satori001

Good one, Jim. No, just click the link I added upon editing. You're too fast for me.

I've been accused of "mind-reading" from time to time. Here's a website that explains a little about how I do it. There's a book called "Blink" which explains a little more about it. It's easy to read minds. Try it. Some of you will like it, others won't. Don't ask me who, though. What am I, a mind-reader?

What was the question?

Are genetic and "spiritual" predestinations so different, in terms of one's individual identity?Fundamentalists do claim special "rites" - school prayer, for one. I believe they jes' can't he'p it either.

ex10, that's why I posted what I did. If she understands why people (not Christians, but people in general) discriminate, she can put it in the context of human nature. When we demystify human behavior (taking "free will" out of the equation), we can be a lot more tolerant.

Thanks. FYI, I've made a few additions and edits since your post for clarification.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Presumably, He created the spiritual realm as well. I believe He also created "free will." Therefore, either God made an imperfect world, or He made a world full of imperfect creatures, and gave them the wherewithal to behave imperfectly, and to suffer the consequences. Homosexuality is a dysfunction of Nature. Sexual desire is the combined result of genetic, neurological, hormonal, environmental and behavioral "imprints" each of us receives from conception forward. Or so you'd think. If you want to add "spiritual," you won't get any argument from me, but that is neither measurable, nor provable. The others, in some degree, are. Yet I wonder why it isn't just "hard-wired" into us. Why is this complex collaboration of independent factors, so susceptible to variation, necessary to define our sexual inclinations? Maybe it's just to keep things interesting. Human beings are, ourselves, a dysfunction of Nature also. The capacity to reason is not found anywhere (else) in Nature. It is only in man (and rare enough in man). Therefore we are genetic mutations, probably of the far more "functional" ape family. In this respect, homosexuality is a subset of the dysfunction called "humanity." Our more functional (instinctive) side is the collective impulse. We are driven to congregate, to gather and organize. The organizing principle throughout Nature is our commonality. Ducks flock and sheep herd, but you don't see ducks cohabiting with sheep. The other side of the commonality coin is differentiation, also known as, discrimination. It is natural to discriminate. It is natural to shun those who are different, and to embrace those who are the same... er, unless you're talking about sex, when it is "natural" to embrace our opposites. (I think "complement" is a better term than "opposite" when referring to the sexes, personally. Male and female are one another's complement -not compliment-, in that they complete one another in Nature's "plan." True, they "oppose" one another often enough, but only as part of finding their best complements.) Look at any community and you will see both principles at work. Gays congregate. There is a "gay community." But look closer at their "community" and there are divisions and subdivisions and sub-sub-divisions. Look at churches. Clubs. Any organization. The us/them principle is alive and well, within and without. Rather than saying "we must never discriminate," which is as realistic as saying "we must never eliminate," we should seek wise ground rules for discrimination, or differentiation. We must have the right to include, AND to exclude, because they are each an essential part of our nature. Our capacity to reason, and our inclusive side, should teach us to properly limit the exclusive side, without repressing it in unhealthy ways. As for Christians, they're just another tribe, practicing inclusion and exclusion, like gays and communists and Catholics and Republicans and cultists and sports fans and... To get along, we must learn to live both with, and without, each other.

Heil Mary. Pretty good.

Let's see what Benedict has to offer, shall we? I predict, status quo.

If you look around, you may also find a Cardinal who thinks it's okay to use a condom, if you know you have AIDS. And there are a few who say it's a tough call. The pope was way too busy over the past decades, condemning the drug companies (who were keeping his rotting carcass alive the last few weeks, one surmises), to publish an "encyclical," let alone any policy granting his followers "permission" to use condoms, thereby saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention all the suffering endured by victims and their families. Those evil drug companies!

Dateline: Vatican City, or wherever... One of the tough questions for death-merchants the world over is how to commit genocide without stirring up so much fuss you risk a good foot-whoopin' by the Americans. The Vatican's holiest have solved this problem by forgoing the pleasure of pulling the trigger themselves. In text-book perfect, passive-aggressive style, they simply misinform you to death. It works best among the ignorant, where the black and red robed cult can indulge themselves in the long, slow, and excruciatingly cruel death of millions. What makes it so effective is that an alarming number of idiots -the world over- accept the Vatican's misinformation as "holy doctrine," and not only doctrine, but "life-affirming" holy doctrine. Then again, if over-populating Heaven (as well as 3rd world ghettos), is God's ultimate goal, maybe "holy doctrine" it is. Here is the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0%2C7...59068%2C00.html Ironically, the Vatican condemns the only people who are offering any hope to those infected, the drug companies. "The children are dying because they don't have medicine." The Vatican calls the free-enterprise mechanism which CREATED the drugs "genocide," yet has little to say about prevention. Why would that be? Why not say, "The children are dying because unprotected sex is contributing to a goddam PLAGUE!!?" One wonders. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3442217.stm The (now expired) pope closed his condemnation by commanding the world to protect all children. He didn't specifically mention protecting children from horny priests, but maybe we should read between the lines. Not to be outdone, the "abstinence only" moral majority type crowd seems to agree on the Vatican's condom position. Well, you can't call yourself a "protestant" and not follow that which you protest. Human nature. How many lives would be saved if there weren't so much goddammed STUPIDITY committed in the name of God? One wonders. God only knows.

