When girls masturbate a lot, is that a sin?

-- Sandy Ingelmo (fort49time@yahoo.com), September 09, 2004

Answers

Yes, it is. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states ...

"Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 09, 2004.

Actually, Paul has only partially stated what paragraph 2352 of the Catechism says. This sin is not as readily identifiable as it would seem to appear, on the surface. In its entirety, paragraph 2352 states:

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

-- Anon (Anon@noemailformethankyou.com), September 10, 2004.

Not readily "identifiable"? What is ambiguous about "the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure"? I don't see how an act could be more precisely defined.

The final paragraph indicates that the act is not always a mortal sin, which is certainly true. But the original poster's question was "is it a sin?", and the answer to that question is "yes, always" (assuming of course that the person has attained the age of moral culpability).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 10, 2004.

Paul, your morality is way too act centered. Try thinking about the agent. Who is this person and what is going on in their head at the same time? When somebody masturbates, is it not also possible that they are doing soemthing else at the same time? Catholicism is all about "both/and" isnt it? That this person is BOTH masturbating AND also a falling into the grips of ignorance, anxiety, etc? That is central to dominant moral theology. Saying it is always a sin is 3rd grade religion class. Maturity identifies psychology, anthropology, etc.

Please Paul, let's be adults here.

Brian

-- brian (brian@brian.com), September 10, 2004.

Brian, plrease remember to be humble. Your off-hand mention of "psychology, anthropology" is just intellectual grand-standing and you know it. This is not a complicated issue and does not require an STL to understand. I'm sure Paul takes for granted that subjective circumstances impact an individual's culpability before Justice.

The Catechism is very clear: masturbation is always grave matter. That is the objective component. Throw in free consent and action, and you have a mortal sin.

Do "affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors [...] lessen or even extenuate moral culpability"? Well, [i]duh[/i]. But most typically in such cases, the person has still sinned--just not mortally. And even in cases of "extenuation," the person still has a responsibility before God to do everything possible to break the vice.

Let's be clear about language here.

Is masturbation always a sin? Yes--its very nature is evil. This is a perfectly acceptable way of saying that masturbation is grave matter.

Has someone who has masterbated always committed a sin? Insofar as any free will was involved, yes. Which is to say, in all likelihood, 99.9999% of the time. Much of that may be circumstantially venial (the devil has a tight grip on the world just now, but God will not give him any satisfaction for it!)

In any case, extenuating circumstances are never reason not to take the stumble to the Confessional (for to do otherwise is a sin of presumption upon God's mercy), nor are they an excuse to continue the act.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), September 10, 2004.

Brian,

I am well aware of the possibility of extenuating circumstances which may mitigate personal moral culpability. That's why masturbation is not always a mortal sin. But voluntary participation in an act which is intrinsically evil is always a sin, even if it is a venial sin in some circumstances. Be careful you don't venture too far down the "psychology, anthropology" slope. Moral relativism is waiting at the bottom.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 10, 2004.

"Please Paul, let's be adults here."

Yes Brian? How was Deacon Paul not posting as an adult?

-- - (David@excite.com), September 10, 2004.

You're right guys. I'm sorry. Its just that when I see somebody seeking spiritual advice and then you guys dispense Canon codes and definitions, sometimes it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Whether you want to admit it or not, they are seeking spiritual advice.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), September 11, 2004.

anon, according to you, 99.9999% of 14yr. old boys who masturbate are going to rot in hell for eternity for commiting this "grave" sin. You seem to know what the Catechism says, but you don't seem to apply it to various circumstances.

You'll have to forgive me in "presuming that God is merciful" when I assume HE understands what the Catechism means when it says: "affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors" are mitigating circumstances in certain instances.

-- Anon (Anon@noemailformethankyou.com), September 13, 2004.

anon, according to you, 99.9999% of 14yr. old boys who masturbate are going to rot in hell for eternity for commiting this "grave" sin

anon2, you should really learn the difference between mortal and venial sin before you throw yourself into accidental false tirades against certain people's posts. Anon and Paul M are both quite right in that masturbation is objectively judgable as a venial sin in all cases where anyone has a modicum of free will. the rate of mortal sin is determined between God and the person involved.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 13, 2004.

Chill out paul h., I am looking for some clarification from anon. Sin has varying degrees of gravity depending on circumstance, a point which anon failed to mention clearly enough and a point which I felt needed to be addressed. His comment gave me the impression that he believed that in 99.9999% of the cases, this sin is a grave matter, which in my opinion, certainly is not the case.

-- Anon (Anon@noemailformethankyou.com), September 13, 2004.

An interesting question! It seems to me two truths are involved here. First. God *does* take into account the emotional maturity, anxiety level, force of habit, raging hormones, etc. when He looks upon our lives. And surely the 14 year old boys with a sperm count up to their eyeballs, or the equivalent among girls, will receive grace. After all, consider that the disobedient Israelites died in the wilderness, but all those aged 20 and under were allowed to live on to enter the promised land. This implies that God has tender mercy upon the young. St. Paul also mentions Christ had mercy on him because of his ignorance. We do not worship an Ogre; God is fully acquainted with our weaknesses and limitations.

That being said, however, the Catechism and Paul are correct that we are dealing with sufficent *matter* for mortal sin. In other words, when we build an evil culture that sees sexual partners with a meatmarket gaze, and when we encourage that demeaning behavior from teenagers on up (Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Playgirl, you name it), then we are really in deep trouble. Because, such a cavalier attitude toward our fantasy life and how we treat other human beings can indeed be damnable. Consider the many lives trapped in sex addiction and love addiction; the many broken marriages and families; sexual abuse of children and teenagers; sexual slavery and prostitution--aren't we really opening the doors to broken relationships with God by encouraging that kind of attitude and, hence, those kinds of deeds? And isn't that mortal sin? In other words, by fully entertaining adulterous thoughts, and planning adulterous deeds in our minds, we do open the door to mortal sin. For we are then choosing to defy the holiness of God's will for our sexual lives, and are choosing to demean others and ourselves--and grieve the Heart of God.

