The Mythical Man-Meat

I was awoken from blessèd dreams of Joseph and Mary by a quiet murmur emanating from Sister Judith's chamber across the hallway. Curious, I silently arose and crept down the hall. The murmuring grew in volume as I approached the door to Judith's chamber, and I could soon discern the voices of several Sisters whispering and giggling. As I nudged the door open, I was surprised to find that nearly all the convent had convened within! Judith and the other Sisters stood transfixed over a dusty tome, upon the spine of which stood in austere lettering the words "Gray's Anatomy". Wondering what could be so alluring in such a Christian and noble-sounding book, I naïvely walked forth to look at the open page...

...and was greeted by the sight of an enormous phallus.

I nearly fainted with shock. Was this audaciously ascetic convent truly such a den of depravity? Had my twenty-year tenure of chastity and devotion to the Church all been forsaken? The demonic diagram seemed to slither off the page, its serpentine form teasing me, much as the snake must have tempted Eve to taste of the Tree of Knowledge. Had I been cursed to rot in Hell for viewing a man's verboten venereal region?

Then suddenly, praise the LORD, I was enlightened. I would not rot in Hell for tasting the forbidden fruit. For the very idea that such vulgar anatomy could be part of every God-made male on Earth is absolutely preposterous. Furthermore, that such nonsense could even be published is a damnable affront to everything the Christian religion stands for.

As I tore the blasphemous book from Judith's startled hands, the LORD populated my mind with His unlimited knowledge. Yea, a God as loving and wise as He would never think to deform Mankind with such absurd organs as the so-called "penis" and "testes". The disadvantages such anatomy would inflict upon their bearer are too crackpot to consider:

Vulnerability. To have one's seed so exposed would provide an easy target for would-be assailants. The LORD has sworn to protect His followers, and would not bestow such a thick, fat, throbbing Achilles' heel upon those in His image.
Blasphemy. God has cursed the serpent to drag his belly on the ground for leading Mankind into temptation and sin. The flexuous form presented in Mr. Gray's, book, placed so obviously near two "apples", cannot be taken as anything other than a sick practical joke on his part. It is bewildering why Gray would feel the need to profane God's word with such poor taste.
Discomfort. After the brief debacle with Church-mandated chastity belts a few years ago, I cannot bear the idea of having mass between my legs, and I am sure my fellow Sisters would agree with me in this respect. Having so many inches of rock-hard manflesh between one's legs for the whole long duration of one's life would be a torture no loving God would inflict, except perhaps upon His enemies.

There is no evidence to support the idea that any of God's creatures have anything more than a few svelte folds of flesh to fill their venereal region. The pigeons which roost within my chamber window, both man and woman, do not have a penis. The serpent which slithers through my herb garden, no matter how vile he may be in the eyes of the LORD, does not have a penis. I have never taken the time to look, but I am fairly sure that my puppy, named Shaft, does not have a penis. Why would the LORD single out Mankind, the most beloved of His Creations, to bear the weight of this ball and chain? He would not, for He created Man in his image, and surely a rational God would not carry around such needless baggage with Himself.

Throughout history, phallus worship has been strictly the realm of Pagan and Liberal ceremony. One must wonder why all this cock-waving suddenly disappeared with the emergence of the One True Church. It is obvious that the existence of this organ is nothing more than a fabrication of the ignorant idol-worshipping Barbarians who lived before Christ's time. In fact, it is highly likely that this blatant falsehood brought forth the wrath of God upon the debaucherous denizens of Pompeii, and eventually upon all of the once-mighty Roman Empire. Unfortunately, some ignorant folk still choose to propagate this dangerous myth today, mainly mindless hippies and eco-freaks educated stupid by their excessive "open-mindedness" and pseudoscientific quackery, most of which has no basis in reality.

