Did Jesus ever have sex?
ComandanteBanana
normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
Great Dayne
wrote:
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> would be denying "human nature."
You answered your own question.
And more to the point, he is probably doing it right now ...
ComandanteBanana
He's doing "it" right now?
Many people would jump to the wrong conclusions... ;)
Great Dayne
wrote:
That is because they don't understand the rabbi ...
Mr. B
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex,
What about someone who dies before reaching puberty? Or do you not count
that as "normal?"
-- B
ComandanteBanana
I wonder what the rabbi says about Jesus in this aspect. Or they
simply dismiss Jesus?
I don't think the Jews would even care to buy tabloids with juicy
details of Jesus' secret sex life. ;)
ComandanteBanana
> ComandanteBanana wrote:
> > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > normal human being ever lived without sex,
>
> that as "normal?"
>
> -- B
We can safely assume Jesus reached the puberty at age 33. ;)
Minors then would be the only "angels."
Great Dayne
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:49 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 10:48 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 11:37 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 9, 10:35 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > > > > normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> > > > > would be denying "human nature."
>
> > > > You answered your own question.
> > > > And more to the point, he is probably doing it right now ...
>
> > > He's doing "it" right now?
>
> > > Many people would jump to the wrong conclusions... ;)
>
> > That is because they don't understand the rabbi ...
>
> I wonder what the rabbi says about Jesus in this aspect.
Jesus is the rabbi.
ComandanteBanana
>
> - Show quoted text -
A rabbi denied by the Jews?
It sounds like Albert Einstein denied by the scientists. The Jews
don't deny Einstein either.
Either Jesus wasn't real or the Jews are not real.
Tapestry
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 12:42 pm, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 11:14 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 11:49 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 9, 10:48 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 9, 11:37 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:35 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > > > > > > normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> > > > > > > would be denying "human nature."
>
> > > > > > You answered your own question.
> > > > > > And more to the point, he is probably doing it right now ...
>
> > > > > He's doing "it" right now?
>
> > > > > Many people would jump to the wrong conclusions... ;)
>
> > > > That is because they don't understand the rabbi ...
>
> > > I wonder what the rabbi says about Jesus in this aspect.
>
> > Jesus is the rabbi.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A rabbi
Rabbi's are married.
His marriage is recorded in the second chapter of John's testimony of
him.
Patrick
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex,
And you feel Jesus was "normal?"
ComandanteBanana
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please quote.
And what do we do with the Christian faith and the Pope and all?
Tapestry
I am sure you can find the bible online.
Google is that way, troll ~~~~~~~~~~>
Lee
"ComandanteBanana" <nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ac6de60-4915-43c2...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Looking at this picture of him I was say he was completely fk*ced at
least once.
http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/aplus/losttomb/9.jpg
ComandanteBanana
> "ComandanteBanana" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote ..
>
> > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > normal human being ever lived without sex,
>
> And you feel Jesus was "normal?"
It was pretty "normal" for a god, but not for a human being.
Actually human beings are more like animals --for some mysterious
reason.
Picasso Renoir Hilton
> "ComandanteBanana" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8ac6de60-4915-43c2...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> > would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> > details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> > Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> > Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> > tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
>
> > "SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> Looking at this picture of him I was say he was completely fk*ced at
> least once.
How does it feel to be phucked back?
ComandanteBanana
> "ComandanteBanana" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8ac6de60-4915-43c2...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> > would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> > details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> > Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> > Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> > tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
>
> > "SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> Looking at this picture of him I was say he was completely fk*ced at
> least once.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was considered a troublemaker by Rome, so extreme violence, sadism
and torture were justified for the good of the Empire.
And there were no assylums back then.
Steve O
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
I still have some copies of Jesus' wedding certificate left if anyone's
interested.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c292/stevobo/jesusmarycert.jpg
--
Steve O
a.a.2240
BAAWA
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
ComandanteBanana
> ComandanteBanana wrote:
> > This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> > normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> > would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> > details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> > Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> I still have some copies of Jesus' wedding certificate left if anyone's
>
> --
> Steve O
> a.a.2240
> BAAWA
> Convicted by Earthquack
> Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
It seems pretty authentic to me.
More or less same as the Bible.
duke
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
>normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
>would be denying "human nature."
Most people in the world realize there's only enough blood in the body for one
head.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
ComandanteBanana
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
>
> >This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> >normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> >would be denying "human nature."
>
> Most people in the world realize there's only enough blood in the body for one
> head.
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
I've thought most people simply don't use their head for other matters
other than reproduction. ;)
Picasso Renoir Hilton
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, as I have already
posted on this topic a few times.
In order to understand this, you have to know jewish cultural customs:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/374f54805d3a7ac0?hl=en&dmode=source
default
He could have been a "fag." Long tradition of homosexuality in the
RCC hierarchy.
--
Lee
"Picasso Renoir Hilton" <ihaveth...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:fa301f90-f435-4ef3...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I would be arsed if I knew.
Darrell Stec
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
>
He had a wife, and he had at least one kid, so he probably had sex. His
storytellers have him saying he followed all of Mosaic Law down to the
smallest iota. Hebrew males were required to marry and have children by
age of 22. His storytellers also mention he was called Rabbi. Leaving out
the fact that the Rabbi movement of the second century and taking the
gospel writers at their word, there could be NO exception to those rules
for Rabbis. So according to the story, he had to have been married with
children and supposedly had sex, unless the children were also virgin
births.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
--
Later,
Darrell
ComandanteBanana
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
>
>
>
>
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> >normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> >would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> >details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> >Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> >Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> >tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
>
> >"SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> He could have been a "fag." Long tradition of homosexuality in the
> RCC hierarchy.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I replied this elsewhere...
Back then I don't think people had the concept of straight, gay, or
bi. They just slept with everybody including family members and the
sheep and other farm animals.
Only now with the progress of civilization we know who's who. ;)
ilbe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Because Jesus never married and he never committed a sin...which makes
him THE perfect sacrifice for our many sins... he therefore never had
sex with a woman nor could he . Otherwise, he would not have had the
sinless nature which was necessary to pay the price and satisfy Gods
demand . Jesus was born sinless and he died for us sinless . Was he
tempted ? Yes...in every way we are. , but, he didnt make the
temptation a reality and being tempted isnt a sin ; its when we carry
out the temptation . This is the awesome Saviour we have...he denied
himself in many many ways in order to be the correct sacrifice for US,
whom he loves immensely --- there is no greater love than Jesus.
Making him our Lord and King is a great act showing our love ,
returned. I hope you will do so , and you will have an eternity spent
with Jesus, our Creator, Sustainer, and Lover of our Soul. Thank you
Lord Jesus.