I remember being fourteen and masturbating twice a day, at first in ignorance and then just because I felt I had to and besides it felt good. But sordid fantasies associated with masturbation certainly led me down the path of mortal sin various times when I was in college. In other words, we have to guard the door of our heart, lest we become defiled. Kids and folks who are worried or don't understand or folks who struggle are given a break--but lingering on bad fantasies can lead to death for adults....

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), September 13, 2004.

Anon,

Perhaps it is lack of clarity in terminology which is causing a bit of confusion here. You said "His comment gave me the impression that he believed that in 99.9999% of the cases, this sin is a grave matter, which in my opinion, certainly is not the case. " Your use of the phrase "'a grave matter" (including the word "a") leads me to wonder if you fully appreciate the meaning of the term "matter" as it pertains to moral theology. You seem to be using the phrase "a grave matter" as a synonym for "mortal sin", in the sense of "a serious matter" or "a matter not to be taken lightly"; and certainly mortal sin is always "a grave matter" in that sense. But that is not the context in which "matter" is used in moral theology. By "matter" is meant the essential substance, the objective, intrinsic character of the act itself, completely apart from any and all circumstances. A given act either does or does not constitute objectively "grave matter". If a given act is objectively grave matter, then there is no combination of circumstances which can make it anything other than grave matter. Therefore, the statement that masturbation always constitutes grave matter is correct. However, objectively grave matter alone does not constitute mortal sin - therefore commission of such an act is not always "a grave matter" as far as indivudual culpability is concerned. Grave matter is just one of three criteria which ALL must be met in order for mortal sin to exist. A given sin is mortal (and therefore "a grave matter") only if (1) the act itself is objectively grave matter; (2) the sinner is fully aware of the objectively grave nature of the matter; and (3) he gives his full consent to commission of the act anyway.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 13, 2004.

Anon2,

Relax. I never said that "99.999%" of instances of masterbation were mortally sinful--only that they were sinful, period. Where there is free will, there is sin. Let's pray for God's mercy for our sins, his help in conversion, and celebrate his forgiveness.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), September 13, 2004.

Paul, I realize the meaning of grave matter as the Church uses it. However life being what it is, it isn't always so clearly defined.

You said, "If a given act is objectively grave matter, then there is no combination of circumstances which can make it anything other than grave matter." You went on to say, one of the conditions for mortal sin is "the sinner is fully aware of the objectively grave nature of the matter". Fourteen year old boys oozing with testosterone have their judgement clouded to a great degree, and as such, aren't acutely aware of the "objectively grave nature of the matter". It could even be argued their judgement when exercising free will is impaired to varying degrees in these instances.

anon, thanks for your clarification. I am happy to see that you recognise there are varying degrees of sin depending on circumstance.

-- Anon (anon@noemailformethankyou.com), September 14, 2004.

Sandy:

Please know that you are precious in the eyes of God. He delights when we ask questions about how we can please him and do his will. If you are dealing with an addiction to masturbation, please know that you are not alone. There are many women who deal with an addiction to masturbation and find the graces to heal themselves through Holy Mother Church.

In my late teens and early twenties I dealt with an addiction to masturbation. I fooled myself into thinking that it was normal, healthy, or a perfectly fine way of remaining chaste untill I got married. I was wrong. Addiction to masturbation is deeply rooted in a fantasy world that we allow to run wild, mostly because of unresolved psychological issues. I strongly advise that you seek help from a member of the clergy who is trained in spiritual counseling and psychological counseling. If you can't find a priest in your diocese who has been trained in psychology, still be sure to find a therapist who can help you. Addiction to masturbation can be diagnosed and most health insurances cover it.

I would masturbate a few times a day. It got to a point where my life revolved around giving myself time to do it. I lived in a dream world that manifested itself in unhealthy behavior. Even when I met the man of my dreams as a 23 year old, and fell in love, I couldn't stop, I kept in secret, and I was depressed. I sought help from a psychologist at 24 and quickly learned to control myself. I was able to deal with certain unresolved issued I harbored from my childhood. Now at the age of 29, I feel free, pure, and healthy.

Bibi

-- bibi (bibi@noemail.com), September 14, 2004.

The sin is originally Onanism in the Bible. Where Onan played Roman (Catholic) Roulette, and spilled his seed in the act of intamincy with his wife, to enjoy sex to the fullest but avoid pro creation. For this he was struck down. Since your hand or other substitutes are not enjoyable it must not be as sinful. But with today's obsense culture they are trying to manufacture products as close to the real thing as possible.

They usually get their's. Because people who play Roman Roulette are usually called one thing; parents. And propolacticts decrease the feeling very much as well.

Yes ,non procreational sex is considered a sin.

-- (x@y.zz), September 15, 2004.

Here is a translation from the verse in the Bible:

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

Genesis 19:38

This is strange because Er had already died. So Judah ordered Onan, his second born to lay with Er's wife to produce more kids for Er. But Tamar (Er's widow) was not Onan's wife. And even though Er had been struck down, the children would still be his offspring since it came from his wife, even if they were not naturally his. But Onan was still laying with her even though they were not married This makes it questionable if marriage after death is a sin as well. I wonder, is this where the Catholic Church derives divorce being a sin from?

-- abc (x@y.z), September 15, 2004.

"abc" or “Xyz” I presume the last 2 posts are both yours. You can’t use two names in the same thread.

“Onan played Roman (Catholic) Roulette” – If you’re implying that the Catholic Church approves of Onan’s sin of coitus interruptus, you’re totally wrong.

“Since your hand or other substitutes are not enjoyable it must not be as sinful” – False. How enjoyable something is has no relation to how sinful it is. Many things are very enjoyable but are not at all sinful. While many serious sins are not at all enjoyable.

“non procreational sex is considered a sin.” False. All sexual intercourse must remain open to procreation. But most of the time procreation does not result, and sometimes procreation is impossible. All that is required to avoid sin is that we do not deliberately try to prevent procreation when we have sexual intercourse. (and of course only in marriage)

“This makes it questionable if marriage after death is a sin as well.” No it doesn’t. Onan's sin was NOT in marrying the woman, but in his use of contraception.

