Conference back40::soapbox

================================================================================
Note 56.1287                    Gay Issues Topic                    1287 of 1320
SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot"         18 lines  21-JUN-1995 14:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .1276
    
    > Without the openness to procreation,
    > it is not a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic
    > Church.
    
    Therefore no woman who has had a hysterectomy, even for the purpose of
    saving her life, can enter into a marriage that the Catholic Church
    will sanction.  Ya gotta love it.
    
    > ALL your criteria above can be met by incestuous relationships.
    
    Because this is the gay issues topic.  You want a topic on incest,
    start one.  I'll be the first to point out that the prohibition on
    incest is an ancient one, developed because of the extraordinarily high
    incidence of defective offspring in incestuous relationships.  Incest
    is contrasurvival, that's why it's wrong.  Homosexuality is NOT
    contrasurvival; it is, of itself, entirely neutral.
================================================================================
Note 56.1290                    Gay Issues Topic                    1290 of 1320
NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085"  8 lines  21-JUN-1995 14:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                                   Incest
>    is contrasurvival, that's why it's wrong.  Homosexuality is NOT
>    contrasurvival; it is, of itself, entirely neutral.

So incest is OK if the woman has had a hysterectomy?  Incestuous homosexual
relationships are OK?  How about incest with your six-year-old daughter?

How is having defective children more "contrasurvival" than having no children?

    
     I prefer the ones that smell like flowers.....
    
     Oh Yeah!! and the cone shaped ones are better than the long thin
    ones...
    
    

    .1
    
    > So incest is OK if the woman has had a hysterectomy?
    
    There is no biological reason militating against it any more strongly
    than against any other relationship the woman may have.
    
    > Incestuous homosexual
    > relationships are OK?
    
    Ditto.
    
    > How about incest with your six-year-old daughter?
    
    A sexual relationship with a child too young to have developed a mature
    outlook on life, love, and relationships, is not okay, regardless of
    whether it is incestuous.

>    > So incest is OK if the woman has had a hysterectomy?
>    
>    There is no biological reason militating against it any more strongly
>    than against any other relationship the woman may have.

You didn't answer the question.

    .4
    
    I did.  Biologically, incest is just as okay as a non-incestuous
    relationship would be.
    
    If you're concerned about the spiritual or psychological aspects, I
    direct your attention to various South Seas primitives who practice
    incest freely and seem remarkably well adjusted to themselves, each
    other, and the world in general.  Incest is possible without mental
    damage.
    
    If you're concerned about the religious aspects, read your scriptures
    and do what you believe they command you to do in order to be a
    righteous person in your Higher Power's estimation.

How do those South Sea primitives deal with the biological aspect?

One more question, is incest with your 18-year-old daughter OK if you
use birth control?

    I'm sorry but, from an evolutionary standpoint, isn't the reason why
    most humans think incest is unacceptable because it ensures a healthy
    gene pool?

    .7
    
    That's what I said in the gay issues topic, Glenn.  Gerald brought the
    discussion here.

    Oh. Sorry.

    So, if a bunch in the south pacific think it's okay and suffer to ill
    effects, what does that mean? 

    .6
    
    I do not believe an 18-year-old, in general, is emotionally mature. 
    Furthermore, I hold a strong taboo against incest, so for me it's not
    okay.
    
    Let us stipulate a person who holds no taboo against incest.  A
    specific 18-year-old of the appropriate gender, whom that person
    considered to be fully mature, might become a valid candidate for such
    a relationship.

    .9
    
    It means that a bunch in the south pacific think it's okay and suffer
    no ill effect, at least mentally, from it.

    
    Can we discuss necrophilia here ?  Or mebbe we could just merge all
    of these into the "gak" string...
    
      bb

    .12
    
    If a discussion of incest makes you gak, don't participate.  But try
    not to muddy the place with your inappropriate cuteness, okay?

    
    Hey! No one mentioned my "cuteness" in .2!!!!!
    
    
    I figured it was just as appropriate as all the other "cuteness"
    replies sprinkled throughout this vast box... no??
    

    KRAWIECKI,
        If this helps, I thought it was funny !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
      re, .13 - well, here's the scoop, Dick.  Try incest on your kids,
     the rest of society will take them away from you.  Quite right, too.
    
      Then they'll take you in for a bit of observation, and tell you to
     quit it or go to the slammer.  Right about that, too.
    
      If you try it with your sister or brother, and you are both adults,
     they won't.  But everybody else will gak all right.  And they will
     take it as very good evidence that you are an industrial grade
     fruitcake.  Right again !
    
      bb

    Anyone have any incest repellant ?
    

    So, these guys in the south pacific are genetically predisposed to
    corrupting their own gene pool?

>     Try incest on your kids,
>     the rest of society will take them away from you.  Quite right, too.

And, as Dick has already pointed out, it's _western_ society that will
do the taking because of a cultural mindset. Societies exist (or did exist)
and flourish where no such mindset exists. And there is no evidence of
any prevalent ill effects on the people from a psychological standpoint.

Homosexuality: "OK, everybody out of the gene pool!"

    .16
    
    > Try incest on your kids,
    > the rest of society will take them away from you.
    
    Not if I'm on certain islands in the South Pacific, the rest of society
    won't.
    
    > Quite right, too.
    
    Right in the view of those who would take the kids away, wrong in the
    view of those who wouldn't.
    
    > quit it or go to the slammer.
    
    Not every society has slammers.
    
    > Right about that, too.
    
    In your view.  As I said, it's also right in mine, because children are
    not mature emotionally and because, even if my kid were fully adult
    (which in fact they are), I hold a taboo against incest.  Probably the
    same one you hold.
    
    > But everybody else will gak all right...
    
    Not every body.  But you're just using the same <hackneyed phrase> that
    you and some others use frequently.  You think something is white, you
    assume that everyone except deviants agrees with you.

