ABOUT POPE'S MESSAGE ON ABORTION
Papa Jack
Papa Jack quotes Infonet-List Digest (Volume 97 : Issue 112)
Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
The 77-year-old Pope said "the world has become the arena of a battle
for
life," and urged all Roman Catholics to join the struggle between "the
civilization of life and the civilization of death."
On the fifth day of his emotional pilgrimage home, he took sides on a
divisive issue that will play a major role in Poland's parliamentary
elections in September.
Addressing a crowd of 100,000 at an open-air mass at Kalisz in central
Poland, he used tough language that was music to pro-Catholic
conservative
parties seeking to overturn the present social democratic government
led
by ex-communists.
"A nation which kills its own children is a nation without a future,"
he
said, repeating a phrase he first uttered when Poland's abortion law
was
made pro-abortion.
"The measure of civilization...is its relationship with life. A
civilization which rejects the defenseless would deserve to be called a
barbarian civilization even if had great successes in the field of
economics, technology, art and sciences," he said.
The Pontiff called for a "general mobilization of consciences and a
joint
ethical effort...in order to put into action a great strategy of the
defense of life."
Acknowledging the political sensitivity of his words, he departed from
his
prepared text to add: "It was not easy for me to say this, because I
think
about my nation, about its future."
In the eight years since strongly Catholic Poland became the first
Eastern
European country to cast off communism, few issues have been more
passionately fought than abortion.
Under communism, abortion was available on demand.
A law protecting life was passed in 1993 while former Solidarity union
leader Lech Walesa, a fervent Catholic, was president.
Under the 1993 law, abortion was allowed only when pregnancy posed a
threat to a woman's life, resulted from incest or rape or the foetus
had
severe defects.
The current leftist-dominated parliament legalized abortion again last
October in defiance of Catholic opposition.
Poland's constitutional court reopened the issue last week when it
effectively declared parts of the October law unconstitutional and
instructed parliament to review it within six months.
The election campaign now gathering pace pits a powerful anti-abortion
alliance centered around the pro-Catholic Solidarity union against the
secular-minded ex-communists for the lead in opinion polls.
The Solidarity Election Action (AWS), an umbrella group of some 30
conservative parties, put its logo on posters with the Pope's picture
in
the run-up to the Pontiff's visit.
In his address to the crowd, the Pope quoted from a speech that Mother
Teresa of Calcutta made at the 1994 U.N. Population Conference in
Cairo.
"The greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is abortion. If a
mother can kill her own child, what is there to stop you and me from
killing each other," she said then.
--
Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
wf...@enter.netxx
>
> On the fifth day of his emotional pilgrimage home, he took sides on a
> divisive issue that will play a major role in Poland's parliamentary
> elections in September.
>
this in the same country that tried in the early 90's to make
catholicism the state religion.
this in a country where, of 3.5million jews living in shtetl's before
ww2, 1,000 survived.
P. JP2 is terribly brave when it comes to pushing around women.
would that his predecessors had the balls to do the same for human
beings.
> Acknowledging the political sensitivity of his words, he departed from
>his
> prepared text to add: "It was not easy for me to say this
now lets see...a polish pope speaking in poland to a nation that is
99% catholic...yep took alot of guts...
delete the xx from my email address to reply
Ray Fischer
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
>attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
tend to give more money to the church.
Nah.
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
sophist
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>
> >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
> >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
>
> Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
> poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
marriage
to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
times.
This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
because one can't rely on themselves.
I know I shouldn't talk because of my situation. I am accountable for
that.
If I would have listened to my parents and my faith, I wouldn't have
gotten
pregnant in the first place.
>
> I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
> tend to give more money to the church.
I don't think this is a factor. I would think that rich people would
give more money because they have more to give.
-sophist
Bruce Forest
> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
> > >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
> >
> > Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
> > poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
>
> CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
> marriage
> to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
> times.
Then why is it when you see a plumber with 14 children he is usually
Catholic? I'd love to see statistics on the average number of children per
Catholic family, so I could see if this is merely a false perception, or is
actually true.
> This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
> control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
> because one can't rely on themselves.
If people had that much self control over the most instinctive behanior
there is, we wouldn't have the population problems that we do have. Do you
know what fertility ratings are? That is a measure used by the WHO and Red
Cross to denote the average number of children per woman in any particular
country. There is a direct correlation between high fertility ratings and
poverty. The fertility rating for the US is just below 2. The fertility
rating for Rwanda is more than NINE. That means the average number of
children per woman is nine kids. Interestingly, Rwandan men refuse to use
birth control.
Your idea is sound: the best birth control would not involve breachable
barriers or iffy chemicals. But reality isn't like that, unfortunatly.
Similarly, and as I've repeatedly said, I also wish abortion was obsolete.
But reality isn't like that.
>
> I know I shouldn't talk because of my situation. I am accountable for
> that.
> If I would have listened to my parents and my faith, I wouldn't have
> gotten
> pregnant in the first place.
And you are a fairly pious woman, too. Yet even you succumbed to instict.
How can you expect a few billion far less religious people to accept what
the Pope says, and throw away their birth control meds and devices?
>
> >
> > I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
> > tend to give more money to the church.
>
> I don't think this is a factor. I would think that rich people would
> give more money because they have more to give.
Perhaps rich people would give more per worshiper. But there are far more
poor people than rich people, and anecdotally, I once saw a stat that
illustrated that poor people give disproportionately to religious
organizations. (I can't remember where I saw it, but I'll try and find some
similar stats.) They spend more on lottery tickets too: I think both stats
would go to illustrate the overriding desire for greater fortune in their
lives.
--
Bruce Forest
bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.com
br...@sade.com
flex...@aol.com
"If it's long and dark green and its bite makes you scream that's a moray."
Ray Fischer
>> >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
>> >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
>>
>> Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
>> poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
>
>CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
>marriage
>to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
>times.
And the term doctors use for women who use "Natural Family Planning"
is "pregnant".
More Catholic hypocrisy. Condoms are condemmed because they
artificially prevent conception, but NFP is acceptable because it
artificially prevents conception. What crap. It's just a scam to
make sure people have lots of kids, remain poor, and die in poverty.
The Church care nothing for democracy and rights, becuase these
concepts are at odds with a church doctrine that has all earthly
concerns be irrelevant. The Pope is the authority, and that which
challenges the Pope's authority is bad.
>This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
>control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
>because one can't rely on themselves.
In other words, sex is only for procreation.
>I know I shouldn't talk because of my situation. I am accountable for
>that.
>If I would have listened to my parents and my faith, I wouldn't have
>gotten
>pregnant in the first place.
And you're being justly punished for the sin of having sex.
>> I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
>> tend to give more money to the church.
>
>I don't think this is a factor.
Of course not.
> I would think that rich people would
>give more money because they have more to give.
But they don't give more, because they are educated enough to notice
that such a rich church uses the money for it's own purposes first.
John Savard
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>this in a country where, of 3.5million jews living in shtetl's before
>ww2, 1,000 survived.
Yes; we all remember how, in 1939, Poland invaded Germany and then proceeded to
set up concentration camps there to exterminate Germany's Jews as well as their
own.
John Savard
Leo Freeman
> Then why is it when you see a plumber with 14 children he is usually
> Catholic? I'd love to see statistics on the average number of children
per
> Catholic family, so I could see if this is merely a false perception, or
is
> actually true.
I'D like to see the statistics on the number of plumbers with 14 children!
=8-o
-------------------------------
Live long and prosper,
Leo
Christine A. Owens
sophist wrote:
>
> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
> > >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
> >
> > Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
> > poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
>
> CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
> marriage
> to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
> times.
> control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
> because one can't rely on themselves.
