Masturbation and sin

[noblecaboose]

So, masturbation is supposedly a sin in some religions, right?
The supposed rationale for this is that every sperm cell is a potential life and that the seed should not be wasted in an act of selfish pleasure. Or so I learned in Catholic school. (Okay, they didn't actually cover it in Catholic school, I got it from Monty Python's Meaning of Life, "Every sperm is sacred...".)
A friend of mine who used to be Catholic has been browsing the online catalogs of sperm banks in search of a potential father for her child and it got me wondering, if you are masturbating in order to donate to a sperm bank, is it a sin? I mean, if the intent of masturbation is solely for procreation, how is that sinful? In fact, it seems less sinful than sex with a wife that is not currently at the peak of her menstrual cycle, which is something the Catholic church does advocate (the "rhythm method") as an acceptable form of birth control.
Does anybody know the Catholic (or any other religion in which masturbation in sinful) position on this? Has the Pope ever said anything about it?

 

[Solus]

I believe the catholic church still has masturbation as a sin although I could be wrong. At worst if you went to confession you would have to say a few hail marys. I remember a catholic friend mentioned that once but I could be wrong.

 

[slingblade]

Ahem. I have no sperm to spill.

OMFG I finally found an instance where being totally disregarded by the church because I'm a woman has PAID OFF!

This calls for bananas!!






...and as to the question, I dunno.

 

[Cello Man]

Yet another argument against intelligent design:

Why does it take so many millions of sperm cells to fertilize one egg? If God values each sperm cell (and potential child!!!) so much, doesn't this way of doing things seem hopelessly wasteful?

 

[Solus]

Yet another argument against intelligent design:

Why does it take so many millions of sperm cells to fertilize one egg? If God values each sperm cell (and potential child!!!) so much, doesn't this way of doing things seem hopelessly wasteful?

But you see non-believer god has a "plan". Those sperm cells are not wasted, their spirits are moved elsewhere when they die; all part of god's great "plan".

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Wikipedia has the following article to help navigate the minefield that is religion and topic of jacking (or jilling) off.

 

[hcmom]

Yet another argument against intelligent design:

Why does it take so many millions of sperm cells to fertilize one egg? If God values each sperm cell (and potential child!!!) so much, doesn't this way of doing things seem hopelessly wasteful?

Well, all those children would be pretty wasteful too....

 

[ChristineR]

The Catholic church is opposed to sperm donation and indeed to most fertility treatments.

 

[noblecaboose]

The Catholic church is opposed to sperm donation and indeed to most fertility treatments.

Really? If that's so, then how do they justify that? And where did you get this information?

 

[JamesDillon]

Ahem. I have no sperm to spill.

OMFG I finally found an instance where being totally disregarded by the church because I'm a woman has PAID OFF!

This calls for bananas!!






...and as to the question, I dunno.

I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine, but I'm pretty sure it's a sin when you do it too, slingblade.

Anyway, I think the ultimate rationale is that the Church (and many, if not most, other organized religions) is just opposed to anything that feels good, and masturbation tops that list. There's some bit in the Old Testament somewhere where some guy is commanded by God to impregnate some woman, but at the last minute he "spills his seed on the ground," and is struck down by God. This is generally viewed as the scriptural basis for the anti-masturbation rule, but it always seemed to me to be more a matter of disobeying God's direct order to knock up the girl than anything having to do with masturbation per se. But apparently, drunken sex with one's daughters is fine and dandy, whereas taking matters into one's own hand is not.

 

[slingblade]

Nobe, you want to wait for her to answer, or can anyone?

Because I found an article that explains she's correct, and how they justify it.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr1997/feature1.asp

 

[ChristineR]

Really? If that's so, then how do they justify that? And where did you get this information?

Catholic radio and TV shows? Here's an official looking link though.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

Catholics are against fertility treatments for the same reasons they are against birth control and premarital sex. They believe in sex only in the context of marriage and reproduction. Any interference with this process is forbidden. No sex without reproduction, no reproduction without sex.

 

[slingblade]

I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine, but I'm pretty sure it's a sin when you do it too, slingblade.

Hee, no, I'm pretty sure some think it's a sin. But shoot!!

