Auschwitz - Abortion
J
Eris
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Wj5QVt4AE
>
> --
> J Young
Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
much more humane.
W.T.S.
news:3a76k7....@news.alt.net...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Wj5QVt4AE
"Abortion is good, the church is bad." What is it about that simple
statement of fact you don't understand?
bam
"Eris" <vit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59e63567-e767-4267...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
BAM
bam
"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A82dnSJtFOYiYJXW...@earthlink.com...
You're ability to discern good from evil?
BAM
Ray Fischer
>>Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
>>much more humane.
>
>What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
>that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
Just like laws that make rape ilegal.o
But, if preventing life is bad, then why do the church's priests and
nuns reject life? Why does the church prevent them from marrying and
having children?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bam
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b098567$0$1646$742e...@news.sonic.net...
No one forces them to become nuns or priests. If they want to have ten kids,
they're free to, but a Parish would be too much responsibility for them.
BAM
Lefty
<Edit boring crap>
Who wants to join me in this diverting game of changing Dung's thread
titles? The basement-dwelling dweeb starts so many threads that I
can't possibly hit them all.
Smiler
Define evil.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Ray Fischer
>>>"Eris" <vit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
>>>>much more humane.
>>>
>>>What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
>>>that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
>>
>> Just like laws that make rape ilegal.o
>>
>> But, if preventing life is bad, then why do the church's priests and
>> nuns reject life? Why does the church prevent them from marrying and
>> having children?
>
>No one forces them to become nuns or priests.
No one forces anyone to use condoms.
> If they want to have ten kids,
>they're free to,
But they prevent life just like condoms prevent life, idiot.
That makes them evil nazis according to your insane argument.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
�R.L.Measures
<Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> bam wrote:
> > "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:A82dnSJtFOYiYJXW...@earthlink.com...
> >> "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3a76k7....@news.alt.net...
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Wj5QVt4AE
> >> "Abortion is good, the church is bad." What is it about that simple
> >> statement of fact you don't understand?
> >
> > You're ability to discern good from evil?
> >
>
> Define evil.
� it's what other people do.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
BAB
> bam <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >"Eris" <vith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
> >>much more humane.
>
> >What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
> >that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
>
> Just like laws that make rape ilegal.o
>
> But, if preventing life is bad, then why do the church's priests and
> nuns reject life? Why does the church prevent them from marrying and
> having children?
That's a rather silly (and inconsistent) question. It doesn't. They
can marry and have children if they want to. They CHOOSE (as in
"choice") to become nuns and priests. As it has been pointed out by a
great many anti-conscience advocates on these newsgroups concerning
secular jobs: if they can't do what the job requires, then they should
do something else.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
BAB
> bam <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> bam <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>"Eris" <vith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
> >>>>much more humane.
>
> >>>What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
> >>>that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
>
> >> Just like laws that make rape ilegal.o
>
> >> But, if preventing life is bad, then why do the church's priests and
> >> nuns reject life? Why does the church prevent them from marrying and
> >> having children?
>
> >No one forces them to become nuns or priests.
>
> No one forces anyone to use condoms.
>
> > If they want to have ten kids,
> >they're free to,
>
> But they prevent life just like condoms prevent life, idiot.
> That makes them evil nazis according to your insane argument.
No they don't.
Life is only prevented if the act of procreation is conscious
prevented.
(BTW, Goodwins' Law to you to the 100th power)
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 22, 1:39�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> bam <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >"Eris" <vith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
>> >>much more humane.
>>
>> >What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
>> >that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
>>
>> Just like laws that make rape ilegal.
>>
>> nuns reject life? �Why does the church prevent them from marrying and
>> having children?
>
>That's a rather silly (and inconsistent) question. It doesn't. They
>can marry and have children if they want to.
Not while remaining priests/nuns.
> They CHOOSE (as in
>"choice") to become nuns and priests.
They CHOOSE to obey the church's demand that they reject life.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bam
"Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote in message
news:fMoOm.61121$rp6....@newsfe11.ams2...
> bam wrote:
>> "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:A82dnSJtFOYiYJXW...@earthlink.com...
>>> "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3a76k7....@news.alt.net...
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Wj5QVt4AE
>>> "Abortion is good, the church is bad." What is it about that simple
>>> statement of fact you don't understand?
>>
>> You're ability to discern good from evil?
>>
>
> Define evil.
That's easy. The loss of good.
BAM
bam
".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2311090...@10.0.1.7...
> In article <fMoOm.61121$rp6....@newsfe11.ams2>, "Smiler"
> <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
>> bam wrote:
>> > "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:A82dnSJtFOYiYJXW...@earthlink.com...
>> >> "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3a76k7....@news.alt.net...