And, it has an astonishingly high failure rate for two reasons:
1. The sort of 'self control' you are talking about means that a married couple must
abstain from sexual relations about half the time . . . which is highly incompatible
with the spontaneous expression of love; and VERY difficult if they have anything other
than the '9 to 5 standard' schedule.
2. Determining a woman's fertile period is not all that easy, and is readily
complicated by illness, travel, or emotional upset; and missing on the 'front end' may
mean that abstinence doesn't work because there are already live sperm in the woman's
body when the signs of fertility are detected.
Chris Owens
Paul Yost
> > I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
> > tend to give more money to the church.
>
>
You might think so. But then, one way to get rich is to be frugal, a
virtue, or a tightwad. Ebeneezer Scrooge didn't accumulate his vast
fortune by being generous.
Chris Lyman
There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
control or other reproductive issues.
Many Catholics feel the same way.
--
Chris Lyman
If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
wf...@enter.netxx
On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:34:57 GMT, sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard)
wrote:
ah, a little ignorance goes a long way. why did jews in denmark escape
and those in poland didnt? persecution of jews in poland didnt stop
with the holocaust. cardinal glemp tried to make catholicism the state
religion...in 1992.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <339b5658...@news.enter.net>, <wf...@enter.netxx> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:34:57 GMT, sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>>this in a country where, of 3.5million jews living in shtetl's before
>>>ww2, 1,000 survived.
>>
>>Yes; we all remember how, in 1939, Poland invaded Germany and then proceeded to
>>set up concentration camps there to exterminate Germany's Jews as well as their
>>own.
>>
>ah, a little ignorance goes a long way. why did jews in denmark escape
>and those in poland didnt?
Learn something about WWII. Poland was an exception in Nazi occupied
counties as the government there stayed in power up to 1943 or so. Also
Denmark is close to Sweden which was neutral. One should compare the
situation with, say, France and not Denmark.
> persecution of jews in poland didnt stop
>with the holocaust. cardinal glemp tried to make catholicism the state
>religion...in 1992.
>
So? Protestantism is state religion in Denmark.
Osmo
Oze McCallum
Bruce Forest wrote:
<snip>
> Then why is it when you see a plumber with 14 children he is usually
> Catholic? I'd love to see statistics on the average number of children per
> Catholic family, so I could see if this is merely a false perception, or is
> actually true.
<snip>
Actually, I'd like to see the statistics on the average number of children of Catholic plumbers.
And, while we're at it, the average number of children of Protestant hairdressers with the last name of Mahoney.
BTW, how many plumbers HAVE you seen with 14 children?
Oze
Steve Esser
Pure Silk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:09:08 +0000, chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
> wrote:
>
> >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
> >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
> >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
> >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
> >
Placing your immortal soul on the line by signing your name to teachings
of faith and morals is hardly to be considered "hiding". (BTW, is the
document, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", which I assume Chris is referring
to, considered to be an infallible pronouncement?)
> >That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
> >the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
> >interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
> >control or other reproductive issues.
> >
> >Many Catholics feel the same way.
>
> This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing
> Catholic, and left the church.
I give you credit for leaving the church instead of becoming a cafeteria
Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings you want to believe in.
> The church has become very hypocritical
On the contrary, it is the Catholic church which has been a stalwart of
Truth for nearly two millenia. It is the world which has become
self-centered and cynical. Truth has become relative. We have become our
own gods. Therefore, if I say abortion is okay, well then it must be.
> in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
> ultimate ruler of the world.
Too bad he couldn't be :-) I bet what he would really like is a day off.
He gets more done in a day before I even remember that God exists.
> >
> >--
> >Chris Lyman
> >If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
> >"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
> >to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
--
Steve Esser notsesserATexecpcDOTcom
To flame me directly, remove "not" from my email address.
Cut taxes, starve the Beast!
Pure Silk
>There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
>ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
>marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
>of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
>reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
>his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
>
>That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
>the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
>interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
>control or other reproductive issues.
>
>Many Catholics feel the same way.
This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing
Catholic, and left the church. The church has become very hypocritical
in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
ultimate ruler of the world.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On 11 Jun 1997 00:05:19 +0300, ronwrote:
>In article <339b5658...@news.enter.net>, <wf...@enter.netxx> wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:34:57 GMT, sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>ah, a little ignorance goes a long way. why did jews in denmark escape
>>and those in poland didnt?
>
>Learn something about WWII. Poland was an exception in Nazi occupied
>counties as the government there stayed in power up to 1943 or so
even more shameful as the poles had a long history of jewish
persecution.
. Also
>Denmark is close to Sweden which was neutral
so? moral courage was not demonstrated by the poles due to their long
history of persecution of jews.
>> persecution of jews in poland didnt stop
>>with the holocaust. cardinal glemp tried to make catholicism the state
>>religion...in 1992.
>>
>
>So? Protestantism is state religion in Denmark.
and when was that done? in the 17th century perhaps? wasnt aware that
contemporary poland was in the 17th century.
Matt Pillsbury
Steve Esser <nots...@execpc.com> writes:
> Pure Silk wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:09:08 +0000, chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
> > wrote:
> > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
> > >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
> > >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
> > >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
> Placing your immortal soul on the line by signing your name to teachings
> of faith and morals is hardly to be considered "hiding". (BTW, is the
> document, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", which I assume Chris is referring
> to, considered to be an infallible pronouncement?)
It's actually rather unclear. There is debate in the Catholic theological
community about whether this judgement is infallible or not. There was an
article about it in a recent Newsweek.
Also, I'm hardly an expert on Catholic doctrine, but even if it is an
infallible judgement, it seems that a later Pope (or even JPII) could change
things so that nuns have exactly the same duties and priveleges that priests
do, and then we simply would have gender-specific labels for a single position.
[...]
> > The church has become very hypocritical
> On the contrary, it is the Catholic church which has been a stalwart of
> Truth for nearly two millenia. It is the world which has become
> self-centered and cynical. Truth has become relative. We have become our
> own gods. Therefore, if I say abortion is okay, well then it must be.
The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from con-
sistant.
[...]
--Matt Pillsbury
Chris Lyman
nots...@execpc.com wrote:
# Pure Silk wrote:
# > chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:
# > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
# > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
# > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
# > >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
# > >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
# > >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
# Placing your immortal soul on the line by signing your name to teachings
# of faith and morals is hardly to be considered "hiding". (BTW, is the
# document, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", which I assume Chris is referring
# to, considered to be an infallible pronouncement?)
I just realized that I'm mistaken; JPII did *not* claim to be making
an infallible pronouncement. I'm truly sorry for any misunderstanding.
# > >That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
# > >the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
# > >interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
# > >control or other reproductive issues.
# > >Many Catholics feel the same way.
# > This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing
# > Catholic, and left the church.
# I give you credit for leaving the church instead of becoming a cafeteria
# Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings you want to believe in.
# > The Church has become very hypocritical.
# On the contrary, it is the Catholic church which has been a stalwart
# of Truth for nearly two millenia. It is the world which has become
# self-centered and cynical. Truth has become relative. We have become
# our own gods. Therefore, if I say abortion is okay, well then it must be.
You don't know much history, do you? If the Church was a "stalwart of
truth", why were Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Newton, Darwin et al.
persecuted?
# > in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
# > ultimate ruler of the world.
# Too bad he couldn't be :-) I bet what he would really like is a day off.
# He gets more done in a day before I even remember that God exists.
Does he have a blue ox? ;-)
Cheryl Morris
I do not know who said what I have cited below:
> >
> > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
The debate about allowing clergy to marry has been going on for more
than decades. It is one of the things which the Eastern Orthodox and
Roman Catholic Churches have been debating for over a thousand years.