A cursory search of the old newspapers and gazettes I have collected over the years only calls forth a few cursory incidents involving the penis. However, practically all these instances involve the forced removal of the misbegotten member, suggesting that there are a few unfortunate souls may have indeed been given the black gift of this dark meat. One can only assume that these isolated incidents are the result of freak mutations caused by the ever-increasing adoption of nuclear power and other technologies which forsake God's will. In a world which feared and loved God, and duly cast out all heretics, no man or woman would be cursed to carry this abominable weight with them.

	Sigh. Jokes aside: (none / 0) (#4)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 01:06:35 PM PST

	I realize that your article is a sad little attempt at humor, but to inject a little bit of Christian values into your liberalist orgy: Sex isn't bad in-and-of-itself -- as usual, it's how you use it. There is nothing sinful in copulation of animals, or in marital relations[1]. The problem is when sex becomes a value and a need for its own sake. The same can be said of most worldly things, though -- for example, eating food just because you like the taste of food is a deadly sin. It is called gluttony. Abstinence from sex is not a fundamental Christian value; rather, it is way to exercise extreme control over your bodily functions. Those who pledge abstinence from sex usually also pledge abstinence from things like proper food and sleep, proper housing, proper clothing, etc. It is a form of ascetism. Why is it that it is viewed as honarable for hindu or buddhist gurus to abstain from sex, but when Christian monks do so, they are considered horribly vile and anti-humanist? Again, I'll reiterate the most important point here: sex becomes a problem when your life starts to revolve around it. As long as you keep sex down to a bodily function, without endowing it with mystical powers, you are doing fine. However, most Americans are positively insane when it comes to sex -- for most, it is the most important thing in their life. That is the problem. Do you see what I am saying? [1] According to Christian doctrine, raising a family in Christian spirit is a heroic deed comparable to those of the monastic lifestyle. Keeping your marital relations chaste is extemely hard. -- Peace and much love...

	the pope (none / 0) (#5)
	by dirty monkey man on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 02:21:27 PM PST

	good thing you said christian and not catholic because i have the pope on speed dial. one furtive stab with my fat sausage finger and that 1980's see-through neon phone next to the pope's desk would start ringing. ten minutes later you'd hear the helicopters. but anyway to us catholics if you're having sex without trying to make babies then you are bad and god is going to get you. end of story, new-agey bullshit artists need not apply, thank you very much. (and yes, that article was a yawn, although i did enjoy that picture of the clitoris. now i'll definitely find that fucker)

	Speaking as a Catholic, you are wrong (none / 0) (#8)
	by Adam Rightmann on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 11:05:21 AM PST

	Sex is meant to be pleasurable for the husband and the wife, it provides a shared pleasure and strengthens their union. Conception is a miraclous gift from God, and interfering with this via chemical or barriers methods is asin (though NFP is okaym I guess). Once a couple is no longer fertile (though remember Abraham and Sarah) andthey've had their 8 kids, they can continue to enjoy sex even if their odds of procreating is slim. Marriage and raising children is a awesome, ardous resonsibility as tkatchev indicated, let's not make it harder. A. Rightmann

	nope (none / 0) (#9)
	by dirty monkey man on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 01:00:36 AM PST

	sorry i forgot to mention the escape clause for the elderly and the infertile. i said if you're having sex, you should be trying to make babies. you said you can have sex, but you can't try not to have babies. newsflash - sex makes babies, that shit your mother told you about storks and love and stuff was total bullshit. but i find the distinction you made asinine. next time i want a drink, instead of getting a drink and drinking it, i'll just pour some scotch down my throat and swallow, and if that happens to count as a drink than i guess i'll have had a drink. and i fail to understand the relevence of abraham lincoln here, unless you are making some bizarre double entendre on 'four score' - if that's the case, knock it off wiseguy. boy if marriage and raising children is sooooo hard, i'm suprised that everybody does it. usually the really really hard things aren't that popular, like being a neurosurgeon or winning a strongman contest. just my .02

	Catholic? (none / 0) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 01:52:46 AM PST