    
     Aw, heck - Dick Binder is just suffering through male menopause,
    is all.  Deep down inside, he wishes he'd been a punk rocker instead,
    grossing out the bougoisie fer fun and profit.  But he hadn't the
    audacity when it mattered, so takes it out on us in the 'Box, trying
    to wound our sensibilities, or shock us with libertarianism he doesn't
    himself practice.  I doubt he would run off with his sister.  Not the
    type.
    
     bb

    If I had a sister, you mean?

    Given two individuals started the entire race of hoomin beans, how
    could they have avoided incest in their procreative antics?

    They had these really neat large green pods that had tentacles.

| <<< Note 469.24 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Reformatted to fit your screen" >>>

| Given two individuals started the entire race of hoomin beans, how
| could they have avoided incest in their procreative antics?

	Good question......maybe there was a cut-off date?

Good thing they were heterosexual.

| <<< Note 469.27 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Good thing they were heterosexual.

	Only when making babies Gerald..... otherwise they wuz gay....

    They apparently made babies with gay abandon.

    I still say the south pacific critters have something wrong with them.

    .30
    
    And I'm sure they'd be happy to return the compliment.

	I wonder if any of the Right folks are gonna answer the question posed?

       <<< Note 469.10 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    Let us stipulate a person who holds no taboo against incest.  A
>    specific 18-year-old of the appropriate gender, whom that person
>    considered to be fully mature, might become a valid candidate for such
>    a relationship.

    	OK.  Should the rest of society which holds serious taboos
    	against it condone their behavior?
    
    	The question raised in the other topic was not about individual
    	taboos, but where those individual taboos (or lack thereof)
    	fit into the rest of society's morals.
    
    	BTW, what is this undisclosed "South Sea" community?

>    	BTW, what is this undisclosed "South Sea" community?

Socially accepted incest was common in many areas of Polynesia prior
to the arrival of Christian missionaries. Hawaii, Fiji and Tahiti among them.

>    If I had a sister, you mean?

This explains a lot.  Not having a sister could potentially prevent you
from understanding how horribly _gakky_ this is to most people.

Yuk!

(And my sister was adopted.  And it's still a nauseating thought.)

    All right. Are these island communities in the south pacific? This
    being the case I understand why it wouldn't bother them. Limited by 
    choice it was a normal response.

    > Socially accepted incest was common in many areas of Polynesia prior
    > to the arrival of Christian missionaries. Hawaii, Fiji and Tahiti 
    > among them.
    
    Just chock it up to another good thing the Christians screwed up !
    :-)
    Dan

    
      It does not surprise me that islands, those test tubes of the
    idiotic, might produce all sorts of pathologies we should avoid.
    What can you expect if your sheep are tortoises and your birds
    don't fly ?  Take a look at the collapse of human society on Easter
    Island.  If you were going to avoid self-destruction, you'd do well
    to watch islanders and do the opposite.
    
     It does not surprise me that evyl lyberals, who have fixed us so
    we can't make toasters, now want to fix our families, too.  Time to
    play DEFENSE against them and their crackpot social schemes.  I'm
    sure glad to see Bob Dole starting nicely with the Foster nomination.
    
     bb

    How wonderfully informed and enlightened that was Bob.  Truly
    inspiring.  I'm with you,  move them all off the islands and into
    camps, separate the families so we can break them of their evil ways
    lest we learn something useful from them and become tainted.  
    

    
     I recommended doing NOTHING to, or because, of any island society,
    except not copying them.  In the other perversion topic, I did not
    recommend doing anything to gays, or because of them.  All I recommend
    is not changing the institution of marriage, particularly now, when it
    is at risk in our country in particular.  Gays can go do anything they
    like, as far as I'm concerned - I don't care.  What I do care about is
    strengthening the institution of marriage, which can't be done by the
    Dr. Fosters of this world, who think medicine is a substitute for
    morality.  Nor can it be done by altering the sexual basis of marriage.
    It is no accident this institution is the prevalent one among humans -
    it has stood the test of time, it works when you do it properly.  Now
    we've lost the ability, and so have to import families like all our
    manufactured goods.  Look no further than the 40 years of evyl
    lyberalism for a cause.  These misguided social engineers will march
    us gleefully into a madhouse of degradation.  You think "incest cannot
    do any harm", eh ?  Consider the MIND.  What does it do to the mindset
    of people, who are supposed to sustain our society, if you alter our
    sexual practices in such a way ?  If you expect me to be impressed by
    a policy that would throw us back to stone-age societies which
    collapsed under the mildest competition, you are mistaken.  We are
    wise to the hidden poison in your schemes for us, and will take action
    to block you.  Watch.
    
      bb

    .40
    
    OXYMORON ALERT!
    
    > Gays can go do anything they
    > like, as far as I'm concerned - I don't care.  What I do care about is
    > strengthening the institution of marriage...
    
    ...which, if done your way, prohibits gays from doing anything they
    like.  How convenient.
    
    > It is no accident this institution is the prevalent one among humans -
    > it has stood the test of time, it works when you do it properly.
    
    I challenge you to produce ANY meaningful information that even HINTS
    at the likelihood that committed same-sex relationships do not stand
    the test of time as well as committed mixed-sex relationships.  Love
    knows no boundaries of gender - love tears down walls.  Hatred and
    fear, on the other hand, build walls.

                      <<< Note 469.38 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>      It does not surprise me that islands, those test tubes of the
>    idiotic, might produce all sorts of pathologies we should avoid.

	Ahh, THAT explains most of the entries from our British noters.

	;-)

Jim

    <------
    Ha ha ha ha ha ..........
    That was GREAT ! ! ! ! !
    
    :-))))))
    Dan

    >You think something is white, you assume that everyone except deviants 
    >agrees with you.
    
    It is actually worse than that Dick. Not only do they assume but they
    demand that you think it is white and if you don't they will damn well
    find a way to stop you and put you in jail if necessary.
    
    ...Tom

    
      No, I don't know anything about same-sex relationship data, if any
     exists of an objective nature.
    