Anyway, I think the ultimate rationale is that the Church (and many, if not most, other organized religions) is just opposed to anything that feels good, and masturbation tops that list. There's some bit in the Old Testament somewhere where some guy is commanded by God to impregnate some woman, but at the last minute he "spills his seed on the ground," and is struck down by God. This is generally viewed as the scriptural basis for the anti-masturbation rule, but it always seemed to me to be more a matter of disobeying God's direct order to knock up the girl than anything having to do with masturbation per se. But apparently, drunken sex with one's daughters is fine and dandy, whereas taking matters into one's own hand is not.

That would be Mr. Onan. No one ever liked Mr. Onan anyway. He smelled funny.

 

[noblecaboose]

Catholic radio and TV shows? Here's an official looking link though.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

Catholics are against fertility treatments for the same reasons they are against birth control and premarital sex. They believe in sex only in the context of marriage and reproduction. Any interference with this process is forbidden. No sex without reproduction, no reproduction without sex.

If what you say is indeed true, then how can they advocate the "Rhythm Method" (a.k.a 1,001 unwanted babies)?

(ETA) I also find it reeeeally disturbing that this site goes into such detail about what is and isn't allowed.

 

[ChristineR]

Cross posting there. Slingblade's article is interesting because it goes into all the tortuous moral justifications they go into, like having intercourse with a perforated condom then scraping the semen out of the condom so that the sperm can be "washed" and inserted into the fallopian tubes. Since that leaves open the possibility that the sperm made it to the ovum without help, some authorities allow it.

 

[ChristineR]

More cross posting! The rhythm method is allowed because technically it's just making decisions about when you choose to have sex, but does not interfere with the "natural" sex act in any way.

Rhythm methods to encourage conception are allowed. These are about as effective as rhythm methods to discourage conception, but if they fail at least you're no worse off than you were before.

 

[dglas]

I suspect that, when it comes down to it, religion's reasons for vilifying sex has to do with the elimination of competing interests. Why would one imagine that many religions despise women? Women are competition for the focus on the divine. Frankly, humanity is simply better than the divine and religion's purveyor's know this. It's all about polarizing around ridiculous ideas....

 

[ksbluesfan]

My wife and I went through IVF a couple of times. I was a practicing Catholic at the time, and very good friends with the priest. He asked about the needles they must have been using to extract sperm. I thought he was being flip, so I responded in a somewhat crude manner about tossing my seed in a little plastic cup. He looked horrified when I told him that. He told me it was a sin to do that. If I wanted to go through the approved procedures, it would involve extracting sperm through a needle.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

My wife and I went through IVF a couple of times. I was a practicing Catholic at the time, and very good friends with the priest. He asked about the needles they must have been using to extract sperm. I thought he was being flip, so I responded in a somewhat crude manner about tossing my seed in a little plastic cup. He looked horrified when I told him that. He told me it was a sin to do that. If I wanted to go through the approved procedures, it would involve extracting sperm through a needle.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

Soooo... They'd rather collect sperm in a painful way rather than the fun way.

Heh... I know I left the RCC for a damn good reason.

 

[scratchy]

Holding masturbation as a sin is a powerful way to control the minds of people. In theory one has a choice to do it or not, but realisticly one cant chose. Biology takes over, and anyone of faith is doomed to guilt and fear of god.

 

[noblecaboose]

My wife and I went through IVF a couple of times. I was a practicing Catholic at the time, and very good friends with the priest. He asked about the needles they must have been using to extract sperm. I thought he was being flip, so I responded in a somewhat crude manner about tossing my seed in a little plastic cup. He looked horrified when I told him that. He told me it was a sin to do that. If I wanted to go through the approved procedures, it would involve extracting sperm through a needle.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

O...kay....

I think all of this goes back to that first year I was in Catholic school (6th grade). My Mom tells me I came home completely incensed about the immaculate conception of Mary, not of Jesus, of MARY. I mean, WTF? Some Pope just decided this without any actual...historical...um...oh yeah... I don't even believe in Jesus now, so this argument falls apart rather quickly but I digress...

My reason for being angry back then was that I didn't understand how it made any difference whether or not Mary was conceived in the natural way. If Mary and Jesus were conceived without sexual intercourse, why does it matter if people use science for the same thing?