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Sex is a sin? What a vile calumny you worthless dog. If you bothered to
read the rules that were given to the Hebrews after the supposed Exodus,
you would see that sex was encouraged and reproduction was highly
prized, even if women weren't prized.
The stories about Jesus are not confirmed. Not a single claim about
Jesus was ever verified. We can say with a great deal of confidence,
that the magical stories are unreliable since they never were confirmed.
Too bad for you.
ComandanteBanana
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:28:38 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
> <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sex can only be bad after lunch. And also with kids which priests
engage in so often.
ComandanteBanana
"And 12 drinking buddies. One turned out to be a Judas though. Turned
out to be THE Judas, in fact."
***
I think Judas worked for the Mossad, or however it was called back
then.
Has anyone thought that Jesus may have been a Palestinian? Fascinating
fact.
This kid has this much to say...
"Yes, he was born in Bethlehem. That is why Christian Palestinians are
present today (although routinely killed by zionist Jews) in the holy
city, they are descendents of the world savior Jesus Christ."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080714151218AA0lTJz
ComandanteBanana
even if it remains hard to prove. The Holy Prepuce is such a case...
"The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium or prepucium) is
one of several relics attributed to Jesus. At various points in
history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess Jesus'
foreskin, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have
been ascribed to it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_prepuce
On Oct 9, 9:32 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:28:38 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
> <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
ComandanteBanana
> He had a wife, and he had at least one kid, so he probably had sex. His
> storytellers have him saying he followed all of Mosaic Law down to the
> smallest iota. Hebrew males were required to marry and have children by
> age of 22. His storytellers also mention he was called Rabbi. Leaving out
> the fact that the Rabbi movement of the second century and taking the
> gospel writers at their word, there could be NO exception to those rules
> for Rabbis. So according to the story, he had to have been married with
> children and supposedly had sex, unless the children were also virgin
> births.
Mary Magdalene said, "Hey you, Messiah or whatever you are, I'm sick
and tired of this. You must fulfill your marital duties as a human and
not waste all your time preaching and drinking wine with your
friends." And Jesus replied, "But honey, I'm dead!"
ComandanteBanana
http://mrpetermore.com/blog/uploaded_images/jesus_big-771002.jpg
He looks sad and tired after so much struggle trying to fix humanity,
and you feel like caring for it in your hands like if he was a small
chick in need of some warmth.
Wouldn't it be nice to hang on your key ring? I bought a cute monkey
today to attach to my keys.
Darrell Stec
> Because Jesus never married and he never committed a sin...which makes
> him THE perfect sacrifice for our many sins.
So J then you maintain Jesus was lying when he said he followed the Mosaic
Law down to the smallest iota? Mosaic Law required him to be married and
have children by age of 22. I guess you are saying that the gospels lied
when they called him a Rabbi? Because if he was a Rabbi then there were
absolutely NO exceptions to the rules of marriage and children.
Same with Paul. He claimed to be both a Pharisee and of the Sanhedrin.
Both, most especially required him to be married with children. No
marriage, no children then no Pharisee and especially no Sanhedrin.
But like any good little idiot Fundie, you memorize what you are told by
some equally ignorant authority figure, the parrot and spew the blather
back out by rote.
--
Later,
Darrell
Steve O
I sold a few of these a while back for �1 each on ebay, just after the Dan
Brown book caused a furore.
One guy from Conneticut complained about the authenticity and demanded his
money back.
He was completely serious.
John Locke
>On Oct 9, 10:35�am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
>> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
>> would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicye
>> details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
>> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>>
>> Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
>> tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-----
>>
>> "SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
>> so
>> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
>Because Jesus never married and he never committed a sin...which makes
>him THE perfect sacrifice for our many sins... he therefore never had
>sex with a woman nor could he . Otherwise, he would not have had the
>sinless nature which was necessary to pay the price and satisfy Gods
>demand . Jesus was born sinless and he died for us sinless . Was he
>tempted ? Yes...in every way we are. , but, he didnt make the
>temptation a reality and being tempted isnt a sin ....
>
..yes it is. It's an impure thought. Jesus was a sinner, therefore
good old Jebus wasn't worth a plug nickel on the cross. You're
doomed !!
Budikka
wrote:
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
>
> "SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
>
In order to put that question in a valid context, you'd have to
determine if there ever actually was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working
son-of-a-god, and since no one has ever been able to establish that
with scientific or objective evidence, the question isn't really
relevant or useful.
Budikka
default
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>
>I replied this elsewhere...
Well, you may have, but this is cross posted to five groups, and my
memory is only so good.
>
>Back then I don't think people had the concept of straight, gay, or
>bi. They just slept with everybody including family members and the
>sheep and other farm animals.
>
>Only now with the progress of civilization we know who's who. ;)
I don't know if I buy that idea of sleeping with everyone, including
animals. Seems to me even without societal pressure, there would be
preferences in that regard. After all, the concept of marriage was
around for a very long time.
I might believe that with less of an externally imposed structure,
people might experiment more, but doubt that this would translate into
a continuous anything goes orgy.
--
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
> details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>
> Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>
You might as well ask if Santa Claus has sex, or Shiva, or Isis.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Ken
Looks like Astronaut Neil Armstrong comes clean on the alleged Moon
Landing of 1969.
It WAS a hoax afterall.
I always thought it was ; how about you ???
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil
RU just too fucking stupid to even realize that you were duped?
Quote the Raven1: "Seriously, I've been on Usenet for 13 years, and
you have to be the dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in
that time"
Still no reply, so it's Too Fucking Stupid", eh?
ComandanteBanana
I agree with that concept but I also know of the inclination in
Biblical times of the people to sleep with family members (Adam and
Eve's children commiting incest, for example) as well as the openness
in Greek and Roman societies toward orgies, homosexuality, etc.
I think we are somewhat beyond that.
default
Adam and Eve are the creation myth - presumably Adam and Eve and
children would have to commit incest if the race were to survive - if
you buy that particular religious interpretation of the origin of man.
I don't accept much of the bible as historical fact - particularly in
the face of scientific evidence and what is known of paleontology and
anthropology. I believe humans have been around for hundreds of
thousands of years - in a form we'd recognize as human today.
Incest was probably very widespread even without creationism. It
takes time to see the effects, and intelligence to understand or see a
correlation between inbreeding and developmental problems.
As to being beyond that, or how far beyond, that would seem to be a
matter of one's biases, experience, and perspective. It is
subjective.
--
default
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
PS I have no reason to think Christ was homosexual - I just said it to
get the goat of one of the gay bashers on recovery Catholicism.
Personally I think Christ was real, a pretty cool dude, and the first
ever hippy and a communist.