Cheryl
Papa Jack
> >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
> >That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
> >the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
> >interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
> >control or other reproductive issues.
> >Many Catholics feel the same way.
==================================================================
> Pure Silk wrote:
> This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing
> Catholic, and left the church. The church has become very hypocritical
> in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
> ultimate ruler of the world.
==================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Christians believe the New Testament is the inspired word of God.
The teachings concerning a woman's place in church are clear and
distinct. Thus, the Pope would have little choice considering
the following guidance:
1 Timothy, Chapter 2:
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided
hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
_________________________________________
1 Corinthians 14
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the
congregations of the saints,
34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak
in the church.
_________________________________________
Please remember, this is NOT me writing this. I am simply reporting
what the New Testament states. I do not want our feminists friends
screeching that Papa Jack said women should shut up in church. That's
the guidance to the early churches by the Apostle Paul.
Chris Lyman
papa...@express-news.net wrote:
# Christians believe the New Testament is the inspired word of God.
# The teachings concerning a woman's place in church are clear and
# distinct. Thus, the Pope would have little choice considering
# the following guidance:
#
# 1 Timothy, Chapter 2:
#
# 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest
# apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided
# hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
# 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
# 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
# 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
# the man, but to be in silence.
# 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
# 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
# the transgression.
# 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
# continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
# 1 Corinthians 14
# 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the
# congregations of the saints,
# 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
# to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
# 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
# own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak
# in the church.
# Please remember, this is NOT me writing this. I am simply reporting
# what the New Testament states. I do not want our feminists friends
# screeching that Papa Jack said women should shut up in church. That's
# the guidance to the early churches by the Apostle Paul.
Papa Jack is a Bible-thumper! Who would have thunk it? Unfortunately
for him, he doesn't know much about what he is talking about. He's not
aware, for instance, of 1st century worship practices, or that Paul was
addressing specific problems in the churches to which he was he was
writing. Papa Jack's interpretation of the above passages is based on
a cultural norm that has long since died, and keeping such an
interpretation in circulation is the equivalent of keeping Lenin's
body on display, pumped full of formaldehyde, at least imo.
Is Papa Jack aware that crucial roles in the development of the early
church were filled by women, as well as men? Consider the example
of Lydia: she was Paul's first European convert to Christianity. As a
woman of means, she provided the financial support for her city's first
Christian church. Then there's Phoebe, who Paul described as 'sister',
'deacon', and 'patroness', and who Paul regarded as a functional equal
in the early Church. And there's Priscilla, wife of Aquila. The two of
them preached the Gospel in Roman synagogues, and got booted out of
Rome for their trouble. They later founded a church in Ephesus. Paul
expressed his undying gratitude to *both* of them.
And let's not forget that Jesus welcomed women into his circle and
treated them with more respect than was generally given to women
in those days. Indeed the *first* person to see the risen Christ was
a woman, Mary Magdalene, and thus she became an apostle of the
Resurrection.
The shape of one's genitalia does not determine one's ability to teach,
to offer pastoral care or to administer the sacraments. I do wish
Papa Jack would stop presuming to speak for Christians.
Harry K.
Actually, I'd like to see the statistics on Rwandan Catholics...Heh,
heh!
Harry K.
Cheryl Morris
Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>
>
> The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from con-
> sistant.
>
Orthodox Church were one and as such, I would imagine the Western part
of the Church operated under the same canon laws as the Eastern part,
and there were canon laws against abortion.
What happened for the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, I do not
know.
Cheryl
Alan B. Mac Farlane
The new testament writers, hated women big time.
Prior to that, the female or the Garden of Eden, that Eve chick, was
beguiled by the Serpent. The new testament people twisted that into Eve
as being the bringer of evil instead of knowledge, and she was conned just
like Adam was.
And the con games go on.
The female is still abused, and Congress wants to do an OJ on women.
Cut, make them bleed, kill them off for their own beliefs.
And dispite all this new testament brouhaha, one must deal with Exodus
21:22-27 that clearly shows a fetus is a zero.
It has no breath of life, it can not be killed, it has no soul.
Abortion is not murder.
SumBuddie
In article <chrisl-1506...@news.minn.net>, chr...@plonk.net
Alan B. Mac Farlane
Hey guys and gals.
The Lisa Ryan chick is leave and go old Terry Meuwsen is back tomorrow.
I would rather see old thunder theighs woman instead of young sucking
penis woman on the Pat Robertson Show.
The new boycott stuff is:
Kingsford Charcoal (use natural Mesquite coals, much better stuff)
Miracle Grow
Hormel
Purina
Nabisco and
Lanacane. There is a new product called Tech-Nu that can get off the
grocery shelf, and it is all natural and will break down poison oak,
sumac, ivy oils under the skin. It is best used prior to contact with the
plants, but will work very well hours or days after contact. Just follow
directions, and apply as frequently as necessary to keep the itch away.
Oh.
Call up Chevy for me. At 1-800-950-TAHOE (7246) and ask for the
literature about the Chevy Tahoe.
They will want you phone number, tell them it is unlisted. They will want
to know what vehicle you drive right now, just lie to them, say a 92 BMW.
Give them your mailing address, let them know you saw their phone number
on tee-vee somewhere, play dumb.
Get about 20 million of so of you guys to turn the wheel and make them pay
big time for supporting the Jim Jones talk of Pat Robertson and his cult.
They want to destroy themselves for him, and take you with them.
That is if you cooperate.
Keep up the good work.
Alan
Peter Nyikos
Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:
>Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>>
>>
>> The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from con-
>> sistant.
It's ALWAYS been a serious sin according to the Roman Catholic Church.
It's only the NATURE of the sin that has been debated. In the
Middle ages there was a general view, taken over from Aristotle,
that ensoulment happens only at 40 days for male unborn and
80 days for female unborn, but that only meant that abortion
prior to that point was not classed as "murder". It was still
a serious sin, though.
In the 1860's, with the advancement of our knowledge of how
conception happens, the RCC reverted to the old standard,
upheld by the early Church Fathers, that abortion is murder.
>Until the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
>Orthodox Church were one and as such, I would imagine the Western part
>of the Church operated under the same canon laws as the Eastern part,
>and there were canon laws against abortion.
>What happened for the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, I do not
>know.
See above.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Peter Nyikos
Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:
>I do not know who said what I have cited below:
>> >
>> > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
>> > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
>> > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades.
>The debate about allowing clergy to marry has been going on for more
>than decades. It is one of the things which the Eastern Orthodox and
>Roman Catholic Churches have been debating for over a thousand years.
And they haven't allowed either yet, have they? Eastern Orthodox
married men can become priests, but it doesn't work the other
way around, does it?
By the way, Cheryl, as long as I have you on the line, so to speak:
Have you gotten any of my e-mail responses to you? You've sent
me some very interesting e-mail in the past year from time
to time, but some of my e-mail replies to you bounced, and
all of it went unanswered as far as I can recall.
Matt Pillsbury
Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:
> Matt Pillsbury wrote:
> > The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from
> Until the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
> Orthodox Church were one and as such, I would imagine the Western part
> of the Church operated under the same canon laws as the Eastern part,
> and there were canon laws against abortion.
Indeed.
> What happened for the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, I do not
> know.
AFAIK, the RCC has always had canon laws against abortion. It is simply that
the strength of the prohibition (or the magnitude of the sin) has varied
greatly over that time. From the strong initial prohibitions of the Didache to
an attitude throughout most of the High Middle Ages and Renaissance that made
abortion a *lesser* infraction than contraception (doesn't *that* sound weird
to our 20th century ears?)
--Matt Pillsbury
Oze McCallum
How about Rwandan Catholic plumbers with 14 children?