>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Wj5QVt4AE
>> >> "Abortion is good, the church is bad." What is it about that simple
>> >> statement of fact you don't understand?
>> >
>> > You're ability to discern good from evil?
>> >
>>
>> Define evil.
>
Half wit.
BAM
bam
> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>"Eris" <vit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>Letting it be born to go hungry or be beaten and raped by clergy is
>>>>>much more humane.
>>>>
>>>>What a saint. This is the type who blames the Pope for AIDS, but forgets
>>>>that condoms are intended to prevent life to begin with.
>>>
>>> Just like laws that make rape ilegal.o
>>>
>>> But, if preventing life is bad, then why do the church's priests and
>>> nuns reject life? Why does the church prevent them from marrying and
>>> having children?
>>
>>No one forces them to become nuns or priests.
>
> No one forces anyone to use condoms.
>
>> If they want to have ten kids,
>>they're free to,
>
> But they prevent life just like condoms prevent life, idiot.
HAHAHAHAH!!! Not having sex is preventing life??? That would convict a lot
of young and old people.
> That makes them evil nazis according to your insane argument.
Ray - take a pill.
BAM
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:6ndlg5llqccc2acch...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:12 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
You've just erased all your rights brainiac.
BAM
Ray Fischer
�R.L.Measures
<blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
� finger pointing is not rare among humans.
bam
Wow! Why the promotion?
BAM
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:19:46 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> Why not prevent life from beginning?
Because existence is far better than non existence. If you don't believe
that, don't be a hypocrite.
BAM
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:24:11 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> than it's non-existence?
To HIV it is. If it becomes a danger to humans, like any killer, we need to
stop it.
> Was the existence of The Son of Sam better than his non-existence
> would have been?
Yes, but I don't want to lecture you on metaphysics.
> Do you need more examples?
I couldn't care less.
BAM
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:19:36 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
Good - now be kind to unborn infants.
BAM
Wexford
Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
The Chief Instigator
That's the province of the pregnant woman, if she so chooses. Evidently, you
can't dictate how women can handle their pregnancies if you didn't contribute
your defective DNA to those women. You're wrecked again, Bryan.
--
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 0, Hamilton 0 (end of 2nd, November 25)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 27 at Syracuse, 6:35
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:21:38 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> There is no need to be kind to what does not exist.
>
� Indeed. An "unborn infanst" exist only in the minds of True Believer
Catholics.
> --
bam
"Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
2. Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The Church can
change it tomorrow should the Magisterium decide.
BAM
Jimbo
> "Wexford" <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
> >is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
> >Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
> >Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
>
> 1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
> these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
By definition, every religion is a sect. Understand the meaning of
words and perhaps you wouldn't be so easily insulted.
>
> 2. Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.
Apparently, not a very well folllowed discipline.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
>>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
>>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
>>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
>>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
>
>1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
>these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
All denominations are sects. It doesn't matter whether they were the
ones who managed to force all of the differing sects of the fourth
century to acquiesce to their power or not.
>2. Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The Church can
>change it tomorrow should the Magisterium decide.
Yes, it could, but that wasn't the point that was made. The RCC is
inconsistent in its behavior.
�R.L.Measures
<blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** Organizations that are run by supposedly infallible humans are not
eager to admit error and make even a sorely needed change.
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> Not just catholics. There are a lot of other nuts hanging out there.
>
� True enough, but Catholics are the most numerous and easily the most
thought-controlled.
�R.L.Measures
<2a8e2b6a-a9fe-482e...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Jimbo
<ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
� many priests in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles apparently had no
difficulty whatsoever with keeping the vow not to have sex with girls.
The Chief Instigator
>
> "Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
>>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
>>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
>>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
>>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
>
> 1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
> these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
The trunk has long since rotted away, and it's centuries overdue to be
chopped down. After all, they're the total-control whores who tried to kill
all Spaniards who didn't believe its patent bullshit, who tried to silence
Galileo Galilei because he gave a better explanation of what he saw in the
night skies. (Your writing isn't turgid, just 24/7/365.2422 whining because
you can't get your way. Shut up and live with the reality of it, and be
thankful they haven't yet started coming for *you*.)
> 2. Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The Church
> can change it tomorrow should the Magisterium decide.
>
> BAM
Be sure and tell Pope Ratzy that.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 1, Hamilton 0 (November 25)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 27 at Syracuse, 6:05
�R.L.Measures
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
** But the leader of the RCC is infallible.
�R.L.Measures
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:59 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
> >>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
> >>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
> >>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
> >
> > 1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
> > these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
>
> The trunk has long since rotted away, and it's centuries overdue to be
> chopped down. After all, they're the total-control whores who tried to kill
> all Spaniards who didn't believe its patent bullshit, who tried to silence
> Galileo Galilei because he gave a better explanation of what he saw in the
> night skies.
