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.

Captain, I agree completely. We really ought to try to get over our differences. We don't only owe it to ourselves, but to our children, and to the rest of the world. By the way, I love your bacon, and you are welcome to the oranges.

Ok, you guys are officially freakin' me out, but that's ok. Any answers for my question? What would the gay community do if marriage wasn't so much a legal matter? I also like the idea of a wedding ring. Question, why is marriage a legal matter now in the first place. It's not like people are often prosecuted for adultry by the government unless it's in a divorce case, and that is a dispute between the husband and wife. Marriage is always between husband and wife.

Here's an old quote that I have no idea where it came from aside from one of my music professors back in college (it's about music, but I think it can apply to any other form of art): "When you give your soul to music (or writing, or drawing, or any other art), it kisses you back."

For me art is expression. My chosen forms of art are singing and poetry, and while yes, I can dazzle women by singing (they love the deep, low voice), that's not why I sing. I could probably very easily flatter a woman with poetry, but that's not why I write. There are times that it lifts my spirits, there are times that it vents my sadness. There are times that it voices my thoughts and emotions in a way words alone never could, and there are times that it is my ultimate prayer (music is my favorite form of worship). In my oppinion, every person should have some form of art in their life, something they can express themselves with. They need not be good at it. There are all kinds of art out there, and if properly used, all of them can touch the heart, and that is a powerful tool. Yes, there are plenty who use art for themselves, and there are plenty who it could seem the art uses them. I guess that's just a personal choice.

Captain, on this I do agree. The U.S. has declared itself, for better or worse, the policeman of the world. You don't make friends, and you better be able to back yourself up if you do that (thus the huge millitary). As for whether this is right or wrong, I am very much divided on this issue. On one hand it's a very proactive approach, in which the U.S. definitely makes a difference (something I deeply respect), and they are trying to make the world a better place (yes, we try to say that we are protecting our own interrests and that we do have our own reasons, but quite often we are meddling in order to do what we believe to be the best thing). On the other hand, they don't alway make such a positive difference, and one wonders where they got such authority. As I've stated earlier, I'm a citizen of the United States, and very much the nationalist, thus, I do not see myself as able to give an unbiased oppinion on the matter. I have no problems with Canada, and if they want to "piggy-back" off our millitary, they can go ahead, we have a little extra. I really see no need to compare the two countries. Now, if you want to talk about what the two can do for eachother, I'm all ears. P.S., I do apologize for exploding on that last post. I usually try to keep a level head, but this time I failed. I guess I don't take name calling well. yours truly, "the conceited American"

Hugo, I definitely like this idea. While I do like the tax benefits that marriages enjoy today, this would be fair, just, and in my oppinion, right. This is a social issue. Only recently (relatively speaking of course) has it become a political one, and IMHO, that was not a positive development. There is one thing I wonder about. As soon as marriages stop becoming a political issue, will homosexuals still want to enter into a marriage (they still won't be getting the legal benefits, but this will be fair as no one else will either), or will they just drop the issue and live together out of wedlock, or will they perhaps start pushing for religious institutions to start performing marriages for them, despite that there are very few (if any) religions that support homosexuality? Just a thought........

I mostly agree with both of you on this (a little more to Hugo's side, but that's just me). This said, I think the solution to this issue is far more a religious one. Capitalism has changed, but to change it back, we need to change the people. I believe that this is more of a job for a preacher than a politician. We could still have a capitalist society with charitable people, but first we need to convince the people of charity. Capitalism ensures ones right to life liberty and property, and those should not be taken away. Let's try to change people's minds instead, something that religion does quite well.

I think you all slightly missed my point. Blackdog, I can see a homosexual couple being caring and loving, but I have a lot more trouble seeing them as complimentary. Nature (or in my oppinion, God) made man and woman different for a reason. They were made different so that they could fulfill different roles in a family. I have trouble seeing two men trying to do this with a family. I have trouble seeing to women doing this with a family. By the way, my post about my family was simply to illustrate that the traditional family can and does work. It's not so much that I'm against homosexuality (I think it's wrong, but I also think that heterosexual sex with someone that you aren't married to is equally wrong, and quite frankly, I'm not at all interested in what anyone else does in bed, my beliefs of what is right and wrong are for me to follow, and if anyone believes the same as me, they should follow them as well). By the way, whether or not the two spinster aunts are screwing or not has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. There is a whole lot more to marriage than sex. Look, I do agree that we should cut the semantics. I do believe that marriage is between man and woman. It could change, but I really don't want to see the day that it does (that's just my oppinion). Oh, and Bushmustgo, if any of my siblings were to become gay, I would probably try to reason them out of it (mostly out for religious purposes). Everyone has the right to marry (marriage being defined as between man and woman, husband and wife). Even a gay could do it. Everyone has the right to have sex with whomever they wish, in or out of wedlock. To me, gay marriage is gays wanting a special exception to the laws of marriage. That's my point of view anyway. More political correctness.

This statement makes absoultely no sense. capitalists cooperate becaus ethey compete? huh? I'm not entirely sure what he's saying either (socialists aren't the only one's bad at math, I hate it!) but I will say this much. I can see how a capitalist politician could be more cooperative. They contribute more becaue they constantly have to keep public support. They donate to charities and the like to keep the goodwill of the people. It ultimately has a selfish end to it, but you can't argue with the results. The beauty of the captitalist republican system. Our leaders have to work to please us or we will probably vote them out of office.

If you have some evidence to back this statement up, by all means, produce it. Otherwise, that's not a fact, but simply your opinion. You know, your polygamous jests aside, that's probably the best arguement I've seen against mine, however I'm going to disagree. The rise of non-traditional families is the result of people forgetting what marriage is truly about. They forget that they are supposed to work through their differences and conflicts (if people would actually do this there would be less divorce). By the way, marriage is far more than a sexual contract. Please read the post just above your own. It's worked quite well in the past (it's been around long enough, surviving for, oh, thousands of years). It has been limiting on women in the past, but that wasn't as much marriage as it was just the rights of the time (an unmarried woman was actually quite at a disadvantage, especially as far working with other women was concerned). Both my parents came from broken homes. They got by easily enough, but because of their experiences, they both decided that they didn't want to put me or my siblings through that kind of life. They decided to work together on their problems. They fight, like any married couple does, but they always have apologized and never have they let things get out of hand. They work hard to keep the marriage strong (yes, a marriage takes work, and a lot of it). They have been married for..... well, I'm not going to emarass them showing how long they've been together, but it's long enought that they are worried about it showing their age. They are the happy parents of 10 children of which I am the eldest (so don't even think that their marriage has been easy), and you know what, I've never seen a happier family. In case you were thinking that my mother is getting the short end of the stick here, my parents both work when they have to, and my father has picked up some of the slack at the house so that my mother could continue her education, (oddly enough, my father can get the whole house clean a lot faster than my mom can, as he usually drafts my younger siblings to help). I use their marriage as a model of what I want in mine. Do I think that my parents are special because of this? Nope, not really. They just chose very carefully who they would marry (someone who they loved first and foremost, but also of only slightly less important was making sure they could work together, making sure that they were strong enough to forgive eachother, etc. etc.). They made sure that they made their marriage important, and thus they made it work. Oh, if you'd like proof that those of broken homes prefer traditional homes, I'll work to get you some figures on it, but in the mean time, ask my parents, or in fact, ask anyone from a broken home. Ask a kid who has divorced parents or who has a dead parent. Ask a single mother trying to raise her family. I'm willing to bet that the answers will be in my favor.