Yes but did the bells sound before or after the skirts were hoisted? Can we get a time-line?

It's kind of difficult to criticize someone and not look like an @$$ if you don't even know enough about him to know his name. Difficult for amateurs, but not if you're me. On the other hand, I did not criticize him, did I? I criticized Catholicism. The joke is one told by many Catholics, as re-told on NPR, and provided here by me as a public educational service. As you have proven on many occasions, PMosh, information is no antidote for dementia.

I'll have to check it when I buy my next shootin' arn.

The Vatican blows white smoke up the world's foot, after however many days of black smoke (and eons of generic smoke), and joy, joy, a new Pope emerges. Hide the Vaseline, kids! You don't want to get annointed by these guys. This guy is supposed to be a real bear on doctrine. A Catholic joke goes: Ratzenberger (Pope Benedict) and two theologians die and go to Heaven. The first theologian goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, he comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??" The second theologian goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, he comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??" Ratzenberger goes through the pearly gates to speak with God. A while later, God comes out crying, "How could I have been so wrong??" Is his name Ratzenberger? Something like that.

http://www.bensbargains.net/ Somewhere on Ben's site is a bulletin board (not the forum) and the comments are usually pretty funny. They're more like hecklers, but with occasionally good consumer advice. They will also tell you if the "bargain" ain't such a great deal after all. They're probably also mostly guys, so expect guy humor. Where do you on the web go to look for bargains? Allergy-sufferers, there's a "bargain" on the BOSCH BUC11700UC Cyclone Jet Vacuum Cleaner at J&R. Read about it at Ben's.

sharon, thanks.

Yeah, well I started the thread, so it IS my soap box. You've somehow arrived at the conclusion that I'm an apologist for Nazis. I'd expect that from PMosh, actually.

sharon, you have misinterpreted me. But suit yourself. You have something to say and this is your soapbox, apparently.

PMosh, it serves your purposes to accuse me of "attacking all Catholics." I have not done so. There are policies written and un-written. I'm sure it was an unwritten policy which guided Bishops and Cardinals to transfer active pedophiles from one parish to the next, but policy it WAS, and it was carried out by policy makers. Any decent Catholic would be disgusted and indignant. Many are, as seen by the dramatic decrease in contributions. I can't speak for your wife. I think it is just as vile to aid and tacitly abet a pedophile as to be one. Apparently you don't. I wouldn't expect you to, honestly. Consistent practice becomes virtual doctrine PMosh. If Catholics don't recognize that pedophilia (and other forms of abuse) are endemic to the Catholic church, then they are either ill-informed or to some degree complicit. I don't hate Catholics, but I see Catholicism for what it is. The world's biggest cult. Catholics are forced to become hypocrites, by the very nature of the institution. Like TWI, Catholicism monopolizes intercession between man and God. Believing Catholics (& Wayfers) have no conscious alternative. So they participate in what they may well know is evil, many hoping it will somehow end in good, and many others not caring one way or the other.

sharon, you seem to have misinterpreted my question and remarks. Reading them in the context of my prior posts might clarify. Speaking of burning flesh, were you ever in Emporia?

oldiesman is in good form, as usual.

Mark, your poll implies that Catholics are somehow monolithic, or perceived as such. In my view, the billion-plus practioners of Catholicism are comprised of all your choices (except the last, speaking for myself), and many more. You might give the poll more thought and better define what you want to learn, and then, determine the best question and choices to offer.

PMosh, I haven't twisted your words. They were already twisted. I've un-twisted them for you. From your twisted perspective, all things that are straight appear twisted. I can't help that. There are degrees of guilt and complicity. Not every Nazi was a member of the SS. Some were watch-makers, accountants, mechanics, scientists... Did they all commit genocide? Much of the genocidal practice was secret. What about the watch-makers and accountants who were in on the secret? What do you think? PMosh, try to handle one point at a time. So much confusion, in a single post, is more than I have time for. You go on and on.

Mark, no that's not what I said. Conspiracy may include funding. Funding does not necessarily imply conspiracy.To the degree that Catholics are aware of church practices (cover-ups, pay-offs to victims tied to non-disclosure agreements, transferring pedophiles to new churches - stuff like that), they may be perceived as complicit. That's why I believe the corruption goes from the papacy right down to the priesthood. There may be good priests. There may have been "good" Nazis too. At what point does the individual realize he or she can no longer belong to the corrupt institution? When sould they be held accountable?