Oze
Oze McCallum
Chris Lyman wrote:
<snip>
> Is Papa Jack aware that crucial roles in the development of the early
> church were filled by women, as well as men? Consider the example
> of Lydia: she was Paul's first European convert to Christianity. As a
> woman of means, she provided the financial support for her city's first
> Christian church. Then there's Phoebe, who Paul described as 'sister',
> 'deacon', and 'patroness', and who Paul regarded as a functional equal
> in the early Church. And there's Priscilla, wife of Aquila. The two of
> them preached the Gospel in Roman synagogues, and got booted out of
> Rome for their trouble. They later founded a church in Ephesus. Paul
> expressed his undying gratitude to *both* of them.
>
> And let's not forget that Jesus welcomed women into his circle and
> treated them with more respect than was generally given to women
> in those days. Indeed the *first* person to see the risen Christ was
> a woman, Mary Magdalene, and thus she became an apostle of the
> Resurrection.
>
> The shape of one's genitalia does not determine one's ability to teach,
> to offer pastoral care or to administer the sacraments. I do wish
> Papa Jack would stop presuming to speak for Christians.
Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in the church. Just
that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
Oze
Oze McCallum
A quick question for you Alan.
If you don't like Pat Robertson or his show, why do you watch it?
Oze
Pat Winstanley
In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
m...@ever.com> writes
>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
>the church. Just
>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
Who says so?
Why should women who need guidance from the church have to talk about
intimate matters with a man, when those intimate matters concern the
woman's relationship with a man?
What gives men the knowledge and experience to be able to deal with
women's problems and concerns (rather than human in general problems
and concerns)?
What, exactly, do you see as a Pastor's role? What in that role excludes
women from performing that role?
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
*Thomas, Gordy*
> Oze McCallum wrote:
>
> A quick question for you Alan.
>
> If you don't like Pat Robertson or his show, why do you watch it?
Some people watch it.
Some people watch out for it.
Gordy Thomas
Oze McCallum
OK. I guess some clarification is in order. The way I read that message
from Paul Pat is that the leader of a church should be a man, not
necessarily that all counselors and or other teachers should be. In fact,
I think it would be very inappropriate if all of them were.
Oze
Alan B. Mac Farlane
He has Jim Jones or David Korish talk going on in his religion.
He says that all the Christian Fundamentals, the salt of the earth 700
club members are on the speartip of God with the droughts, floods, storms,
earthquakes, blizzards and the like getting them. And then later, God's
speartip with thrust on thru and get all the heathens and non - believers.
In Prophat Pat's world everybody dies, this is anti scriptural as well as
false prophacy. Heck some 2000 years ago he would have been stoned to
death by the good bereans.
But like most civilized societies, some people are alive, simply because
it is against the law to kill them. Though there are still a few good
bereans left.
I watch his program to ferit out more false prophacy and sickness, as well
as to work the boycott and take his money away.
He has the right of free speech and free press just like you and I do.
And that's ok.
He is a mulit millionair and a senator's son.
Fine pay for his religion of greed and stingyness.
Hope that is useful to you in addressing your quest.
Warmest regards.
Alan
In article <33A8AD...@ix.netcom.com>, "*Thomas, Gordy*"
John Savard
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
>m...@ever.com> writes
>>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
>>the church. Just
>>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
>Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
>Who says so?
Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.
Thus, for many Christians, the discussion comes to a sudden and absolute end. If
modern society is coming to a recognition that women have not been fairly
treated in the past, and the will to accept women as the equals of men, all well
and good...
provided it does not lead to any attempt whatsoever, in any way, shape or form,
to subject the Word of God to the sort of critical scrutiny that is willing to
accept other sources of information as capable of overruling the Word of God.
We may smile and shake our heads at those who hold such simple beliefs;
those who have bumper stickers that say: "God said it. I believe it. That
settles it.";
those who learned about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel as
children, and still take them seriously;
but the effort to forcibly suppress the practice of such beliefs, which is what
it ultimately boils down to, is wrong both because it is a violation of the
human rights described by the First Amendment ("Thou shalt not make for thyself
an established church...") and because, to the extent that such an effort is
successful in leading some to skepticism, those so led may throw the ethical
baby out with the superstitious bathwater.
John Savard
Alan B. Mac Farlane
I look at these religious bigots, their arrogance, blindness and manner
that they add and take away from the bible.
Oh Gawd, forgive them for they know not what they do.
And please send more comets.
My comments to them fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
They believe they are right.
Hitler and the SS believed they were right also.
Keep up the good work guys.
The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
I can only wonder that the boycott of Prophet Pat Robertson is having an effect.
L8R
Alan
Matt Pillsbury
sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard) writes:
> Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
> >m...@ever.com> writes
>
> >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed
> >>roles in the church. Just that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
>
> >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
> >Who says so?
> Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.
> Thus, for many Christians, the discussion comes to a sudden and absolute end.
> If modern society is coming to a recognition that women have not been fairly
> treated in the past, and the will to accept women as the equals of men, all
> well and good...
[...]
> but the effort to forcibly suppress the practice of such beliefs, which is
> what it ultimately boils down to, is wrong both because it is a violation
> of the human rights described by the First Amendment ("Thou shalt not make
> for thyself an established church...") and because, to the extent that such
> an effort is successful in leading some to skepticism, those so led may
> throw the ethical baby out with the superstitious bathwater.
Of course, I would never propse that we make the Catholic (or any other) Church
accept women as clerics, for the reasons John gives above. As someone who isn't
a member of one of these sects, I really don't care.
Those who are pushing for recognition of women as clergy are not, in fact, sec-
ular humanists intent on running roughshod over the rights of Catholics, but
Catholics who want to bring their church more in line with their beliefs. If
the RCC is willing to alienate these people, that is it's decision.
As a non-Catholic, I think that the Catholics could relieve at least some of
the tension here, as well as head off a potential crisis because there aren't
enough priests in this country, by allowing married clergy. This would mean
they were consistant with just about every other branch of Christianity.
--Matt Pillsbury
matthew_...@brown.edu
DejaVu@--}--
John Savard wrote:
>
> Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
> >m...@ever.com> writes
>
> >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
> >>the church. Just
> >>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
>
> >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
>
> >Who says so?
>
> Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.
> John Savard
Actually man wrote the bible.....and we christians can only have the
faith that it was done in GOD's grace.....
as for women being in a pastorial role...I strongly dissagree!!
IMO John, I do not see any reasons why a woman would not be a good
pastor...to me it just seems un-natural.
theBOWHUNTRESS>>>>>---------->
RESPECTING THE NATURE OF WHAT THINGS ARE......
wf...@enter.netxx
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 01:23:50 -0500, "Harry K." <jkp...@pressenter.com>
wrote:
>
>Actually, I'd like to see the statistics on Rwandan Catholics...Heh,
>heh!
>
actually quite a few have been implicated in the genocide there...the
international court of justice has served warrants for several rwandan
nuns now hiding in belgium.
Chris Lyman
sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard) wrote:
# Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
# >Oze McCallum <NoSpam...@ever.com> writes
#
# >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much
# >>needed roles in the church. Just that they should not be in a
# >>Pastor's role.
# >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role? Who says so?
#
# Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.
Do you think that God said the following?
"Happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them
against the rock." -- Psalm 137:9
Or would you prefer to apply a more sophisticated hermeneutic to
your understanding of the Bible?
# Thus, for many Christians, the discussion comes to a sudden and
# absolute end.
Really? If that is indeed the case, then "Either this is not the gospel,
or we are not Christians", as Thomas Linacre exclaimed after reading
the Bible for the first time late in his life.
By this, I mean our society has evolved so far from the culture and norms
of the 1st Century, we couldn't possibly say that we are living the sort
of lives which are endorsed by the Bible. In the Bible,
* There is no endorsement for our democratic forms of government.
