Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
J
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
and education of offspring."
Philip Lawler, founder and editor of Catholic World News, said that
definition extends past the church and into the public sector.
"The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
Richard McCord, director of the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family
Life and Youth, said while 180 bishops voted in favor of the policies in the
letter, forty-five opposed the statement.
"It's not a substantive disagreement," McCord said. "I think it would have
been more of a disagreement of presentation, style, emphasis and so forth."
-Steve Jordahl
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Uncle Vic
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it? Seems to
me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
seems to me is none of their fucking business.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
IAAH
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
>
>
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
Great. We might as well take advice about eating
healthily from the Reese's mascots.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
The Chief Instigator
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
...even though the morons in the Vatican will never allow them to
participate in what they're being ordered to "support". Thanks for being
brain-damaged, as usual.
--
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 1, Peoria 0 (November 18)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
Ray Fischer
>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
ROFL!
HOW many of them have been married?
HOW many of them know what it's like to be married?
HOW many of them have utterly rejected marriage?
>The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
Tell them to go screw themselves and leave us and our children alone.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
anonymous
>
> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> >http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
> >Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> ROFL!
>
> HOW many of them have been married?
>
plate. It takes one catholic to make that happen. Remember, a man or
woman can't get married in a Catholic church unless both parents agree
and sign a document as I understand it that the children when born will
go to catholic school/church.
That is money in the priest pocket in form of pension and future income.
> HOW many of them know what it's like to be married?
>
Believe me, homosexuals know what it is like to be married. The live
with their married parents for better or for worse, for richer or for
poorer until divorce do they part - 45 percent, remember of all
marriages end in divorce.
> HOW many of them have utterly rejected marriage?
>
Oh, on the contrary, many homosexual and heterosexual priests welcome
marriage but they can't have it. Many have long or life long
relationshps of a sexual and love nature with a man or woman as the case
may be.
> >The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> >letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> Tell them to go screw themselves and leave us and our children alone.
>
The Catholic church as learned from its earliest beginnings that power
is about control and one must control with the use of power else one
vanishes. The church collects money, it tells people, the congregation
how to live their lives. Most of us in society tell others how to do
things based on the fact that we pay them money, but religion is strong
and it takes the money or gets paid by you so they can tell you what to
do and when. That is why religion outlives countries and kids and the
world. There is nothing strong then the struction of religion. The
opposite, of course is gambling. People pay money in the form of
betting and the person ultimately leaves broke/poor with only memories
of losing money and gets nothing in return for it. That is why
technically gambing I guess is perfect because the casino and its staff
don't have to tell people what to do in the process like a priest does.
The people enter a casino willingly and willingly throw money on the
table and say here keep it all but if you want to play nice mr. casino,
you can occasionally a little money back my way from time to time but
you don't have to if you don't want to because I have other paychecks on
their way and I will come here every of the year and give you all my
money.
anonymous
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> and education of offspring."
>
way that the church defines a priest as a celebate male who does God's
work.
It doesn't have to be true; it only has to sound good.
> Philip Lawler, founder and editor of Catholic World News, said that
> definition extends past the church and into the public sector.
>
Well, the church is a private organization and it can say anything it
wishes in the same way a party in oppositing to the governing party of
any city, state/province or country can say anything it wants to because
we live in a democracy. It doesn't mean people will agree or that the
statement is even true.
> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
Well, true to a point but more specifically, the church needs money and
it needs future income. If it didn't encourage young couples to have
offspring there would be no future money in the collection plate.
anonymous
>
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it? Seems to
> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>
Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man. The laws
in some countries say that is legally possible but many a father or
mother think it is there business if their 24 or 34 year old son wants
to get a penis in his butt. The son thinks it is none of their business
and the parents think otherwise.
anonymous
True but people have a right to believe what they want and to give their
earnings to whom they want.
Mitchell Holman
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
>
>
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy
> pastoral letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the
> Divine Plan.
>
> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life,
> of mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent
> between a man and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses
> and the procreation and education of offspring."
>
> Philip Lawler, founder and editor of Catholic World News, said that
> definition extends past the church and into the public sector.
>
> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that
> the government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family
> based on marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
should consist of.
duke
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
>Yet they don't do it themselves.
For the good of the kingdom of God. It's a discipline.
> What would they know about it?
All details are failures.
> Seems to
>me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
>seems to me is none of their fucking business.
Then don't ask them to be the witness at your civil contract.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it? Seems to
>> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>>
>
>Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
No, they don't.
duke
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:02:41 -0500, J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
>...even though the morons in the Vatican will never allow them to
>participate in what they're being ordered to "support". Thanks for being
>brain-damaged, as usual.
It's elective, not forced.
duke
>J wrote:
>>
>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> and education of offspring."
>>
>There is no question that that is an awesome definition. In the same
>way that the church defines a priest as a celebate male who does God's
>work.
>
>It doesn't have to be true; it only has to sound good.
And it's a personal discipline.
>> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
>> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
>> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
>Well, true to a point but more specifically, the church needs money and
>it needs future income. If it didn't encourage young couples to have
>offspring there would be no future money in the collection plate.
Nor money for the world's hungry, sick, diseased, etc.
duke
>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>should consist of.
God told them. Satan tells you.
JohnN
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> and education of offspring."
Except when one of the couple wants to buy an annulment.
JohnN
JohnN
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
> > Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
> >else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
> >should consist of.
>
> God told them. Satan tells you.
I read the bible, nothing there from god on how catholics should raise
their children.
JohnN
Mitchell Holman
news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>
>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>should consist of.
>
> God told them.
God speaks to priests?
Doesn't that make them prophets?
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
...IF they stand strong against EXCLUDING couples from it
over the specious TRIVIALITY of gender composition.
Any that DON'T support same-sex marriage are WORTHLESS.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
RamRod Sword of Baal
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:r8gag5phhogkr5eon...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:10 GMT, anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>>
>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>>
>>> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it? Seems
>>> to
>>> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
>>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>>>
>>
>>Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
>>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
>
> No, they don't.
Another of Duke's blatant lies.
jcon
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
Most of the shit in the Catholic church is simply
made up out of whole cloth and has no basis in
Scripture (not that I give a damn about Scripture,
but they claim to).