	So, you are Catholic, but you have never read the Bible? Have I called your bluff? Here's a newsflash for your liberalist-addled brain: A normal, biological human cannot have sex without having babies. This is why almost everybody has children, even though it is usually one of the most difficult things you do in life. I understand that the liberalist creed is to create a perfect utopia through the destruction of mankind, but this is exactly why you shouldn't have sex without having children. If people had a choice, most would just hedonistically stuff themselves on sex and drugs, not caring one whit about the future generation. In fact, you can already see this happening in the bastion of liberalist ideology -- the U.S. -- Peace and much love...

	what is ideology? (none / 0) (#11)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 04:19:49 AM PST

	The contradict is what I am bringing to what you say. Sex for babies is free. Guiltless. If I were going to have a sex, I would acquire it with Lezbo Hitler. And then we would start detergent company! philipm: lets start a cleaning company philipm: and make a detergent called philipm: "ethnic cleanser" philipm: what do you think? Lezbo Hitler: I'm ok with that. Lezbo Hitler: Does it make you whiter when you scrub ? --philipm

	Khm? (none / 0) (#12)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 05:36:02 AM PST

	Do your plans for Global Fascism include the ethnic cleansing of all articles and verb agreement? -- Peace and much love...

	soon (none / 0) (#19)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 07:28:01 PM PST

	As soon as we have wild catholic liberal sex with many donkeys. --philipm

	cast not the first stone you jackass (none / 0) (#15)
	by dirty monkey man on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 11:58:59 AM PST

	i am resoundingly, overwhelmingly catholic. if the pope gave out prizes for devoutness, i'd have to build an addition onto my house just to hold all that crap. but to answer your question, no i haven't read the bible. see, i work for a living, and don't really have the time to burn to read ancient documents of marginal relevence. no, i just do what my priest tells me and what my conscience tells tells me, and i call it a spiritual day. but to tell you the truth i don't know what the hell point you are making anyway here. see, i was arguing with that other guy, and my position was that when us catholics put our freak on, babies should result. which you seem to agree with. and having babies is not difficult. like you said, everybody does it. try winning a rodeo, or getting in the olympics, or making a robot from scratch - see, that stuff is hard. the stuff that everyone can do (like eating, breathing, reproducing, and excreting) isn't difficult at all. for you to say so is an embarassment to your people. and speaking of your people, i don't know what backwards country you crawled out of, but let me say that i am 100% surprised that they have computers there. see, in america, we worry about things like overpopulation and poverty so we practice birth control and/or abstinance. idealogically, most americans feel that the number of kids you have should be astronomically less than the number of times you've managed to clumsily penetrate your wife. plus, who the hell wants 10 kids anyway? i didn't buy a house on a nice 2-acre secluded lot just so i can get busy fucking and crowding the place with babies. no sirree bob. see, i've been to india and i'll just pass on the whole teeming hordes and abject poverty and gutters full of human feces scene, thank you very much. and since you've decided to take a crack at the US, let me just say that whatever country you happen to be from, america could very easily do the geo-political equivalent of punching a hole in your country's chest and strutting around the corpse while kissing its own muscles. no problem at all.

	I am calling your bluff. (none / 0) (#16)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 12:21:13 PM PST

	Trolling is not allowed on this site. If I was an editor, I would ban your IP for this flagrant abuse of adequacy; I can only fervently hope that the wisdom of the editors can see through your obscene disguise. Please stop. Consider yourself warned. -- Peace and much love...

	oh my (none / 0) (#26)
	by philipm on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 05:54:36 AM PST

	Dear God. That guy who said "It is better to keep silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" was a genius. 2) Yes, its called talking. T . A . L . K . I . N . G You know - communicating - interacting - listening to one another? Humph 3) Ummmm. How many third parties have to notice something about you before it becomes "true". Haven't you crossed the Catholic Fault Threshold? 4) Being raised to think 80% of people are idiots is one small step away from fascism and communism. Someone should find your parents and beat them. 5) This is the internet. There are other people here that have feelings. --philipm

	Liberalism == Fascism?? (none / 0) (#14)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 10:21:42 AM PST