--
Patrick
I also know of the inclination in
Biblical times of the people to sleep with family members (Adam and
Eve's children commiting incest, for example)
PRB.... What makes you think they did?
Is it possible for evolution of man took place slowly, and at a specific
time, God plucked one of the "men" out and gave him an intellect. And
perhaps God called this man: ADAM. Then, ol Adam was lonesome for a mate
who he could converse with, and God plucked one of the chicks out anc called
her EVE. Their two kids, Cain and Abel -- since they had already been
thrown out of the Big Garden -- had to choose wives from the other dumb
chicks out there. Thereby the dumbing down of man and woman after the fall
from grace......
Patrick
"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
news:rhi1d5p9prgo0jh48...@4ax.com...
You forgot liberal.
default
wrote:
Shouldn't have to, it is patently evident.
The Conservative wing harks back to the Judaism religion in a lot of
respects. That old brand of eye-for-eye judgmental lynch or smite
FEAR.
--
Don Martin
>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:45:46 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
><ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
>
>>ComandanteBanana wrote:
>>> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
>>> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
>>> would be denying "human nature." And if he did, where are the juicy
>>> details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
>>> Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
>>>
>>> Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
>>> tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
>>>
>>Kind of hard to have sex if you never exist, don't ya think?
>>
>>You might as well ask if Santa Claus has sex, or Shiva, or Isis.
>
>Of course Santa does and a lot. Why else would there be a mrs. Claus?
And why else would there be all those little hotties that stay up late in little
hideaways around the world December 24: Santa's escape Clauses?
(When a guy only gets out once a year, he has to make better use of his time
than more frequent fliers.)
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Puck Greenman
>Did Jesus ever have sex?
Probably.
MAR 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth
cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
MAR 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Christopher A. Lee
It's not Jesus but don't forget the love between David and Jonathan
which surpassed the love of man for woman.
Puck Greenman
>Don't forget Sodom & Gomorrah! :)
The sin of Sodom.
EZE 16:48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she
nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
EZE 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did
she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
EZE 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me:
therefore I took them away as I saw good.
MavisBeacon
> On Oct 9, 12:59 pm, Tapestry <estry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 11:58 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 12:42 pm, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 9, 11:14 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 9, 11:49 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:48 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 11:37 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:35 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
>>>>>>>>> normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
>>>>>>>>> would be denying "human nature."
>>>>>>>> And more to the point, he is probably doing it right now ...
>>>>>>> He's doing "it" right now?
>>>>>>> Many people would jump to the wrong conclusions... ;)
>>>>>> That is because they don't understand the rabbi ...
>>>>> I wonder what the rabbi says about Jesus in this aspect.
>>>> Jesus is the rabbi.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Rabbi's are married.
>> His marriage is recorded in the second chapter of John's testimony of
>> him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> And what do we do with the Christian faith and the Pope and all?
>
Many of the apostles were no doubt married. Roman Cathilic clergy
married up to about the eleventh century. Orthodox clergy still do and
some romasn catholic Priests are allowed to be married . for example
about 150 Anglican Priests recently joined the Roman Catholic Church and
some were already married.
The Church view would be that because Jesus was a man he was capable of
being married and having children. They believe he probably wasn't but
they don't say that it is certain that he was not married.
I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
similarly they look upon drugs as a great thing for medicine but they
would not think recreational drug use is a holy thing.
polymer
> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
default
wrote:
Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
morality - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
--
Celena Shale
> Sex can only be bad after lunch.
I had to put in that I do frequently end up having bad sex before
lunch, it's one of the few times I can fit it in.
Mavisbeacon
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>
>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>
> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
> morality
No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
Which one would that be?
Mavisbeacon
"polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away Jews.
Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business to
stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting their
responsibility if they didn't comment.
The Chief Instigator
>
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:2mg4d5dvm375mf5d8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>
>>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>
>> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
>> morality
>
> No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
They should mind their own business - which doesn't involve dictating morals
for everyone outside of their little club.
>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>
> Which one would that be?
Priests can dictate morals, but they can't have sex? (If their parents had
followed that "advice", the priests would never have been born. To put it
more succinctly, if you don't play the game, you don't get to make the
rules.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Texas 1 (SO, October 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 16 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
Who's preventing them from that? They can express their opinions, but in
this country, there is a separation of church from state, for good reason.
The Founders wished to avoid what organized religion has done over the last
couple of millennia, but that didn't prevent centuries of religious wars, or
the Spanish Inquisition, and a few other idiocies (like trying to shut
Galileo up?).
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:2mg4d5dvm375mf5d8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>
>>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>
>> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
>> morality
>
>No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
The church is in the fear and sin business - not secular laws. AND
how is it the church - any church's business what people do with
their own lives? "harmful," is this somehow harmful to you?
You'd deny the Hindus Buddhists Shinto's Atheists a say in what is or
isn't moral?
>
>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>
>Which one would that be?
>
You'd have to be living in total isolation not to know about the
various sexual and financial scandals that the hierarchy have been
involved in lately - then there is their long bloody history of
murder, debauchery and intrigue.
You don't understand the history because it isn't part of the
religious indoctrination they subject us to. For truth and knowledge
you have to think for yourself - not like one of the indoctrinated
flock.
--
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>"polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>
>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>
>Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away Jews.
>Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
Realizing of course that Hitler was a Catholic and the pope never
uttered a single peep about Hitler's treatment of Jews and Catholic
Poles?
>
>People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business to
>stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
>comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting their
>responsibility if they didn't comment.
>
If they only commented fine - but they mount campaigns to drive laws
to conform to their twisted ways of thinking.
--
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:09:54 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:2mg4d5dvm375mf5d8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>>> be
>>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>>
>>>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>
>>> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
>>> morality
>>
>>No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
>
> The church is in the fear and sin business - not secular laws.
Not actually true. The Vatican State for example is a temporal structure.
the church also has a direct input into law making in Britian for example.
> AND
> how is it the church - any church's business what people do with
> their own lives? "harmful," is this somehow harmful to you?
How is it any authorities business? You are an anarchist I suppose? You
don't believe in nay laws at all and people should be free to do as they
like? Well then I am free to tell you what the church's position is in my
opinion am I not?
>
> You'd deny the Hindus Buddhists Shinto's Atheists a say in what is or
> isn't moral?
No. By the way shinto and Bhuddism is basically atheism. Hindu is
polytheism. If they feel it is their duty (and the Dali Llama frequently
does) then I respect what that holy man has to say.
>>
>>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>>
>>Which one would that be?
>>
> You'd have to be living in total isolation not to know about the
> various sexual and financial scandals that the hierarchy have been
> involved in lately -
Which one? Are you claiming the Pope or bishops are involved in sexual
scandals? Such as child abuse for example? I am not aware of any. I am aware
of two or three cases of members of the Anglican and roman churches having
children or havinf sexual relationships with conscenting adults. That is
about all i am aware of of the hierarchy of thousands of Bishops. Less than
a tenth of a percent and NOT with children!
