| | | Author | Message |
|---|
Frostbrand 
| | #1 posted September 4, 2009 at 1:44am (EST) |
Take that all you bigoted jerks! How's your pet theory about gays destroying marriage now huh?
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glb...
Not that we could ever take you Right Wingers seriously on the issue of fidelity to begin with, but still... | Frostbrand
| | #121 posted September 26, 2009 at 3:17pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> Why would I remember something that happened August
> 6, 2001? Honestly.
Common knowledge. I'm hardly the only person who can tell you the title of the memo was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S." from memory.
> Do you realize the attention span of a ten year
> old...During the summer? I doubt it. On 9/11,
> I remember being on the phone with my friend afraid
> that "they" (whoever they where) were going to
> drop a bomb on my house.
>
Which would be all well and good, except we the public found out about the memo after the fact, during the 9/1 commission hearings. And I broguht it up with you last year when the big argument on the forums was the 9-11 Truth movement.
> So asking me if I remember is stupid because no,
> I don't...and ten year olds really do not have
> a fantastic grasp on the world. I know, shocker,
> right?
>
If I had implied that you heard about the memo the day it was originally written, your argument would be valid. Except I didn't, so it isn't.
> Okay, first thing..'"He ignored it. He ignored
> terrorism for months, when maybe we could have
> done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never
> know."' I don't understand why we're still sitting
> on that issue.
Because we never caught Bin Laden, and because the GOP still insists it's A) the only party we should trust on national security, despite being partially responsible (if only through negligence) the worst breach of U.S. national security since Pearl Harbor, and 2) still insists that it's somehow Bill Clinton's fault, never mind the fact that his efforts to go after Al Qaeda were undermined by the GOP's obsession with his penis in Monica Lewinsky;s mouth. That's why.
> It's been done, and it was horrible..but
> how about we focus on the current issue instead
> of whether or not Bush could have stopped anything?
> Terrorism's been around since the dawn of time..so
> everytime there was a terrorist attack it was
> allowed to happen?
If I had had made that kind of statement I'd be raked over the coals. I'm not talking about every terrorist attack ever. You are engaging in a logical fallacy. It's no different really from the people on here who say "How dare Frostbrand say all criticism of Obama is racist!" when one need only look at my comment and see that I never said all. And neither did Jimmy Carter while we're at it. You are trying to win an argument by claiming I said something that I not only never said, but could easily prove I never said.
> Wondering if anything could
> have been done really isn't helping anything.
And just letting it go would?
> Seriously, this is exactly like when any other
> bad things happen and the people on the news are
> always like, "Well, if we had done this...this
> wouldn't have happened." Hindsight is a dog,
> isn't it?
It's also helpful. Those who do not remember the past, and all that. If we don't find out why something happened, what's to stop it from happening again? I'm fond of a quote from Holocaust survivor and poet Helena Birnbaum (not calling you a Nazi, though I'm sure some will accuse me of doing just that, but to everyone else, pay attention to the context). "To say that it [the Holocaust] can never happen again is the first step to death camps." To just "get over" 9-11 is the first step to insuring we have another one.
> Everyone thinks they're an authority
> on the issue and everyone thinks they know how
> they would have done it differently..
If by "think they're an authority" you mean they cite people who are authorities.
> And maybe
> it would have been done differently..but maybe
> not. It's really not helpful at all to sit there
> and wonder.
It is less helpful to do nothing.
> I am definitely inclined to think that everyone
> is incredibly biased anyway because of how much
> the general population hated Bush.
Reality is biased. The memos exist. The ignored warning were real. The Bush Administration in it's early months blew off the previous administrations warnings that Al Qaeda was going to be a major concern, either due to incompetence, or due to hyper partisanship. How exactly is doing nothing about it since "it happened" (which is what your argument is when you boil it down to it's basics) going to stop anything like that from ever happening again? | llamamama
| | #122 posted September 26, 2009 at 3:44pm (EST) |
I'm sorry but anytime I read anything you write I get a massive headache. You're like a broken record.
I do not remember what you said a year ago. The report was issued on July 22, 2004. If anyone knows less than 10 year olds..it's 13 year olds because they don't care.