However, in the case of the celibacy of Bishops,
they are specifically going *against* the Word:
1 Tim. 3:2 - "A bishop then must be
blameless, *the husband of one wife*,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour,
given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Of course, like anything they don't like
in the Bible, they argue it was metaphorical.
Oddly, they reject any "metaphorical"
interpretations of the lines against
homosexuality.
-jc
Brian E. Clark
duckg...@cox.net says...
> > Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
> >else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
> >should consist of.
>
> God told them.
No, they told you that God told them.
And you were stupid enough to fall for the swindle.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Boo Radley
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC7E162...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it? Seems to
> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
If priests could get married they wouldn't be given a free ride when they
grab innocent young boys and rape their tiny puckered pink starfruit
assholes and there is not a single priest on this planet willing to give up
that perk.
duke
wrote:
Well, can you support your "lots of young men" statement?
duke
Then you missed it.
duke
> God speaks to priests?
No. I speak to God also, daily.
duke
Satan sees fresh meat in you, bc.
Syd M.
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
>
US to Catholic Bishops: Mind your own business.
PDW
RamRod Sword of Baal
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:45 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
> <ram...@truthonly.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:r8gag5phhogkr5eon...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:10 GMT, anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it?
>>>>> Seems
>>>>> to
>>>>> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
>>>>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
>>>>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
>>>
>>> No, they don't.
>>
>>Another of Duke's blatant lies.
>
> Well, can you support your "lots of young men" statement?
Just using the USA, over 10 millions, is that enough?
IE around 4% of 307,000,000.
Don't like that number, even if you half it it is still 5 million
IE 2% of 307,000,000.
5 or 10 million is still lots.
Even 1 million is lots.
So you lied.
RamRod Sword of Baal
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>
>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>should consist of.
>>>
>>> God told them.
>
>> God speaks to priests?
>
>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>
> No. I speak to God also, daily.
But does he speak back to you?
Syd M.
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 8:03 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
> >> > Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
> >> >else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
> >> >should consist of.
> >> God told them. Satan tells you.
> >I read the bible, nothing there from god on how catholics should raise
> >their children.
> >JohnN
>
> Then you missed it.
>
>
Because it's not there, Dork.
PDW
juanjo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:48:08 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >J wrote:
>
> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> >> and education of offspring."
>
> >There is no question that that is an awesome definition. In the same
> >way that the church defines a priest as a celebate male who does God's
> >work.
>
> >It doesn't have to be true; it only has to sound good.
>
> And it's a personal discipline.
enforced by church dogma.'
>
> >> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
> >> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
> >> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
> >Well, true to a point but more specifically, the church needs money and
> >it needs future income. If it didn't encourage young couples to have
> >offspring there would be no future money in the collection plate.
>
> Nor money for the world's hungry, sick, diseased, etc.
Right. I have yet to see any cardinals, bishops or even most priests
give up their very comfortable living arrangements and voluntarily
live like the majority of the world's poor do. They live in fine
houses with good food cooked for them. That Nazi loving fuck in Rome
spends church money on Prada shoes for the love of Buddha. What he
spends on shoes in a year would feed an entire village in Africa for a
year.
juanjo
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> and education of offspring."
It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. That does not
make it so.
>
> Philip Lawler, founder and editor of Catholic World News, said that
> definition extends past the church and into the public sector.
>
> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
>
The RCC does not determine government policy nor does the secular
government of this country have to follow the dictates of the Pope and
his fellow clergy. Secular marriage is not based upon any religious
doctrine nor should it be.
juanjo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> God told them.
> > God speaks to priests?
> > Doesn't that make them prophets?
>
> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
We all knew you were delusional so this comes as no surprise.
SkyEyes
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
<Bad Italian accent> "If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
rules!"
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
duke
wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:qkvag554l0gdrabf3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:45 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>> <ram...@truthonly.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:r8gag5phhogkr5eon...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:10 GMT, anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it?
>>>>>> Seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
>>>>>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
>>>>>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't.
>>>
>>>Another of Duke's blatant lies.
>>
>> Well, can you support your "lots of young men" statement?
>Just using the USA, over 10 millions, is that enough?
10 millions of what?
>IE around 4% of 307,000,000.
4% of 307 million!! of what.
>Don't like that number, even if you half it it is still 5 million
>IE 2% of 307,000,000.
>5 or 10 million is still lots.
>Even 1 million is lots.
>So you lied.
I guess YOU and I both have no idea what you're trying to say here.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 5:02�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:48:08 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >J wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> >> and education of offspring."
>>
>> >There is no question that that is an awesome definition. �In the same
>> >way that the church defines a priest as a celebate male who does God's
>> >work. �
>>
>> >It doesn't have to be true; it only has to sound good.
>>
>> And it's a personal discipline.
>
>enforced by church dogma.'
Nope. There is zero church dogma regarding celibacy. Are you sure you know
what you're talking about?
>> >> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
>> >> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
>> >> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
>> >Well, true to a point but more specifically, the church needs money and
>> >it needs future income. �If it didn't encourage young couples to have
>> >offspring there would be no future money in the collection plate.
>> Nor money for the world's hungry, sick, diseased, etc.
>Right. I have yet to see any cardinals, bishops or even most priests
>give up their very comfortable living arrangements and voluntarily
>live like the majority of the world's poor do.
Well, the majority have a house keeper/cook, housing is owned by the diocese.
> They live in fine houses with good food cooked for them.
They do?? The last few popes have lived is relatively sparse accommodations and
simple food. Why, you can even google the popes meals, if you really cared for
the truth.
> That Nazi loving fuck in Rome
>spends church money on Prada shoes for the love of Buddha. What he
>spends on shoes in a year would feed an entire village in Africa for a
>year.
1 pair of prada shoes. And he is all prayer and business, all day.
You're another clown that doesn't know what she is taking about.
duke
wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:tnvag5t5qtv1ns6m1...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>>should consist of.
>>>>
>>>> God told them.
>>
>>> God speaks to priests?
>>
>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>>
>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>But does he speak back to you?
Absolutely yes.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 9:23�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Nah, you're just an atheist wannabe fool that doesn't know her ass from a hole
in the ground about the Roman Catholic Chruch, and God.
duke
They can't "buy" an annulment. They must go thru a rather detailed
investigation personal that reflects that a marriage was never a true desire in
the first place.
Then they can/might be given an annulment.
See how little you know. Quit showing your ass.