“I wonder, is this where the Catholic Church derives divorce being a sin from?” No. The Catholic Church is not a “Bible-Based” church. Catholic teachings and beliefs do not “derive” from the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is an expression of Catholic teachings. Jesus swept away the old Jewish law allowing divorce. See Matthew 5:31-32.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.

abc" or “Xyz” I presume the last 2 posts are both yours. Wow that is a brilliant deduction! What gave me away my email address?

If you’re implying that the Catholic Church approves of Onan’s sin of coitus interruptus, you’re totally wrong. No I am not implying that. I am citing where the Catholic Church derived it being a sin from.

False. How enjoyable something is has no relation to how sinful it is. Many things are very enjoyable but are not at all sinful. While many serious sins are not at all enjoyable.

But Onan was struck down for having enjoying sex, while withholding his seed. Not manual masturbation. And almost all sins, are for the person's self benifit over what is good.

False. All sexual intercourse must remain open to procreation. But most of the time procreation does not result, and sometimes procreation is impossible. All that is required to avoid sin is that we do not deliberately try to prevent procreation when we have sexual intercourse. (and of course only in marriage)

I should have worded that better. All sex is considered a sin that CANNOT procreate ie Sodomy, oral sodomy etc. But Onan was not married to this woman when he lay with her, yet was permitted to. Therefore the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible in this matter.

No it doesn’t. Onan's sin was NOT in marrying the woman, but in his use of contraception.

Yes it does. Because Onan was not permitted to be the rightful Father of his future children since he was not the first to marry their mother. And for some reason was not to marry her, even though her husband was deceased.

No. The Catholic Church is not a “Bible-Based” church. Catholic teachings and beliefs do not “derive” from the Bible. That is ludicrious, of course they do. That is part of the reason for the Refromation and this Nation being founded on Freedom of religion. To long had the Catholic Church blocked findings that contradicted the Bible's teachings. The Catholic Church does not base it's doctrine on the Gospel's soley.

On the contrary, the Bible is an expression of Catholic teachings. Jesus swept away the old Jewish law allowing divorce. See Matthew 5:31-32. LOL! What are you talking about man? Which came first the Old Testiment or Catholicism?

I will never get those 5 minutes back I just spent here. But as for the info, thanks a lot...NOT!

-- (x@y.z), September 16, 2004.

“What gave me away my email address?” No, because you used two different email addresses as well as 2 different names.

“Onan’s sin of coitus interruptus…I am citing where the Catholic Church derived it being a sin from.” No it didn’t. Although the story of Onan supports the Catholic moral position, the condemnation of CI and all other forms of contraception is principally “derived” from natural law and the tradition of the Church as passed down from the apostles.

“But Onan was struck down for having enjoying sex” False. It is not at all sinful for a man to enjoy sexual intercourse with his wife. God wants him to enjoy it. There would be something seriously wrong if he did not enjoy it. He was struck down for contracepting. The story gives no hint that Onan enjoyed either the intercourse or the CI; in fact it strongly hints that he did NOT enjoy the intercourse at all, that he only did it out of legal duty and resented having to do so. And I think it is well known that CI is very unsatisfying.

“All sex is considered a sin that CANNOT procreate.” Sorry, you’ve still got it wrong. Even if a husband or wife or both are totally sterile, sexual intercourse between them is good, holy and not at all sinful. As I said, it’s only when we deliberately place barriers to procreation that we commit sin.

“oral sodomy etc.” Oral stimulation is not a sin if it is in the context of genital intercourse between a married couple.

“Onan was not married to this woman” Yes he was. The KJV explicitly uses the word “marry”. But more of a worry is your state of mind. You’re so twisted that when you read an account of a couple having sexual intercourse, you ASSUME that it must be fornication unless the story specifically details a formal wedding ceremony. Even if the story’s in the Bible! and even if the Bible doesn’t make any criticism of the fact that they had sexual intercourse!

“Therefore the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible in this matter.” Of course it doesn’t.

“The Catholic Church is not a “Bible-Based” church. Catholic teachings and beliefs do not “derive” from the Bible. That is ludicrious, of course they do.”

False. Catholic teachings and beliefs derive from the revelations which Christ gave to the Apostles. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Obviously it would be impossible to “derive” a Church from a Bible which didn’t even exist until that Church was nearly 400 years old.

“ That is part of the reason for the Refromation and this Nation being founded on Freedom of religion.” I see your grasp of history is as weak as your knowledge of Catholic teachings. What you say is the exact opposite of the truth. The “Reformers” who came to this country came here primarily to ESCAPE FROM what they saw as TOO MUCH freedom of religion in England and other countries, and to set up (their own versions of) Protestantism as the only permissible religion. They tried to do the same thing when the USA became independent, and it was only because of a long and desperate campaign by Catholics, hotly opposed by the “Reformers”, that freedom of religion came to the USA.

“ To long had the Catholic Church blocked findings that contradicted the Bible's teachings.” You mean the Church “blocked” tendentious personal interpretations of selective passages of the Bible which certain people misused to try to contradict the Church’s teachings which it received from Christ and the Apostles. As the Church itself compiled the Bible, and chose which books to include based on their conformity with Catholic teaching, naturally it objected to people misusing the Bible to try to justify novel departures from the teachings which the Church had taught for 16 centuries.

“ The Catholic Church does not base it's doctrine on the Gospel's soley.” Hooray! You got one thing right.

“ Jesus swept away the old Jewish law allowing divorce. See Matthew 5:31-32. LOL! What are you talking about man?” If you can’t see that this shows Jesus explicitly condemning the Jewish custom of divorce, I don’t know what will convince you.