	Absolutely nothing in this world is "strictly forbidden". No matter what you do, no matter how heinous a crime you commit, in the end, you'll end up in a grave like the rest of us. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the state of your immortal soul. Obviuosly, doing something for "personal pleasure" is harmful to your immortal soul. Even the buddhists and hindus agree with this. The exact amount of damage, and even the proposition that harm to the immoral soul can be measured, are topics for discussion. Christian doctrine holds that the state of a person's immortal soul is a strictly personal issue between every individual and God. This is why, to a Christian, it really doesn't matter how much "sins" you commit -- ultimately, the only thing that matters is that you confess your sins to the final arbiter: God. Which is why it is better to commit a relatively "large" sin and visit church regularly and confess, rather than to commit "small" sins and be an atheist. (Again, I must emphasize that whether a sin is "large" or "small" is a strictly personal matter between you and God.) -- Peace and much love...

	to expand: (none / 0) (#23)
	by nathan on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 09:46:35 PM PST

	A lot of liberalists love to use "taking responsibility" to hide themselves from taking responsibility. Space5ish, for instance, feels that by admitting that he's a flawed, imperfect human being, he's "taken responsibility" and is thus free to go on with his life. This has nothing to do with genuine responsibility - or, I would say, culpability - for one's actions. It's the classic liberalist moral license: "Everyone's just as bad, so don't go judging me, d00d."[1] Taking responsibility means that, rather than make excuses for yourself, you change your wretched life because you're so horrified by your own potential for evil. You don't even have to be religious to do this. You just have to actually feel the weight of the bad things you've done, and rather than fleeing into the two extremes of hysterical despairing remorse or moral relativism, to make the positive decision to change your ways. You have to acknowledge the horror of what you've done, then choose to change it. It doesn't need to be public. I am a Christian and I believe that we have all fallen short of the grace of God, but that is the philosophical stance. I'm convinced that every one of us has lied, acted cruelly, been coarsely selfish in ways later regretted; if you honestly feel you haven't, fine, I won't argue. The point is, if you have done something wrong and regretted it, you must then try to fight that within yourself that led you to do it. That's the first principle of taking responsibility. By the way, this is an explicitly ecumenical formulation. It works at it stands for Buddhism, for example. [1] If my learned friend were another fellow, I'd have said "don't 'harsh my buzz,' d00d," instead, because it's so much fun to say. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Taking responsibility (none / 0) (#24)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 03:43:04 AM PST

	Who says that by taking responsibility for my own faults and errors that I don't take steps to attempt to correct them and, as you put it, change my wretched life? Agreed, I didn't go so far as to say that, and perhaps I should. At this point I suppose that I take it as given that life is a continual work in progress. I am constantly examining and testing myself, my beliefs and my actions to see what passes the test of time, experience and challenge. That which I am ashamed of, I note and attempt to change. Whether or not this is a "liberalist moral license," I consider it far more honest and effective than the catchism of confession and penance of "hail marys." It doesn't just make a show of repentence and change, it takes steps to achieve it. I observe a lot of "ethical" people who use the dogma of their religion to "forgive" their sins without actually attempting to correct them. A troll's true colors.

	oooh no (none / 0) (#17)
	by dirty monkey man on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 02:37:53 PM PST

	yes, and if i was bill gates i'd buy a jet and fly over the cities of the world dropping candy. interesting, but hardly relevant. also interesting is the way that you come out attacking me personally when i wasn't even talking to you, and then when i respond in turn, all of a sudden you are crying foul and trying to invoke censorship. nice way to argue, must be a nonstop party around you, pal. shhheeesh! anyway if by "your obscene disguise" you mean my choice of handle, well all i can say is that i chose it because it describes who i am (sci-catholic) in a provocative way. and i reserve the right to express myself, no matter what site i'm on. in closing, thanks for the warning. but you can take that, and your nauseating use of the word 'please', and put them both up on your mantel next to your nazi youth trophies. bon jour

	hmmmm, maybe you should listen to your betters (none / 0) (#20)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 07:31:23 PM PST