JohnN
JohnN
And no money changes hands, ever? Not the way my brother's former got
hers. You are just too naive.
JohnN
duke
>On Nov 19, 12:02�am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>Most of the shit in the Catholic church is simply
>made up out of whole cloth and has no basis in
>Scripture (not that I give a damn about Scripture,
>but they claim to).
You mean the priestly vestments? Of course they are plain cloth. And the style
comes from the Roman emperors some 2000 years ago.
>However, in the case of the celibacy of Bishops,
>they are specifically going *against* the Word:
> 1 Tim. 3:2 - "A bishop then must be
> blameless, *the husband of one wife*,
> vigilant, sober, of good behaviour,
> given to hospitality, apt to teach;
And scripture says also:
Matthew 19:12 (New International Version)
12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that
way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of
heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
You see, Catholic priests are more disciplined in their pursuit of bringing the
Gospel to people than protest_ant ministers.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 18, 10:02�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> and education of offspring."
>
>It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. That does not
>make it so.
Well, we go by scripture as the full basis:
Mark 10:1-12 (New International Version)
Mark 10
Divorce
1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the
Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught
them.
2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife?"
3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send
her away."
5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus
replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but
one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He
answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man,
she commits adultery."
A very big group of protest_ants ignore those verses, and you see the mortal sin
there!!!
>> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
>> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
>> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
>The RCC does not determine government policy nor does the secular
>government of this country have to follow the dictates of the Pope and
>his fellow clergy. Secular marriage is not based upon any religious
>doctrine nor should it be.
There is no such thing as a secular marriage. Without God's blessing, the union
is only a civil contract - fornication for never marrieds and adultery for
divorcees.
How about that.
duke
>On Nov 18, 11:02�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
><Bad Italian accent> "If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
>rules!"
God made the rules. Mat 19:12.
The Chief Instigator
> On 19 Nov 2009 06:27:38 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:02:41 -0500, J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>>
>>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>>participate in what they're being ordered to "support". Thanks for being
>>brain-damaged, as usual.
>
> It's elective, not forced.
Just shove what's left of your head up your senile ass, as you've chosen to
be an apostate from reality. (IMO, as always.)
--
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 1, Peoria 0 (November 18)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 19, 12:23?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 19, 8:03?am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>> >> >else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>> >> >should consist of.
>> >I read the bible, nothing there from god on how catholics should raise
>> >their children.
>> >JohnN
>>
>> Then you missed it.
>
> Because it's not there, Dork.
Doink's chosen to be an apostate.
The Chief Instigator
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:27:11 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:tnvag5t5qtv1ns6m1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>>>should consist of.
>>>>>
>>>>> God told them.
>>>
>>>> God speaks to priests?
>>>
>>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>>>
>>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
>>But does he speak back to you?
>
> Absolutely yes.
...and what psychotropics are you abusing, this time?
RamRod Sword of Baal
haiku jones
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:44:03 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
The divorce rate among American mainline protestants is 24%.
The divorce rate among American Catholics is 21%.
Interesting that you seem to think that's a huge difference.
The divorce rate for atheists and agnostics is also 21%.
Haiku Jones
refs: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
SkyEyes
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 11:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> ><Bad Italian accent> "If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
> >rules!"
>
> God made the rules. Mat 19:12.
Oh, horsepucky. The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
celibate.
haiku jones
> On Nov 19, 3:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >On Nov 18, 11:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> > >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> > ><Bad Italian accent> "If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
> > >rules!"
>
> > God made the rules. Mat 19:12.
>
> Oh, horsepucky. The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
> which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
> celibate.
And of course God's mostest favoritests of all in the Old
Testament got their wives and concubines wholesale.
Back up the truck; offload another batch of concubines.
And God had no problem whatsoever with that; it
'was a sign of His blessings on the patriarchs He
loved the most.
Apparently God has since changed His mind on this. Of course,
God changed His mind on a ton of things between the
Old Testament and the New.
Duke, in other words, is putting his trust in a god
that feels free to go "Hey! Forget all that old stuff! New rules!!!"
any time He wants to.
Haiku Jones
Free Lunch
<575j...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Nov 19, 5:14�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 3:54�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > >On Nov 18, 11:02�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> > >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> > >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> > ><Bad Italian accent> �"If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
>> > >rules!"
>>
>> > God made the rules. �Mat 19:12.
>>
>
>
>> Oh, horsepucky. �The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
>> which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
>> celibate.
>
>And of course God's mostest favoritests of all in the Old
>Testament got their wives and concubines wholesale.
>Back up the truck; offload another batch of concubines.
Though, if you have your favorite general killed in battle so you can
have his wife, maybe something bad might happen to you, but not too bad.
Ray Fischer
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>>>should consist of.
>>>>>
>>>>> God told them.
>>>
>>>> God speaks to priests?
>>>
>>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>>>
>>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
>>But does he speak back to you?
>
>Absolutely yes.
Obviously not.
You don't believe in God, so he can't speak to you.
puke in <pmp8g598e434olhtg...@4ax.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
L.Roberts
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> and education of offspring."
>
> definition extends past the church and into the public sector.
>
> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
>
> Life and Youth, said while 180 bishops voted in favor of the policies in the
> letter, forty-five opposed the statement.
>
> "It's not a substantive disagreement," McCord said. "I think it would have
> been more of a disagreement of presentation, style, emphasis and so forth."
>
> -Steve Jordahl
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
Well, how come your priests take vows more than equal to marriage vows
and then fucking break them? And some of the jackasses would have to
admit that your fucking god was present whilst they were coaxing
kisses from little boys and girls!
L.Roberts
Just Another Earthling
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:02:41 -0500, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id <39vcj4.9u2.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> less what they think about anything?
That they are going to play spin doctors, distort the facts, play the
victim, and try to shove their beliefs down our throats by getting
them legislated into law.
Basically, the same thing that it always means.
Mark Sebree
>
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
Uncle Vic
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it?
>> Seems to me they have a lot to say about what other people should do.
>> Which it seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>>
>
> Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
> believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man. The
> laws in some countries say that is legally possible but many a father
> or mother think it is there business if their 24 or 34 year old son
> wants to get a penis in his butt. The son thinks it is none of their
> business and the parents think otherwise.