>then there is their long bloody history of
> murder, debauchery and intrigue.
Oh you are not talking about current? Well we all hear of the Borgia Popes
( a period of about 80 years) . A terrible time I don't deny that or justify
it. But it isnt today and their position was reversed by the next Pope after
them. Other institutions have had bad leaders too!
>
> You don't understand the history because it isn't part of the
> religious indoctrination they subject us to.
If you want to point out how a pope having people bumped off taking bribes
and having orgies is somehow saying christianity is evil then please explain
this to me. do you also think that banks should be banned because some CEO's
were corrupt?
>For truth and knowledge
> you have to think for yourself - not like one of the indoctrinated
> flock.
Well said! Please adopt your own advice. I do think for myself by the way. I
never said I agreed 100 per cent with everything the church ever did! I just
queried the idea that the church is irrational.
>
>
> --
Mavisbeacon
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhd55ld....@fnord.io.com...
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:08:39 +0100, Mavisbeacon <Mavis...@nospam.forme>
> wrote:
>>
>> "polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>> be
>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>
>>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>
>> Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away
>> Jews.
>> Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>>
>> People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business
>> to
>> stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
>> comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting
>> their
>> responsibility if they didn't comment.
>
> Who's preventing them from that?
People above who say they should NOT comment and mind their own business!
>They can express their opinions, but in
> this country, there is a separation of church from state, for good reason.
I have no idea to what coutry you refer.
> The Founders wished to avoid what organized religion has done over the
> last
> couple of millennia, but that didn't prevent centuries of religious wars,
> or
> the Spanish Inquisition, and a few other idiocies (like trying to shut
> Galileo up?).
They didnt try to shut him up! In fact Galileo was a friend of the Pope.
glaileo fell out with Peripathic philosophers - academics! NOt the church.
the academics then brought in the Dogs of the Lord (Domini Canes) to do a
media job on him and the Jesuits to out manuvre Galileo based on the
Tychonic system which Galileo had avoided discussing!
the Spanish Inquistion burned about 2000 at the stake over four centuries.
Not a lot in terms of wars at that time!
Non religious non Chuirch and atheistic conflicts DWARF the church in terms
of killing people!
See? I KNOW my history.
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:08:39 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>> be
>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>
>>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>
>>Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away
>>Jews.
>>Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>
> Realizing of course that Hitler was a Catholic and the pope never
> uttered a single peep about Hitler's treatment of Jews and Catholic
> Poles?
Wher did you get the Idea Hitler was Catholic????
closer to Luther I would think?? No? try again!
And an Irish priest in the Vatican rescued more then three times Schindlers
list!
>>
>>People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business
>>to
>>stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
>>comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting
>>their
>>responsibility if they didn't comment.
>>
> If they only commented fine - but they mount campaigns to drive laws
> to conform to their twisted ways of thinking.
Twisted to YOU! but democracy is about tolerating what you dont like!
> --
polymer
Mind your own business.
Free Lunch
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:nt55d5hsj24d2pri5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:08:39 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>>> be
>>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>>
>>>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>
>>>Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away
>>>Jews.
>>>Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>>
>> Realizing of course that Hitler was a Catholic and the pope never
>> uttered a single peep about Hitler's treatment of Jews and Catholic
>> Poles?
>
>Wher did you get the Idea Hitler was Catholic????
From history. Weren't you aware that he was raised Catholic and never
renounced it?
>closer to Luther I would think?? No? try again!
Check out any decent history of Hitler. He was RCC.
>And an Irish priest in the Vatican rescued more then three times Schindlers
>list!
That hardly makes up for the Pope's collaboration, does it.
>>>People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business to
>>>stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
>>>comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting their
>>>responsibility if they didn't comment.
>>>
>> If they only commented fine - but they mount campaigns to drive laws
>> to conform to their twisted ways of thinking.
>
>Twisted to YOU! but democracy is about tolerating what you dont like!
That is why democracies need constitutions, to protect unpopular
minorities from the vicissitudes of the majority.
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:09:54 +0100, Mavisbeacon <Mavis...@nospam.forme>
> wrote:
>>
>> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>> news:2mg4d5dvm375mf5d8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>>> be
>>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>>
>>>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>
>>> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
>>> morality
>>
>> No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
>
> They should mind their own business - which doesn't involve dictating
> morals
> for everyone outside of their little club.
So do you think that because the Germans had their own parliament and passed
laws against "undermenchen" that the Nurenberg Trials had no right to try
Nazis because Nazi germany was outside US juristiction?
>
>>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>>
>> Which one would that be?
>
> Priests can dictate morals, but they can't have sex?
No church law ever said priests can't have sex. It was always the case that
sex was considered appropriat in a loving relationship just as drugsare
appropriate when for medicinal purposes. The Roman church later cletgy not
to marry which would mean they would refrain form sex but the Orthodox
clergy continued to marry and even in roman catholicism it is sometimes
allowed.
doctors by the way can dictate what drugs you should or should not take but
they are encouraged not to take recrational drugs! What is unreasonable
about that?
> (If their parents had
> followed that "advice", the priests would never have been born. To put it
> more succinctly, if you don't play the game, you don't get to make the
> rules.)
But the purpose of priesthood is not to procreate! the idea that future
priests should only be descendents of priests is partly what stopped them
having families in the first place! and it isnt reasonable to say one must
have the experience to be able to talk about it. Many gynoichologists are
male or childless. They don't have to have children to tell advise you on
it! Cops do not have to be convicted criminals either!
ComandanteBanana
I think it's better to have sex AND eat at the same time. An empty or
a full stomach doesn't allow you top performance. ;)
ComandanteBanana
> "polymer" <poly...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>
> > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>
> >> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
> >> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should be
> >> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>
> > Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>
> Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>
> stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
> comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting their
> responsibility if they didn't comment.
So the Chinese or the Indians of the Amazon are highly immoral people
because they are not influenced by the Church.
Please confirm if this is true. ;)
Les
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>Not actually true. The Vatican State for example is a temporal structure.
>the church also has a direct input into law making in Britian for example.
Really!
Do explain.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les
And the Portugese? They had weekly burnings in Rossio square too.
The English protestants had the same fate in store for catholics
Is this doctrine that this crime was ok because more got killed in
wars standard Christian doctrine?
I know niot which wars you refer to but many - like the Battle of the
Boyne (1 June 1690) was fought to establish whether people were to
forced to be either catholic or protestant. Two thousand died in that
battle. Irish protestants still celebrate their victory with catholic
mocking parades. (the Orange orders)
Or are you referring to the Spanish Armada of 1558 the responce
to the then Popes call for a Crusade against heretical England.