* There are plenty of explicit endorsements of slavery.
* There are plenty of implicit endorsements for Christians to
persecute Jews, especially in John's Gospel.
* There are implicit endorsements that it's ok to subjucate black people.
So either we toss our democratic, egalitarian society on the scrap heap
of history in order to conform our lives to what the Bible plainly says,
or,
We recognize that the *principles* espoused in the Bible should claim
our loyalty more than the cultural norms and practices of 1st century
Mediterranean societies.
Jeff & Ruth Bolton
DejaVu@--}-- wrote:
>
> John Savard wrote:
> >
> > Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
> > >m...@ever.com> writes
> >
> > >>the church. Just
> > >>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
> >
> > >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
> >
> > >Who says so?
> >
> > John Savard
> Actually man wrote the bible.....and we christians can only have the
> faith that it was done in GOD's grace.....
> as for women being in a pastorial role...I strongly dissagree!!
> IMO John, I do not see any reasons why a woman would not be a good
> pastor...to me it just seems un-natural.
> theBOWHUNTRESS>>>>>---------->
> RESPECTING THE NATURE OF WHAT THINGS ARE......
It seems un-natural because you have probably not seen a number of women
in a pastoral role.
The Bible does not say that women cannot be pastors. On the contrary,
the New Testament has a number of women who were in pastoral/teaching
roles. And they were commended by Paul!
Most of the passages used to deny full ministerial roles to women in the
church are problematic for the translators. Often words in the original
languages are difficult to translate so the translator, probably without
meaning to, falls back on his "comfort" zone.
If people would use passages that are easily translated as their focus,
the issue of women in pastoral and senior pastor roles would not be an
issue.
Alan B. Mac Farlane
Hi Guys and Gals.
Rupert Murdock owns the CBN channel now.
Keep taking the money away from him and Pat Robertson, make them pay for
their religion of corporate greed.
There was a chinese-american who was recently killed by a local police
officer. In Rhonert Park, California.
Citizen Kao, was drunk, angry, and waving a paint stick handle around in
the middle of the street at about 2 am.
The police officer who responded, was recently fired from the Rhonert Park
Fire Department for stealing government funds by jacking time cards, and
the City Fathers, said - hey we have to put you in law enforcement - you
are thief.
So this guy turns a corner, loses all police presence, actually he is a
perpatrator and drove his car to within 3 feet of Citizen Kao. Instead of
maintaining boundaries, able to use his other partners strength, the
police battons, or pepper spray, or even shoot to wound. The police dude,
got all scared for his life and blew Citzen Kao away, hand cuffed him, and
then refused to render medical aid or allow Citzen Kao's wife who was a
nurse to intervein. She was threatened with arrest for interfering with a
crime.
The local District Attorney, Mike Mullins, did a white wash with the paper
hanging policeman and his buddies on this murder.
This was very poor police work, with the policeman getting right into the
citizens face and not making an assessment of the situation. The
policeman set himself up for making the murder. This guy did not have on
body armor and was shooting an AK-47 folks, he was waving around a paint
stick on a drunk and could be easily handled.
Anyhow.
Call up 1-800-638-5225 and get some death benefits insurance for burial,
and toss it in the garbage - ok.
Just make them pay for supporting Pat Jonestown Robertson.
Kelloggs is still on the list.
And lets go for everything Italian now. The italian people can thank
Barillia pasta company for this, but they are so close to the corruption
of Rome. And want to destroy themselves and you guys also.
Keep turning the wheel.
We will get there.
Alan
Bob Koopman
>I look at these religious bigots, their arrogance, blindness and manner
>that they add and take away from the bible.
>
>Oh Gawd, forgive them for they know not what they do.
>
>And please send more comets.
>
>My comments to them fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
>
>They believe they are right.
>
>Hitler and the SS believed they were right also.
>
No, the Nazis were socialistic left winged.
>Keep up the good work guys.
>
>The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.
Imagine taking your kids to Disneyland on "HOMO"day and them watching
HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!
God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
Opposites ATTRACT.
Bruce Forest
And now, the fundie cliche of the week!
In article <33b75247...@news.idt.net>, bkoo...@eagleut.com wrote:
[....]
> God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
[....]
I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that after he heard it from some
televangelist?
--
Bruce Forest
bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.com
br...@sade.com
flex...@aol.com
"If it's long and dark green and its bite makes you scream that's a moray."
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:10:51 GMT, bkoo...@eagleut.com (Bob Koopman)
wrote:
>>
>No, the Nazis were socialistic left winged.
huh? where'd this come from? is that why hitler thought it was his god
given duty to destroy communism? because he was a communist?
sheesh...talk about screwed up ideas of history...
>>
>>The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
>
>That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.
ah, a little bigotry thrown in for good measure.
>Imagine taking your kids to Disneyland on "HOMO"day and them watching
>HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!
then dont! DUH!!!
>
>God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
bumpersticky theology AND politics...yep, typical redneck.
Alan B. Mac Farlane
God made Love.
It was human beings who made war and hate.
Ask Cain and Able.
Am I my brothers keeper ?
If you are not, you have no reason to have been created.
If you are, then you are the child of God in deed.
Remember folks, all those boys and only one woman - Eve.
How did the offsprings make more children with only one woman.
Sounds like incest to me.
SumBuddie
In article <bforest-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
bfo...@idontmindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> And now, the fundie cliche of the week!
>
>
> In article <33b75247...@news.idt.net>, bkoo...@eagleut.com wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>
> > God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
>
>
Oze McCallum
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:10:51 GMT, bkoo...@eagleut.com (Bob Koopman)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >No, the Nazis were socialistic left winged.
>
> huh? where'd this come from? is that why hitler thought it was his god
> given duty to destroy communism? because he was a communist?
> sheesh...talk about screwed up ideas of history...
>
> >>
> >>The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
> >
> >That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.
>
> ah, a little bigotry thrown in for good measure.
>
> >Imagine taking your kids to Disneyland on "HOMO"day and them watching
> >HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!
>
> then dont! DUH!!!
> >
>
Personal attacks AND name-calling .... yep, typical bigot.
Oze
wf...@enter.netxx
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:02:15 -0400, Oze McCallum
<Nospam...@ever.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> >
>
>Personal attacks AND name-calling .... yep, typical bigot.
>
oze has her little double standard. someone calls gays 'homos' and
'perverse'....and these arent insults...guess when you're a homophobe
only gays are wrong.
Oze McCallum
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:02:15 -0400, Oze McCallum
> <Nospam...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >Personal attacks AND name-calling .... yep, typical bigot.
> >
> oze has her little double standard. someone calls gays 'homos' and
> 'perverse'....and these arent insults...guess when you're a homophobe
> only gays are wrong.
Well, in the first place, I'm a male. In the second, I never called gays
"homos" and "perverse", I was responding to your comments to someone
else, regarding their views as "redneck." Thirdly, while I do disagree
with the homosexual lifestyle, and personally feel that it is wrong,
whatever you do in your bedroom is your business.
Where I have a problem is when you take what is done there and parade it
in public.
BTW, the term "homophobe" is misleading. That denotes a fear of
homosexuals. I am not afraid of anyone.
Oze
mpa...@pacbelch.com
bfo...@idontmindspring.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
BF>And now, the fundie cliche of the week!
BF>In article <33b75247...@news.idt.net>, bkoo...@eagleut.com wrote:
BF>> God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
BF>I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that after he heard it from some
BF>televangelist?
And the truely sad part is, he's wrong. God did NOT make Adam and Eve.
Eve was never tempted by the serpent and never ate of the fruit of the
tree of knowledge.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş I don't have a solution but I admire the problem.