      Look - it's easy.  Why do you so hate traditional people ?  We want
     to be left alone, to live in simple old-fashioned social settings as
     our ancestors did.  Leave us and our traditional institutions alone,
     and we'll get along fine.  But start teaching that incest is OK in
     our schools, and we view it as throwing dynamite through our windows.
     And if you want to try to marry your MacIntosh, we view it as an
     attack upon our way of life.
    
      If you want to go live a non-standard life, fine by me.  But do not
     misunderstand the power or deeply felt crusade for "family values".
     We have drawn the wagons into a circle, we are on defense now, with
     a siege mentality born from the catastrophic results of your previous
     hateful assaults on us.
    
      Go away.  bb

 ZZ    Love knows no boundaries of gender - love tears down walls.  Hatred and
 ZZ    fear, on the other hand, build walls.
    
    Dick:
    
    When the Israelites were told by God to separate themselves from the
    surrounding nations, was God displaying a form of hate and fear?
    
    -Jack

>     And if you want to try to marry your MacIntosh, we view it as an
>     attack upon our way of life.

People like you marry your PCs, right?

    
    
    (everytime i see this title come up, i think it reads 'the insect topic')
    
    
    

> But start teaching that incest is OK in our schools

The above was the first I'd read about that idea.

    
    .48:
    
    Good thing Dennis isn't here!
    

    He couldn't get away with that now.

    If a ladybug is not red and black, is it still a ladybug?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    
    Mr. Bill, It's a little girl bug.  Lady bugs are yellow and black
    when they are born.  The yellow gradually changes to shades of 
    orange, and finally red as they mature.
    
    
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    
    Terrie
    

    .45
    
    > Why do you so hate traditional people ?
    
    I don't.  I am one.  What I hate is people whose refusal to use their
    brains is a denial of the gift given them by their God.
    
    > We want
    > to be left alone...
    
    Bingo.  That's all gays want.
    
    > ...to live in simple old-fashioned social settings as
    > our ancestors did.
    
    Fine.  Do so.  But why deny the same rights to others?  If you don't
    want to marry someone of your own gender, don't.  If you don't want
    your kids to be gay, give it up - they are or they aren't, and you
    can't do a damned thing about it except teach them to hate and fear
    those who are different.  How are you threatened by legitimizing love?
    
    If you want to be really simple and old-fashioned, like your ancestors,
    I'll be there to see you off to your new home where there are no cars,
    no recorded music, no electricity, no safety razors, no sewing
    machines, no frozen foods, and no printed Bibles.
    
    > But start teaching that incest is OK in our schools...
    
    I didn't.  And don't.  I have merely pointed out the irrefutable fact
    that there are societies whose standards differ from yours.  Burying
    your head in the sand will not make those societies go away.  Are you
    afraid to study them and learn about them?  Are you afraid that they
    will taint you?  Your faith must be an astonishingly fragile thing,
    then.
    
    > If you want to go live a non-standard life, fine by me.
    
    Just don't ask you to acknowledge that there is any lifestyle other
    than yours that's worthwhile.
    
    > But do not
    > misunderstand the power or deeply felt crusade for "family
    > values".
    
    I don't misunderstand it.  Hatred and bigotry are the most powerful
    forces humans can raise against other humans.
    
    > your previous
    > hateful assaults on us.
    
    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!  Hateful assaults.  Go away, leave us alone, let us be
    people, give us the rights you enjoy.  Those are the cries of gays. 
    Oddly, they do not sound like assaults, they sound more like cries from
    within a circle of wagons.

    
    
    	Can I ask a pertinent question ?
    
    	What if your mam is a dog ?
    
    	What if she has big sweaty oaksters and smells like delivery day at
    	the fishmongers ?
    
    Bongo.

    .46
    
    > When the Israelites were told by God...
    
    The Catholic Church, which was founded by God, not by men as were all
    other Christian denominations, holds that the Bible is not a history
    book, that its words are filtered through the understanding of the men
    who wrote it.  Who knows exactly what God really told them during the
    "40 years" and what they interpreted from it?  I don't.  You don't.  No
    person who has lived in  the last 3,000 years does.  We're all
    guessing.

    
    Woah.  If that ladybug was a babybug, maybe it'll go after the crows
    when it grows up.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    They are almost full size after only a few weeks.  It takes longer for
    them to change their colors.
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    |The Catholic Church, which was founded by God, not by men as were all
    |other Christian denominations,

    So, men had nothing to do with the formation of the Catholic Church?

    I think all the denominations were founded by men including the
    Catholic Church. To say anything else is a leap of faith. 

    Glenn

    
    
    There's a difference between 'founding' and 'forming'.
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    .59
    
    The position of the Catholic Church is derived from these words of
    Jesus:
    
    And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
    will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
    it.  (Matthew 16:18, KJV).
    
    Jesus is considered to be God by Christians; hence, God founded the
    Church and gave custodianship of it to Peter, whom tradition holds to
    have been the first Pope.

    It is a leap of faith based on a scriptural interpretation.

    If one can question the accuracy of scripture, one can surely question
    this claim.
    
    But I digress.

    just for the record Bob, the Easter Island example doesn't support your
    position.
    
    the most commonly held opinion (based on archeological evidence) is
    that they simply outgrew the island and stripped of the ability to
    support that population...
    
    Chip

    No it wasn't Chip.  They practiced incest and stopped having children
    that were smart and wonderful and god fearing and then they died.  They
    were heathens anyway, good riddance.  

    
      Well, I confess I dunno how the EI'ers self-mated themselves, so to
     speak.  I just cited it as yet another example of self-destructive
     wacky islanders, without going into the details.
    
      Any whaze, I can see no logic to the argument that I should emulate
     any goofball behavior found in these isolated places.
    
      "It is not logical for a continent to be ruled by an island."
    
                               - Thomas Paine, in Common Sense.
    
      bb

    
    
    
    .38
    
    >Take a look at the collapse of human society on Easter
    > Island.  If you were going to avoid self-destruction, you'd do well
    
    	They self-destructed because of over population, used up their
    	natural resources and starved to death.
    
    .....
    