(declared heretical when Elizabeth made the country protestant)
We do not know how many died in that failed campaign
>
>Non religious non Chuirch and atheistic conflicts DWARF the church in terms
>of killing people!
Only the religious kill in order to establish their religions
dominanace. Atheists have no religion to impose nor has
there ever been a war under an atheist banner (we do not
even have a banner, flag, or symoll/logo to stand beneah.)
The Communist have their red flag of course but we do not
stand in its shade - as atheists, though I am sure some
atheists (or people claimng to be atheist) has.
WangoTango
def...@defaulter.net says...
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
> <nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >This question would clarify whether he was "one of us" or not. No
> >normal human being ever lived without sex, and him denying that nature
> >details of his private life? Was he having an affair with Mary
> >Magdalene? Was he similar to Jim Jones, preying on his congregation?
> >
> >Hard to prove, but we can take some "educated guesses" and fill a few
> >tabloids out there. I'd like to know...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"SEEKING THE PATH OF TRUTH IN THE DEEP JUNGLE"
> >
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> He could have been a "fag." Long tradition of homosexuality in the
> RCC hierarchy.
>
Well, he was suppose to have been nailed by a group of men......
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:19:29 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
><Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>
>>Not actually true. The Vatican State for example is a temporal structure.
>>the church also has a direct input into law making in Britian for example.
>
>Really!
>
>Do explain.
Yes, that should be good. It would be interesting to see how the Queen,
as the head of the Anglican Church is allowed to have direct input into
lawmaking that she is not allowed as the Head of State.
Daisy Ventana
> Wher did you get the Idea Hitler was Catholic????
I didn't know he was Catholic, but I believe he was some sort of
Christian fanatic - sort of like the "right-wing fundamentalists"
of the present USA political spectrum!
-dazy v
Anthony Williams
probabilities. Most men masturbate, so the odds are he at least knew what it
felt like to have an orgasm. He'd have to know what an orgasm felt like to
be "all knowing."
Mavisbeacon
"Les" <les...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:98k6d5h3t2vpjocjl...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:19:29 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>
>>Not actually true. The Vatican State for example is a temporal structure.
>>the church also has a direct input into law making in Britian for example.
>
> Really!
>
> Do explain.
Lords Spiritual!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
Mavisbeacon
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:1hm6d5hibb46uah2i...@4ax.com...
Indeed. The Lords Spiritual of the United Kingdom, also called Spiritual
Peers, are the 26 bishops of the established Church of England who serve in
the House of Lords along with the Lords Temporal.
The house of Lords is part of the Legislature.
Free Lunch
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
"The Lords Spiritual normally do not vote on matters of law or state in
the House of Lords, but they have done so in special cases, such as
during the passage of the Parliament Act 1911."
Being able to vote once every century or so is not exactly direct input,
particularly since the House of Lords itself has very little power in
the UK these days.
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:l855d59f18d17kfmc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:09:54 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:2mg4d5dvm375mf5d8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>>
>>>> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
>>>> morality
>>>
>>>No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
>>
>> The church is in the fear and sin business - not secular laws.
>
>Not actually true. The Vatican State for example is a temporal structure.
>the church also has a direct input into law making in Britian for example.
Henry 8th found it useful to preserve the idea of a church while
controlling that church. Men will use whatever they can to get wealth
and power - all religions are formed for that reason alone.
>
>> AND
>> how is it the church - any church's business what people do with
>> their own lives? "harmful," is this somehow harmful to you?
>
>How is it any authorities business? You are an anarchist I suppose? You
>don't believe in nay laws at all and people should be free to do as they
>like? Well then I am free to tell you what the church's position is in my
>opinion am I not?
>
I believe that laws are the pervue of society - not a religious
society. People should be free to do whatever they like as long as
they don't hurt others.
Religion and politics should be kept as far apart as possible.
>> You'd deny the Hindus Buddhists Shinto's Atheists a say in what is or
>> isn't moral?
>
>No. By the way shinto and Bhuddism is basically atheism. Hindu is
>polytheism. If they feel it is their duty (and the Dali Llama frequently
>does) then I respect what that holy man has to say.
The only problem with religions, is that men decide what god wants. A
deity isn't 100% necessary for religion - and being an atheist doesn't
mean one doesn't have moral convictions.
>
>>>
>>>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>>>
>>>Which one would that be?
>>>
>> You'd have to be living in total isolation not to know about the
>> various sexual and financial scandals that the hierarchy have been
>> involved in lately -
>
>Which one? Are you claiming the Pope or bishops are involved in sexual
>scandals? Such as child abuse for example? I am not aware of any. I am aware
>of two or three cases of members of the Anglican and roman churches having
>children or havinf sexual relationships with conscenting adults. That is
>about all i am aware of of the hierarchy of thousands of Bishops. Less than
>a tenth of a percent and NOT with children!
>
Well, child abuse is the biggie in the news. AS A Society we have
decided that minor children are afforded certain protections under the
law. Even the pope doesn't try to say that children can consent to
sex with adults. Even the pope claims to deplore the behavior of some
of his priests (and yes bishops).
Two or three - thousands? More like it.
>>then there is their long bloody history of
>> murder, debauchery and intrigue.
>
>Oh you are not talking about current? Well we all hear of the Borgia Popes
>( a period of about 80 years) . A terrible time I don't deny that or justify
>it. But it isnt today and their position was reversed by the next Pope after
>them. Other institutions have had bad leaders too!
>
The church was corrupt when it became an organized religion - it has
just been a matter of the degree of corruption and what form it has
taken over the years.
>>
>> You don't understand the history because it isn't part of the
>> religious indoctrination they subject us to.
>
>If you want to point out how a pope having people bumped off taking bribes
>and having orgies is somehow saying christianity is evil then please explain
>this to me. do you also think that banks should be banned because some CEO's
>were corrupt?
>
I think power inevitably corrupts. No men can stay pure to an ideal.
When you start lumping corporate CEO's in with the pope, you are
comparing apples and oranges - Bank CEO's don't pretend to be the
fountainhead of moral judgment the way the pope and religions do.
The pope wants the moral high ground? Then he should behave much
better than a corporate, profit motivated, CEO.
It is interesting to make the comparison, since the RCC is more
corporation than religion in my opinion.
Bennie wants to tell the UN how to run the world these days.
>
>>For truth and knowledge
>> you have to think for yourself - not like one of the indoctrinated
>> flock.
>
>Well said! Please adopt your own advice. I do think for myself by the way. I
>never said I agreed 100 per cent with everything the church ever did! I just
>queried the idea that the church is irrational.