	Dude, he was completely right. Your incoherent catholic liberal tinged hatred and your wild unpatriotic communist attitude stands out like a sore thumb. --philipm

	maybe <I>you</I> should listen to my A (none / 0) (#21)
	by dirty monkey man on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 08:08:48 PM PST

	Dude, he was completely right. Your incoherent catholic liberal tinged hatred and your wild unpatriotic communist attitude stands out like a sore thumb. several points spring to mind: 1) since you're probably not tommy chong, let me just point out that saying "dude" is not cool and hasn't been for some time. take my advice and put this one away alongside "groovy" and "far out". 2) "incoherent catholic liberal tinged hatred" is just a bunch of words you somehow strung together that don't have anything to do with anything. and while i do hate nonsense and those who spout it, that has nothing to do with my religion or politics. 3) "wild unpatriotic communist attitude" doesn't make any sense either. i love this country. i have two america-themed tattoos on my body, so don't accuse me of being red. 4) i was raised to believe that standing out is a good thing, since wherever you go at least 80% of everyone else are idiots. those who excel and stand head-and-shoulders above the rest, stand out by definition. 5) now butt out of this thread you attention-starved weasel.

	question (none / 0) (#13)
	by kubalaa on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 09:25:18 AM PST

	Based on your comment, I'm not clear on the following: is it allowed to do things for enjoyment, provided that they do not dominate your life? Or are all activities done strictly for pleasure forbidden?

	Get Out of Hell Free Card (none / 0) (#18)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 06:21:46 PM PST

	Welcome to my primary problem with people's attitudes toward religion. The "Get Out of Hell Free Card." The idea that you can do what you want so long as you follow the rote prescribed by your religion, you're okay. The intent is one thing, but the execution rarely lives up to the ideal. More often than not, I encounter religious individuals (I shan't name names; various users and several Editors would be annoyed if I did) with the attitude that they're right and I'm wrong simply because they're covered by their religious dogma. Morality is less important than their dogma. Therefore, no matter how gross the violation of their own professed code of ethics, they're safe because they can always make up for it. Pure and utter bullshit. The best morality is to not put yourself in a position where you need to make up for something. Certainly there's no such thing as a perfect human, but neither is there a perfect religion or morality. Human religions are made up of human rules interpreted as "divine guidance" and used to justify all sorts of immoral behavior from name-calling to "ethnic cleansing." If you do something wrong, admit it. Live with the responsibility for it. Don't white-wash it with the excuse that you sinned but you confessed and did your penance. I'll lay heavy odds that people who live like this end up confessing the same sins over and over again. Why? Because their religion tells them they're covered. I am not perfect. I am not sinless, faultless or blameless. I'm also not right all the time. I simply don't make excuses for my faults. A troll's true colors.

	Hell is not a place. (none / 0) (#22)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 08:29:25 PM PST

	"Hell" is not a place. It is a state of your soul -- namely, the state of lack of communion with God. SO, in fact, you cannot "get out of hell free". To "get out of hell", you need to change to state of your soul -- which is never easy. -- Peace and much love...

	moral licenses (none / 0) (#27)
	by nathan on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 10:20:29 AM PST

	People who use religion to excuse their evil behaviour are reprehensible. You have not shown that there are more reprehensible religious people than there are evil secularists. Stop talking out of your ass. You've have assumed what you were claiming to prove. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Statistics (none / 0) (#28)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 01:20:00 PM PST