“Which came first the Old Testiment or Catholicism?” Catholicism of course, in 30 AD. Over 300 years later, the Catholic Church chose SOME of the writings of the Jewish religion and placed them into the Catholic Bible. The Catholics gave these writings the name “The books of the Old Testament, or Old Covenant” (between God and the Jews), to distinguish it from the New Covenant brought by Christ. The Jews do NOT refer to these books as the Old Testament and they find it offensive for anyone to suggest that they do. After the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, the Jews compiled their own Bible, consisting of some of the books of the Catholic Bible and many other books.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 16, 2004.

No, because you used two different email addresses as well as 2 different names.

Yeah with the difference of one letter. I am sure everyone is quite impressed you picked up on that. No it didn’t. Although the story of Onan supports the Catholic moral position, the condemnation of CI and all other forms of contraception is principally “derived” from natural law and the tradition of the Church as passed down from the apostles.

Well that contradicts your position on oral sex. Where then do they derive masturbation to be a sin, but oral sex not to be?

False. It is not at all sinful for a man to enjoy sexual intercourse with his wife. F**K YOU. Are you a journalist, Here is what I said, "But Onan was struck down for having enjoying sex, while withholding his seed Not for simply enjoying sex. If he was not struck down for witholding his seed, what was he struck down for?

He was struck down for contracepting. Did I not say this?

The story gives no hint that Onan enjoyed either the intercourse or the CI; in fact it strongly hints that he did NOT enjoy the intercourse at all, that he only did it out of legal duty and resented having to do so.

Yes. But he would have had to enjoy it to some degree to complete it. He did resent it however.

Sorry, you’ve still got it wrong. Even if a husband or wife or both are totally sterile, sexual intercourse between them is good, holy and not at all sinful.

I am refering to sexual acts, not biological states of individuals. Was I not clear enough in that? I'm sure at the time these verses were written, they did not have the scientific capabilities to determine who was or wasn't sterile.

As I said, it’s only when we deliberately place barriers to procreation that we commit sin. Such as having oral sex. Where does the Church say s*cking is all good and well?

“oral sodomy etc.” Oral stimulation is not a sin if it is in the context of genital intercourse between a married couple. Then if it as enjoyable or more so then congenital sex, that kills the pleasure insentive to pro create. This is what I was refering to above.

Yes he was. The KJV explicitly uses the word “marry”. But more of a worry is your state of mind. You’re so twisted that when you read an account of a couple having sexual intercourse, you ASSUME that it must be fornication unless the story specifically details a formal wedding ceremony.

That is the definition of fornication. And I don't assume they are purposely trying to make a baby, unless it says so.

False. Catholic teachings and beliefs derive from the revelations which Christ gave to the Apostles. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Obviously it would be impossible to “derive” a Church from a Bible which didn’t even exist until that Church was nearly 400 years old. They got the stories in the Bible from, stories that had been written Before Christ. They compiled the Bible, they did not originally write what is the Old Testiment.

I see your grasp of history is as weak as your knowledge of Catholic teachings. What you say is the exact opposite of the truth. The “Reformers” who came to this country came here primarily to ESCAPE FROM what they saw as TOO MUCH freedom of religion in England and other countries, and to set up (their own versions of) Protestantism as the only permissible religion.

The Refromation from Luther was motivated soley to break off from the Catholic Church. The men who founded this Naiton, the founding fathers, not the first settlers. Were Desiests, meaning they believed in scientific findings over Church doctrine. A few of them were Athiests. This was a big reason they set up freedom of religion, they did not want more episodes as those that occured with the Catholic Chruch and scientists before the Refromation.

They tried to do the same thing when the USA became independent, and it was only because of a long and desperate campaign by Catholics, hotly opposed by the “Reformers”, that freedom of religion came to the USA.

I am not refering to the Calvinists, but the drafters of the Constitution, not the people who settled here. But the establishers of this Nation What they drafted was that a Church doctrine could not dictate the governing policy of the state. Such as was the case in most countries of Europe.

You mean the Church “blocked” tendentious personal interpretations of selective passages of the Bible which certain people misused to try to contradict the Church’s teachings which it received from Christ and the Apostles.

No I mean they persecuted men like Galieo because his scientific findings contradicted those of the Church doctrine at the time.

“ Jesus swept away the old Jewish law allowing divorce. See Matthew 5:31-32. Yes, thank you for answering the question. I am not very knowledgable in the Gospels. It was just a question.

Catholicism of course, in 30 AD. Over 300 years later, the Catholic Church chose SOME of the writings of the Jewish religion and placed them into the Catholic Bible.

Yes I worded that badly. I meant the contents of the Old Testiment; The Torah.

The Catholics gave these writings the name “The books of the Old Testament, or Old Covenant” (between God and the Jews), to distinguish it from the New Covenant brought by Christ.

Yes they gave it the names, but they did not write the stories. They just were the editors and publishers, so to speak.

The Jews do NOT refer to these books as the Old Testament and they find it offensive for anyone to suggest that they do.

Of course not, for they do not have an Old Testiment in their Bible. Your ability for abstract thought, never ceases to amaze me.

After the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, the Jews compiled their own Bible, consisting of some of the books of the Catholic Bible and many other books. Are you saying there are some books in the Old Testiment that were not written by the Hebrews?

I am not Catholic. There is a reason I do not believe in organized religion, and that this Nation never had a state Church.

-- (x@y.z), September 17, 2004.

Mr. xyz didn't close his tags

But Steve is a dumbass. The Catholic Church has ruled it a sin to enjoy sexual intercourse but avoid conceiving. THIS IS WHY THEY OUTLAWED BIRTH CONTROL. Like xyz said. And this is why Onanism is known as "Roman Roulette" like he said above. That stuff about Onan @##$%ing but not enjoying it, is only Stevie's opinion he infered from nowhere. If he didn't enjoy it so much, he could have avoided "laying" with her altogether, and not repeatly done it. Even though his "spilling" was just an act of defiance as well. And it all may have been a big "scr*w you" to Judah.

And yes, we all know the Roman Catholic Church is what made the Bible known to the non Jewish world, when they made Europe Christian. And that somebody must have put a New AND Old Testiment together. And it probably was not the Jews, since they don't have a New Testiment. That is brilliant deduction, I agree. Assh*le!