Or more to the point, why are Catholics so concerned about sex? And why did that random, anonymous parent report me to the principal when I was kissing my boyfriend off campus in 8th grade? I mean, what was the harm in that? I'm glad she wasn't there when I gave him a hand-job or I would have been expelled! CHRIST WHAT IS WITH THE CATHOLICS??

*pant, pant*

Sorry. What was I saying again?

Yeah, needle in the pee-hole or whatever. Gross and wrong. Masturbating into a cup, nine Hail Marys. Thank you for shopping the Church of Callipygia. Would you like to super-size your salvation?

 

[David Swidler]

(snip)

But apparently, drunken sex with one's daughters is fine and dandy, whereas taking matters into one's own hand is not.

No, drunken sex with one's daughters is also a no-no; sorry to disappoint (Lot and company were not exactly held in high regard for that attempt at perpetuation of the human race).

 

[JamesDillon]

No, drunken sex with one's daughters is also a no-no; sorry to disappoint (Lot and company were not exactly held in high regard for that attempt at perpetuation of the human race).

I don't remember the end of that story particularly well, but I thought Lot and family were the good guys? Did God ultimately disapprove of that encounter? (As if so, was it worth it? )

 

[noblecaboose]

No, drunken sex with one's daughters is also a no-no; sorry to disappoint (Lot and company were not exactly held in high regard for that attempt at perpetuation of the human race).

How do you figure? Was Lot turned into salt? Wait, no that was his wife and just because she disobeyed Yahoowahoo and looked at burning Sodom. Why is it that curiosity only seems to affect women in the Bible?

Anyway, where do you get that Lot and company...etc. what you said?

And wasn't King David a bit of a horn-dog too? Stealing other men's wives, having young virgin whore types brought to his death bed and all that?

The Old Testament is full of lusty old goats. And Onan was specifically NOT a lusty old goat. And he suffered for it.

Man, I am ranty today!

 

[David Swidler]

How do you figure? Was Lot turned into salt? Wait, no that was his wife and just because she disobeyed Yahoowahoo and looked at burning Sodom. Why is it that curiosity only seems to affect women in the Bible?

I don't know where you get that; Moses also "turned aside to look" at the burning bush.

The point of "looking back and turning to salt" refers to being unable to leave the mentality symbolized by Sodom. Her turning to salt represents the barrenness of that mentality. What exactly Sodom represents is waaay beyond this thread.

Anyway, where do you get that Lot and company...etc. what you said?

I get it from the text: they run away from the destruction into the hills, and Lot's daughters are convinced they are the only people left on Earth, so they seduce their father. The descendants of those unions were Israel's enemies (but with a few redemptive qualities, so their land was off-limits to the Israelites).

And wasn't King David a bit of a horn-dog too? Stealing other men's wives, having young virgin whore types brought to his death bed and all that?

Interesting that you put it in the plural. It says more about your perception than about the narrative. There was only one Bathsheba. You might also notice that his actions were not exactly related approvingly by the author.

Oh, and the young virgin (yes, there was only one) remained one. David's advisers thought it would "warm him up" but he simply wasn't interested (of course he was seventy at the time, which might explain things).

(Funny that you mention both Lot and David - David was descended of Lot through his great-grandmother Ruth, of Moab - one of the nations that came from Lot's daughters).

The Old Testament is full of lusty old goats.

No argument there. The question is not whether they are mentioned, but in what light the text portrays them.

And Onan was specifically NOT a lusty old goat. And he suffered for it.

Just the opposite. The fact that he engaged in a sexual act without actual intercourse demonstrates that he had hedonistic motives only - because if it were simply an issue of not desiring her, he could have not married her in the first place. Tamar was so desperate for children that she eventually seduced Judah himself - yet Onan could focus only on his desires.

Man, I am ranty today!

I misread that as "randy". Must be the subject matter...

 

[Davidjayjordan]

So, masturbation is supposedly a sin in some religions, right?
The supposed rationale for this is that every sperm cell is a potential life and that the seed should not be wasted in an act of selfish pleasure. Or so I learned in Catholic school. (Okay, they didn't actually cover it in Catholic school, I got it from Monty Python's Meaning of Life, "Every sperm is sacred...".)
A friend of mine who used to be Catholic has been browsing the online catalogs of sperm banks in search of a potential father for her child and it got me wondering, if you are masturbating in order to donate to a sperm bank, is it a sin? I mean, if the intent of masturbation is solely for procreation, how is that sinful? In fact, it seems less sinful than sex with a wife that is not currently at the peak of her menstrual cycle, which is something the Catholic church does advocate (the "rhythm method") as an acceptable form of birth control.
Does anybody know the Catholic (or any other religion in which masturbation in sinful) position on this? Has the Pope ever said anything about it?