>
What does this have to do with Catholic bishops sticking their noses in
where they don't belong?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
juanjo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:24:34 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:qkvag554l0gdrabf3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:45 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
> >> <ram...@truthonly.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>news:r8gag5phhogkr5eon...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:10 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >>>>>> Yet they don't do it themselves. What would they know about it?
> >>>>>> Seems
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> me they have a lot to say about what other people should do. Which it
> >>>>>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>
> >>>>>Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
> >>>>>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
>
> >>>> No, they don't.
>
> >>>Another of Duke's blatant lies.
>
> >> Well, can you support your "lots of young men" statement?
> >Just using the USA, over 10 millions, is that enough?
>
> 10 millions of what?
>
> >IE around 4% of 307,000,000.
>
> 4% of 307 million!! of what.
>
> >Don't like that number, even if you half it it is still 5 million
> >IE 2% of 307,000,000.
> >5 or 10 million is still lots.
> >Even 1 million is lots.
> >So you lied.
>
> I guess YOU and I both have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>
Dear Duke:
The current population of the United States is estimated to be
307,000,000. The CDC and the Census Bureau estimate that of that
number, between 5 and 8% are MSM, that is men who have sex with other
men, a designation which includes homosexual, bisexuals, male
prostitutes and those questioning their sexuality [Bill Taylor for
example]. If we take the lower end of that estimate, namely 5% then
currently there are 15,350,000 men in the United States who have sex
with other men. Now not all MSM enjoy anal penetration but one can
safely assume that a certain percentage do. Even should we assume it
is 33% then the number of men who engage in anal intercourse with
other men is just over 5 million. The exact number of these who are
Roman Catholic priests violating their vows is not precisely known but
given the huge number of gay men in the priesthood including the
current Pope who was notorious when he was in Austria some decades
ago, it is safe to assume the number would total in the tens of
thousands.
juanjo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:40:26 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 5:02 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:48:08 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >> >J wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> >> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> >> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> >> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> >> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> >> >> and education of offspring."
>
> >> >There is no question that that is an awesome definition. In the same
> >> >way that the church defines a priest as a celebate male who does God's
> >> >work.
>
> >> >It doesn't have to be true; it only has to sound good.
>
> >> And it's a personal discipline.
>
> >enforced by church dogma.'
>
> Nope. There is zero church dogma regarding celibacy. Are you sure you know
> what you're talking about?
I stand corrected. It is not church dogma but it is the rule enforced
by the church on its priests. Anyone who wishes to be a priest must
take this vow and keep it. While there have been exceptions made for
the member of Lutheran and Anglican married clergy who wished to
become Roman Catholic clergy, these are exception to the rule.
>
> >> >> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
> >> >> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
> >> >> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
> >> >Well, true to a point but more specifically, the church needs money and
> >> >it needs future income. If it didn't encourage young couples to have
> >> >offspring there would be no future money in the collection plate.
> >> Nor money for the world's hungry, sick, diseased, etc.
> >Right. I have yet to see any cardinals, bishops or even most priests
> >give up their very comfortable living arrangements and voluntarily
> >live like the majority of the world's poor do.
>
> Well, the majority have a house keeper/cook, housing is owned by the diocese.
That is right. The house and living arrangements are paid for out of
the donations of the parish donations. Now I have known Franciscans
for example who worked with the poor and homeless and they did not
life so well, In fact the Franciscan who ran the homeless shelter
here in town ate his meals with the homeless in the soup kitchen every
day. But he was the exception and not the rule.
>
> > They live in fine houses with good food cooked for them.
>
> They do?? The last few popes have lived is relatively sparse accommodations and
> simple food. Why, you can even google the popes meals, if you really cared for
> the truth.
Well I was speaking of the priests and I have some knowledge of this
as I have known a number of present and former Roman Catholic priests
and they have told me of how the clergy lives. Now I am not
suggesting that they eat caviar and sip champagne but they do eat
well.
As for the current pope, I took your suggestion and here is what I
found out. Benedict has a temperamental digestion given his advanced
age so he eschews spicy foods. However the one menu that was
mentioned was the following:
* String bean salad with sheep's milk ricotta and pickled shallots
and toasted almonds
* Ravioli with fresh pecorino and pears
* Risotto with nettles, fava beans, and ramps
* Whole roasted striped bass with boiled fingerling potatoes and a
frisée salad
* Apple strudel with honey vanilla ice cream (with honeycomb
intact)
Not a bad meal for an old man to pack away. And way better than the
poor get at the Catholic run soup kitchens.
>
> > That Nazi loving fuck in Rome
> >spends church money on Prada shoes for the love of Buddha. What he
> >spends on shoes in a year would feed an entire village in Africa for a
> >year.
>
> 1 pair of Prada shoes. And he is all prayer and business, all day.
I Googled his shoes as well. It turns out he has had a fondness for
Prada shoes for many years, going back to his time as Archbishop of
Munich. This corresponds to what I was told by a good friend of mine
who is a Catholic priest and who was teaching in Salzburg at about
that time and who had visited Munich and knew the good Archbishop
quite well. He also related how the Archbishop was constantly
surrounded by a score of handsome young, blond priests who were
referred to as his "assistants". He has 15 pairs of Prada shoes at
present with an average value of 400 Euros a pair which comes out to
roughly 600 USD for each pair. They are in black, brown and ox blood
colors. His red shoes are custom made for him by a shoe maker in Rome
and they are valued at 500 Euros each pair.
>
> You're another clown that doesn't know what she is taking about.
Apparently I know more than you do.
juanjo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:01 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 9:23 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> >news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> >> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> God told them.
> >> > God speaks to priests?
> >> > Doesn't that make them prophets?
>
> >> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
> >We all knew you were delusional so this comes as no surprise.
>
> Nah, you're just an atheist wannabe fool that doesn't know her ass from a hole
> in the ground about the Roman Catholic Chruch, and God.
>
I am not an atheist strictly speaking. I am a Buddhist and I don't
believe in all powerful sky pixies.
juanjo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:44:03 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 18, 10:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> >> and education of offspring."
>
> >It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. That does not
> >make it so.
>
> Well, we go by scripture as the full basis:
>
you and your kind.
>
> There is no such thing as a secular marriage. Without God's blessing, the union
> is only a civil contract - fornication for never marrieds and adultery for
> divorcees.
>
> How about that.
