Quote:

Wait, what? You say it's not revisionment, but then you say God "made a correction". If the situation changes, then so does the interpretation of that situation.



This statement is just plain weird Animalman. I can’t tell exactly what you mean by it. But I’ll repeat with a bit more clarity.

The true meaning of God’s words was misconstrued by his children. So, he corrected his children and imbued upon them knowledge of etiquette. The situation is static. If you’re doing good DIRECTLY, you can work on Sunday.

Quote:

Eh, I think you're a little off here, Pariah. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, yes, but it's far from a universally Catholic belief.

I, myself, am not religious, but I've attended Catholic schools my entire life, and studied them just as long. I'm currently studying it as part of my philosophy minor. While I wouldn't call myself an "expert", I've been around Catholics/Christians long enough to have a fairly good idea of their religious ideologies.



Animalman, generalized opinions in the (pseudo)Catholic communities and individuals who have different interpretations of God other than what the Bible has interpreted for them means they’re not full Catholics. Like I said before; to be a Christian or Catholic, it takes a certain amount of agreeance and belief in the Bible. i.e. all of it. Your OPINION of the Bible and its contents are irrelevant. Look inside any Catechism book and you’ll find that this belief is taught and circulated throughout the Church—And for any practicing Catholic, it is required.

Side note: I know a lot of Catholic Schools, and never have I heard this belief questioned by general public of the schools/staff of said schools. Which ones have you been around exactly?

Quote:

....and how would you "outline the mutual importance and goals between each of the commandments and the certain sins that are listed under each individual commandment"?



Well, lets see….

All of the Commandments contain the sole purposes to be civil to our fellow man and to please God by following his regulations. If I were to go over the main sins that are a given for each Commandment, I think we’d establish the mutual importance made known by Jesus’ two quotes.

1) I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods Before me.

Rather obvious. Because there are no other gods other than God himself, it would be offensive and evil to worship [I]nothing[/I] with the intensity someone who believed in him would worship him. Sometimes it would be worse and they worship those strange gods in cruel and unusual ways that would speak against the Ten Commandments with more force.

To spread the ideals of these false gods to other men and alienate them away from the real God would be to very possibly deny them salvation and God’s eternal love.

2) Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain.

Another obvious offense to God. Using his name as nothing more than a swear is a huge insult. Considering how low in standards we hold the meanings of the terms we shout out in anguish. Not mentioning the fact that His name isn’t meaningless and therefore shouldn’t be used in a meaningless fashion.

Perpetuating this offense among your fellow man and making it a habit not only for you but for someone else impressionable (little kids perhaps) would be just plain wrong. Then there’s the people who are offended by the action due to lack of respect.

3) Remember thou keep holy the Lords day.

God doesn’t want you to forget him. To forget God is to be detached from him. And to be detached from him is being detached from salvation.

Mostly the same as the 2nd. If you have children and you raise them ungodly and spit on his teachings or remain indifferent to them, you’re cheating those kids out of Heaven. The same could go for a friend who listens to only your opinion, which is anti-Catholic or is indifferent to Catholicism.

4) Honor thy father and thy mother.

Because the parents are the ones who are teaching you about God, and they’re the ones responsible for your spiritual growth, you need to listen to them and follow their instructions that are in accordance with God’s.

You’re representing your parents in this department, and if you screw your parents over by misrepresenting their teachings of God or remaining ignorant/indifferent, you’re hurting them and whomever you influence.

[Of course this would be an entirely different story if those parents wouldn’t even follow the Ten Commandments themselves and/or had no belief in God. These don’t mean you stop honoring them ESPECIALLY if you’re following the covenant. There are circumstances here.]

5) Thou shalt not kill.

God took HIS time to make that human being you killed, and it was HIS property to. You had no right to damage it.

Killing someone does more than just harm your fellow man OBVIOUSLY.

6) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Because God made sex a sacred act only to be practiced between a (male/female) married couples, to destroy that sacredness would be a great offense. And because we would be using our bodies in such a way that he did not WANT them to be used, it would just make it even worse—Especially if sexual stimulation was induced by homosexual abominations. The same goes for masturbation.