Masturbation is hardly a sin. Only the churchies believe such non sense.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/MasturbationandGoodHealth.html

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/OnanSelfishness.html

 

[kellyb]

The point of "looking back and turning to salt" refers to being unable to leave the mentality symbolized by Sodom. Her turning to salt represents the barrenness of that mentality. What exactly Sodom represents is waaay beyond this thread.

How do you know that's what it symbolized? What's wrong with it just being God turning someone into a pillar of salt for doing something that rubbed Him the wrong way?
Did God specify that that's what it symbolized?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My Mom tells me I came home completely incensed about the immaculate conception of Mary, not of Jesus, of MARY.
<snip>
If Mary and Jesus were conceived without sexual intercourse,

The Immaculate Conception of Mary means she was conceived without original sin, not that she was a virgin birth like Jesus.

But I agree with your outrage. It's all a bunch of bunk.

Some of these same people argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" but that celibacy and self-denial is somehow good.

 

[Solus]

It's amusing how people debate the bible as though it were anything more than a book of mythology. I see anger though on the part of those who believed in the religion and were hurt, that's where you get angry atheists. I'm an apathetic atheist; just leave religion to the dogs, it will die out eventually.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Masturbation is hardly a sin. Only the churchies believe such non sense.

EHr, right. That was sort of the subject of the debate: How much and why do the churchies think it is a sin?

Hans

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Some of these same people argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" but that celibacy and self-denial is somehow good.

And don't forget some even go beyond the self-denial and claim that flagellation for religious grounds is "good"!

 

[Cactus Wren]

Anyway, I think the ultimate rationale is that the Church (and many, if not most, other organized religions) is just opposed to anything that feels good, and masturbation tops that list. There's some bit in the Old Testament somewhere where some guy is commanded by God to impregnate some woman, but at the last minute he "spills his seed on the ground," and is struck down by God. This is generally viewed as the scriptural basis for the anti-masturbation rule, but it always seemed to me to be more a matter of disobeying God's direct order to knock up the girl than anything having to do with masturbation per se. But apparently, drunken sex with one's daughters is fine and dandy, whereas taking matters into one's own hand is not.

That would be Mr. Onan. No one ever liked Mr. Onan anyway. He smelled funny.

Mr. Onan's is actually, especially in its full context, one of the most bizarre stories in the bizarre volume that is the Bible.

Judah, oldest son of Jacob, marries and fathers three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. In the fullness of time, he buys a bride for Er, named Tamar.

For no reason that's made clear in the text, God gets angry with Er and kills him. Law and custom mandate that Onan now father a child on Tamar: this child will legally be the eldest son's offspring, and thus inherit the eldest son's large portion of the family inheritance. (If Er had died unmarried, this extra helping would presumably have defaulted to Onan.)

For whatever reason, Onan doesn't want to. Maybe he was hoping to have something to leave to his own kids. Maybe he just doesn't like Tamar. Anyway, he "spills it upon the ground" -- this is usually taken to mean he practices withdrawal. God gets mad at him for refusing to father a child that won't be his, and kills him too.

The only son left is Shelah, and he's too young yet for marriage. But Tamar is the family daughter-in-law, bought and paid for, so she has to hang around until Shelah's old enough. But in a while she notices that Shelah is getting to be "old enough" and Judah shows no sign of pairing his last son off with this bad-luck woman.

After a while, Judah's nameless wife (she is only ever referred to as "the daughter of Shuah") dies. After his first grief is over, Judah and his friend Hirah go up to Timnath for the sheep-shearing. Tamar hears about it: she takes off her widow suit, dresses herself as a wh0re with a veil over her face, and goes and sits by the road to Timnath. Judah doesn't recognize her, and negotiates with her, eventually arriving at the price of a goat for a f[rule8]. She agrees, but demands an IOU in the form of his staff and his family signet and bracelets. He hands them over and they do the dirty deed. He goes his way, and she puts her widow suit back on and goes back to her demure widow's lifestyle.