I am confused, though. The Catholic Church does not see oral sex as a sin? Only masturbation and sodomy? When did they take this position.

-- Earl (earljt34@excite.net), September 17, 2004.

I'll clarify to avoid a long diatribe from Steve.

So no kind of sex before marriage, and no sodomy during marriage. But when was oral sex allowed?

-- Earl (earljt34@excite.net), September 17, 2004.

**That is brilliant deduction, I agree. Assh*le! -Earl**

Earl, who are you calling an A-hole? I don't think anyone has said anything to deserve that on here. Certainly not myself. Just a minor disagreement about the topic at hand between Steve and xyz. I hope you have a good day.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 17, 2004.

WHOA, MODERATORS AND EVERYONE:

LANGUAGE CHECK... all uses of foul language, including those that are blanked out, are against the rules of this forum, which is open to family members of all ages.

xyz/abc, steve isnt picking on your name changing just to be rude, he is doing so because changing names in the same thread is against the rules of this forum.

clean it up ladies and gents...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 17, 2004.

No I wasn't talking to you. I was in a foul mood. I am sorry for the bad choice of words, and thank you for returning an opposite praise Suazane. I shall not use language like that again.

-- Earl (earljt34@excite.net), September 17, 2004.

Then, Earl, I take it you were talking to me. Thanks for the apology but maybe you should avoid posting when you are in a foul mood. Xyz, I really don't know why you feel it necessary to abuse me, I'm only trying to explain the Church's position to you. I'm sorry if I sounded pedantic or patronizing, but I am really heartily sick of journalists (no I am not one!) and others "bashing" what they mistakenly posit as the Church's position on these vital issues.

Earl and xyz, despite the clear statements of the Church's position by Suzanne, me and others, still manage to get it wrong. I'll repeat it again because it IS important that you understand clearly what the Catholic position is, whether you're a Catholic or not. Oral and manual stimulation as part of (preceding or immediately following) an act of genital intercourse has always been "allowed" by the Church. Obviously this is a delicate subject so it is seldom spelt out clearly. It is not a new teaching though. Oral or manual stimulation WITHOUT genital intercourse (except in pregnancy or exceptional cases where the latter is impossible for medical or other sufficient reason) is a sin. This is derived from natural law and the Church's constant tradition. There is no contradiction between the Church's position on oral and manual stimulation - both are morally the same. (Manual stimulation of ONESELF is always sinful.)

I beg that I am not a "dumb a..." and that the Catholic Church has NOT "ruled it a sin to enjoy sexual intercourse but avoid conceiving". It is not a sin to AVOID conceiving (e.g. by avoiding intercourse, or by avoiding it at times when fertility is likely). It IS a sin to PREVENT conception by a deliberate act before, during or after intercourse. It's like the tax laws. It's quite legal to AVOID tax by arranging your financial affairs to take advantage of the deductions, rebates, incentives and tax shelters provided by the government. But it is quite ILLEGAL to EVADE tax (for example by not declaring your income). The Church has never "outlawed" birth control. But contraceptive forms of birth control have always been regarded as sinful and so didn't need to be "outlawed".

" That stuff about Onan ... not enjoying it, is only Stevie's opinion he infered "If he didn't enjoy it so much, he could have avoided "laying" with her" - No he couldn't, not without openly defying his father. But he sinned by pretending to do the right thing but actually deceiving his father. And yes it is quite possible for a man to have intercourse without enjoying it. An erection is not necessarily a sign of enjoyment, it can be a paradoxical physiological reaction. e.g. when men have been raped by women, or have been forced at gunpoint to have intercourse with their relatives etc.

" at the time these verses were written, they did not have the scientific capabilities to determine who was or wasn't sterile." No, but they knew that once a woman had stopped menstruating for many years she was sterile (barring a miracle - see the story of Sarah).

"you ASSUME that it must be fornication unless the story specifically details a formal wedding ceremony. That is the definition of fornication" No. Often in the Bible it simply says a man "took" or "lay with" a woman, implying that they got married without specifically stating that they had a formal wedding ceremony.

" I don't assume they are purposely trying to make a baby, unless it says so." You don't have to "purposely try to make a baby" to avoid sin. All you have to do is avoid doing anything which interferes with the essential nature of sexual intercourse, in order to deliberately prevent conception. In other words you have to REMAIN OPEN to having a baby, even if this is unlikely or impossible.

"The men who founded this Naiton, the founding fathers, not the first settlers. Were Desiests, meaning they believed in scientific findings over Church doctrine. A few of them were Athiests. This was a big reason they set up freedom of religion" A VERY FEW of our Founding Fathers in the late 18th century were non-Christian Deists, but the vast majority were Christian. I do not know ANY who were atheists. I repeat, freedom of religion was written into the US constitution at Catholic insistence, to protect Catholics from the protestant ascendancy; NOT so that some imaginary scientists, protestants and non-christians could escape "persecution" by Catholics. This is a historical fact. At that time Catholics comprised a much smaller proportion of the population than now, and they were nearly all in the lowest, poorest and least powerful social classes.

"they did not want more episodes as those that occured with the Catholic Chruch and scientists before the Refromation." WHAT were these supposed "episodes"????

"they persecuted men like Galieo because his scientific findings contradicted those of the Church doctrine at the time" Sigh! Read the old threads on Galileo. If you don't believe them, read any account of Galileo by a reputable historian. Galileo was not "persecuted", nor did any of his scientific findings contradict Church teachings. Nor did Galileo ever claim they did.

"After the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, the Jews compiled their own Bible, consisting of some of the books of the Catholic Bible and many other books. Are you saying there are some books in the Old Testiment that were not written by the Hebrews?" No, although the Old Testament does contain some non-Jewish elements. I mean that the Jews in the end decided to include in their Jewish Bible only SOME of the books of the Old Testament, plus many other books which Catholics did not include in their Bible.