    In general, Incest causes birth defects because everyone is born
    with some defective resessive genes. Mating with someone that also carries
    the same defective resessive gene can cause the defect to be passed to
    offspring as an active gene. A relative has the highest chance of carrying
    that same resessive defective gene.
    

    > In general, Incest causes birth defects because everyone is born
    > with some defective resessive genes. Mating with someone that also carries
    > the same defective resessive gene can cause the defect to be passed to
    > offspring as an active gene. A relative has the highest chance of carrying
    > that same resessive defective gene.
    
    Hence, the Kennedys and their politics...
    
    -b

    
    .68
    
    and all along I thought Kennedys only screwed others and not each 
    other.

Nice Snarf there..

    It might explain why John F. Kennedy claimed to be a jelly doughnut.

    thanks Brian, i needed that!

    yer welkum :-)

    
>      I can see no logic to the argument that I should emulate
>      any goofball behavior found in these isolated places

Good that you can't see the logic, as no one's proposed it, anyway.

I'm no "supporter" of incest, and what follows could just as well be placed
in any of several dozen other topics in here, but -

I wonder why it is that everytime we see these "geeziz, if that were
to happen it would be the downfall of society" positions, it's always in
the context of something similar to one of the following -

    o If we let people do that it will send the wrong message
    o We can't have the schools teaching that that's OK
    o We've got enough decadence without allowing them to do that
    o Etc.

It always comes back to the same old crappola about traditions being destroyed
or children being corrupted because "society" might "allow" something to
happen which doesn't fit in with the "normal" view of the world. It appears
to me that this attitude is really little more than the ultimate in abbrogation
of personal responsibility.

If you have fear that your kids will be susceptible to corruption from such
occurrences, then it's your own damn fault for not bringing your kids up in
an environment which provided them with sufficient character to be able to
reason the proper paths for their own lives. If you have fear that your
own family/marriage will crumble as a result of such occurrences, then it's
your own damn fault for not working hard enough to ensure that your bonds
are strong enough to remain immune to the decay. If your family and your kids
are safe, then isn't it up to everyone else to make sure that they likewise
protect their own family and kids as they see fit? And if they're too stupid,
too lazy, or too corrupt to do as you'd like, then why not try to make a
case for doing away with them, instead of playing social engineer with a
system that isn't yours to control? Surely there are enough of you to pull
it off, no?

<------ what he said?

(I never copy cat)

:-}

Mikey

    IMO committing incest usually evolves from a neurotic or a psychotic
    base, but not always. Incest between consenting adults may be healthy
    for those individuals. Despite government laws, nothing in the nature
    of voluntary, adult-adult incest is inherently wrong or harmful in the
    act itself. But conception among close blood relatives can activate
    undesirable, genetically recessive traits. The problem of bearing
    defective children must be considered by closely related couples.
    However, the decision to bear children should always remain the right of 
    the couple. But, if they choose to have children they must be willing 
    to assume full responsibility for the raising of the children.
    
    FWIW I think that about half the states prohibit marriage of first
    cousins and all the states prohibit marriage of blood relationships
    closer than first cousins.
    
    ...Tom

   
>    In general, Incest causes birth defects because everyone is born
>    with some defective resessive genes. Mating with someone that also carries
>    the same defective resessive gene can cause the defect to be passed to
>    offspring as an active gene. A relative has the highest chance of carrying
>    that same resessive defective gene.

While incest may lead to an initially higher incidence of birth defects, over
the long term incest acts to increase the phenotypic and sometimes even the
genetic fitness of a population. While this flies in the face of colloquial
understanding, the effect of incest is to allow lethal recessives to be
expressed, thereby removing that particular set of genes from the gene pool.
Over time the frequency of these lethal recessives decline to insignificant
levels.  

	NB: This is not always true, tho'.  Some lethal genes are protected by
	heterozygote advantage, the notable example being that the recessive
	genes that cause sickle cell anemia are protected by unrelated genes 
	that confer increased resistence to malaria.  With respect to phenotypic 
	fitness, incest is usually beneficial to the population.

The negative consequences of incest occur because the gene pool becomes
concentrated and lacking in genetic diversity.  Thus, an incestuous poplulation
may be phenotypically fit, but genetically unstable (i.e., over time, everybody
begins to look, act, and be more and more alike).  Now, so long as the selective
pressures applied to the population do not change in a way that selects against
some common trait, we would expect the population to continue to thrive.  
Unfortunately, the environment always changes and the selective pressures
applied to populations change very rapidly, relative to the pace with which
species-specific genetic changes propagate through a population.  This means
that a population can be wiped out in the space of a few years -- Particularly
if the gestation period of the species is long relative to the change in
environment that caused the change in selective pressure.

As an absurd example, suppose all of the easter islanders, after having been
inbred for hundreds of millenia, had become exquisitely sensitive to
temperature.  So long as the mean temperature didn't vary substantially, life
was great.  However, when the last ice age hit and the mean temperature dropped
15 degrees and didn't rise again, all those unable to tolerate the temperature
decline did not survive.  If the temperature-sensitivity genes had been widely
prevalent then there might too few people left to repropagate the race.

I would only point out that biology makes no moral judgements about behavior. 
She is much more severe.  If a species-specific behavior is maladaptive the
species is extinguished.

In my view, society's views of incest are *not* informed by biological reality
but by myth and supposition.

Regards,


/mtp

       <<< Note 469.54 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    > We want
>    > to be left alone...
>    
>    Bingo.  That's all gays want.
    
    	Then why must we have gay "role models" in our schools, and
    	special gay-sensitive curriculums, and gay sensitivity training 
    	in the military, and special minority classification and 
    	affirmative action for gays.    If that's "all they want", then
    	why do they also push for these other things?
    
>    How are you threatened by legitimizing love?
    
    	That's what this topic was started for.  Since you couldn't
    	seem to be able to answer .33, I'll ask it a little differently
    	here, Dick.  Do you think our society would be threatened by
    	legitimizing incest?
    
>    I have merely pointed out the irrefutable fact
>    that there are societies whose standards differ from yours.  Burying
>    your head in the sand will not make those societies go away.  
    