Judah, after he gets home, sends his buddy Hirah to drop off the goat and redeem the IOU. Hirah comes back leading the goat, explaining that not only couldn't he find any wh0re along there, but everybody in the area says there never was any wh0re there! Oh crap, thinks Judah, that's what I get for letting a woman get her hands on the family jewels. But he keeps his mouth shut, to avoid public embarrassment.

Oh, boy.

Three months later, Tamar turns up pregnant. Judah hears about it: "Your daughter-in-law has been slutting around, and she's pregnant from it." His response is unhesitating: "Bring her out and let her be burned!" (Not a syllable about waiting until she gives birth. Burn her right now, fetus and all. Hey, pro-lifers? Dig this.)

Tamar comes out in her widow's weeds and burgeoning bump, and drops Judah's staff and bracelets and signet at his feet. "Perhaps you can tell me whose these are?" she says.

Talk about public embarrassment. Judah has to admit: he was in the wrong here, since he refused to give her to Shelah. He doesn't have sex with her any more, but neither is it recorded that he gives her to Shelah: it's not necessary now that she's pregnant. Tamar gives birth to twins, biologically Judah's offspring but legally his grandchildren, and nothing more is heard of her. She's accomplished her task and produced an heir.

That, after all, is what women are for.

 

[David Swidler]

How do you know that's what it symbolized? What's wrong with it just being God turning someone into a pillar of salt for doing something that rubbed Him the wrong way?
Did God specify that that's what it symbolized?

Years of yeshiva education.

There's much more to the story than the text itself - there's the tomes of Talmudic, midrashic and related material that provide understanding of what would otherwise be a closed book.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There's much more to the story than the text itself - there's the tomes of Talmudic, midrashic and related material that provide understanding of what would otherwise be a closed book.

But in essence when you get down to it - all that ends up just what someone says is the correct interpretation of the symbolic meaning. And given the texts that you quote are part of the same religious tradition it is hard to consider that they are not subject to a certain amount of at least confirmation bias.

 

[l0rca]

I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine, but I'm pretty sure it's a sin when you do it too, slingblade.

Actually, she'll be sinning if she derives any pleasure from anything sexual at all. Her vagina is as evil as your penis.

Thankfully, I realized my errors, and noticing their temptations for sinning, I happily took a blade to my boys.

 

[Katana]

And don't forget some even go beyond the self-denial and claim that flagellation for religious grounds is "good"!

But flagellation for non-religious grounds is "bad"? Damn. Better put away the whip.

How 'bout flatulation?

 

[David Swidler]

But in essence when you get down to it - all that ends up just what someone says is the correct interpretation of the symbolic meaning. And given the texts that you quote are part of the same religious tradition it is hard to consider that they are not subject to a certain amount of at least confirmation bias.

That's an artificial distinction. Just because they're published separately doesn't mean they automatically qualify as such.

Even a cursory reading of the text indicates that's not all the information is there, and in many cases it's demonstrably intentional. (The first verse or two bears that out: what the Ed is "rakia'" (rendered badly in English as "firmament")? What is a "wind of God"? Floating over what water? How can wind float?). Which means that if the text was meant to be understood, there must also be keys to understanding it. That's what the oral tradition - later recorded in the works mentioned earlier - does: operate the keys.

Who serves as a more reliable indicator of the text's intent: someone immersed in the culture and milieu, or someone less familiar with it? The former will grasp things that the latter won't even notice.

 

[Darat]

That's an artificial distinction. Just because they're published separately doesn't mean they automatically qualify as such.

I have to disagree, they are separate texts. I do understand that the distinction is blurred when considered from the viewpoint of the religious tradition itself but from outside the religious tradition itself it is a quite clear distinction.

Even a cursory reading of the text indicates that's not all the information is there, and in many cases it's demonstrably intentional. (The first verse or two bears that out: what the Ed is "rakia'" (rendered badly in English as "firmament")? What is a "wind of God"? Floating over what water? How can wind float?). Which means that if the text was meant to be understood, there must also be keys to understanding it. That's what the oral tradition - later recorded in the works mentioned earlier - does: operate the keys.

This is merely an assertion i.e. you are asserting that the other texts are the correct "keys" and from what you have said you seem to consider them the only possible "keys"?