>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
wf...@enter.netxx
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 04:53:21 -0400, Oze McCallum
<Nospam...@ever.com> wrote:
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>> oze has her little double standard. someone calls gays 'homos' and
>> 'perverse'....and these arent insults...guess when you're a homophobe
>> only gays are wrong.
>
>Well, in the first place, I'm a male. In the second, I never called gays
>"homos" and "perverse",
please read. i never said you did. i said your sense of outrage is
selective. SOMEONE ELSE calls gays 'homo's' and 'perverse' and you
call me a bigot...double standard...
I was responding to your comments to someone
>else, regarding their views as "redneck."
ah you mean when i called a bigot a bigot and you think saying bigotry
is ok? well who am i to disagree? you have your weird standard and i
believe that bigotry is wrong. guess we disagree.
.
>
>Where I have a problem is when you take what is done there and parade it
>in public.
its called 'freedom of speech'...guess you dont like that either...
>
APHRODiTE
Alan B. Mac Farlane wrote:
>
> God made Love.
>
> It was human beings who made war and hate.
>
> Ask Cain and Able.
>
> Am I my brothers keeper ?
>
> If you are not, you have no reason to have been created.
>
> If you are, then you are the child of God in deed.
>
> Remember folks, all those boys and only one woman - Eve.
>
> How did the offsprings make more children with only one woman.
>
> Sounds like incest to me.
>
> SumBuddie
That's just one of the MANY reasons on why I have disregarded the
Bible.. Besides the fact that Maccoby is my hero, the Bible has too
many contradictions. OBVIOUSLY incest had to take place, yet the Bible
specifically says that incest is wrong. Lev. chapter 18. The whole
chapter says what's right and wrong when dealing with sex. It mentions
not sleeping with your father's daughter because that is your sister.
As well as not sleeping with your mother.
~APHRODiTE~
remember when safe sex meant not getting caught?
APHRODiTE
> >The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
>
> That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.
> HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!
>
>
I agree with you. I do not believe in the Bible, but for those of you
who do and who are angered at the boycott might I point you to Lev.
18:22?
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable."
As people I have nothing against them. But you are right. I wouldn't
want my children seeing such a display. Sort of like...hardware...
There are female ends and male ends. Named thusly. And so they should
be used accordingly. What can two people of the same sex get from one
another that they could not find elsewhere?
~APHRODiTE~
curiosity? nope, i ran that cat over with the lawnmower
Alan B. Mac Farlane
HI Aphrodite.
The old testament has been fullfilled by that Jesus fella, and all that
the bible is, is love God, love your neighbor and show good fruitage of
the spirit.
God doesnt make junk and God is not a hypocrite.
Two people making love, respect, joy and happiness - there is no
perpatration, no uglyness like wife beating a la O.J. - is way ok.
Abuse is the issue, not the shape of the hardware.
Leave the Beast - 666 and go into the emotions, go closer to God via ones
feelings of love, peace and walking in balance I say.
Genetically there are women who have strong male traits, as well as males
who have strong female traits and of course the average male and female in
the bell curve.
Homosexuals and Lesbians are just organically and hormonally tweaked into
being who they are and they cant change it no more then you can change the
color of your skin - even if you are Michael Jackson.
That is who you be, and who you be is not junk, and deserves to be here no
more or no less then the birds, the stars and the trees.
Additionally homosexuality in the animal kingdom is also 10%. Some rams
just dont like ewes, and wont pop them and make babies. The US Dept of
Agriculture knows this and has a test to save buyers 1000s of dollars on a
stud that wont work.
Ciao
Alan
posted and mailed for comsec
Oze McCallum
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 04:53:21 -0400, Oze McCallum
> <Nospam...@ever.com> wrote:
>
> >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >>
> >> oze has her little double standard. someone calls gays 'homos' and
> >> 'perverse'....and these arent insults...guess when you're a homophobe
> >> only gays are wrong.
> >
> >Well, in the first place, I'm a male. In the second, I never called gays
> >"homos" and "perverse",
>
> please read. i never said you did. i said your sense of outrage is
> selective. SOMEONE ELSE calls gays 'homo's' and 'perverse' and you
> call me a bigot...double standard...
No, I called you a bigot because of your use of the word "redneck."
No double standard at all. The person that calls homosexuals "homos" and
"perverse" is just as bigoted as your comments.
> I was responding to your comments to someone
> >else, regarding their views as "redneck."
>
> ah you mean when i called a bigot a bigot and you think saying bigotry
> is ok? well who am i to disagree? you have your weird standard and i
> believe that bigotry is wrong. guess we disagree.
Again, you didn't call the person a bigot, which I agree that person is
BTW, you called them a "redneck." That says a lot about your own
pre-conceived notions and bigotry.
> >
> >Where I have a problem is when you take what is done there and parade it
> >in public.
>
> its called 'freedom of speech'...guess you dont like that either...
> >
No, it's called "respect for others feelings" and "being polite."
Oze
Pat Winstanley
In article <33B954...@amaonline.com>, APHRODiTE <jl...@amaonline.com>
writes
>> >The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
>>
>> That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.
>> Imagine taking your kids to Disneyland on "HOMO"day and them watching
>> HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!
>>
>> God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
>>
>> Opposites ATTRACT.
>
>who do and who are angered at the boycott might I point you to Lev.
>18:22?
>
>"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable."
>
I would have thought it was fairly impossible!
>As people I have nothing against them. But you are right. I wouldn't
>want my children seeing such a display. Sort of like...hardware...
>There are female ends and male ends. Named thusly. And so they should
>be used accordingly. What can two people of the same sex get from one
>another that they could not find elsewhere?
>
>~APHRODiTE~
>
>curiosity? nope, i ran that cat over with the lawnmower
--
Pat Winstanley
Bob Koopman
>And now, the fundie cliche of the week!
>
>
>In article <33b75247...@news.idt.net>, bkoo...@eagleut.com wrote:
>
>[....]
>
>
>> God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.
>
>
>[....]
>
>I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that after he heard it from some
>televangelist?
>
>--
>Bruce Forest
>
>bfo...@mindspring.com
>bfo...@snet.com
>br...@sade.com
>flex...@aol.com
>
>"If it's long and dark green and its bite makes you scream that's a moray."
I thought up the "Madam and Eve". "Adam and Steve" has been widely
used.
mpa...@pacbelch.com
PE>From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
PE>>"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable."
PE>>
PE>I would have thought it was fairly impossible!
On the contrary, it is not only possible, but many women actually enjoy
it. It is also a great method of avoiding pregnancy. It also allows
sex without destroying the value of a virgin, and as such is much
practiced in cultures that value virginity in a bride. Or so I am told.
Pat Winstanley
In article <5phh92$92a$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>, mpa...@pacbelch.com
writes
<sigh>
I meant it would be pretty impossible for a man to have vaginal sex (ie.
the normal way a man would lie with a woman) with another man!
--
Pat Winstanley
mpa...@pacbelch.com
PE>From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
PE> mpa...@pacbelch.com writes
PE>><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote
the Bible says:
PE>>PE>>"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable."
PE>>PE>I would have thought it was fairly impossible!
PE>I meant it would be pretty impossible for a man to have vaginal sex (ie.
PE>the normal way a man would lie with a woman) with another man!
Yes, that is impossible. When the Bible prohibits a man having sex with
as man as he does with a woman it is implying acceptence of anal sex
with women.
Bob Koopman
>>
>>Where I have a problem is when you take what is done there and parade it
>>in public.
>
>its called 'freedom of speech'...guess you dont like that either...