I'm not going to win this argument. There's no point in me saying what I think is true because you're going to just more and more angry and then start calling me names.
I'm trying to save your life. Take a deep breath and chill the heck out about people not agreeing with you.
It's not common knowledge either..for people my age. Now, the biggest problem with you, isn't that you're an abrasive twit..it's that you ALWAYS twist what you say to make it fit you better. And then you get pissed when people make comments based on what you said. So maybe you should stop being so vague. If these issues matter to you so much..then you should be able to say everything.
 | Frostbrand
| | #123 posted September 26, 2009 at 4:08pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> I'm sorry but anytime I read anything you write
> I get a massive headache. You're like a broken
> record.
>
So instead of debating the issue you just insult me?
> I do not remember what you said a year ago. The
> report was issued on July 22, 2004. If anyone
> knows less than 10 year olds..it's 13 year olds
> because they don't care.
>
Well, some 13 year olds. I was active in politics at 6.
> I'm not going to win this argument. There's no
> point in me saying what I think is true because
> you're going to just more and more angry and then
> start calling me names.
>
Ignoring that I didn't call you a single name in my last post...
> I'm trying to save your life. Take a deep breath
> and chill the heck out about people not agreeing
> with you.
>
Save my life? From what exactly?
> It's not common knowledge either..for people my
> age. Now, the biggest problem with you, isn't
> that you're an abrasive twit..it's that you ALWAYS
> twist what you say to make it fit you better.
Always? Careful with that word there. It only takes a single contradiction to disprove an absolute.
> And then you get pissed when people make comments
> based on what you said. So maybe you should stop
> being so vague.
I wasn't vague about anything, and you did not describe me there. You described the Right Wingers on this site; they tend to hate it when I throw their own words at them.
> If these issues matter to you
> so much..then you should be able to say everything.
>
> [full]
Yes, justice for victims of terrorist attacks is important to me. Your comments on the issue speak ill of you, not me. I'm not the one saying what happened on 9/1 "doesn't matter because it's already happened." If you intend to live your personal life like that, expect to make the same mistkaes over and over and over again. | llamamama
| | #124 posted September 26, 2009 at 4:13pm (EST) |
Like you're the one that can say I better be careful or I'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
I was saying what you normally do. | labjog
| | #125 posted September 26, 2009 at 4:14pm (EST) |
Frostbrand wrote:
> llamamama wrote:
>> Why would I remember something that happened August
>> 6, 2001? Honestly.
>
> Common knowledge. I'm hardly the only person who can tell you the
> title of the memo was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S."
> from memory.
>
>> Do you realize the attention span of a ten year
>> old...During the summer? I doubt it. On 9/11,
>> I remember being on the phone with my friend afraid
>> that "they" (whoever they where) were going to
>> drop a bomb on my house.
>>
>
> Which would be all well and good, except we the public found out about
> the memo after the fact, during the 9/1 commission hearings. And I
> broguht it up with you last year when the big argument on the forums
> was the 9-11 Truth movement.
>
>> So asking me if I remember is stupid because no,
>> I don't...and ten year olds really do not have
>> a fantastic grasp on the world. I know, shocker,
>> right?
>>
>
> If I had implied that you heard about the memo the day it was originally
> written, your argument would be valid. Except I didn't, so it isn't.
>
>> Okay, first thing..'"He ignored it. He ignored
>> terrorism for months, when maybe we could have
>> done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never
>> know."' I don't understand why we're still sitting
>> on that issue.
>
> Because we never caught Bin Laden, and because the GOP still insists
> it's A) the only party we should trust on national security, despite
> being partially responsible (if only through negligence) the worst
> breach of U.S. national security since Pearl Harbor, and 2) still
> insists that it's somehow Bill Clinton's fault, never mind the fact
> that his efforts to go after Al Qaeda were undermined by the GOP's
> obsession with his penis in Monica Lewinsky;s mouth. That's why.
>
>> It's been done, and it was horrible..but
>> how about we focus on the current issue instead
>> of whether or not Bush could have stopped anything?
>> Terrorism's been around since the dawn of time..so
>> everytime there was a terrorist attack it was
>> allowed to happen?
>
> If I had had made that kind of statement I'd be raked over the coals.