	Well, this is a lovely scenario. Proof I offer is usually considered a "liberal trap" but simply discussing my opinions lead to requirements for proof. Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't expect any better. I could go into a discussion of how many people believe in God or some sort of higher deity, but that wouldn't constitute any proof. I could go into how many of those deity-worshiping individuals follow a religion of choice. That also wouldn't provide any proof of my statement. I've already stated that the frequency of individuals abusing religion as opposed to secular morality is my observation; I did not claim to be quoting an academic study. All I can offer is what I have observed over the past thirty years in a cross-section of the population of the United States, and now Australia. My observation is that the majority of the self-professing "moral" individuals who use religion to get away with shameful behavior outnumber those who use religion to legitimately improve themselves. By way of comparison, the number of "evil secularists" who espouse their own simple morality are also outnumbered by those who do what they want at the expense of their fellow man. However, I find that the majority of "evil secularists" I know simply want to live and let live without doing or receiving harm from anyone. Those who choose to give selflessly of their time and effort to support those less fortunate do so not for "spiritual cookies" to rack up points with their favored deity, but do so out of the simple conviction that it's the right thing to do. As stated, I am not perfect. I am a typical flawed human being. The only point I choose to make is that I find it refreshing to be honest about my mistakes and failures rather than pass them off as "forgiven" through the agency of religious catechism. In owning up to my faults, I find more motivation in correcting them than I do of most individuals I meet who expect God to let them off for going through the motions. A troll's true colors.

	you are not Job (none / 0) (#29)
	by nathan on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 02:11:43 PM PST

	For pity's sake get off the cross, Fish. I find it refreshing to be honest about my mistakes and failures rather than pass them off as "forgiven" through the agency of religious catechism... That is exactly what I meant by assuming what you want to prove. Don't you think you'd object to my stating that "I find it refreshingly honest to admit having committed grievous faults rather than passing them off with moral relativism?" What you have assumed, and what I object to, is that religion is "for" forgiveness. Religion is "for" introspection, as even the most cursory inspection would reveal. Your liberalist obsession with "proof" through science is revealing. You should know at your age that "scientific studies" are incapable of proving anything. I didn't ask you to cite a study, I asked you to make an argument. When pinned down, you're forced to resort to anecdotes and to denying my principles. Instead of assuming I'm stupid, I want you to try to understand why I disagree with you. Try it! Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Let me see (none / 0) (#31)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 05:20:42 PM PST

	you confessing your sins if it makes you feel better. My observation is based on a p I made a statement based on my own personal observations and interpretations which you found objectionable. You then felt compelled to either dispute or (if indisputable) ridicule the statement based on your personal convictions. Did I miss anything? I have no objection to eople who confess their sins and feel better about themselves for having done so, then do nothing to actually correct the behavior or make amends for their transgressions. They then go through the cycle of transgression, confession and repeated transgression, feeling no real remorse or responsibility. Why should they? They're morally superior for having followed the rote of their religion. Not everyone is like this. Some people use confession to get the process of redemption started, and this is a good thing. Whatever bakes your cake. I have no problem with people like this. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that a lot of religious individuals are somewhat lacking in morals because they feel that somehow superior to the rest of the human race. Why change yourself when it's the rest of the world doomed to hell for their sins? My "moral relativism" may not agree with your ethics, but I won't apologize for that. I would rather wrestle with an ethical dilemma than deliberately harm or oppress someone else for not agreeing with my concept of truth. You and I disagree with each other, and no harm comes of disagreement and debate. I point out that I have faults and flaws not to play the part of Job, but to point out that I am no better than you or anyone else; I merely have a different perspective that satisfies my needs. There is no perfect truth or path, nothing that allows us to overcome our human frailties. Show me a single person who perfectly keeps the Ten Commandments passed down by Moses, and I'll show you someone who is seriously self-deluded. My observations and objections are based on how people abuse the truths they cling to, not the faults within the truths themselves. I don't believe in the holiness of the Virgin Mary or the sainthood of Peter and the gang. You will not hear me ridiculing any religion that does. It's the people who claim moral righteousness while behaving immorally that I refer to. Unlike them, I accept that neither my philosophy nor myself are perfect, and are therefore in constant need of examination and repair. Just like everyone else. A troll's true colors.

	my last post in this thread (none / 0) (#32)
	by nathan on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 05:50:28 PM PST