"I am not Catholic. There is a reason I do not believe in organized religion, and that this Nation never had a state Church." Sorry but I don't follow your reasoning. If this nation never had a State education system, would you refuse to be educated? If it never had a State medical system, would you refuse to go to a doctor?

If Christians (or Jews) weren't "organized", who would have complied, preserved and translated the Bible so that you could even be having this conversation?

It's nice to think we would all know and do the right thing with no- one to "organize" and lead us, but because of man's fallen nature, that hasn't happened whenever it's been tried - it's only led to anarchy and widespread evil. Yes our leaders are sinful men. But the "organized" structure is what Christ Himself willed and built on the Apostles.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 18, 2004.

italics off you idiot

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 18, 2004.

Now all we need is somebody to write most of their message in bold text, and we're set ;-)

Xyz, I really don't know why you feel it necessary to abuse me, I'm only trying to explain the Church's position to you. I'm sorry if I sounded pedantic or patronizing, but I am really heartily sick of journalists (no I am not one!) and others "bashing" what they mistakenly posit as the Church's position on these vital issues.

Yes journalists in general are usually quite lazy and ill informed people themselves. I think this is why most of them find it so easy to take similar posititions on things, and report almost the exact same news. I thought you were misquoted me a couple of times. Which isn't that important, but also thought you were driving in ardious points, I don't have an excuse for me rudeness. I have been on forms where they have done more to me outside the forum (ie hacking) And things get heated. So I have reason to be rude with them. I will try to be civil, but don't take it to personally. I am not Catholic, and you seem very well versed in your religion, but you do not need to Catholic in order to understand history or logic. But am glad we are just dealing with facts here. Earl and xyz, despite the clear statements of the Church's position by Suzanne, me and others, still manage to get it wrong.

I didn't read Suzanne explain anything about Masturbation in the Church on this thread. I don't know where you got that from. What I have got wrong is our interprertions of passages of the Bible, and who wrote what. But you have clearly explained the Churches stance in your last reply.

Well I'll repeat it again because it IS important that you understand clearly what the Catholic position is, whether you're a Catholic or not. Oral and manual stimulation as part of (preceding or immediately following) an act of genital intercourse has always been "allowed" by the Church. Obviously this is a delicate subject so it is seldom spelt out clearly. It is not a new teaching though. Oral or manual stimulation WITHOUT genital intercourse (except in pregnancy or exceptional cases where the latter is impossible for medical or other sufficient reason) is a sin. This is derived from natural law and the Church's constant tradition. There is no contradiction between the Church's position on oral and manual stimulation - both are morally the same. (Manual stimulation of ONESELF is always sinful.) You could have saved us both a lot of time if you would have explained that earlier. When someone does not have all the information, they are free to interpret on what they do have. This is known as a debate. Before you said this, everyone on this thread made it sound like as long as married people enjoyed oral stimulation they could AVOID intercourse. Which is contradictory.

I beg that I am not a "dumb a..." and that the Catholic Church has NOT "ruled it a sin to enjoy sexual intercourse but avoid conceiving". Not by avoiding intercourse but avoiding conceiving during intercourse. (birth control, onanism etc) Have I said something to the contrary?

The Church has never "outlawed" birth control. But contraceptive forms of birth control have always been regarded as sinful and so didn't need to be "outlawed". Again a logic issue. Abstinsense if avoiding conceiving. But this is not birth control this is just birth negating. This is an ardious point.

You don't have to "purposely try to make a baby" to avoid sin. All you have to do is avoid doing anything which interferes with the essential nature of sexual intercourse, in order to deliberately prevent conception. In other words you have to REMAIN OPEN to having a baby, even if this is unlikely or impossible. You have to enjoy sex, and know what you are doing CANNOT possibly lead to pregnanacy with anybody no matter how furtile they are. Is that clear enough?

A VERY FEW of our Founding Fathers in the late 18th century were non-Christian Deists, but the vast majority were Christian. I do not know ANY who were atheists. I repeat, freedom of religion was written into the US constitution at Catholic insistence, to protect Catholics from the protestant ascendancy; NOT so that some imaginary scientists, protestants and non-christians could escape "persecution" by Catholics. This is a historical fact. At that time Catholics comprised a much smaller proportion of the population than now, and they were nearly all in the lowest, poorest and least powerful social classes.

England broke off from the Catholic Church far before this Nation was founded. But there was still much Catholic resestment and phobia, as was shown to even Catholic immagrints who would later come here. The men who founded this Nation did not have some hocus pocus religion they decided to make up, outside of Christinaity. But they were Deistiests. I suggest you click THIS If it was only an issue between difference sects of Christianity, why is not a mention of Christianity in the Constitution? Because they were Deisiests! And many of them did not believe in Jesus as the divine or miracles at all.

WHAT were these supposed "episodes"???? I'm I missing something here? It can be blamed on the state and how they handled those matters. But that state was a Catholic theocracy.

Sigh! Read the old threads on Galileo. If you don't believe them, read any account of Galileo by a reputable historian. Galileo was not "persecuted", nor did any of his scientific findings contradict Church teachings. Nor did Galileo ever claim they did. That is nonsense. The Church declared the Universe declared the Universe revolved around the world, Galileo concoered. He was persecuted therefore for blasephey of divine knowledge, but I shall read the thread you mentioned.

Yes the Torah is not composed only Old Testiment books, but it is still the Hebrews that wrote those books. But yes it is the Catholic Church that compiled what is known as the Bible today.

Sorry but I don't follow your reasoning. If this nation never had a State education system, would you refuse to be educated? If it never had a State medical system, would you refuse to go to a doctor? LOL! Yes public education today is quite mediocre, but still necisarry. Once you graduate it however, you should keep expanding your mind. I am not against Catholic schools, from what I understand they are quite good, as are Jesuit Colleges. But I believe in discovering facts for yourself. During much of Catholic Europe before the Refromation. People were not allowed to read Bibles for themself, for they may come to different conclusions then the Church. Do you think Europe was a shinning beacon of intellect during this time? Do you think the Refromation has not brought any good changes. Doctors base their fidings on scientific fact. Once a theory can be proven and not disproven that makes it a new fact. People were not allowed to do this in any way, if it disproved the State's theories.