Is that so? Well let's see what happens if Catholics stop getting a
marriage license and just have a priest say the magical mumbo jumbo.
I doubt they will be getting their religious ceremony recognized as
legally binding.
Non scrivetemi
b115e0...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2:34�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:24:34 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonl
> y.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > >news:qkvag554l0gdrabf3...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:45 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
> > >> <ram...@truthonly.com>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >>>"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > >>>news:r8gag5phhogkr5eon...@4ax.com...
> > >>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:10 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
> >
> > >>>>>> Yet they don't do it themselves. �What would they know about it?
> > >>>>>> Seems
> > >>>>>> to
> ich it
> > >>>>>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
> >
> > >>>>>Well, let us be reasonable here. �Lots of young men 19 years and o
> lder
> > >>>>>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
> >
> > >>>> No, they don't.
> >
> > >>>Another of Duke's blatant lies.
> >
> > >> Well, can you support your "lots of young men" statement?
> > >Just using the USA, over 10 millions, is that enough?
> >
> > 10 millions of what? �
> >
> > >IE around 4% of 307,000,000.
> >
> > 4% of 307 million!! of what.
> >
> > >Don't like that number, even if you half it it is still 5 million
> > >IE 2% of 307,000,000.
> > >5 or 10 million is still lots.
> > >Even 1 million is lots.
> > >So you lied.
> >
> > I guess YOU and I both have no idea what you're trying to say here.
> >
>
> Dear Duke:
>
> The current population of the United States is estimated to be
> 307,000,000.
Faggot vandalism thwarted.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 2:40�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:40:26 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 19, 5:02�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:48:08 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >> >J wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> >> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> >> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> >> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> >> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> >> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> >> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> >> >> and education of offspring."
>>
>> >> >There is no question that that is an awesome definition. �In the same
>> >> >way that the church defines a priest as a celebate male who does God's
>> >> >work. �
>>
>> >> >It doesn't have to be true; it only has to sound good.
>>
>> >> And it's a personal discipline.
>>
>> >enforced by church dogma.'
>>
>> Nope. �There is zero church dogma regarding celibacy. �Are you sure you know
>> what you're talking about?
>I stand corrected. It is not church dogma but it is the rule enforced
>by the church on its priests.
It is an elective personal discipline for men seeking the priesthood. The
impose this discipline on themselves. It's not done by others.
>Anyone who wishes to be a priest must
>take this vow and keep it. While there have been exceptions made for
>the member of Lutheran and Anglican married clergy who wished to
>become Roman Catholic clergy, these are exception to the rule.
And it's clearly professed that the celibate priesthood will once again go away
when the Catholic layman is ready for it. Which is not now. We all
suspect/believe that the invitation to other faith's married clergy is the
beginning of the end.
>> >> >> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
>> >> >> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
>> >> >> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
>> >> >Well, true to a point but more specifically, the church needs money and
>> >> >it needs future income. �If it didn't encourage young couples to have
>> >> >offspring there would be no future money in the collection plate.
>> >> Nor money for the world's hungry, sick, diseased, etc.
>> >Right. �I have yet to see any cardinals, bishops or even most priests
>> >give up their very comfortable living arrangements and voluntarily
>> >live like the majority of the world's poor do.
>> Well, the majority have a house keeper/cook, housing is owned by the diocese.
>That is right. The house and living arrangements are paid for out of
>the donations of the parish donations. Now I have known Franciscans
>for example who worked with the poor and homeless and they did not
>life so well, In fact the Franciscan who ran the homeless shelter
>here in town ate his meals with the homeless in the soup kitchen every
>day. But he was the exception and not the rule.
Not in my experience. Priests get a salary + gifts at birthdays, Christmas, etc
from parishioners. I've known priests that singed over their family inheritance
to other family members. Now, of course that doesn't mean their inheritance
goes away, but they do live a rather spartan lifestyle.
>> > �They live in fine houses with good food cooked for them.
>> They do?? �The last few popes have lived is relatively sparse accommodations and
>> simple food. �Why, you can even google the popes meals, if you really cared for
>> the �truth.
>Well I was speaking of the priests and I have some knowledge of this
>as I have known a number of present and former Roman Catholic priests
>and they have told me of how the clergy lives. Now I am not
>suggesting that they eat caviar and sip champagne but they do eat
>well.
They don't go hungry. There's a difference.
>As for the current pope, I took your suggestion and here is what I
>found out. Benedict has a temperamental digestion given his advanced
>age so he eschews spicy foods. However the one menu that was
>mentioned was the following:
> * String bean salad with sheep's milk ricotta and pickled shallots
>and toasted almonds
> * Ravioli with fresh pecorino and pears
> * Risotto with nettles, fava beans, and ramps
> * Whole roasted striped bass with boiled fingerling potatoes and a
>fris�e salad
> * Apple strudel with honey vanilla ice cream (with honeycomb
>intact)
>Not a bad meal for an old man to pack away. And way better than the
>poor get at the Catholic run soup kitchens.
And definitely not that fancy. As you said, no caviar or champagne.
>> > That Nazi loving fuck in Rome
>> >spends church money on Prada shoes for the love of Buddha. �What he
>> >spends on shoes in a year would feed an entire village in Africa for a
>> >year.
>> 1 pair of Prada shoes. �And he is all prayer and business, all day.
>I Googled his shoes as well. It turns out he has had a fondness for
>Prada shoes for many years, going back to his time as Archbishop of
>Munich. This corresponds to what I was told by a good friend of mine
>who is a Catholic priest and who was teaching in Salzburg at about
>that time and who had visited Munich and knew the good Archbishop
>quite well. He also related how the Archbishop was constantly
>surrounded by a score of handsome young, blond priests who were
>referred to as his "assistants". He has 15 pairs of Prada shoes at
>present with an average value of 400 Euros a pair which comes out to
>roughly 600 USD for each pair. They are in black, brown and ox blood
>colors. His red shoes are custom made for him by a shoe maker in Rome
>and they are valued at 500 Euros each pair.
Well, 15 pair is more than 1. Did he say if he was given those 15 pair, or were
they part of a gold laced finery in personal dress ware.
>> You're another clown that doesn't know what she is taking about.
>Apparently I know more than you do.
You finally had to google, didn't you.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 2:42�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Neither do I.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 2:53�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:44:03 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 18, 10:02�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> >> and education of offspring."