    	But burying our heads in the sand will allow our society to
    	become like them.  If we find a behavior abhorrent, shouldn't
    	we be doing everything we can prevent it from being legitimized?
    	I think we should.  How about you?
    
>    I don't misunderstand it.  Hatred and bigotry are the most powerful
>    forces humans can raise against other humans.
    
    	Self defense is another.

       <<< Note 469.56 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    The Catholic Church, which was founded by God, holds that the Bible('s)
>    ... words are filtered through the understanding of the men
>    who wrote it.  
    
    	Stick to things you know about.  People trust you, Dick, for
    	you seem pretty knowledgeable, making this kind of statement
    	very dangerous and misleading.
    
    	The Catholic Church does NOT hold this.

         <<< Note 469.74 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>If you have fear that your kids will be susceptible to corruption from such
>occurrences, then it's your own damn fault for not bringing your kids up in
>an environment which provided them with sufficient character to be able to
>reason the proper paths for their own lives. 
    
    	Which is why people fight for the soul of society's moral
    	foundation.  You know the saying, "The whole village raises
    	the child."  Society is our village.  Our kids -- we all --
    	get as much or more influence from our social environment
    	as we get from our own families.  So in fighting to influence
    	social conscience -- at least in my case -- it is PRECISELY
    	to provide my kids, and theirs, with sufficient character.

re:.79	

Did not the Catholic Church compile the 66 writings we now refer to as "The
Bible"?  Why is it then that biblical literalists have so much disdain for the 
Catholic religion?  And while we are at it how did they go about choosing? 
Weren't Adam and Eve guilty of incest as well?  If not where did the other
people come from?  Why aren't they mentioned in the Bible?  
(didn't think I had forgotten did you?)

Mikey

    RE: Adam & Eve
    
    Mikey, I asked that question first.  You will have to wait your turn to
    get an answer.  

>Did not the Catholic Church compile the 66 writings we now refer to as "The
>Bible"?  
    
    I don't know.  Maybe John Covert knows since he's into early church
    history.
    
    >Why is it then that biblical literalists have so much disdain for the 
>Catholic religion?  
    
    This could take volumes, but disdain might be a harsh word.  Start with
    Constantine up to the present day and you'll find a few things that
    highlight differences.
    
    Mike

	My father and brother are ministers!   Throughout my life I have heard
the Bible is "the literal word of God".  The story of Adam and Eve is just one
example of a story(myth) borrowed from another people. I have difficulty
comprehending how anyone who knows the bible well could believe it is the
literal word of anyone!   That does not mean it's all BS.  It means one must
interpret what it says for themself.  Quoting verses to prove a point may carry
weight among your fellow church members, but makes one look like a naive fool in
the eyes of many others.  At the very best you have no credibility.  I am not
trying to shake anyone's faith here.  I too am a Christian.  

Mikey

>trying to shake anyone's faith here.  I too am a Christian.  
    
    Mikey, by what authority to you base this claim?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    .74
    
    Take a look at the cover of LIFE magazine's June issue.
    
    

    .76
    
    I cannot believe I'm reading this.  
    
    Back to the old if it feels good do it routine.  
    
    

    Mr. Heiser haven't you heard?  A Christian no longer represents a
    belief in Christ Jesus as the Son of God, Savior of man.  
    
    Why anyone can be a CHRISTIAN even if they think Jesus was a mere man
    or didn't exist at all... come on get with the flow.
    
    :-)
    Nancy

re:         <<< Note 469.80 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

Sorry, but it won't work, Joe. You can't simply turn it back around like
that. Ultimately, the responsibility for raising YOUR children with
sufficient character rests with you. Attempting to claim that the
societal village shares the responsibility is nothing more than an
veiled abbrogation of your own responsibility. You _CANNOT_ influence or
control social conscience in all things, and somehow or another one's
kids will turn out as they do. If you care to claim at that point that
any "deficiencies" in their character are the fault of "society", how
much slack do you expect will be cut for you? Claiming "victim status"
somehow seems out of character for you.

The responsibility is yours, regardless of what society dishes up.
Live with it.

I have two grown (over 21), well educated, well adjusted young women as
my only children. Their mother and I bear the responsibility for how
they turned out - not society. And should they have not turned out so well,
we'd have only ourselves to blame. I'm sure no one in here would be
interested in any claims that "society" was at fault, either in part or
in whole.

re:    <<< Note 469.86 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

Sorry, not only do I fail to have a copy of your scriptures, but I also don't
read pulp. Care to expound?

    
    
    I say keep incest in the family.....where it belongs....
    
                                                 Juicy.

    
    A game the whole family can play.
    
    

    hey, if they crack down on incest won't that seriously jeopardize the
    populations of certain states like Tennessee, Kentucky, the Virginia's,
    etc?

    don't forget Arkansas Chip.  

    oh yeah, and Arkansas. if Canada was state i'd include that too!

    
    
    re: .94
    
    
    Is that anything like a Cow Chip???
    

    -1 hey!

    .79
    
    > Stick to things you know about.
    
    I do.  And what I know about is confirmed by a gentleman whose
    knowledge of history and of the Catholic Church I respect greatly.  I
    post the following with his explicit permission.  After you read it,
    you can apologize to me, or you can continue to appear reduced to ad
    hominem attacks against me.
    
              <<< CALDEC::USER2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ANTIQUITY.NOTE;4 >>>
                                 -< ANTIQUITY >-
================================================================================
Note 106.88                 Moses and the Israelites                    88 of 88
COLEOS::GOBBINI                                      78 lines  19-JUN-1995 13:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The comment to the book of Joshua that Leo translated for us (BTW, Leo,
    your translation sounds very good to me) illustrates well the official
    Catholic position. When I was in high school (we had semi-mandatory
    religious instruction in public schools in Italy; no separation of 
    Church and State under the regime of Christian Democracy!) the dominican
    father who taught us told us that God's inspiration to the human authors 
    of the Bible was filtered through the brain of said authors, and expressed 
    according to their knowledge of history and the physical world.
    Therefore, it is vain to try to find in the Bible any more historical,
    geographical, astronomical knowledge than what any man of the same time, 
    position and education would have had. The Bible was meant by God to
    convey moral and theological guidance, and we should use it for that
    purpose only. To read the Bible just to find the inaccuracies in it is 
    a sin. To use the Bible to find some notions about what men of that age
    and culture thought and knew is all right, but not profitable for the
    soul. We should aim to be good Christians, not Bible scholars. 
    