If Christians (or Jews) weren't "organized", who would have complied, preserved and translated the Bible so that you could even be having this conversation? We know what we know from the Bible, from the organization of the Roman Empire, who established the Roman Catholic Church. It is they who spread the ideas of Christianity to the rest of Europe. As for Jews, they have never looked for converts. This is why they believe themselves "the chosen ones." So you are either one or not.

It's nice to think we would all know and do the right thing with no- one to "organize" and lead us, but because of man's fallen nature, that hasn't happened whenever it's been tried - it's only led to anarchy and widespread evil. See my reference to the Roman Empire above. The Roman Empire based many new ideas on Christianity, and good that came from it. But our structure of government came from them, and it predated Christian Europe. They were the Organization. You are mistakening a state for a religion. I am not a nilist or liberal anarchist. Just because I don't practice organized religion doesn't mean you can't. Maybe you would be happier under a Church state.

Yes our leaders are sinful men. But the "organized" structure is what Christ Himself willed and built on the Apostles. No it was from the ideas of the Roman's and Greeks, that predated Christian Europe. Christ may be the teacher, but man is the only one that can build the temples.

Since I have (finally) gotten my answer on the Churches posistion on Masturbation. I feel no need to take any further part in this discussion, unless you want to continue to discuss History.

-- (x@y.z), September 18, 2004.

**Now all we need is somebody to write most of their message in bold text, and we're set ;-) - x@yz**

I would but I don't know how! LOL.

**No I wasn't talking to you. I was in a foul mood. I am sorry for the bad choice of words, and thank you for returning an opposite praise Suazane. I shall not use language like that again. -- Earl (earljt34@excite.net), September 17, 2004. **

It's ok, Earl, I am pretty easy going and hardly ever take offense, but instead try to always bring people up and make them feel better.

I am glad this issue is resolved! Have a great day Ya'll !

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 18, 2004.

here's your all-bold message :)

-- (bold@message.com), September 18, 2004.

Excuse me but the Catholic Church has never said that oral sex is morally permissable. Where did you get that from?

brian

-- BRIAN (brian@brian.com), September 19, 2004.

Brian are you just being mischievous? You tried to tell us on another thread that the church approves women masturbating themselves. Now you’re going to the opposite extreme. See the answers from “curious” on the thread “incomplete sexual act during pregnancy”. The Church has never declared that swinging from the chandeliers is morally permissible either. That doesn’t mean it’s a sin. The Church doesn’t publish a list of techniques.

I suggest to keep it simple, if you want to know whether any sexual act is moral, ask yourself: 1. Does this act promote the unity and love of a married couple? 2. Is this act being done for the purpose of preventing conception? If the answers are respectively, “yes” and “no”, the act is not a sin.

Xyz, I’m glad you’ve got it straight now. One point – the definition of “birth control” used by all parties includes methods of abstinence during fertile times. "Birth control" is not synonymous with “contraception”.

Yes I would like to debate your historical claims because they are way off beam, but maybe you should bring them up on a new thread. The short answers to a few:

The site you linked to provides claims that FOUR of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Paine, Adams senior, and Franklin) were non- Christian deists. I would dispute two of these; but even accepting your claim, there were a lot more than four men involved in bringing about the independence of the USA, and the vast majority of them were Christians. It is quite false to claim they were all non-Christian deists. The fact that there is no specific mention of Christianity in the Constitution does not by any means prove that those who wrote it were all non-Christians. Christians are quite able to produce a lengthy text without mentioning Christianity.

You still haven’t been able to come up with even one “episode” where the Catholic Church or a "Catholic theocratic state" supposedly ”persecuted” scientists. Yes PLEASE read the Galileo threads, or at least something written by reputable historians, instead of embarrassing yourself by mouthing the bizarre calumnies invented by anti-Catholic bigots. The Church has never “declared the Universe revolved around the world” (nor did it declare that the Sun, planets and stars revolve around the Earth, which I think is what you mean) ; Galileo was NOT “persecuted” nor was he accused of blasphemy.

You miss my point about State institutions. I’m not saying State education is either a good or a bad thing. But you said you refused to have any kind of organized religion because the State doesn’t have its own religion. So I logically asked if you would refuse to have ANY KIND OF education or healthcare if the State didn’t have its own education and health systems respectively.

“I believe in discovering facts for yourself.” Good! If you honestly look up the historical facts you will discover how absurdly false it is to say“During much of Catholic Europe before the Refromation. People were not allowed to read Bibles for themselves”.

“Do you think Europe was a shinning beacon of intellect during this time?" (Catholic Europe just before the “Reformation”) – Yes indeed, thanks largely to the universities (all set up by Catholic monasteries) and the Catholic view of the world, Catholic Europe led the world in scientific and intellectual progress.

“Do you think the Refromation has not brought any good changes?” In all charity to my Protestant friends, I’m afraid I have to answer “no”. It has brought the scandalous splitting of Christ’s one Church into 40,000+ conflicting denominations, and centuries of violent conflict and inhumanity. You seem to think that the “Reformation” had something to do with the idea that medicine and other sciences should be based on scientific fact. This idea reached fruition with the Renaissance, which took place, beginning in Italy, in Catholic Europe 100 years before the Luther split the church. Luther and his followers had nothing to do with scientific theories, in fact they were quite anti-scientific.

The Roman Empire had nothing to do with establishing the Catholic Church or with creating the organization of the Church. Its structure and organization were created by St Peter and the other apostles, who were all Jews, not Romans. You are confused by the term “Roman Catholic Church”. It means only “The Catholic Church which uses the Roman liturgical rites”. It has no connection to the Roman Empire.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 19, 2004.