We all know what adultery can do to other people emotionally, and we also know that [I]casual[/I] sex is dangerous in any form we try it out in (no matter what the odds). We’d be hurting other emotionally and physically.

7) Thou shalt not steal.

……..God hates it. We’re supposed to make the most out of our own lives, not make the most out of it using someone else’s life.

The object taken might have meant something BIG to the person who originally owned it, and THEY were the ones who….*shrug* Broke their backs to earn it.

8) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

God didn’t create speech for it to be deceptive, he made it for our BENEFIT of communication. To use communication [u]blatantly[/u] wrong would be to not only to misinform and (in many cases) hurt people, but also to abuse your privilege.

9) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.

Sexual fantasies are dangerous grounds to be dwelling on, and could very well lead to adultery and, in turn, the violation of sacred vows written by God.

Your neighbor worked damn hard to get that wife, I don’t think he’d like you ogling and (in many instances), she wouldn’t either. Makes her feel like a piece of meat and all that prolly, not to mention that obsession isn’t healthy for you either. Get your own.

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

Again, perpetuating temptation and dwelling on dangerous ground that could very well lead to theft is something God no rikey.

Could kill your neighbors trust and continue to create cynics (exactly like me) all over the world. A characteristic that makes it very easy to lose faith or any chance of having faith.


This fits perfectly with Jesus’ words.

Quote:


You misread, I said "for any man to place one above another in importance would be not only pretentious but blasphemous as well". Jesus, according to Christian belief, is all man, but also all God, so it doesn't apply to him.



Animalman, it seemed to apply for you in the statement made by you right over here….

Quote:

Jesus was clarifying, he was saying that loving everyone(especially God) is more important than anything else.



Now, this may not contradict anything you said, but it still raises the question: Why mention blasphemy in changing scripture when Jesus is the only one being implied as having done it, and then afterwards say that Jesus didn’t count in the first place?

Quote:

Sure, but damage is still done.



Quote:

No, not necessarily. Some enjoy it, and don't find it to be an eternally painful experience. I've even met a few girls that love anal sex.



Approaching this segment from the monogamous to represent lasting danger and potential (very high risk) pain:

That damage eventually stops, because the vagina evolves to a consistent dick size and because of the differing quality of the vagina to the sphincter of natural lubrication. The fetish of anal sex may be loved by a bunch of people, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’d need to exercise and infinitely greater amount of caution to participate in it. This makes vaginal sex not only safer, but also easier (and easier to be safer). So, anyway, while damage stops for the vagina, it just keeps on going with the ass.

Quote:

This is way off topic, but I'd love to hear how exactly you can prove what is and what isn't meant to evolve.



Heh! Are you gonna tell me I’m wrong on this one from the scientific angle? The sphincter is meant to relieve the body of waste and that’s all. If you have a theory of why it SHOULD evolve or how it COULD evolve into a body part that was meant for insertion AS WELL AS excreting with as much results as having two separate holes for two different functions…Then I’d love to here it.

Quote:

The Bible says that gay sex is wrong, but it doesn't say that it's wrong because anal sex tears the rectal issue. The argument most commonly constructed by theologians(though not directly evidenced by scripture), is that gay sex is wrong because procreation cannot be achieved through it.



This is true, but it’s not the ONLY reason. The abominable act is also complemented by physical abuse towards your neighbor AND yourself.

If you remember the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” and all it entails, we’d see that not only the extermination of life is a sin, but also that hurting the body in general is a huge sin. Sodomy is a type of way to hurt the body—Gentle or not, it leaves lasting (short or long depending on sexual habits) effects. Not only is homosexual sex an abomination, but also a type of sado-masochism, which is definitely not allowed. As to how I would justify my statement of why it wasn’t MEANT to evolve in the first place through Catholicism’s angle: Inflicting pain on someone else is a sin, inflicting pain on yourself is a sin. The fact that buggery hurts the body any way you do it and any time you do it is what proves my case.