> I'm not talking about every terrorist attack ever. You are engaging
> in a logical fallacy. It's no different really from the people on
> here who say "How dare Frostbrand say all criticism of Obama is racist!"
> when one need only look at my comment and see that I never said all.
> And neither did Jimmy Carter while we're at it. You are trying to
> win an argument by claiming I said something that I not only never
> said, but could easily prove I never said.
>
>> Wondering if anything could
>> have been done really isn't helping anything.
>
> And just letting it go would?
>
>> Seriously, this is exactly like when any other
>> bad things happen and the people on the news are
>> always like, "Well, if we had done this...this
>> wouldn't have happened." Hindsight is a dog,
>> isn't it?
>
> It's also helpful. Those who do not remember the past, and all that.
> If we don't find out why something happened, what's to stop it from
> happening again? I'm fond of a quote from Holocaust survivor and poet
> Helena Birnbaum (not calling you a Nazi, though I'm sure some will
> accuse me of doing just that, but to everyone else, pay attention
> to the context). "To say that it [the Holocaust] can never happen
> again is the first step to death camps." To just "get over" 9-11 is
> the first step to insuring we have another one.
>
>> Everyone thinks they're an authority
>> on the issue and everyone thinks they know how
>> they would have done it differently..
>
> If by "think they're an authority" you mean they cite people who are
> authorities.
>
>> And maybe
>> it would have been done differently..but maybe
>> not. It's really not helpful at all to sit there
>> and wonder.
>
> It is less helpful to do nothing.
>
>> I am definitely inclined to think that everyone
>> is incredibly biased anyway because of how much
>> the general population hated Bush.
>
> Reality is biased. The memos exist. The ignored warning were real.
> The Bush Administration in it's early months blew off the previous
> administrations warnings that Al Qaeda was going to be a major concern,
> either due to incompetence, or due to hyper partisanship. How exactly
> is doing nothing about it since "it happened" (which is what your
> argument is when you boil it down to it's basics) going to stop anything
> like that from ever happening again?
Wow Brian, you kept your cool and didnt call names. I actually read every thing and you are a pretty smart person when you arent cutting someone down. I even agree on some of your points. | llamamama
| | #126 posted September 26, 2009 at 4:15pm (EST) |
Oh, and I'm trying to save you from having a massive heart attack. | cprasky 
| | #127 posted September 26, 2009 at 10:17pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> Saying that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch is kinda a dipcrap thing
> to say. For one, that would be like saying that the Oklahoma City
> bombing happened on Clinton's watch, or that the first attack on the
> WTC happened on Bush Sr (or was it Clinton's already?) watch.
>
Why is it such a dipcrap thing to say? It's just reference to a timeframe, it doesn't imply blame in any way. To say, for example, that the attack on Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch doesn't impute blame to FDR, it's just an indication of when it happened. | llamamama
| | #128 posted September 26, 2009 at 10:22pm (EST) |
Yeah, but Frosty said it..and it is implying blame when he says it. | Frostbrand
| | #129 posted September 27, 2009 at 12:29am (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> southernyankee wrote:
>> Saying that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch is
> kinda a dipcrap thing
>> to say. For one, that would be like saying
> that the Oklahoma City
>> bombing happened on Clinton's watch, or that
> the first attack on the
>> WTC happened on Bush Sr (or was it Clinton's
> already?) watch.
>>
>
>
> Why is it such a dipcrap thing to say? It's just
> reference to a timeframe, it doesn't imply blame
> in any way. To say, for example, that the attack
> on Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch doesn't
> impute blame to FDR, it's just an indication of
> when it happened.
It can go either way I think. It all depends on the context. | southernyankee
| | #130 posted September 27, 2009 at 10:15am (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> Why is it such a dipcrap thing to say? It's just reference to a timeframe,
> it doesn't imply blame in any way. To say, for example, that the
> attack on Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch doesn't impute blame
> to FDR, it's just an indication of when it happened.
Fair enough, but generally when people say that something happened on someone's watch, it usually implies some sort of blame. For instance, if you're a store clerk and someone comes in and takes off with $1,000 worth of stuff and you don't catch them, someone saying "it happened on your watch" implies that you should be watching them. Otherwise, they would have said it happened during your shift or something. Now, if it were an armed robbery, where you can't do anything about it, you might interpret it differently.