Who serves as a more reliable indicator of the text's intent: someone immersed in the culture and milieu, or someone less familiar with it? The former will grasp things that the latter won't even notice.

I agree with you in this regard however that does not undermine my original assertion "all that ends up just what someone says is the correct interpretation of the symbolic meaning". I would go further I would say in the Judaic religious tradition itself these are the correct interpretations and indeed, as I'm sure you are aware, the two major sibling religions of Judaism - Christianity and Islam have come up with many different interpretations. All those interpretations are equally correct within the respective religious tradition even if they do not agree with one another. However none of them can be considered the "right" interpretation.

In the end the text will mean whatever you wish it to mean, if you are a Christian you will have a certain interpretation, if you are a Jew you may well take another, if a Muslim another and a non-religious person yet another.

 

[David Swidler]

I have to disagree, they are separate texts. I do understand that the distinction is blurred when considered from the viewpoint of the religious tradition itself but from outside the religious tradition itself it is a quite clear distinction.

What is a quite clear distinction? The fact that one was written down earlier? The chronological span of the OT itself is longer than the period between the OT and the first redaction of the Mishnah. And there are intervening works not included in the OT canon. Why distinguish among them at all, except in style?

This is merely an assertion i.e. you are asserting that the other texts are the correct "keys" and from what you have said you seem to consider them the only possible "keys"?

I agree with you in this regard however that does not undermine my original assertion "all that ends up just what someone says is the correct interpretation of the symbolic meaning". I would go further I would say in the Judaic religious tradition itself these are the correct interpretations and indeed, as I'm sure you are aware, the two major sibling religions of Judaism - Christianity and Islam have come up with many different interpretations. All those interpretations are equally correct within the respective religious tradition even if they do not agree with one another. However none of them can be considered the "right" interpretation.

In the end the text will mean whatever you wish it to mean, if you are a Christian you will have a certain interpretation, if you are a Jew you may well take another, if a Muslim another and a non-religious person yet another.

I should make myself clearer. The works themselves are not the keys to which I referred, but the fruit of applying those keys. The "keys" themselves vary depending on the character of the passage(s) in question (e.g. narrative vs. legal). Esoteric (to most of us) tomes have been written on analyzing how the keys are applied in a given work. They are far too numerous and complicated to discuss here (and I only know a few of them offhand). As an oversimplified example: the choice of a peculiar word or phrase - especially when a simpler one would suffice - is understood as a reference to another context of the same word elsewhere in scripture.

And there can be more than one "correct" use of the keys. The Talmudic expression is, "Both these and these are the words of the living God," i.e. consistent use of the keys with different premises yields different results, but both have didactic value. (In terms of practice, the earlier sources laid down principles for deciding which among conflicting opinions to follow in given areas of law, guidelines that in no way downgrade the integrity of the "rejected" opinions - which is why the Talmud spends pages and pages analyzing those other opinions).

But there's no agenda driving the interpretations - they must merely be consistently applied. That cannot be said for Christianity, which had no choice but to assert intellectual independence from Judaism, thus forcing the early Christian scholars in a specific interpretive direction (I know next to nothing about Islamic exegesis of the OT, aside from one or two weird Koranic passages).

A lot of the confusion stems from the Hellenistic influence on Near Eastern culture. Jews have a day of fasting and mourning over the Ptolemaic translation of the Tanakh into Greek (Septuagint) - precisely because the translation necessarily incorporated only a narrow bit of the messages that inhere in the original Hebrew, ushering in an era in which the written text became primary and everything else secondary - or immaterial, in the case of sects such as the Sadducees. Once the text was wrested from its context, anyone could do anything they wanted with it. And in fact they did, and still do.

 

[Genesius]

Yet another argument against intelligent design:

Why does it take so many millions of sperm cells to fertilize one egg? If God values each sperm cell (and potential child!!!) so much, doesn't this way of doing things seem hopelessly wasteful?

Quite simple, really!

In an effort to relieve the mind-numbing boredom of sitting around on clouds, singing God's praises for all eternity, sperm racing has long been all the rage in Heaven.

Plus, it gives those angels who are small enough to dance on the head of a pin something to do - someone has to put the numbers on all those sperm, otherwise the off-track betting would be chaotic.

Don't ask me about the jockeys, though. Some things are better left a mystery.