Quote:

Gay sexual promiscuity has a high risk factor for diseases(as does heterosexual promiscuity), but if the two gay individuals are monogamous, and are tested, there is no risk.



Yes there is. My entire goings on about the sturdiness of the vagina compared to the rectum is based on the high risk of semen getting into the bloodstream. I mean, it’s the MAIN thing. Obviously AIDS and HIV resides in higher importance above all, so I focused on them. Anyway, they’re just the tip of the Ice burg.

A monogamous relationship doesn’t sturdy up the colon, nor does it change the scenario of lacking condoms and careful consideration. They may not get AIDS or HIV, but….

http://www.ivillagehealth.com/experts/infectious/qas/0,,416911_173045,00.html

Anal sex can result in a variety of illnesses. I will mention only the more serious. A rare but life-threatening complication of anal sex is rupture of the rectum, resulting in a severe bacterial infection. This can occur with anal sex and with the insertion of various objects into the rectum. Care must be taken to avoid serious injury to the area.

Most of the other illnesses due to anal sex involve infections as well. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the virus that causes AIDS. Anal sex with someone who carries HIV poses a high risk for transmission of the virus. Homosexual men in the United States have HIV at a higher rate than heterosexual men, but this is not true outside the Western world. The first people who contracted HIV in the United States probably were homosexual men, and they first transmitted the virus to other homosexual men. Anal sex, mainly because of the trauma that can occur with it, allowed for the efficient transmission of HIV among these men. It was only later that the virus began to spread to women and heterosexual men. Anal sex without a condom between a woman and a man will transmit HIV as efficiently as between two men.

Other viruses can be transmitted through anal sex quite easily. These include hepatitis B and hepatitis C, which cause liver disease. Possibly Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which causes mono, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) can also be transmitted in this way. Another cause of liver disease is the hepatitis A virus. It is transmitted through contact with the feces of someone with the virus, so anal sex may increase the risk of acquiring that infection.

In addition to these organisms, a variety of infections can be transmitted that predominantly cause infection in the rectum and colon. Some refer to these diseases as "gay-bowel syndrome," but that is a misnomer because any recipient of anal sex (including heterosexual women) can develop such an infection. The syndrome includes diarrhea, fever and lower abdominal pain. Various infections can cause these symptoms, including gonorrhea, chlamydia, lymphogranuloma venereum, shigella (a cause of dysentery) and herpes. An infection such as this would be termed "proctitis," or rectal infection. When I see a patient with signs and symptoms of proctitis, and the patient is a recipient of anal sex, I consider infection to be highly likely.

Let me just reiterate here:

Unprotected homosexual sex is the equivalent to unprotected promiscuous heterosexual sex.

Quote:

A statement of love? Consummation of a deeply intimate relationship? I'd imagine most gay couples would call that a positive outcome.

Besides, your original statement was that "the physical differences between the sphincter and the vagina is the biggest factor here." You make no mention of the positive outcomes of intercourse, or of the purpose of the activity.



So what you’re saying is; you’d condone a couple who put their lives at risk by hurting each other like those couples I saw in the movie Crash (waste of my fucking time). Or (as I exemplified before) the people who’d commit suicide together just to get the point across that they love one another.

Quote:

I did explain it. I explained it quite clearly. I use the word "prioritizing" several times in my explanation. If you interpret that as suggesting one should be practiced in exclusion of the others, then I'm afraid the fault is yours, not mine.



Prioritizing would mean to exclude everything else if any situation would for call for the certain circumstances. Priority can’t be labeled on something that is stressed to be practiced from all aspects with equal amount of importance for EVERY situation. After all, even the (considered) smallest of sins CAN eventually lead to damnation.

Quote:

Perhaps you read what you wanted to read into what I said, simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you.



Ah. Resorting Whomod’s and Jim Jackson’s tactics are we? When one feels the need to get defensive and/or post snarky remarks, it usually means they’re getting desperate.