Same thing with the Presidency. You can just say "the 9/11 attacks happened during Bush's term". The phrase "on your watch" generally has bad connotations behind it. | cloudhugger
| | #131 posted September 27, 2009 at 3:30pm (EST) |
I'm throwing something in here about gay marraige.
If the Illmuniaty and the Rockefellers were bent on destroying half the population and bringing in disease and famine, and oh yeah...blowing up the moon in a few weeks all too reduce the population...than it would stand to reason that no one, not even the devil himself, would deny gay marrage because that alone would reduce the population by an instant 1/3. | cprasky
| | #132 posted September 28, 2009 at 8:28pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> My theory is that some horrible STD was floating around at that time
> (think AIDS), which (surprise, surprise) affected gay men the most.
My own theory on the matter is that no genetic material is lost in sexual relations between women. The Hebrews, being a nomadic tribe of sheep and goatherders from way back and always a minority whereever they wandered, set a lot of store by being fruitful and multiplying. So they frowned upon activities that wasted genetic material (seed) but didn't bother much about activities that didn't. | cprasky
| | #133 posted September 28, 2009 at 8:31pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> Fair enough, but generally when people say that something happened
> on someone's watch, it usually implies some sort of blame.
Well, I suppose I sort of see your point. But, for whatever reason, I have never picked up on those connotations to the phrase. The phrases "On Bush's watch" and "During Bush's term" still seem synonymous to me. Ah well, I guess I'm a dipcrap... | southernyankee
| | #134 posted September 28, 2009 at 10:18pm (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> southernyankee wrote:
>
>> My theory is that some horrible STD was floating around at that
> time
>> (think AIDS), which (surprise, surprise) affected gay men the most.
>
>
> My own theory on the matter is that no genetic material is lost in
> sexual relations between women. The Hebrews, being a nomadic tribe
> of sheep and goatherders from way back and always a minority whereever
> they wandered, set a lot of store by being fruitful and multiplying.
Then they would be equally appalled by masterbastion. Yet, only homosexuality got you the death penalty. Besides, the Hebrews aren't the only culture that had a lot of homophobia in it. Present day China, most of the Middle East, most of Africa, and good chunks of South America aren't all that tolerant either, and most of them never encountered the Hebrews (not counting the "the Jews are everyone" argument throw around by conspiracy theorists).
> So they frowned upon activities that wasted genetic material (seed)
> but didn't bother much about activities that didn't.
A guy's sperm replicates itself very quickly. I think they've figured that out pretty quick. Besides, if they were that concerned about population growth, the bible would have made a lot more noise about chivalry (that whole bit about men sacrificing themselves on the Titanic); which it didn't. I don't quite get where stoning pregnant women because they weren't married played into "being fruitful and multiplying". | LindaH   
| | #135 posted September 28, 2009 at 10:26pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> Then they would be equally appalled by masterbastion.
cute typo | cprasky
| #136 posted September 29, 2009 at 7:17am (EST)
edited September 29, 2009 at 7:33am (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> Then they would be equally appalled by masterbastion. Yet, only
> homosexuality got you the death penalty.
Yeah, I would think they would be equally appalled by masturbation as well and perhaps they were. But the fact is, masturbation is not specifically mentioned in the Bible at all. But no, it was not only homosexuality that got you the death penalty. Bestiality also earned death by stoning, though is specifically forbidden for men and women.
> A guy's sperm replicates itself very quickly. I think they've figured
> that out pretty quick.
Actually, they didn't. One sexual myth that persisted well into the twentieth century was that a guy only had a set number of "shots" in his lifetime.
> I don't quite get where stoning pregnant women
> because they weren't married played into "being fruitful and multiplying".