    This has been the official position of the Catholic church at least since 
    the times of Pius XII and was widely held even before. I believe it is 
    also the position of most Protestant denominations in Europe, and of some
    Protestant bodies in the U.S. (the Hahvahd-liberal kind of Protestants).
    However, most Protestants in the U.S. are fundamentalists. American 
    Catholics would probably be fundamentalists too, if the authority of
    the Church didn't restrain them. I suppose this because their way of 
    thinking doesn't differ appreciably from that of their Protestant 
    neighbours. 
    
>	I assume that you use the term "fundamentalist" to mean someone
>	"intolerant of other opinions."  I can imagine that someone who
    
    No, that is not what I meant. A fundamentalist is one who subscribes 
    to four or five "fundamental" propositions that were set down in a
    Protestant congress in the U.S. about a century ago. One of these
    propositions is the literal inerrancy of the Bible. (The others are:
    Jesus's virgin birth, Jesus bodily resurrection from the dead, and
    something else I don't remember.)
    
>	believes in the literal truth of the Bible would have no problem at 
>	all with any argument that a scientist may bring up :  He will always 	
>	believe the Word of his/her God(s) rather than any interpretation made 
>	by man, full stop.  If this person lives happily with what he or 
    
    That exactly what I meant. I said a fundamentalist would find James's
    chronology even more unacceptable than the commonly held chronology. 
    That is, he would not be willing to accept it, no matter how many 
    arguments it had in its favour. However, not being willing to accept a
    theory does not necessarily mean to be intolerant of those who do. 
    That is a different subject, which I did not touch. 
    
    Maybe you thought I was using the word "unacceptable" in its Victorian 
    sense, like: "to eat with one's mouth open is unacceptable" (meaning: 
    those who do so ought to be slapped in the cheek, banned from polite
    society, and possibly clapped in jail if they did so in the presence of
    "ladies".) Not at all. I was simply using the word in its original sense, 
    like: "I find the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory unacceptable"
    (meaning: I cannot accept it as correct, or significant, or sufficiently
    proven). 
    
>	she believes to be the truth, in a socially acceptable manner, I see 
>	no reason why anyone would need to try to "prove" him/her wrong with 
>	scientific arguments.  Neither would it be useful for the other to 
>	try to convince non-believers by using scientific arguments, as his 
>	believes inherently invalidate scientific methods. (IMHO)

    Neither do I. The last thing I would try to do is to convince a
    believer. The reverse is usually the case. I regularly get Mormons and
    Jehovah's Witnesses ringing at my door. 
    
>	I imagine that if I were a believer of the literal truth of the
>	Bible I would have much more problems with the internal contradic-
>	tions, than with any mismatch to history-as-created-by-historians.  
    
    Not really. A vast body of apologetics has been devised to explain away
    the contradictions. The human mind is very adaptable. A human being can
    easily believe that two and two makes BOTH three AND five, if he/she
    has a sufficiently strong emotional interest in believing so.

    Joe G. 

    .96 see what you did Brian! now go to your and Mt Snow for you!

From the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

                           CHAPTER III
                        SACRED SCRIPTURE,
            ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION

  11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and
presented in sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  For holy mother Church,
relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16;
2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and
New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred
and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on such
to the Church herself [1].  In composing the sacred books, God
chose men and while employed by Him [2] they made use of their
powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through
them [3], they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything
and only those things which He wanted [4].

  Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or
sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it
follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as
teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God
wanted put into the sacred writings [5] for the sake of our
salvation.  Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has
its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation
of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who
belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every
kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

  12. However, since God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in
human fashion [6], the interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to
see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully
investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and
what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

  To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention
should be given, among other things, to "literary norms."  For
truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are
variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of
discourse.  The interpreter must investigate what meaning the
sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in
particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in
accordance with the situation of his own time and culture [7].  For
the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to
assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and
characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which
prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men
normally employed at the period in their everyday dealings with one
another [8].

  But, since holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the
same spirit in which it was written [9], no less serious attention
must be given to the content and unity of the whole Scripture if
the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out.  The
living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account
along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. 
It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward
a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of sacred
Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgement of the
Church may mature.  For all of what has been said about the way of
interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgement of the
Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of
guarding and interpreting the Word of God [10].

  13. In sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness
of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of
eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle
kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has
gone in adopting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak
human nature" [11].  For the words of God, expressed in human
language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of
the eternal Father, when He took Himself the flesh of human
weakness, was in every way made like men.

                           CHAPTER IV
                        THE OLD TESTAMENT

  14. In carefully planning and preparing the salvation of the
whole human race the God of infinite love, by a special
dispensation, chose for Himself a people to whom He would entrust
His promises.  First He entered into a covenant with Abraham (see
Gen. 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel (see Ex.
24:8).  To this people which He had acquired for Himself, He so
manifested Himself through words and deeds as the one true and
living God that Israel came to know by experience the ways of God
with men.  Then, too, when God Himself spoke to them through the
mouth of the prophets, Israel daily gained a deeper and clearer
understanding of His ways and made them more widely known among the
nations (see Ps. 21:29; 95:1-3; Is. 2:1-4; Jer. 3:17).  The plan of
salvation foretold by the sacred authors, recounted and explained
by them, is found as the true Word of God in the books of the Old
Testament: these books, therefore, written under divine
inspiration, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the
Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4).

  15. The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant
was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer
of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by
prophecy (see Luke 24:44, John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate
its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:11).  Now the
books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind
before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all
men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just
and merciful, deals with men.  These books, though they also
contain some things which are incomplete and temporary,
nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy [1].  These same books,
then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of
sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a
wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our
salvation is present in a hidden way.  Christians should receive
them with reverence.

