was put together. I'm willing to bet the moment we blow off terrorism as nonexistant, they'll hit us again. It also is quite possible that, despite whatever they may say too us, it may be that they really don't want to try anything like that and once again stir up the sleeping giant. The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq are not necessarily popular in the western world, but that could change with another large attack. They may have a few politically bright people who know how to work with public oppinion in their own countries as well as in ours. On the other hand, maybe they don't like the results of the 9/11 attacks. The wars probably put a lot of pressure on their organizations, that and they now have 2 Islamic countries which have been invaded by western forces with western ideas introduced, or at least attempts at such. The Terrorists can't be happy about this. Either way, my point is, they probably want to lay low right now as far as we are concerned, at least for now. That could very easily change.

Anyones religious beliefs have a huge impact on their morality, on how they view right or wrong. Would you ask any man or woman to endorse or encourage something they believe to be wrong? Do you consider that to be right? I doubt it, and as such, you probaby won't. We vote based off what we believe represents us. That's the beauty of it. I can vote against abortion representing myself, and if if this sad sick world votes against me, than they can have their abortion, and while I won't be happy about it, they will have made their choice. On the other hand, if enough people agree with me, and that represents the majority of the people, than my side will win. It's the beauty of modern government. We don't have a few people lording over many who disagree with them.

Must we whine. It is the duy of any religious leader to represent their God, and if you don't believe in Him, at least their beliefs, and speak against practices that they consider to be immoral. In doing so, they invoke the same right that all y'all liberals use in criticizing him for it. What has been said has been said. Why on earth should you care, unless he happens too inspire a bit of guilt. People will say what they will. It has been correctly pointed out that we are not in a theocracy, and as such, what the pope says is not politically relevant. He has the right to say what he will, just as you do, and those who wish to listen will listen. If you don't like it, fine. Please spare us the whining though.

Wow, this has definitely gone a little off track. Actually, Rev., thank you for your question (which put us back on track significantly). I'm going to try to answer your question as best I can. My idea of the traditional family (it's pretty close to that of others) involves a mother and a father, and if they are there yet, children. However, this is less important than the attitude of the care-taker/parent. That first part is important as gender roles are concerned in my oppinion, as women in general (not always, but usually) have some talents that men do not (that quite often I wish I had), such as quite often being more sensitive, kind, and more patient (important for raising children). Men quite often have the more stern hand, and also can make excellent role-models (isn't it really cool when you see a little boy who wants to be just like his dad). Honestly, I could hardly care less about working circumstances. Both my parents had to work (they had a dozen mouths to feed). I think that it can work if either or both parents works as needed. Like I said, the more important aspect of the traditional family is the attitude of the parent. Both parents, no matter how big of a career they have, no matter what their circumstance is need to remember that the most important work that they do is in the walls of their very own home. They need to realize that it is more important to build relationships with their spouse and children, that they need to make sure they raise their children well. I firmly believe that this would solve a great deal of problems, especially if children know right and wrong at a young age. Now, I learned these things about the family at church, but I've actually been around enough to see that it's true. I have my own knowledge of this. A testimony of it if you will, and I know that it's true, and I'll stand as a witness of it in any court in this world or the next. I don't expect you to take my word for it though. People need to know these things for themselves, so I encourage you to seek this knowledge.

Never seen Chariots of the Gods. I doubt the Bible says anything about ET. At least never read anything about it, and I make it a point to study my scriptures very thouroghly. Look Digby, I'm not sure about all that you say about Canada and America, New Zealand, etc. I've actually got my own beliefs about those passages about Jacob, Ephraim and Manasseh. However there are two things that I do believe that may line up with what you say. #1. The Scriptures can definitely tell us things about the future, regardless of place and time (If God knows all things, why wouldn't he know of a our lands, even if his Prophets didn't always understand what he is talking about). Those who don't believe this need only have patience. #2. The Scriptures can have a profound effect on our lives when we apply them to our own lives. Go ahead with your beliefs, pray about them for confirmation, and live your life by what you learn, and keep your heart and mind open for what you may be taught.

Ah, but what if the religious institution has a good idea about how things could be done. Take for instance, DAC made an excellent point about the whole keeping the Sabbath day holy commandment (which once again you did not respond too), and how that could be implemented in a safe, non-exclusionary way. I wouldn't mind seeing that. Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, that post before hand which I was refering too did not address any of his points either. At any rate, religion can definitely bring some good ideas to the table, and they shouldn't be disregarded just because they came from religion.

Ok, aside from the fact that the number of traditional families is dropping (which is no proof of what you say at all), what evidence do you have that they have outlived their usefullness? They're still the only way I want my children raised. Shouldn't every child get both a Father and a Mother? Most kids who don't have both usually wish they did, no? It's just the best way for kids to be raised IMHO, and as kids are the future, I'm taking a little interrest, along with my own concerns for my family.

The traditional family's are on the drop, and I'd like to know 2 things. Why? What can we do about it? They've worked great for thousands of years now, why are we having so much trouble keeping them now? How can we fix this? How can we stop this? I have some of my own ideas, but I'd like to hear yours first.

Interresting post Rev. Care to answer his question, at all? I didn't notice him trying to "force you to his religious tenets" at all. He just put up an excellent arguement, which you didn't respond to at all. My views, we shouldn't necessarily make religious doctrine laws. It's not so much about political correctness to me. I've just seen way too many examples of how religious figures misuse political power. It's easy to manipulate folks when strong convictions (including religious ones) come into play. No religion is innocent in that matter. I think that living by religions is the best way to go, and I live whole-heartedly by mine, but it should be on the individual level, as not even those of the same faith agree on how to worship (there are at least 4 different baptist churches in my town, and none of them agree). So religious doctrine should not be made law. Now should we elect religious officials who have the strength that religion gives to morals and conviction. I think so, and that's where my vote's going anyway.

Thank you for getting us back on track Hugo. The next step here would be to find someone with power who would back this "hare-brained scheme." We've debated the issue, and I think we've settled it. So far only one against, and only one opposing arguement.