� As I understand it, the pope, who claims he is God's sole earthly rep.
objected to Galileo saying that God told him that his conclusions about
the motions of the planets were true.
>...
Virgil
wrote:
Infallibility is only alleged when their papa is speaking 'ex cathedra'.
Ray Fischer
> r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
>> Free Lunch
>> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:59 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>> > wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > >>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
>> > >>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
>> > >>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
>> > >>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
>> > >
>> > >1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
>> > >these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
>> >
>> > All denominations are sects. It doesn't matter whether they were the
>> > ones who managed to force all of the differing sects of the fourth
>> > century to acquiesce to their power or not.
>> >
>> > >2. Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The Church
>> > >can
>> > >change it tomorrow should the Magisterium decide.
>> >
>> > Yes, it could, but that wasn't the point that was made. The RCC is
>> > inconsistent in its behavior.
>>
>> ** But the leader of the RCC is infallible.
>
>Infallibility is only alleged when their papa is speaking 'ex cathedra'.
All other times it is assumed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
According to the RCC. I don't recall anyone else buying into that con
game.
The Chief Instigator
> In article <slrnhgtdai....@eris.io.com>, pat...@io.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:59 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
>> >>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
>> >>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
>> >>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
>> >
>> > 1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
>> > these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
>>
>> The trunk has long since rotted away, and it's centuries overdue to be
>> chopped down. After all, they're the total-control whores who tried to kill
>> all Spaniards who didn't believe its patent bullshit, who tried to silence
>> Galileo Galilei because he gave a better explanation of what he saw in the
>> night skies.
>
> objected to Galileo saying that God told him that his conclusions about
> the motions of the planets were true.
Either way, it doesn't make the church any less stupid or any more credible.
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:12:58 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-2611090...@10.0.1.7> wrote:
>
> According to the egomaniac. Saying so proves nothing
>
� you can fool some of the people some of the time.
�R.L.Measures
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:03:51 -0800, ?R.L.Measures <r...@somis.org> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhgtdai....@eris.io.com>, pat...@io.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:59 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >>Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
> >> >>is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
> >> >>Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
> >> >>Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
> >> >
> >> > 1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop
sneaking in
> >> > these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
> >>
> >> The trunk has long since rotted away, and it's centuries overdue to be
> >> chopped down. After all, they're the total-control whores who tried
to kill
> >> all Spaniards who didn't believe its patent bullshit, who tried to silence
> >> Galileo Galilei because he gave a better explanation of what he saw in the
> >> night skies.
> >
> > ? As I understand it, the pope, who claims he is God's sole earthly rep.
> > objected to Galileo saying that God told him that his conclusions about
> > the motions of the planets were true.
>
> Either way, it doesn't make the church any less stupid or any more credible.
** it's only a matter of historical accuracy.
The Chief Instigator
Indeed, and the RCC's self-destruction will continue...as will most other
faiths.
Ray Fischer
Wexford
> "Wexford" <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >Only in the Roman Catholic sect, and even among RC priests, the rule
> >is inconsistent. Crossover RC priests from the Episcopalian or
> >Anglican churches are free to bring their wives and children. Orthodox
> >Catholic priests, in some sects, can marry and do.
>
> 1. The Catholic Church is not a "sect". It is the trunk. Stop sneaking in
> these little insults. It makes for turgid writing.
Sorry, but if you understood the Catholic religion, you'd know that
the RC Church is a sect, one of several under the general embrace of
Catholicism, and not better or prevalent over the others. The Bishop
of Rome, the Pope, is considered the ultimate leader, but the other
Patriarchs lead as well.
>
> 2. Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The Church can
> change it tomorrow should the Magisterium decide.
So?? It is nevertheless true that Catholicism is inconsistent in
forcing its priests to be celibate.
�R.L.Measures
� good one Ray.
�R.L.Measures
** the rabbi who called himself the Son of man called it.
The Chief Instigator
Drunk Duke will whine like the ~70-year-old infant he's regressed into.
�R.L.Measures
** how do we know that he partakes (guzzles) too much of the sacred
blood of Jesus?
Mike Painter
>>>
>>> Yes, it could, but that wasn't the point that was made. The RCC is
>>> inconsistent in its behavior.
>>
>> ** But the leader of the RCC is infallible.
>
> Infallibility is only alleged when their papa is speaking 'ex
> cathedra'.
And it's only been that way since 1871 and Vatican I. Just ask the old
Church.
�R.L.Measures
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
** During the 1930s and 1940s there was a politician who claimed it.
bam
".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2611092...@10.0.1.7...>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:12:58 -0800, r...@somis.org (.R.L.Measures) wrote in
Yes, but he was a liar.
BAM
�R.L.Measures
<blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** the guy who had Parkinson's and syphilis of the brain?
> BAM