>
>
Men run religions - men decide "what god wants." God has only to step
in and start running the show and this is one atheist who will believe
in god.
--
default
>
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:nt55d5hsj24d2pri5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:08:39 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>>> be
>>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>>
>>>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>
>>>Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away
>>>Jews.
>>>Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>>
>> Realizing of course that Hitler was a Catholic and the pope never
>> uttered a single peep about Hitler's treatment of Jews and Catholic
>> Poles?
>
>Wher did you get the Idea Hitler was Catholic????
Common knowledge. Hitler and Goebbels were both "nominally" Catholic.
You weren't aware of this? Hitler did try to unite several protestant
churches into a unified church - at the same time he was telling the
population that he would maintain good relations with the Vatican.
>
>closer to Luther I would think?? No? try again!
>And an Irish priest in the Vatican rescued more then three times Schindlers
>list!
>
There were lots of Christians on both sides -
>>>
>>>People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business
>>>to
>>>stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business to
>>>comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting
>>>their
>>>responsibility if they didn't comment.
>>>
>> If they only commented fine - but they mount campaigns to drive laws
>> to conform to their twisted ways of thinking.
>
>Twisted to YOU! but democracy is about tolerating what you dont like!
>
Eggsactly - a lesson for the religiously afflicted - not everyone will
share your opinion and morality is relative to the culture you are in.
--
Puck Greenman
Then you must be the only person using Usenet, who doesn't.
I'll go farther, you must be the only person in the UK, who doesn't know
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>On Oct 11, 4:59�pm, Celena Shale <tawny.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Neither does arthritis (:-(
Mavisbeacon
See? Does that answer your question Instigator ? they would like to prevent
me
wouldn't they?
Puck Greenman
Indeed, but their seats are traditional, rather than effectual.
Mavisbeacon
Being able to vote is not really anything at all! given the Huse of Lords
has over 1000 votes. Being able to speak and lobby other Lords however is
DIRECT influence and input into the legislation as I claimed!
Sinn Fein refuse to sit in the House of Commons and if they voted would have
2 or 3 votes last time i looked but they have direct input into Parliament
and into the framing of legislation.
I did not claim that the bishops decide on hor have final say on what laws
to pass did I?
Mavisbeacon
Arguable but a wholly different point! Bishops have direct input into the
making of law in Britian. that is what I stated. How that came to be is
entirely seperate fromn the fact that it is so!
>>
>>> AND
>>> how is it the church - any church's business what people do with
>>> their own lives? "harmful," is this somehow harmful to you?
>>
>>How is it any authorities business? You are an anarchist I suppose? You
>>don't believe in nay laws at all and people should be free to do as they
>>like? Well then I am free to tell you what the church's position is in my
>>opinion am I not?
>>
> I believe that laws are the pervue of society - not a religious
> society.
Seperation of powers also applies to legislature judicary and executive! not
just to Church and State! But if Britian is a christian country and if the
head of state is the Head of the anglican Church and if most people believe
"God save the monarch " then society wants a religious input!
> People should be free to do whatever they like as long as
> they don't hurt others.
Basically that is anarchism!
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/6181/hearing.htm
>
> Religion and politics should be kept as far apart as possible.
And what if religion is politics?
>
>>> You'd deny the Hindus Buddhists Shinto's Atheists a say in what is or
>>> isn't moral?
>>
>>No. By the way shinto and Bhuddism is basically atheism. Hindu is
>>polytheism. If they feel it is their duty (and the Dali Llama frequently
>>does) then I respect what that holy man has to say.
>
> The only problem with religions, is that men decide what god wants. A
> deity isn't 100% necessary for religion
iut is for theism!
>- and being an atheist doesn't
> mean one doesn't have moral convictions.
One can be a "religious atheist" then? I thought most atheists posting to
usenet would be quite clear about what they refuse to believe in?
>>
>>>>
>>>>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>>Which one would that be?
>>>>
>>> You'd have to be living in total isolation not to know about the
>>> various sexual and financial scandals that the hierarchy have been
>>> involved in lately -
>>
>>Which one? Are you claiming the Pope or bishops are involved in sexual
>>scandals? Such as child abuse for example? I am not aware of any. I am
>>aware
>>of two or three cases of members of the Anglican and roman churches having
>>children or havinf sexual relationships with conscenting adults. That is
>>about all i am aware of of the hierarchy of thousands of Bishops. Less
>>than
>>a tenth of a percent and NOT with children!
>>
> Well, child abuse is the biggie in the news.
no! I am not aware of any member of the current Catholic Hierarchy being
involved in abusing children. If you can name any names please tell us -
there is a big story in it.
> AS A Society we have
> decided that minor children are afforded certain protections under the
> law. Even the pope doesn't try to say that children can consent to
> sex with adults. Even the pope claims to deplore the behavior of some
> of his priests (and yes bishops).
i am not aware of the Pope admitting any of the current hierarchy was having
sex with children!
Care to list the current Bishops you claim are child abusers and having sex
with children?
That s a NO then is it?
>
> Two or three - thousands? More like it.
REally? Care to list say TEN of this thousand Bishops you claim are having
sex with children? Care to list even ONE?
>
>>>then there is their long bloody history of
>>> murder, debauchery and intrigue.
>>
>>Oh you are not talking about current? Well we all hear of the Borgia Popes
>>( a period of about 80 years) . A terrible time I don't deny that or
>>justify
>>it. But it isnt today and their position was reversed by the next Pope
>>after
>>them. Other institutions have had bad leaders too!
>>
> The church was corrupt when it became an organized religion
Soprry but what is a "disorganised religion" and am I to assume you have no
problem with such a religion?
>- it has
> just been a matter of the degree of corruption and what form it has
> taken over the years.
I am a bit at loss if you oppose religion or organisation. which is it?
>>>
>>> You don't understand the history because it isn't part of the
>>> religious indoctrination they subject us to.
>>
>>If you want to point out how a pope having people bumped off taking bribes
>>and having orgies is somehow saying christianity is evil then please
>>explain
>>this to me. do you also think that banks should be banned because some
>>CEO's
>>were corrupt?
>>
> I think power inevitably corrupts. No men can stay pure to an ideal.
Do you believe that if Jesus was a man that according to the story he did ?
Do you believe Martin Luther King was corrupt? that Ghandi was? Mandela?
>
> When you start lumping corporate CEO's in with the pope, you are
> comparing apples and oranges
Nope! They are the most powerfull people in society as Popes were in the
past. Bt when they are corrupt you don't say "destroy the bank" do you?
>- Bank CEO's don't pretend to be the
> fountainhead of moral judgment the way the pope and religions do.
eh? they do you know.
>
> The pope wants the moral high ground? Then he should behave much
> better than a corporate, profit motivated, CEO.