And I don't quite get where you are getting this from. I know it isn't from the Hebrew Scriptures. The commandment forbidding adultery (at least in Hebrew scriptural terms) meant that a married woman couldn't have sex with a man not her husband. There was no specific prohibition forbidding a single woman from having sex with anyone, even another married man. Prostitution was frowned on, but not specifically forbidden. There was a law forbidding a "bastard" from joining the congregation of the Lord, but the Hebrew word which is translated as "bastard" was "mamzer". This word had a meaning that differed in important respects from the English word "bastard". Specifically, it did not refer to a child born out of wedlock, but only to a child born of a sexual union specifically forbidden by Hebrew law. For example, a man could not sleep with a woman and then later sleep with that woman's daughter (or vice versa). This was considered "incest" under Hebrew law, and a child born of such a union would be "mamzer". | llamamama
| | #137 posted September 29, 2009 at 12:48pm (EST) |
Yeah, I was going to mention that about the replication.
I mean geeze, up until recently (relatively speeking of course)..they thought you could just perform surgery and poke around..And then they were surprised when the people died. They had no concept of things we call obvious. | cprasky
| #138 posted October 1, 2009 at 9:17am (EST)
edited October 1, 2009 at 12:14pm (EST) |
Just a couple of notes here. It seems a popular idea that the ancient Hebrews were basically a sour-pussed lot of puritanical prudes. This actually is not the case. For example, consider Moses' epitaph at the end of the book of Deuteronomy, verse 7 of chapter 34 in particular. It says that Moses was 120 years old when he died and that his eye was not dim, nor his "natural force abated". The Hebrew expression used is a little balder than the given English translation. The Hebrew phrase velo nas lecho literally means "his sap had not left him". Think of sap rising in the trees in the spring. Essentially, it is saying that Moses died an old man who could still get it up. Not something a true-blue prude would choose to say about the holiest man of their clan, is it?
Consider also Exodus22:16-17.
It says here if that if a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed he must pay her father the bride price of a virgin and marry her. However, the father might refuse to let him marry her. In this case, the man must still pay her father the bride price of a virgin anyway. Sounds rather sordid to us, I know. But the point here is that there is no legal penalty prescribed against the woman. She is not stoned, she is not denied membership in the congregation, in fact no legal action is taken against her at all. Should she become pregnant, that child is also not denied membership in the congregation unless the man was a close relative of the woman or for some other legally specified reason was forbidden to lie with her. What social penalties she might face are another matter, but legally, she is in the clear. Specifying a bride price for a virgin also clearly implies that there is a bride price for a woman who is not a virgin, don't you think?
Now, I am not saying the Hebrew tribes were some ancient bastion of liberal progressivism and free love. Just that it might be well to consider that it is a grave injustice as well as a serious intellectual error to judge a society of religious, nomadic Bronze-age cattleherders, 3 or 4 thousand years past entirely against the standards of a secular, post-industrial 21st century society. | southernyankee
| | #139 posted October 3, 2009 at 3:21pm (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> Yeah, I would think they would be equally appalled by masturbation
> as well and perhaps they were. But the fact is, masturbation is not
> specifically mentioned in the Bible at all.
I thought the whole point of the Bible was to document all the laws and histories of that time. If something got you the death penalty, or even got your hands cut off, I am pretty sure the Bible would have mentioned it.
>> A guy's sperm replicates itself very quickly. I think they've
> figured
>> that out pretty quick.
>
> Actually, they didn't. One sexual myth that persisted well into the
> twentieth century was that a guy only had a set number of "shots"
> in his lifetime.
>
Well, yes and no. Didn't the ancient Greeks encourage young boys to suck older men's dicks? The Romans, not so much. The sexual myth was believed by some, but it wasn't that universal. The Victorians had weird ideas such as you only having so many shots; presumably, because the Americans and the Brits were prudes between 1880 to 1950--- but that doesn't extend to anybody else (French, Italians, the Irish, the Asians, etc). Before the Victorian era (where science was colored by prudery), I am not so sure about the "you only had so many shots" theory being so prevalent during say, the middle ages.
>> I don't quite get where stoning pregnant women
>> because they weren't married played into "being fruitful and multiplying".
>
> And I don't quite get where you are getting this from. I know it
> isn't from the Hebrew Scriptures. The commandment forbidding adultery
> (at least in Hebrew scriptural terms) meant that a married woman
> couldn't have sex with a man not her husband.