>>
Ok, then I guess it is alright for the KKK to have a parade to, since
it "is their right to freedom of speech". And, I guess, we can throw
in the NAMBLA (North American Man and Boys Love Association)-their
slogan is "Sex by 8 or it's too late". Who else can we throw in? Ah
yes, the rapists, the pedophiles...shall I continue?
falc...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Koopman Spewed:
Bob has no idea what NAMBLA is about. We have no such slogan and abhor
the sexual abuse of children. Here's some real information about NAMBLA.
-=- Tebster
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NAMBLA: WHERE WE STAND
The North American Man/Boy Love Association is both
political and educational. We work to organize support for
boys and men who have or desire consensual sexual and
emotional relationships and to educate society on their
positive nature. We speak out against the oppression
endured by men and boys who love one another and support the
right of all people to consensual intergenerational
relationships. Throughout most of Western history (and not
only Western), man/boy love has been the primary form of
homoeroticism, and it is this love for which NAMBLA stands.
NAMBLA was founded in 1978, within Boston's gay and lesbian
community, in response to a witch hunt against man/boy
lovers in that city. Since then, NAMBLA has worked to build
a community of support through our publications and
conferences. Our spokespeople raise awareness of the issue
in the media and academia, before community groups, and
among the general public.
While NAMBLA's members represent a diversity of backgrounds
and politics, we all share a libertarian, humanistic
attitude on sexuality. We believe that sex is good and
wholesome and that it is an important medium of personal
expression.
NAMBLA condemns sexual abuse in all forms of coercion. We
insist there is a distinction between coercive and
consensual sex. Laws that focus only on the age of the
participants fail to capture that distinction, for they
ignore the quality of the relationship. Differences in age
do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons
any more than differences in race or class.
Some existing laws criminalize sexual relationships that are
loving and fully consensual. These laws are ill-conceived
and morally repugnant. As is our right, we advocate their
repeal. Nothing that we speak or write about is intended to
advocate or counsel the violation of such laws.
NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not
just the sexual. We are against arbitrary constraints on
the rights and freedom of all, young and old. We support
greater economic, political, and social opportunities for
young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates
and isolates them in fear and mistrust.
* =================================
North American Man/Boy Love Association
NAMBLA's legal and for real !!
USD $35/year, $50 overseas, $5 Sample to:
NAMBLA Dept TB
PO Box 174 Midtown Station
New York, NY 10018-0174 USA
NEW WEB SITE: http://www.nambla.org/
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Alan B. Mac Farlane
Hey guys, children can not consent to sex, adults are perpatrating on
children, males or females can not be done in a loving, safe, sane,
healthy manner.
Children do not have the brain for it,they can not play adult games which
is what sex is all about.
So guys, get some therapy and grow up.
Heal your own child perp sex abuse history, instead of passing the disease
down the generations.
You dont, you go to jail.
And when you get out, flyers and notice will preceed you all your live
long days.
I started it, and unfortunately Megan and Polly Klass had to help teach
them to isolate you people in your disease as so far you will not heal it.
So die with it.
If that be the case.
Ciao
SumBuddie
In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>, Lenny Schafer
<sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
> falc...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> : -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> : NAMBLA: WHERE WE STAND
>
> : The North American Man/Boy Love Association is both
> : political and educational.
>
> -snip-
>
> Man/Boy Love!! So THAT'S what NAMBLA stands for. I thought it was
> Man/Baboon Love.
>
> Whew! For a minute I thought you guys were weirdos.
>
>
>
> --
Alan B. Mac Farlane
Hey guys and gals.
The boycott is doing real well.
And you guys are doing a real good job.
I am off to Lilith Fair for tomorrow nites soiree of music with Sarah
Mclachlan, Tracy Chapman, Paula Cole, Suzanne Vega and the beautiful
Jewel.
A different quickening of the soul to be sure.
So, start nailing on Shell Oil, they are underwriting a big part of Pat's
bill to stay on the air. So let them pay for their suicidal support of
Jonestown Robertson and his cult.
And order up a video also, its free.
Call 1-800-532-1100 and get a free nail funges video.
Dont toss it when you get it, just scotch tape the rear corner where you
see a punched out square hole and you can record over it and use it as a
trash tape for your VCR.
This is the record protect notch that is in place when you get blank
videos and can punch it out yourself to protect your own library you make.
This notch is also in cassettes and puter floppies, all removeable media
actually.
Oh, when you make the phone call, tell them your phone number is unlisted
and you will not give it out. But let them have your mailing address of
course, it makes their selling of the data less valuable.
Thanks for turning the wheel folks.
Warmest regards.
Alan
Whateverman
mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
>
> PE>From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
>
> PE> mpa...@pacbelch.com writes
> PE>><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote
> the Bible says:
>
> PE>>PE>>"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable."
>
> PE>>PE>I would have thought it was fairly impossible!
>
> PE>I meant it would be pretty impossible for a man to have vaginal sex (ie.
> PE>the normal way a man would lie with a woman) with another man!
>
> Yes, that is impossible. When the Bible prohibits a man having sex with
> as man as he does with a woman it is implying acceptence of anal sex
> with women.
And since sex outside marriage isn't allowed, and men couldn't get
married to men, why did the bible even mention it?
whateverman
--
Email is good, so long as yer able to remove the *spam* from my
address...
"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is
blind."
Albert Einstein
mpa...@pacbelch.com
Whateverman <em...@thecia.net> wrote:
EM>mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
EM>> PE>From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
EM>> PE> mpa...@pacbelch.com writes
EM>> PE>><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote
EM>> the Bible says:
EM>> PE>>PE>>"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable.
EM>> Yes, that is impossible. When the Bible prohibits a man having sex with
EM>> as man as he does with a woman it is implying acceptence of anal sex
EM>> with women.
EM>And since sex outside marriage isn't allowed, and men couldn't get
EM>married to men, why did the bible even mention it?
Where does it say sex outside of marriage is disallowed? ADULTRY is not
allowed, but I do not recall seeing any passage prohibiting sex between
unmarried people. There was one, which I can't find again, that
basically said getting a girl pregnant and not marrying her was a no-no.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş Apathists of the world...ahh, forget it.
J Shearer
Whateverman <em...@thecia.net> writes: > mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
> >
> > PE>From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
> >
> >
> >
> > PE>I meant it would be pretty impossible for a man to have vaginal sex (ie.
> > PE>the normal way a man would lie with a woman) with another man!
> >
>
> And since sex outside marriage isn't allowed, and men couldn't get
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, W! Do you think it was mentioned to make sure they had all the 'bases'
covered? And, you know, after all that ruckus in Soddom and G' --well,
they just wanted to make sure nobody had ANY fun! 8^D Jan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oze McCallum
mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
>
> Whateverman <em...@thecia.net> wrote:
>
> EM>mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
> EM>> PE>From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
> EM>> PE> mpa...@pacbelch.com writes
> EM>> PE>><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> EM>> the Bible says:
> EM>> PE>>PE>>"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable.
>
> EM>> Yes, that is impossible. When the Bible prohibits a man having sex with
> EM>> as man as he does with a woman it is implying acceptence of anal sex
> EM>> with women.
>
> EM>And since sex outside marriage isn't allowed, and men couldn't get
> EM>married to men, why did the bible even mention it?
>
> Where does it say sex outside of marriage is disallowed? ADULTRY is not
> allowed, but I do not recall seeing any passage prohibiting sex between
> unmarried people. There was one, which I can't find again, that
> basically said getting a girl pregnant and not marrying her was a no-no.
> ---
>
> >> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness,
deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All
these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:21-23
(KJV)
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman
to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart." Matt 27,28 (KJV)
Oze
mpa...@pacbelch.com
Oze McCallum <Nospam...@ever.com> wrote:
NO>mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
NO>> Whateverman <em...@thecia.net> wrote:
NO>> EM>And since sex outside marriage isn't allowed, and men couldn't get
NO>> EM>married to men, why did the bible even mention it?