The Pope hads not performed any takeovers or leverage buy outs!
>
> It is interesting to make the comparison, since the RCC is more
> corporation than religion in my opinion.
In your OPINION! Your unsupported opinion ? Exactly!
[snip]
Mavisbeacon
"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3rt6d5d74ujgjkqc6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:25:13 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>People above who say they should NOT comment and mind their own business!
>>
>>>They can express their opinions, but in
>>> this country, there is a separation of church from state, for good
>>> reason.
>>
>>I have no idea to what coutry you refer.
>>
>
> Then you must be the only person using Usenet, who doesn't.
I don't speak for the majority orf usenet denizens who have not ready what
you claimed!
>
> I'll go farther, you must be the only person in the UK, who doesn't know
And you somehow think that I am in the UK? Based on WHAT evidence exactly?
The Chief Instigator
>
> news:slrnhd55ld....@fnord.io.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:08:39 +0100, Mavisbeacon <Mavis...@nospam.forme>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it
>>>>> should be part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material
>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>
>>> Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away
>>> Jews. Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>>>
>>> People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business
>>> to stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches
>>> business to comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be
>>> neglecting their responsibility if they didn't comment.
>>
>> Who's preventing them from that?
>
> People above who say they should NOT comment and mind their own business!
>
>>They can express their opinions, but in this country, there is a
>> separation of church from state, for good reason.
>
> I have no idea to what coutry you refer.
Maybe you should have looked at the .signature: "Houston, Texas"?
(Sometimes you have to sweat the smaller details, but there's more important
things afoot.)
>> The Founders wished to avoid what organized religion has done over the
>> last couple of millennia, but that didn't prevent centuries of religious
>> wars, or the Spanish Inquisition, and a few other idiocies (like trying
>> to shut Galileo up?).
>
> They didnt try to shut him up! In fact Galileo was a friend of the Pope.
> glaileo fell out with Peripathic philosophers - academics! NOt the church.
> the academics then brought in the Dogs of the Lord (Domini Canes) to do a
> media job on him and the Jesuits to out manuvre Galileo based on the
> Tychonic system which Galileo had avoided discussing!
>
> the Spanish Inquistion burned about 2000 at the stake over four centuries.
> Not a lot in terms of wars at that time!
>
> Non religious non Chuirch and atheistic conflicts DWARF the church in terms
> of killing people!
>
> See? I KNOW my history.
Supporting that thundering fraud of a church is not a rational activity,
IMO.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Texas 1 (SO, October 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 16 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
Your "business" is confined to your "church". Keep it confined to that, or
you're going to learn more than a few things you never suspected.
The Chief Instigator
>
> "The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhd557k....@fnord.io.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:09:54 +0100, Mavisbeacon <Mavis...@nospam.forme>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2mg4d5dvm375mf5d8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:46:23 -0500, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it
>>>>>> should be part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>>
>>>> Because they are "THE Church." They think they hold a monopoly on
>>>> morality
>>>
>>> No! They think they have a duty to comment on harmful things.
>>
>> They should mind their own business - which doesn't involve dictating
>> morals for everyone outside of their little club.
>
> So do you think that because the Germans had their own parliament and
> passed laws against "undermenchen" that the Nurenberg Trials had no right
> to try Nazis because Nazi germany was outside US juristiction?
Not at all. The "�ntermenschen" deserved a lot better than Hitler handed
them. (I'm not old enough to have memories of that, being born ten years
and three weeks after he and his wife died.) I've read Shirer's Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich, back in the '70s, and I'm glad I've made it almost
through the first decade of the new millenium, as there are a lot more ways
of getting the word.
>>>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>>>
>>> Which one would that be?
>>
>> Priests can dictate morals, but they can't have sex?
>
> No church law ever said priests can't have sex. It was always the case
> that sex was considered appropriat in a loving relationship just as
> drugsare appropriate when for medicinal purposes. The Roman church later
> cletgy not to marry which would mean they would refrain form sex but the
> Orthodox clergy continued to marry and even in roman catholicism it is
> sometimes allowed.
>
> doctors by the way can dictate what drugs you should or should not take but
> they are encouraged not to take recrational drugs! What is unreasonable
> about that?
That should be common sense, indeed.
>> (If their parents had followed that "advice", the priests would never
>> have been born. To put it more succinctly, if you don't play the game,
>> you don't get to make the rules.)
>
> But the purpose of priesthood is not to procreate! the idea that future
> priests should only be descendents of priests is partly what stopped them
> having families in the first place! and it isnt reasonable to say one must
> have the experience to be able to talk about it. Many gynoichologists are
> male or childless. They don't have to have children to tell advise you on
> it! Cops do not have to be convicted criminals either!
Well, I'd lean towards imparting some experience to them, to at least have a
grounding in the issues. In any case, I'm basically atheist since the early
'60s, thanks to Oral Roberts' antics on all three Tulsa TV stations every
Sunday (fortunately, not all at the same time), which started my questioning
of organized religion. And, apropos of nothing, you may have crossed paths
with some of my distant cousins in Eire, because much of my ancestry is
Scots Irish - our particular clan, Lockhart of the Lee, headed to Ireland
and stayed around for two or three generations until the locals gave them a
reason to consider moving to that new land far away to the southwest. ;-)
Mavisbeacon
So authorities from OUTSIDE Germany had a right to interfere with the
business of the running of the German state even if the elected parliament
in Germany decided to run things that way?
>>>>> - in spite of the glaring immorality of their hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Which one would that be?
>>>
>>> Priests can dictate morals, but they can't have sex?
>>
>> No church law ever said priests can't have sex. It was always the case
>> that sex was considered appropriat in a loving relationship just as
>> drugsare appropriate when for medicinal purposes. The Roman church later
>> cletgy not to marry which would mean they would refrain form sex but the
>> Orthodox clergy continued to marry and even in roman catholicism it is
>> sometimes allowed.
>>
>> doctors by the way can dictate what drugs you should or should not take
>> but
>> they are encouraged not to take recrational drugs! What is unreasonable
>> about that?
>
> That should be common sense, indeed.
So if a medical authority can say what you should do and is encouraged not
to do things which would interfere with their job why can you not acceot the
same of a moral authority? Why should ethical comittees be acceptable if
they are Medical doctors but not if they are doctors of Theology or
Divinity?
>
>>> (If their parents had followed that "advice", the priests would never
>>> have been born. To put it more succinctly, if you don't play the game,
>>> you don't get to make the rules.)
>>
>> But the purpose of priesthood is not to procreate! the idea that future
>> priests should only be descendents of priests is partly what stopped them
>> having families in the first place! and it isnt reasonable to say one
>> must
>> have the experience to be able to talk about it. Many gynoichologists are
>> male or childless. They don't have to have children to tell advise you on
>> it! Cops do not have to be convicted criminals either!