Btw it was the Catholic Chruch which invented and popularized the idea that religion should, or even could, be separate from the State. Everywhere else but in Catholic countries and those that have been influenced by Catholic traditions, a person's religious duties are/were considered to be inseparable from his civic duties.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 19, 2004.

curious,

I was asking where i would find that oral sex is permissable not because i was disagreeing with you, but because id like to know from where exactly i could quote it. i do think oral sex is permissable within the marital act. but the way you said it made it sound as if it were permissable within marriage, in and of itself, separate from and not leading to vaginal intercourse.

brian

-- brian (brian@brian.com), September 20, 2004.

The site you linked to provides claims that FOUR of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Paine, Adams senior, and Franklin) were non- Christian deists. I would dispute two of these; but even accepting your claim, there were a lot more than four men involved in bringing about the independence of the USA, and the vast majority of them were Christians.

I'll humor you. Just name one, not a minor league one, that was a devoted Christian. Why does it matter if they were, I mean afterall we know how astray those Protestants went.

It is quite false to claim they were all non-Christian deists. The fact that there is no specific mention of Christianity in the Constitution does not by any means prove that those who wrote it were all non-Christians. Christians are quite able to produce a lengthy text without mentioning Christianity.

That is some great reasoning there. It would be unreasonable to assume they were all non Christian, every single one. It would be logical to assume some were, and that they were interested in selling some of their points to the people, most of which were Christian. The Declaration of Indepence was a sales pitch. Like I said if it was a matter of just Protestant vs Catholism, and they felt so strongly about Christianity. Why is there no mention of Christianity in the Constitution. How come our money does not say in the Holy Trinity we trust"??

You still haven’t been able to come up with even one “episode” where the Catholic Church or a "Catholic theocratic state" supposedly ”persecuted” scientists. They never did that? Or burned them at the stake? It is all Protestant propaganda?

Yes PLEASE read the Galileo threads, or at least something written by reputable historians, instead of embarrassing yourself by mouthing the bizarre calumnies invented by anti-Catholic bigots. The Church has never “declared the Universe revolved around the world” (nor did it declare that the Sun, planets and stars revolve around the Earth, which I think is what you mean) ; Galileo was NOT “persecuted” nor was he accused of blasphemy. It was just those @#$%'s in the Kingdom you mean? And they were not governed by Church law? The King did not have a bishop beside him? That is just in Chess games?

You miss my point about State institutions. I’m not saying State education is either a good or a bad thing. But you said you refused to have any kind of organized religion because the State doesn’t have its own religion. So I logically asked if you would refuse to have ANY KIND OF education or healthcare if the State didn’t have its own education and health systems respectively.

No! My view about religion is that divine wisdom may be revealed to it's prophets, and then we get more glimpses. But it shouldn't be set on how some interpreted things centuries ago. I do not believe priests to be divine beings. But they are versed in their practice, so I can see how respect them. I am trying to be very patient here, but you are showing great arrogance in questioning someone's decision not to belong to organized religion. Which is funny, but it is such a big deal on the other hand to you when a Chile ruler is overthown. Would it make you more satisfied if I was a Jew, Buddist or Muslim? Or are these not the right religions. I have already said I am a desiest.

Good! If you honestly look up the historical facts you will discover how absurdly false it is to say“During much of Catholic Europe before the Refromation. People were not allowed to read Bibles for themselves” It was left to the Church to interpret the writings of the Bible, many people were quite illiterate. And Bibles were very hard to come by. Do you also believe people were not asked to give money to the Church to repent their sins as well? During Catholic England, the state was against people reading the Bible Do you have a link to show otherwise? It would be very interesting to read.

In all charity to my Protestant friends, I’m afraid I have to answer “no”. It has brought the scandalous splitting of Christ’s one Church into 40,000+ conflicting denominations, and centuries of violent conflict and inhumanity. As opposed to the Spanish inquisitions and such.

You seem to think that the “Reformation” had something to do with the idea that medicine and other sciences should be based on scientific fact. This idea reached fruition with the Renaissance, which took place, beginning in Italy, in Catholic Europe 100 years before the Luther split the church. Luther and his followers had nothing to do with scientific theories, in fact they were quite anti- scientific. Scientific discoveries occured prior to Catholic Europe in places such as Ancient Greece then Rome. Yes it is bigoted to say the Catholic Church could not benifit the intellectual devolopment of the people. It is also ignorant to say members were incapable of curroption and anti-intellectualism. This is probably why the ideas of Luther took on so fast.

In 535 AD there was a massive volcanic eruption that poisioned the air, and killed off many of the rulers and best and brightest in Europe. Setting off a wave of anarchy anti-intellectualism, and backwardness. Where it took Europe a millenium to progress again. Hench the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church was not amune to this. There were quite a few scientists that disagreed with the Catholic view on things, and were burned at the stake.

The Roman Empire had nothing to do with establishing the Catholic Church or with creating the organization of the Church. Its structure and organization were created by St Peter and the other apostles, who were all Jews, not Romans. They had nothing to do with spreading this religion across Europe. This occured when Constantine converted. From then on Catholism became a state religion. Hench the Roman Catholic Church. Which was structed after the Roman government.

You are confused by the term “Roman Catholic Church”. It means only “The Catholic Church which uses the Roman liturgical rites”. It has no connection to the Roman Empire. It has nothing to do with the Roman Empire? Is it a lost wondering tribe, like Hebrewism?

You should start a new thread of your own, to correct false claims made by this Protestant nation. And put the propaganda to rest. It would sortonly be a most interesting read.

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

Now does anyone know of any other fonts besides, italic, bold, and underlined, we can decorate this thread with?

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

Sorry, xyz, I thought you were actually asking serious questions and I honestly answered them. And all the while you were just joking and mouthing rubbish you know is untrue just to get a reaction.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.

OK xyz, maybe you are serious. I have started a new thread as you requested, "xyz's history questions".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.

There's probably a reason why xyz is anonymous while I'm not but I won't get into that... only Thomas Paine was a non-Christian zealot. But even he wrote some things favorable to revealed Christian belief.

All the rest of them, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Franklin have COPIOUS records and proof of their belief that Jesus is the Son of God...they were masons earlier not later in life.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.