>>
>> >It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. �That does not
>> >make it so.
>>
>> Well, we go by scripture as the full basis:
>>
>your scripture doesn't apply to the secular world. It only applies to
>you and your kind.
We are all subjected to the judgment of the one and only God. And that judgment
will occur at the moment we die. If your buddha leads you to love of fellow man
in your actions, then God may very well be pleased.
>> There is no such thing as a secular marriage. �Without God's blessing, the union
>> is only a civil contract - fornication for never marrieds and adultery for
>> divorcees.
>> How about that.
>Is that so? Well let's see what happens if Catholics stop getting a
>marriage license and just have a priest say the magical mumbo jumbo.
>I doubt they will be getting their religious ceremony recognized as
>legally binding.
People are not married by priests, who are only witnesses. A marriage is a
union of one man and one woman and blessed by God. The legally binding part is
the civil contract establishing the new legal unit responsibility, etc. It's
always a tack-on part of the marriage ceremony. Furthermore, God said that a
marriage is not to be broken by the actions of man, to be until death do part,
and sworn to by the couple. Thus the marriage is a sacred union with a civil
contract attached.
That is why there is no divorce. The couple, in a valid marriage, promised
until death do part, and that means effort and special consideration and
understanding by the loving couple. An annulment of the wedding vows occurs
when the Chruch, not the judge, determines that the intentions of the couple
were never valid, such as in a coerced shotgun wedding.
RamRod Sword of Baal
>>news:qkvag554l0gdrabf3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:45 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>>> <ram...@truthonly.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>news:r8gag5phhogkr5eon...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:10 GMT, anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Uncle Vic wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> seems to me is none of their fucking business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, let us be reasonable here. Lots of young men 19 years and older
>>>>>>believe they should be able to have anal sex with another man.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>
>>>>Another of Duke's blatant lies.
>>>
>>> Well, can you support your "lots of young men" statement?
>
>>Just using the USA, over 10 millions, is that enough?
>
> 10 millions of what?
>
>>IE around 4% of 307,000,000.
>
> 4% of 307 million!! of what.
10 million Gay men
307 million being the population of the USA
>>Don't like that number, even if you half it it is still 5 million
>>IE 2% of 307,000,000.
>>5 or 10 million is still lots.
>>Even 1 million is lots.
>>So you lied.
>
> I guess YOU and I both have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Well if you do not understand then you cannot be too bright.
Seeing you made the statement that lots of young men do not want anal sex
and I have shown that there are millions of gay men out there who mostly
like anal sex, hence you lied, or are you now going to say that most gay men
do not like anal sex?
RamRod Sword of Baal
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:27:11 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>>news:tnvag5t5qtv1ns6m1...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>
>>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>>>should consist of.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> God speaks to priests?
>>>
>>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>>>
>>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
>
> Absolutely yes.
Then that says it all, doesn't it.
The voices told me to do it.............
Cuckoo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mitchell Holman
news:937dg5p1giq3n1rqf...@4ax.com:
>
>
> That is why there is no divorce. The couple, in a valid marriage,
> promised until death do part.
Including those cases where the bride has
to be killed because she is not a virgin.
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on
her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is
not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her
fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death,
because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness
in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from
your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Syd
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:01 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 9:23 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> >news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> >> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> God told them.
> >> > God speaks to priests?
> >> > Doesn't that make them prophets?
>
> >> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
>
> Nah, you're just an atheist wannabe fool that doesn't know her ass from a hole
> in the ground about the Roman Catholic Chruch, and God.
>
>
It seems more like your a nasty racist Catholic who doesn't know a
thing about anything.
PDW
Syd
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:44:03 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 18, 10:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
>
> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> >> and education of offspring."
>
> >It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. That does not
> >make it so.
>
> Well, we go by scripture as the full basis:
>
> Mark 10
> Divorce
> 1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the
> Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught
> them.
> 2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to
> divorce his wife?"
> 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
> 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send
> her away."
> 5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus
> replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
> 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
> wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but
> one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
> 10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He
> answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
> adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man,
> she commits adultery."
>
> A very big group of protest_ants ignore those verses, and you see the mortal sin
> there!!!
>
> >> "The church has always been very strong and consistent in saying that the
> >> government has to uphold marriage," he said, "because the family based on
> >> marriage is the foundational building block of any society."
> >government of this country have to follow the dictates of the Pope and
> >his fellow clergy. Secular marriage is not based upon any religious
> >doctrine nor should it be.
>
> There is no such thing as a secular marriage. Without God's blessing, the union
> is only a civil contract - fornication for never marrieds and adultery for
> divorcees.
>
> How about that.
>
Yep. Your lying agian.
PDW
Syd
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 11:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >rules!"
>
> God made the rules. Mat 19:12.
>
>
Unsupported assertion.
We're not going to be swayed by babblings from a old book of fairy
tales, Dork.
PDW
Syd
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:38:53 -0800 (PST), Syd M. <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 12:23?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 19, 8:03?am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > ? ? Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
> >> >> >else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
> >> >> >should consist of.
> >> >I read the bible, nothing there from god on how catholics should raise
> >> >their children.
> >> >JohnN
>
> >> Then you missed it.
>
> > Because it's not there, Dork.
>
> Doink's chosen to be an apostate.
>
For many, many years.
PDW
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
They object when they're treated as morons and lie that all we do is
call them that. But is there a better word for somwbody so stupid he
tells us something we don't believe in the first place, does anything
and cites as "proof" scriptures we don't believe either.
The only people who believe it are Christians, and he knows we're not
Christian so none of that bullshit is granted. It is also very rude
because he hasn't the courtesy to take this into account.
But this particular one isn't just a fucking moron, he's mentally ill.
Yet the moron does it anyway.
>PDW
Syd
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:00:25 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 2:42 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:01 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 19, 9:23 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> >> >news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> >> >> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> God told them.
> >> >> > God speaks to priests?
> >> >> > Doesn't that make them prophets?
>
> >> >> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
> >> >We all knew you were delusional so this comes as no surprise.
>
> >> Nah, you're just an atheist wannabe fool that doesn't know her ass from a hole
> >> in the ground about the Roman Catholic Chruch, and God.
> >I am not an atheist strictly speaking. I am a Buddhist and I don't
> >believe in all powerful sky pixies.