  16. God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely
arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and that the
Old be made manifest in the New [2].  For, though Christ
established the new covenant with His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor.
11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts,
caught up into the meaning of the proclamation of the Gospel [3],
acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see
Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 3:14-16) and in turn
shed light on it and explain it.

                            CHAPTER V
                        THE NEW TESTAMENT

  17. Word of God, which is the power of God for the salvation of
all who believe (see Rom. 1:16), is set forth and shows its power
in a most excellent way in the writings of the New Testament.  For
when the fullness of time arrived (see Gal. 4:4), the Word was made
flesh and dwelt among us in His fullness of graces and truth (see
John 1:14).  Christ established the Kingdom of God on earth,
manifested His Father and Himself by deeds and words, and completed
His work by His death, resurrection and glorious ascension and by
the sending of the Holy Spirit.  Having been lifted up from the
earth, He draws all men to Himself (see John 12:32, Greek text), He
who alone has the words of eternal life (see John 6:68).  This
mystery had not been manifested to other generations as it was now
revealed to His holy Apostles and prophets in the Holy Spirit (see
Eph. 3:4-6, Greek text), so that they might preach the Gospel, stir
up faith in Jesus, Christ and Lord, and gather together the Church. 
Now the writings of the New Testament stand as a perpetual and
divine witness to these realities.

  18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even
those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence,
and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and
teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour.

  The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold
that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin.  For what the
Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ,
afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration
of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of
the faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John [1].

  19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy
held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named,
whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts,
faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men,
really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He
was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1-2).  Indeed, after the
ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what
He had said and done.  This they did with that clearer
understanding which they enjoyed [3] after they had been instructed
by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of
the Spirit of truth [2].  The sacred authors wrote four Gospels,
selecting some things from the many which had bee handed on by word
of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis,
explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches,
and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion
that they told us the honest truth about Jesus [4].  For their
intention in writing was that either from their own memory and
recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from
the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might
know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been
instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

  20. Besides the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament also
contains the epistles of St. Paul and other apostolic writings,
composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which
according to the wise plan of God, those matters which concern
Christ the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more
preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the Church and its
marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold.

  For the Lord Jesus was with His Apostles as He had promised (see
Matt. 28:2)) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them
into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).

                           CHAPTER VI
                        SACRED SCRIPTURE
                    IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH
  
  21. The Church has always venerated the Scriptures just as she
venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in sacred
liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the
bread of life from the table both of God's Word and of Christ's
Body.  She has always maintained them, and continues to do so,
together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith,
since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to
writing, they impart the Word of God Himself without change, and
make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the
prophets and Apostles.  Therefore, like the Christian religion
itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and
regulated by sacred Scripture.  For in the sacred books, the Father
who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with
them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that
it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of
faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting
source of spiritual life.  Consequently these words are perfectly
applicable to sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and
active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you
your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see
1 Thess. 2:13).

  22. Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all
the Christian faithful.  That is why the Church from the very
beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation
of the Old Testament which is called the Septuagint; and she has
always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and
Latin ones, especially the Latin translation known as the Vulgate. 
But since the Word of God should be accessible at all times, the
Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that
suitable and correct translations are made into different
languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. 
And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities
approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the
separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use
them.

  23. The bride of the Incarnate Word, the Church taught by the
Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper
understanding of the sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly
feed her sons with the divine words.  Therefore, she also
encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and
of the sacred liturgies.  Catholic exegetes then and other students
of sacred theology, working diligently together and using
appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful
care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration
and exposition of the divine writings.  This should be so done that
as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able
effectively to provide nourishment of the Scriptures for the People
of God, to enlighten their minds , strengthen their wills and set
men's hearts on fire with the love of God [1].  The sacred Synod
encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue
energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they
have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor [2].

  24. Sacred theology rests on the written Word of God, together
with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation.  By
scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the
mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and
constantly rejuvenated by that Word.  For the sacred Scriptures
contain the Word of God and since they are inspired really are the
Word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were,
the soul of sacred theology [3].  By the same word of Scripture the
ministry of the Word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics
and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must
hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and
flourishes in a holy way.

  25. Therefore, all the clergy must hold fast to the sacred
Scriptures through diligent sacred reading and careful study,
especially the priests of Christ and others, such as deacons and
catechists whoa re legitimately active in the ministry of the Word. 
This is to be done so that none of them will become "an empty
preacher of the word of God outwardly, who is not a listener to it
inwardly" [4] since they must share the abundant wealth of the
divine Word with the faithful committed to them, especially in the
sacred liturgy.  The sacred Synod also earnestly and especially
urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by
frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge
of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Scriptures is
ignorance of Christ" [5].  Therefore, they should gladly put
themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be
through the liturgy, rich in the divine Word or through devotional
reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other
aids which, in our time with approval and active support of the
shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere.  And
let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of
sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we
speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine
saying" [6].

  It devolves on sacred bishops "who have the apostolic teaching"
[7] to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in
the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and
above all the Gospels.  This can be done through translations of
the sacred texts, which are to be provided with the necessary and
really adequate explanations so that the children of the Church may
safely and profitably become conversant with the sacred Scriptures
and be penetrated with their spirit.

  Furthermore, editions of the sacred Scriptures, provided
with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the sue of non-
Christians and adapted to their situation.  Both pastors of souls
and Christians generally should see to the wide distribution of
these in one way or another.

  26. In this way, therefore, through the reading and study of the
sacred books "the word of God may spread rapidly and be glorified"
(2 Thess. 3;1) and the treasure of revelation, entrusted to the
Church, may more and more fill the hearts of men.  Just as the life
of the Church is strengthened through more frequent celebration of
the Eucharistic mystery, similarly we may hope for a new stimulus
for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of
God, which "lasts forever" (Is. 40:8; see 1 Peter 1:23-25).

