Comment

Comment by Rick on June 27, 2009 at 5:39am

I based that statement on humans being the only ones...from a PBS documentary back in the 70's on humans.
I guess no one ever asked the apes....lol
And yes, you're right, rules for the clergy don't square.
Good post John.
Now, James....
Love your take on it.
And I know that there have been many "children" who had parents who were "of the cloth" you might say. One Pope had a son who was a professional soldier back a few hundred years ago.
The Mother Superior with the strap on parts...hummm
Reminds me of the joke...
A young priest goes into town. A hooker come up to him and say, "a blow job for 20 bucks.."
The young innocent priest is confused...
He meets several other hookers who tell him the same thing.
He runs back to the church and asks the Mother Superior,
"Mother Superior Mother Superior! What's a blow job?!"
Mother Superior replies....
"20 bucks...same as in town..."
Oh like you didn't see that one coming.....

Comment by James M. Martin on June 26, 2009 at 12:21pm

As Uta Ranke-Heinemann (German theologian) has demonstrated in her writings, Catholic priests in Europe do marry, albeit secretly, just as cafeteria Catholics in the U.S. resort to abortion to terminate unwanted fetuses. As for priests and nuns not having sex, how could we know? One of the Huxley's (I think it was Aldous) wrote a book, The Devils of Loudon about an historical incidence of sexual hysteria in a parish in which the priest frolicked with all the nuns, including the Mother Superior, named Joan. Typically Catholic, the Church branding it the product of "Satanic" possession.

One suspects American Catholic priests are not as interested in heterosexual relations, much less marriage, so many of them are pedophiles. And as for celebacy among the nuns, the late William S. Burroughs in one of his stories speaks of nocturnal visitations by the Mother Superior "with her strap-on dildo." Go figure! Me, I am still wondering how so many penguins wound up in tropical climes such as my own.

Comment by John Shuey on June 26, 2009 at 7:36am

Rick -

First, it is not true that only humankind has sex for pleasure. Most primates engage in numerous sexual acts every day - some homosexual. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that a common ancestor 10 or 12 or 15 million years ago behaved similarly.

Second, however, you are trying to square a round hole. Religion by its very nature is irrational - drawing heavily on tradition, myth, and absolutism to weave its rules and spell.

The Catholic rules for clergy, etc, don't square because they are based neither on reason nor common sense. To think too hard on such a tangle is to give oneself a headache.

Comment by Rick on June 26, 2009 at 1:36am

OK so this has been on my mind for a few days and I thought I’d share it with you and get your feedback. In the Catholic Church, Priests and Nuns cannot marry.
Priest and Nuns must remain chaste.
BUT
Gay/Lesbian acts are prohibited.
Gay/Lesbian marriage is prohibited.

Now, human’s are the only beings on this planet that have sex for pleasure.
Human have sex essentially, to pro-create.
Sex is natural.
It’s part of us.

So why can’t Priests and Nuns marry?
Why can’t Priests and Nuns have sex?

While I will not go into gay/lesbian sex, heterosexual acts of Priests and Nuns is prohibited.
That seems odd to me.
It seems odd that this is a natural act.
I to think the Catholic Church want men and women to procreate.
So why then ban Priests and Nuns from having sex?

Ergo…
No sex between people of the same sex, and no sex between people of the opposite sex if they are Priests and Nuns….

See the oddity of it all?


Making Men and Women not have sex…is well, weird…

What do you all think about this?

Comment by Jake kerr on June 9, 2009 at 1:29am

Been a casual member of Atheist Nexus for some time now, but I read some comments about younger atheists needing community support and decided to be more active. Not sure what I can do, but am happy to do whatever I can to help others.

Comment by Gary Oscar Laun on May 29, 2009 at 8:56am

the problems are not necessarily over: McLeroy is still on the board. He's just been given a vote of no confidence to be the head of the SBoE. I don't know if Perry can just ignore the vote and re-nominate, but considering what we know of the Governor, the next person will probably be just as ideologically driven. Especially considering the pool of YEC's from which he has to choose. Let's hope he hears the science-driven community's disdain and appoints someone who will listen to the experts.

Comment by bryan on May 29, 2009 at 6:45am

James,

I went to the AU site too, and can't express enough how dismayed I have been with McLeroy and that whole bloc of creationists that have been trying to undermine science standards in Texas.

That he still got 19 votes out of 30 means that he was only one vote short of being confirmed despite his abhorrently backward agenda. My gratitude to all who got on the phone or emailed their senators about this clown.

Unfortunately, we'll still have him on the board, and the ball goes back to Gov. Goodhair now to pick McLeroy's replacement. My confidence level is not exactly high about getting a competent replacement.

Comment by James M. Martin on May 28, 2009 at 11:01pm

I've just been reading about Mr. McLeroy at the Americans United website. My word, how on earth did we get this simpleton in that job in the first place?! He's not only a fundamentalist fool, he's anti-science. Such people were bad enough when we were dominant in the field of science; today, when we are importing doctors and engineers from, e.g., India, we need halfwits like McLeroy like new holes in our heads. (He obviusly already has a few in his own.) Given a second term, he might even have brought about what Scopes fought against in Tennessee lo these many (almost 85) years ago. Intelligent design my arse! Dumbass chaos if you ask me. If "God" is so intelligent, why can't I hear above 16,000 cycles like my dog? (Oh, I forgot; dog is God spelled backward.)

Comment by Olac Fuentes on May 28, 2009 at 6:12pm

YEEEEEEEEAAAH!!!

Comment by John Shuey on May 28, 2009 at 5:49pm

GOOD NEWS!!!

The TX Senate has just voted to reject McLeroy's nomination for a 2nd term as head of the SBOE!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• …
• 31
• Next ›
• Page