>
> Neither do I.
>
>
Your believe in the god of the Catholic bible.
Therefore, your statement above is a lie.
PDW
Syd
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:04:42 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 2:53 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:44:03 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 18, 10:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
> >> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>
> >> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
> >> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
> >> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
> >> >> and education of offspring."
>
> >> >It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. That does not
> >> >make it so.
>
> >> Well, we go by scripture as the full basis:
>
> >your scripture doesn't apply to the secular world. It only applies to
> >you and your kind.
>
> We are all subjected to the judgment of the one and only God.
Nope.
Only applies to those inside your cult, Dork.
Stop trying to impose your religion on us.
>
> >> There is no such thing as a secular marriage. Without God's blessing, the union
> >> is only a civil contract - fornication for never marrieds and adultery for
> >> divorcees.
> >> How about that.
> >Is that so? Well let's see what happens if Catholics stop getting a
> >marriage license and just have a priest say the magical mumbo jumbo.
> >I doubt they will be getting their religious ceremony recognized as
> >legally binding.
>
> People are not married by priests, who are only witnesses. A marriage is a
> union of one man and one woman and blessed by God.
Anther lie.
> That is why there is no divorce.
And a third.
Must be a record.
PDW
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 2:34�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Well, 50% of those are women, so that's down to 7.5 million men. Now it takes
two to tango, so it's 50% of that makes up each half of a two some, or some 3.7
million events.
> Now not all MSM enjoy anal penetration but one can
>safely assume that a certain percentage do. Even should we assume it
>is 33% then the number of men who engage in anal intercourse with
>other men is just over 5 million.
No, 33% of 3.7 million events is 1.2 million events.
> The exact number of these who are
>Roman Catholic priests violating their vows is not precisely known but
>given the huge number of gay men in the priesthood including the
>current Pope who was notorious when he was in Austria some decades
>ago, it is safe to assume the number would total in the tens of
>thousands.
Correction, the John Jay report stated that 27% of the 4309 (American) priests
accused are associated with anal penetration or attempted penetration of youth.
That makes it about 1200 American priests over the time span from 1950 to say
1990.
Facts are far more accurate than guesses.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[ ... ]
> 10 million Gay men.
Don't forget the gay WOMEN.
> 307 million being the population of the USA
Averaging out estimates of many of the most reliable
researchers and polling agencies, the probable percentage
of gays (male AND female) in any given large population
(such as that of the USA) is about 5%.
That's about 15 MILLION people in the USA that MINDLESS
and hateful homophobes SEEK to discriminate against.
Funnier than hell to watch, as they go DOWN. To soon
join their first cousins in ignorant bigotry, the segregation-
ists, in forgotten OBLIVION. ---
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� REMEMBER DR. TILLER!! ���
��� REJECT *ALL* of the RRR & LDS Cults' Hate-Agendas ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <xana...@mchsi.com>
http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
FREEDOM is ACCELERATING!
Same-sex marriage (SSM) is REALITY in all these places, and
the list is steadily and inexorably* growing:
( * RRR Cultists: Look up "inexorable." Take it to heart.)
� Netherlands (as of 2001)
� Belgium (2003)
� Massachusetts (2004)
� Canada (2005)
� Spain (2005)
� South Africa (2005)
� Norway (2008)
� Connecticut (2008)
� New York ** (2008)
...and getting very CLOSE in 2009.
� Iowa (2009)
� Vermont (2009)
� Sweden (2009)
� New Hampshire (2009)
� Washington, D.C.** (2009)
� New Jersey: PENDING in 2009
� Hungary: PENDING in 2009
� Albania: PENDING in 2009
� California: Has 18,000 legally-married
same-sex couples, and the future looks
very BRIGHT, per THIS clear trend:
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
� Australia: 60% of Population now SUPPORTS it!
� Britain: 61% of Population now SUPPORTS it!
** New York State, Rhode Island, Washington, D.C.,
France, and Israel now recognize gay marriages
for couples legally married outside of the
state/district/country.
Gender composition is IRRELEVANT. Expect this to be the case
in almost ALL of the world within a few more years, as its societies
continue to OUTGROW and REJECT mindless bigotries.
The bigots have *already* LOST, and the RATE of their loss
is accelerating. A few years from now, SSM will be legal in ALL
50 states, and people will look back at them and their agenda, and
both will very properly be recalled with the *same* DERISION that
we now hold for the Segregationists and *their* EXTINCT agenda.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
haiku jones
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:22:57 -0800 (PST), juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com>
"Events". You challenged his "lots of young men" statement; he
did not say "lots of events".
But hey, let's go with "events", if only to correct your logic.
3.7 million events assumes each has sex with only one
other person. Potentially, each of these 7.5 million could
have sex with all the others, leading to 56 trillion "events".
And that's if they only do it one time each.
56 trillion "events". No, I think you'd be better off being
honest, and dealing with the number of men, as the
original poster specified.
Haiku Jones
duke
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 2009 06:27:38 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:02:41 -0500, J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>>>
>>>> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>>
>>>...even though the morons in the Vatican will never allow them to
>>>participate in what they're being ordered to "support". Thanks for being
>>>brain-damaged, as usual.
>>
>> It's elective, not forced.
>
>Just shove what's left of your head up your senile ass, as you've chosen to
>be an apostate from reality. (IMO, as always.)
I can't. Your head is already in the way.
duke
>On Nov 19, 12:23�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:21:33 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 19, 8:03�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>> >> > � � Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>> >> >else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>> >> >should consist of.
>> >> God told them. �Satan tells you.
>> >I read the bible, nothing there from god on how catholics should raise
>> >their children.
>> >JohnN
>>
>> Then you missed it.
>>
>> The Dukester, American-American
>> *****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>> *****
>
>Then tell me where it is.
The same means applies to adults and children.
duke
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:41:21 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:27:11 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:tnvag5t5qtv1ns6m1...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>>>>should consist of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God told them.
>>>>
>>>>> God speaks to priests?
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>>>>
>>>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>>
>>>But does he speak back to you?
>>
>> Absolutely yes.
>
>...and what psychotropics are you abusing, this time?
Pagan atheists like you wouldn't understand. You lack the faculties and basics
to understand.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
>>>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
>>>>>>>should consist of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God told them.
>>>>
>>>>> God speaks to priests?