Text of first two chapters and footnotes available at:

gopher://wiretap.Spies.COM:70/00/Library/Religion/Catholic/Vatican_II/Dei_verbum

	Couldn't you have just wrote that for everything John? :-)

    
    .106:
    
    Oh yes, that second version is MUCH more insightful.
    

	But it won't be there long.... :-)

Re: .85 ( Boy a few hours out of this conference and yu lose track)

Mike are you doubting that I am?

Mikey 

>    Mr. Heiser haven't you heard?  A Christian no longer represents a
>    belief in Christ Jesus as the Son of God, Savior of man.  
>    
>    Why anyone can be a CHRISTIAN even if they think Jesus was a mere man
>    or didn't exist at all... come on get with the flow.
    
    Sorry Mom, I'll try and do better.

re .111:

I guess he thinks Oedipus is filth too.

       <<< Note 469.98 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    > Stick to things you know about.
>    
>    I do.  And what I know about is confirmed by a gentleman whose
>    knowledge of history and of the Catholic Church I respect greatly.  
    
    	And I do not respect his position on the matter.  
    
>    After you read it,
>    you can apologize to me, or you can continue to appear reduced to ad
>    hominem attacks against me.
    
    	No apology is warranted based on the "proof" you present.  Show 
    	me actual Church writings as proof, not second-hand, high school
    	memory from someone's teacher who happened to be a priest.
    
    	Here, let me start you off with something to mull over:
    
    	"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors
    	or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit,
    	it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as
    	teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which
    	God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation."
    
    		(From the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
    
    	I find this to be quite contradictory to your source's source.

    	Oh, sorry.  I see John beat me to it in .100.
    
    	Nice snarf.

    .114
    
    John did not beat you to it in .100.  He confirmed what I said in .98.
    For example:
    
    > they made use of their
    > powers and abilities
    
    Which of course includes knowledge and understanding.  Not ONE of the
    Old Testament authors was a physicist or a paleontologist or a
    geologist or an astronomer.
    
    > the interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to
    > see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully
    > investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended,
    
    Investigate whether they really intended to say, for instance, that the
    world was created in six 24-hour days.  There is text in Genesis that
    is obviously figurative, why not that line, too?
    
    > due attention must be paid to the customary and
    > characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which
    > prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men
    > normally employed at the period in their everyday dealings with one
    > another
    
    The ancient writers did not mean literally, for instance, that the
    Noachian Deluge suffered exactly forty 24-hour days' rain or that the
    Hebrews wandered exactly forty years (360- or 365-day years, take your
    choice) in the desert before arriving at Mount Sinai.  The term "forty"
    was commonly used to indicate an indeterminate but not small number. 
    Which means that it should NEVER be taken literally unless there is
    clear contextual evidence that a specific number is meant.
    
    > But, since holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the
    > same spirit in which it was written...
    
    Which is, of course, spiritual instruction, not exposition of scientific
    or historical facts.
    
    All in all, I think this supports my contention, and that of Pius XII,
    quite well. If you can't see that, well, it's your problem.

    	A lot of wind there -- I suppose it is to kick up a straw or
    	two to cling to.

    > Sorry Mom, I'll try and do better.
    
    Excuse me...???? Mom???  I know I'm getting older, but this is a bit of
    an insult Heiser, especially since your not that much younger than I,
    as a matter of fact you may even be older! 
    
    Nancy-feeling-very-hurt
    
    

    1.  The Bible is not filth... but at the same time, the Bible DOES
    speak of immorality rather candidly.  I think the view of Christianity
    today is one of the devout monk versus reality of folks like me... who
    fail consistently, has been immoral, yet looks to God for restoration.
    
    2.  The daughters of Lot sinned against God.  For they lost their
    faith.  
    
    One of the reasons I believe the Bible to be true, is the fact that it
    doesn't gloss over the sins of God's people... 
    
    Nancy

	What is the typical type of response you will get from Joe Oppelt when
someone has proven him wrong?




        <<< Note 469.116 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

    	A lot of wind there -- I suppose it is to kick up a straw or
    	two to cling to.




	Why is it he doesn't refute it? Oh yeah.... cuz even he knows he is
wrong....

                  <<< Note 469.119 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	What is the typical type of response you will get from Joe Oppelt when
>someone has proven him wrong?
    
    	Ah, stalking me here too...
    
    	Perhaps you too should stay out of things YOU don't understand.
    
>	Why is it he doesn't refute it? Oh yeah.... cuz even he knows he is
>wrong....
    
    	There is nothing to refute.  I am not wrong.  Dick is simply
    	grasping at straws.
    
    	He said:
    
.56>    The Catholic Church, which was founded by God, holds that the Bible('s)
>    ... words are filtered through the understanding of the men
>    who wrote it.  
    
    	and what was posted in .113 (or more broadly circa .100) shows
    	his statement to be wrong.  The statement BY THE CHURCH in .113
    	is clear, unmistakeable, and concise.  THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH
    	TEACHES.  Dick's circuitous rationalization totally ignores what
    	is clearly stated, and is therefore a grasp at straws to defend
    	his statement.
    
    	You can stalk and attack me (though I notice that you can't attack 
    	the topic at hand) but the bottom line is that Dick's statement in 
    	.56 is wrong.  Of course, you are free to still defend Dick's 
    	errant statement, but I doubt that you can muster an argument with 
    	a fraction of the elegance  and eloquence that Dick can (erroneous 
    	as it may be) so you'd be better off leaving that defense to Dick 
    	if he chooses to do so.

    Well, Joe, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I'm sure each
    of has valid reasons for his interpretation of what was posted in .100.

    
    
    
    .77
    
    Nine months later...but...
    
    I don't see this as being true...
    
    First defective genes don't all lead to lethal mutations, so at least 
    these would continue in the pool and still be undesirable.
    
    Gene mutations constantly happen, an average of two mutations 
    per-person though these are mostly harmless and usually recessive
    but then recessive and incest will increase the chance of being
    expressive.
    
    So the pool never gets cleaned up, as you say.