NO>> Where does it say sex outside of marriage is disallowed? ADULTRY is not
NO>> allowed, but I do not recall seeing any passage prohibiting sex between
NO>> unmarried people. There was one, which I can't find again, that
NO>> basically said getting a girl pregnant and not marrying her was a no-no.
NO>"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
NO>adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness,
NO>deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All
NO>these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:21-23
NO>(KJV)
Pride is evil and defiles a man?
Foolishness is evil?
Deceit is evil?
NO>"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
NO>commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman
NO>to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
NO>heart." Matt 27,28 (KJV)
Adultry is sex by a married person with someone other than their spouse.
Fornication is sex between any persons other than those married to each
other. Fornication is listed 35 times in the Bible and appears to be
bad only if with someone outside of the tribe. Nowhere does it say
fornication is a sin and/or an abomination.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş Apathists of the world...ahh, forget it.
Cheryl Morris
mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
>
> Where does it say sex outside of marriage is disallowed? ADULTRY is not
> allowed, but I do not recall seeing any passage prohibiting sex between
> unmarried people. There was one, which I can't find again, that
> basically said getting a girl pregnant and not marrying her was a no-no.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man:
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
I did not include all the quotations against fornication, but they are
numerous.
Cheryl Morris
SeanPriddy
Sodom and Gomhora was about lovelessnes not sex, look it up. It was about
allowing the poor to go hungry. Sodom and Gomhora were the first
republicans, and they, like their modern day counterparts, turned to stone!
J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote in article
Pat Winstanley
In article <33CBD0...@cannet.com>, Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com>
writes
What do you define "fornication" as?
My dictionary basically says it's sex where one or both partners are
unmarried. Is that the biblical sense too?
Reading my version of the bible the Gal verses above effectively
describe the lifestyle of today's typical teenager! :-)
--
Pat Winstanley
Oze McCallum
mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
>
> Oze McCallum <Nospam...@ever.com> wrote:
<snip>
> NO>"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
> NO>adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness,
> NO>deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All
> NO>these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:21-23
> NO>(KJV)
>
> Pride is evil and defiles a man?
> Foolishness is evil?
> Deceit is evil?
yes.
>
> NO>"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
> NO>commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman
> NO>to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
> NO>heart." Matt 27,28 (KJV)
>
> Adultry is sex by a married person with someone other than their spouse.
> Fornication is sex between any persons other than those married to each
> other. Fornication is listed 35 times in the Bible and appears to be
> bad only if with someone outside of the tribe. Nowhere does it say
> fornication is a sin and/or an abomination.
Yes it does. Read above (Mark 7:21-23). Fornication is called evil.
Or how about Romans 29:32 -
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of
evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them
that do them.
Or 1 Cor 6:13 -
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy
both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord;
and the Lord for the body.
Or 1 Cor 6:18 -
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but
he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Or Gal 5:19-21 -
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the
which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Or Eph 5:3 -
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be
once named among you, as becometh saints;
I could go on, but you get the idea.
<sig snip>
Oze
Oze McCallum
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <33CBD0...@cannet.com>, Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com>
> writes
> >mpa...@pacbelch.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Where does it say sex outside of marriage is disallowed? ADULTRY is not
> >> allowed, but I do not recall seeing any passage prohibiting sex between
> >> unmarried people. There was one, which I can't find again, that
> >> basically said getting a girl pregnant and not marrying her was a no-no.
> >
> >Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
> >adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
> >Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man:
> >Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> >Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
> >strife, seditions, heresies,
> >Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
> >the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
> >they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
> >
> >numerous.
> >
> >Cheryl Morris
>
> What do you define "fornication" as?
>
> My dictionary basically says it's sex where one or both partners are
> unmarried. Is that the biblical sense too?
>
> Reading my version of the bible the Gal verses above effectively
> describe the lifestyle of today's typical teenager! :-)
>
> --
> Pat Winstanley
And since so many of today's teenagers have been raised in a
values-neutral, religion bashing environment, that doesn't surprise me.
Saddened, but not surprised.
Oze
Bob Koopman
>Sodom and Gomhora was about lovelessnes not sex, look it up. It was about
>allowing the poor to go hungry. Sodom and Gomhora were the first
>republicans, and they, like their modern day counterparts, turned to stone!
>
>
>J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote in article
>>
>>
No, Sodom and Gomhora were liberal-they were vile and thank you LORD
for destroying them.
SeanPriddy
Look it up in the Bible, not the skid marks in your underpants.
Bob Koopman <bkoo...@eagleut.com> wrote in article
<33cd8196...@news.idt.net>...
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>And since so many of today's teenagers have been raised in a
>values-neutral, religion bashing environment, that doesn't surprise me.
spare me the grief. prove it. religion is the responsibility of
parents. not the govt. and having religion is not the same as having
values....just look at the s. baptists...a more religious ammoral
church is hard to imagine.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:22:20 GMT, bkoo...@eagleut.com (Bob Koopman)
wrote:
>
>No, Sodom and Gomhora were liberal-they were vile and thank you LORD
>for destroying them.
ah the voice of xtian compassion...the only sin thats not a sin is
hate...says the compassionate xtian
Ken McIsaac
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
<many, many quotes snipped>
> What do you define "fornication" as?
>
> My dictionary basically says it's sex where one or both partners are
> unmarried. Is that the biblical sense too?
That is the _typical_ meaning. However, the word in the bible is
"pornea"--which really refers to paying temple prostitutes at the
shrines of the various pagan love gods/goddesses for various services.
As I understand it (and I am no expert), references to "fornication" are
actually complaining about "pornea" or "sexual immorality" (rape, sex
with statues, sex with animals), not single people.
And as for the person later on this thread who said "Sodom and Gomorrah
were liberals and thank God for destroying them"...
Read the story.
The angels arrive in Sodom and the people say "Bring them out so we can
have sex with them". At no point do the people suggest that they care
whether the angels want to have sex. In other words, the sin of Sodom
is twofold: 1) Rape; 2)Mistreatment of strangers.
Bell's Theorem
In article <33cd8196...@news.idt.net>, bkoo...@eagleut.com (Bob Koopman) wrote:
>
>No, Sodom and Gomhora were liberal-they were vile and thank you LORD
>for destroying them.
>
My god, you're a MORON!!!
Of course, you can't argue effectively with a liberal so you use your stinking
fart to get attention.
Bruce Forest
In article <5rb0vi$3...@chile.earthlink.net>, edw...@earthlink.net (Bell's
Theorem) wrote:
So, one moron calls Sodom and Gomorrah liberal, and another moron insults
him for being liberal.
And they say lower animals can't use computers!
--
Bruce Forest
bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.com
br...@sade.com
flex...@usa.net
"You want to know how long eternity is? Imagine a huge bronze ball, a mile
across. Every two thousand years, a single dove flies past the ball and
brushes it with a wingtip. When the ball is worn away to dust that will
only be the beginning of eternity."
Robert McCallum
If you are going to copy my line at least get it right:
So many RadCons, so few comets.
Bruce Forest
In article <m0bu3qw...@chavez-ravine.mit.edu>, Matt Pillsbury
<pil...@chavez-ravine.mit.edu> wrote:
> non...@your.business (Robert McCallum) writes:
>
> > If you are going to copy my line at least get it right:
>
> > So many RadCons, so few comets.
>
> Presumably, "RadCon" is short for radical conservative.
>
> Aren't they a bit like jumbo shrimp?
Well I'm not sure about the 'oxy' part, but the rest is pretty clear.
B)