The ancient Romans didn't allow it. Wasn't that the argument for stoning Mary to death? And why she had a fake marriage to Joseph. Also, the Muslims (very likely branched out of one of the Hebrew tribes) were pretty big on stoning pregnant women. I think they still do that in some areas. | southernyankee
| | #140 posted October 3, 2009 at 3:25pm (EST) |
"Just a couple of notes here. It seems a popular idea that the ancient Hebrews were basically a sour-pussed lot of puritanical prudes."
That was also somewhat true of the Puritans. They weren't as prudish as they were made out to be. Well, at least they were allowed and encouraged to have sex once they got married. Can't say the same for the people of the 7th to 10th (I think) century and the people of the Victorian era. | cprasky
| #141 posted October 3, 2009 at 4:34pm (EST)
edited October 3, 2009 at 5:14pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> The ancient Romans didn't allow it. Wasn't that the argument for
> stoning Mary to death? And why she had a fake marriage to Joseph.
> Also, the Muslims (very likely branched out of one of the Hebrew
> tribes) were pretty big on stoning pregnant women. I think they still
> do that in some areas.
Okay, I may have mentioned this a time or two before, but while I have read the New Testament more than once, I am in fact far more familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures than I am with the New Testament. However, I believe you are getting your Marys confused. Mary, Joseph's wife, the mother of Jesus was never in danger of getting stoned. Joseph was going to "put her away privily" (divorce her in private rather than make her a public spectacle) Matthew 1:18-19. (Note: I can read some Hebrew, but I have to take the English translation of the Greek Scriptures "on faith" as it were, because the Greek text is, well, Greek to me .)
The Mary who was in danger of being stoned was Mary Magdalene (John 8:2-11).
But now that you bring it up, this story of Mary Magdalene is quite intriguing on a number of levels. The specific law under which Mary Magdalene was to be stoned is found in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and specifies that both the betrothed woman and the man with whom she was caught having sex be stoned. Yet, in John, it is only Mary Magdalene who is presented for stoning. I have to wonder about that. Also, so far as I can tell her husband (or fiancee) seems conspicuously absent. But, the scenario presented in John seems on the surface to support the tradition in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (cited in the movie The DaVinci Code) that Mary Magdalene may have been Jesus' wife. The fact is, under the letter of the Hebrew law, Mary Magdalene could not possibly have been guilty of adultery unless she was either married or betrothed. If she was Jesus' wife, then this whole episode must have seemed a very happy accident to Jesus' enemies. They had the chance to get Jesus to sentence his wife to death under the law and expose Him to public ridicule as a cuckold.
It doesn't get much better than that, does it? | verouge
| | #142 posted October 23, 2009 at 4:35am (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> southernyankee wrote:
>> Well, the Bible does say something against gay guys having sex.
> But
>> it doesn't say anything about gay marriage. And its not like
>> you have to be married anymore to have sex these days anyway.
> Gay
>> guys are already having sex (which goes against the Bible), so
> I don't
>> get the Biblical opposition.
>
> Oddly though, it says nothing about lesbians.
hahaha | verouge
| | #143 posted October 23, 2009 at 4:35am (EST) |
cprasky wrote:
> icurok wrote:
>> verouge wrote:
> |>>
> |>> And what are the extra benefits a gay marriage might give, more
>> than the parternship?
>>
>> Damn straight! And you know what else really grinds my gears? Where
>> in the bible does it say that a man can't fire off some knuckle-children
>> in the privacy of his own neighbor's living room while his neighbor's
>> at work because I don't have a DVD player? Well, I don't know where
>> it says it because the Bible was way too long to read!
>
> Actually, so far as I know, it doesn't say that anywhere. The Sin
> of Onan is as close as it comes. The tale can be read in
> Genesis 38:7-10. Basically, under Mosaic law, if a married
> man dies without progeny, his brother is supposed to sleep with his
> widow in order to produce a child who will then legally carry on the
> dead man's line. Onan did not want to father a child that would not
> be legally recognized as his, so he "spilled his seed on the ground".
> The Medieval Catholic Church interpreted this as "masturbation",
> which in fact it was not. Onan's sin was not masturbation per se,
> but one of selfishness, denying his dead brother the opportunity to
> continue his line.
I dont know much about that! | |
Topic Page Hits: 3 today (24 in the last 30 days) |