>
> Well, I'd lean towards imparting some experience to them, to at least have
> a
> grounding in the issues.
so doctors should take drugs to have a "grounding in them" ? and police
should have to kill people to have a "grounding" in murder?
> In any case, I'm basically atheist since the early
> '60s,
That is for you to determine. Nobody can make you believe. But it does not
remove their right to interfere in your life no more then it removes your
right to say that the Church should butt out.
>thanks to Oral Roberts' antics on all three Tulsa TV stations every
> Sunday (fortunately, not all at the same time), which started my
> questioning
> of organized religion.
Good for you! But you are aware the Televangalism you describe is a fringe
US Protestant fundamentalist element of Christianity?
> And, apropos of nothing, you may have crossed paths
> with some of my distant cousins in Eire, because much of my ancestry is
> Scots Irish - our particular clan, Lockhart of the Lee, headed to Ireland
> and stayed around for two or three generations until the locals gave them
> a
> reason to consider moving to that new land far away to the southwest. ;-)
What - Kerry?
If they were Scottish it is likely they were Protestant settlers in Ulster.
It depends really on when they came to Ireland and where they went to in
Ireland. Have you any dates or places. I would consider Humphries an Anglo
extraction. Yu must remember a lot of the Norther Presbyterians would have
been opposed to Anglicanism (which was to them more like the Catholic Church
of England as opposed to Rome) Many of them became Republican and fought
with Catholics against the Crown because they wqere also discriminated
against. The descendants of them today in the Six counties would be the
opposite way particularly the fringe offshoot Free Presbyterians.
Mavisbeacon
That is an obfuscation!
in 2004 Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, opened a debate into
sentencing legislation.
Shell, Donald (2007). The House of Lords (3rd ed.). Manchester University
Press. ISBN 0719054435.
p.54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#cite_note-shell1-4
But just being there gives them power! As I stated Sinn f�in refuse to sit
in the Commons but get �500,000 in expenses and DO influence legislation.
Mavisbeacon
Are ytou the one a true net cop Naziboi? Keep them blick fellows down as
well why don't you. They should know their place. It was different when we
had slavery and they couldn't interfere in out business. :)
Also, wher did I calim the Church of England was MY Church? I only pointed
out that Roman Catholics Orthodox Anglicans and as it happens even Jewish
hierarchy have had and continue to have input into the making of law and
other temporal matters.
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:27:25 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:nt55d5hsj24d2pri5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:08:39 +0100, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:xYqdnQMReJOSq0_X...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:35:12 +0100, MavisBeacon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see whgat your issue is. the church do not look upon sex as
>>>>>> evil. They look upon worthless sex as wrong i.e. they think it should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> part of a loving relationship and not a worship of material things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, why don't they just mind their own frigging business???
>>>>
>>>>Imp sure you apply the same attitude to the Nazis when they took away
>>>>Jews.
>>>>Look what happens when everyone else minded their own business?
>>>
>>> Realizing of course that Hitler was a Catholic and the pope never
>>> uttered a single peep about Hitler's treatment of Jews and Catholic
>>> Poles?
>>
>>Wher did you get the Idea Hitler was Catholic????
>
> Common knowledge. Hitler and Goebbels were both "nominally" Catholic.
Born into a catholic family and brought up catholic. But being Catholic isnt
a matter of membership. It is something one practices daily. it isnt about
going to Mass or communion or confession although that is part of it. It
isnt like clocking in for the week. It is something done for all the other
times when not going to Mass etc. same for Jews and Muslims. They follow
certain laws and traditions but it isnt all about that. in fact many tracts
on Jesus point this out. the whole "camel through the eye of a needle "
thing is a case in point.
So Hitler was not a catholic in that sense in that though born into a
catholic family he rejected the Christian lifestyle in his early teens. By
the way Hitler was also a good judge of artworks by all accounts. Are you
going to claim art lovers are Nazi supporters too? This "guilt by
association" is really going nowhere. Hitler was not a Catholic. he didn't
behave like a Catholic or follow the rules of the Catholic church!
Naziism and Christianity are not compatable.
>
> You weren't aware of this? Hitler did try to unite several protestant
> churches into a unified church -
I certainly was not aware of that!
so i read some more:
Hitler was opposed to state atheism, which for example was part of the
political system of the Soviet Union. He issued a statement saying that he
wished to avoid factional disputes in Germany's churches. Hitler feared the
political power that the churches had, and did not want to openly antagonize
that political base until he had securely gained control of the country.
Once in power Hitler showed his contempt for non-Aryan religion and sought
to eliminate it from areas under his rule.
...
In his childhood, Hitler had admired the pomp of Catholic ritual and the
hierarchical organisation of the clergy. Later, he drew on these elements,
organizing his party along hierarchical lines and including liturgical forms
into events or using phraseology taken from hymns
>at the same time he was telling the
> population that he would maintain good relations with the Vatican.
for obvious political reasons noted above!
>>
>>closer to Luther I would think?? No? try again!
>>And an Irish priest in the Vatican rescued more then three times
>>Schindlers
>>list!
>>
> There were lots of Christians on both sides -
Far more than atheists! But more atheists in the Nazi hierarchy I would
think. That does not mean theism or atheism is to blame does it?
>>>>
>>>>People like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King made it their business
>>>>to
>>>>stand up for what they believed was right. It IS the churches business
>>>>to
>>>>comment on what they think is bad in society! they would be neglecting
>>>>their
>>>>responsibility if they didn't comment.
>>>>
>>> If they only commented fine - but they mount campaigns to drive laws
>>> to conform to their twisted ways of thinking.
>>
>>Twisted to YOU! but democracy is about tolerating what you dont like!
>>
> Eggsactly - a lesson for the religiously afflicted - not everyone will
> share your opinion and morality is relative to the culture you are in.
Do you believe adults having sex with children should be acceptable there if
some cultures say it is?
Mavisbeacon
"Daisy Ventana" <daz...@noneofyour.biz> wrote in message
news:hbydnQIUU8eewU7X...@earthlink.com...
Well he certainly didn't follow the doctrine of Catholicism. Or of any other
religion. I would think his anti-Semitism was not religious. In other words
he hated Jews not because he saw them as "Christ killers" but for other
reasons.
Mavisbeacon
Fair enough but that is just your unsupported OPINION and not established
FACT!
And it is a wholly different issue to whether moral authorities have the
right to interfere.
And I didn't say I supported this that or tother Church. I stated what THEIR
position was IMHO.
I don't necessarily agree with everything every church says. but it is their
position and a valid one. Don't attack me personally if you don't agree with
their position!