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>>>>
>>>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>>
>>>But does he speak back to you?
>>
>>Absolutely yes.
>
>Obviously not.
>
> You don't believe in God, so he can't speak to you.
> puke in <pmp8g598e434olhtg...@4ax.com>
Called it up. Still no evidence of your lying assertion.
duke
>On Nov 19, 5:43�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:12:29 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 19, 1:02�am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> >> and education of offspring."
>>
>> >Except when one of the couple wants to buy an annulment.
>>
>> They can't "buy" an annulment. �They must go thru a rather detailed
>> investigation personal that reflects that a marriage was never a true desire in
>> the first place.
>>
>> Then they can/might be given an annulment.
>>
>> See how little you know. �Quit showing your ass.
>And no money changes hands, ever? Not the way my brother's former got
>hers. You are just too naive.
When you go to a lawyer, you reimburse him. When you go to a tax consultant,
you reimburse him. When you have your house painted, you reimburse him. When
you engage a church official in a special effort, you reimburse him.
duke
wrote:
>> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> >> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a lengthy pastoral
>> >> letter on marriage today subtitled Love and Life in the Divine Plan.
>>
>> >> It defines marriage as "a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of
>> >> mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man
>> >> and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation
>> >> and education of offspring."
>>
>> >It can define anything, any way it chooses to do so. �That does not
>> >make it so.
>>
>> Well, we go by scripture as the full basis:
>>
>> Mark 10:1-12 (New International Version)
>> Mark 10
>> Divorce
>> �1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the
>> Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught
>> them.
>> �2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to
>> divorce his wife?"
>> �3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
>> �4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send
>> her away."
>> �5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus
>> replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
>> 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
>> wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but
>> one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
>> �10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He
>> answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
>> adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man,
>> she commits adultery."
>> A very big group of protest_ants ignore those verses, and you see the mortal sin
>> there!!!
>The divorce rate among American mainline protestants is 24%.
>The divorce rate among American Catholics is 21%.
Adultery is adultery. I never made a distinction.
The only additional benefit to the RC is the annulment process. After all, a
divorce proceeding is a civil action ONLY.
>Interesting that you seem to think that's a huge difference.
>The divorce rate for atheists and agnostics is also 21%.
Adultery is adultery.
duke
>On Nov 19, 3:54�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 18, 11:02�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> ><Bad Italian accent> �"If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
>> >rules!"
>>
>> God made the rules. �Mat 19:12.
>
>Oh, horsepucky. The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
>which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
>celibate.
I'll go with the facts, horse pucky. Just the facts.
Matthew 19:12 (New International Version)
12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that
way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of
heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Celibacy is a discipline elective by priests.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 5:14�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 3:54�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > >On Nov 18, 11:02�pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> > >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>>
>> > >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>>
>> > ><Bad Italian accent> �"If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
>> > >rules!"
>>
>> > God made the rules. �Mat 19:12.
>>
>
>
>> Oh, horsepucky. �The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
>> which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
>> celibate.
>
>And of course God's mostest favoritests of all in the Old
>Testament got their wives and concubines wholesale.
Jews are not Christian.
Ray Fischer
It's not a lie, atheist. Given that you lie about people and
deliberately violate His commandments you must be an ahtiest.
By your own words.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
haiku jones
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:05:59 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> >> there!!!
> >The divorce rate among American mainline protestants is 24%.
> >The divorce rate among American Catholics is 21%.
>
> Adultery is adultery. I never made a distinction.
You were crowing:
A very big group of protest_ants ignore those verses,
and you see the mortal sin there!!!
I'd say you made quite a distinction. I see no
mention of Catholics, nor of atheists. Only
"protest_ants" [sic].
Haiku Jones
Ray Fischer
Because the church is a business just like any other business.
Except that they sell what they don't own and don't produce.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
haiku jones
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:14:37 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 3:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 18, 11:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >> ><Bad Italian accent> "If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
> >> >rules!"
>
> >> God made the rules. Mat 19:12.
>
> >Oh, horsepucky. The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
> >which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
> >celibate.
>
> I'll go with the facts, horse pucky. Just the facts.
>
> Matthew 19:12 (New International Version)
> 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that
> way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of
> heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Yep, that's a fact, all right. A fact of scripture.
Here's another fact of scripture:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality,
-- 1st Timothy 3, 1-2
The difference between you and Brenda is that
she -- and I too, of that matter -- am willing to
address all the facts, and not just admit only
what supports our own argument.
It's called "honesty". You might well give
it a try.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:22:53 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 5:14 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 3:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > >On Nov 18, 11:02 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> > >>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011493.cfm
>
> >> > >> Catholic Bishops Stand Strong for Marriage
>
> >> > ><Bad Italian accent> "If they no play-a da game, they no make-a da
> >> > >rules!"
>
> >> > God made the rules. Mat 19:12.
>
> >> Oh, horsepucky. The bible says that bishops may only have *one wife*,
> >> which rather runs counter to rcc rules that say the clergy must be
> >> celibate.
>
> >And of course God's mostest favoritests of all in the Old
> >Testament got their wives and concubines wholesale.
>
> Jews are not Christian.
Morality is morality. Right is right. Wrong
is wrong. Doesn't matter who you are,
if it's wrong, then it's wrong.
At least that's the way it should be,
in a moral world. But your God feels
free to change the rules in mid-game.
He did it once already. Are you sure
He won't up and do it again?
Haiku Jones
Syd
> On 19 Nov 2009 23:06:19 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:41:21 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:27:11 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>news:tnvag5t5qtv1ns6m1...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:ofgag5tfq7t2poi8n...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:41:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>>>>>>"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:39vcj4....@news.alt.net:
>
> >>>>>>> Confirmed bachelors in funny hats telling everyone
> >>>>>>>else what a proper "procreation and education of offspring"
> >>>>>>>should consist of.
>
> >>>>>> God told them.
>
> >>>>> God speaks to priests?
>
> >>>>> Doesn't that make them prophets?
>
> >>>> No. I speak to God also, daily.
>
> >>>But does he speak back to you?
>
> >> Absolutely yes.
>
> >...and what psychotropics are you abusing, this time?
>
> Pagan atheists like you wouldn't understand. You lack the faculties and basics
> to understand.
>
And does your doctor know that your abusing them?
PDW