	I made a statement based on my own personal observations and interpretations which you found objectionable. You then felt compelled to either dispute or (if indisputable) ridicule the statement based on your personal convictions. Did I miss anything? Yes, you missed the part where you make a dangerous leap of logic, backing it with scanty arguments (occasionally, with nothing at all.) Your assertion was of the superiority of the non-religious viewpoint in matters of morals. I certainly did disupte that. When asked to back it up, your answer was that "both religious people and liberalist atheists fail their principles, but in my experience, religious people delude themselves about having solved the problem. They think because they do what their religion says to do, they've made amends, but that's actually how they hide from having to change." Having clarified your argument for you, I will now poke the hole in it that's been tripping you up throughout this whole pointless exchange. Hidden in your argument is the assumption that religion is primarily a flight from reality and responsibility. All you can offer is the feeble excuse that, in your experience, religious people are really like that. As your experiences are not open to debate, this closes any further lines of argument - and as your interpretations of your own experiences are necessarily skewed by your prejudices and your philosophies (just as are mine and everyone's,) it would be no argument even were your experiences available to everyone. If you want to argue that religion is primarily a flight from responsibility, open a new thread; I would suggest posting an article, as it would certainly be controversial. Don't sneak your prejudices in through the back door. Nathan PS - concerning my quotation of you above: you ought to substitute that for which, next time, in order to seem less miseducated. -N -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Religious failings (none / 0) (#33)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 06:06:22 PM PST

	Hidden in your argument is the assumption that religion is primarily a flight from reality and responsibility. As much as I hate to argue semantics, this assumption is not hidden within my argument. It is distinctly negated. You have successfully interpreted part of my argument while missing the whole. My observations and objections are based on how people abuse the truths they cling to, not the faults within the truths themselves. Another way of saying this might be that it is not religion that I object to, but the way people abuse their religion to justify their own immoral or selfish behavior. I do not object to people who can use religion as a helpful moral guideline, using it to improve themselves and their interactions with other people. I consider spirituality to be a deeply personal experience, and religion a guide for that experience. While you may object to my observations and the fact that they are purely subjective, I haven't heard any counter-claims. All I've heard is condemnation for pointing out a heretical and secular observation. I would write up an article on the need to evolve beyond religion, but I have too much experience with this site. Besides, my complaint can be summed up very simply: I do not object to religion in and of itself. I object to the myriad ways that religion is abused. It's akin to people who object to technology because of the way it gets abused. Being a Luddite is pointless; it's far more effective and reasonable to try to change the way people utilize technology than to ban technology itself. Lastly, I apologize for my use of "which" instead of "that." I frequently have a problem using the "passive voice" in writing, one of the flaws I'm still trying to change. A troll's true colors.

	umm, no (none / 0) (#30)
	by philipm on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 03:29:43 PM PST

	You are making leaps, my friend.... You are relying too much on your own interpretation of Christianity which would not match that of others. Christianity is not permissive, its attitudes about sex are not rational, and the clergy and congregation will forcibly forbid you from doing stuff. Think of it this way: A vicious mean troll, with no redeeming value, trolls on slashdot.org. You are hardworking and tolerant and attempt to rationalize the troll's motive and bring him into your worldview. Meanwhile, the troll is taking drugs, laughing with terrorists and commiting other low grade criminal activity. Also, the troll has secret cabals where he plans further trolling with fellow trolls. Who is it that you think cares about your rationalizations? Certainly not the troll.... It is a well known fact that most pastors are extremely poorly educated and would be violent criminals if they had not taken up sheepherding. Meanwhile, the sheep themselves are not nice, and it IS THEY who get to define what christianity really is. Don't project yourself on others. --philipm

	MERCY POST (none / 0) (#6)
	by legolas on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 06:12:48 PM PST

	-legolas

	Sad, pathetic, enough said (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:53:03 PM PST

	I AM a man, and I have one.

	Ignorance (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:00:10 PM PST

	This is actually quiet funny. The fact that you have been in a covnent since an early age is enough for you to be ignorant about the world outside of you. Yet if God had not made the penis he would not make the vagina and there would be no children. So since man is created in God's image, then he is in the shape of a woman as well. Despite what it says in Genesis. HOEDELIE!!! :D :D :D :p / .\ / .\ ( ) ( ) \ / v \ /