Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ABOUT POPE'S MESSAGE ON ABORTION

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Papa Jack

unread,
Jun 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/5/97
to

Papa Jack quotes Infonet-List Digest (Volume 97 : Issue 112)

Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.

The 77-year-old Pope said "the world has become the arena of a battle
for
life," and urged all Roman Catholics to join the struggle between "the
civilization of life and the civilization of death."

On the fifth day of his emotional pilgrimage home, he took sides on a
divisive issue that will play a major role in Poland's parliamentary
elections in September.

Addressing a crowd of 100,000 at an open-air mass at Kalisz in central
Poland, he used tough language that was music to pro-Catholic
conservative
parties seeking to overturn the present social democratic government
led
by ex-communists.

"A nation which kills its own children is a nation without a future,"
he
said, repeating a phrase he first uttered when Poland's abortion law
was
made pro-abortion.

"The measure of civilization...is its relationship with life. A
civilization which rejects the defenseless would deserve to be called a
barbarian civilization even if had great successes in the field of
economics, technology, art and sciences," he said.

The Pontiff called for a "general mobilization of consciences and a
joint
ethical effort...in order to put into action a great strategy of the
defense of life."

Acknowledging the political sensitivity of his words, he departed from
his
prepared text to add: "It was not easy for me to say this, because I
think
about my nation, about its future."

In the eight years since strongly Catholic Poland became the first
Eastern
European country to cast off communism, few issues have been more
passionately fought than abortion.

Under communism, abortion was available on demand.

A law protecting life was passed in 1993 while former Solidarity union
leader Lech Walesa, a fervent Catholic, was president.

Under the 1993 law, abortion was allowed only when pregnancy posed a
threat to a woman's life, resulted from incest or rape or the foetus
had
severe defects.

The current leftist-dominated parliament legalized abortion again last
October in defiance of Catholic opposition.

Poland's constitutional court reopened the issue last week when it
effectively declared parts of the October law unconstitutional and
instructed parliament to review it within six months.

The election campaign now gathering pace pits a powerful anti-abortion
alliance centered around the pro-Catholic Solidarity union against the
secular-minded ex-communists for the lead in opinion polls.

The Solidarity Election Action (AWS), an umbrella group of some 30
conservative parties, put its logo on posters with the Pope's picture
in
the run-up to the Pontiff's visit.

In his address to the crowd, the Pope quoted from a speech that Mother
Teresa of Calcutta made at the 1994 U.N. Population Conference in
Cairo.
"The greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is abortion. If a
mother can kill her own child, what is there to stop you and me from
killing each other," she said then.

--
Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97
to

On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:52:37 -0500, Papa Jack
<papa...@express-news.net> wrote:

>
> On the fifth day of his emotional pilgrimage home, he took sides on a
> divisive issue that will play a major role in Poland's parliamentary
> elections in September.
>

this in the same country that tried in the early 90's to make
catholicism the state religion.

this in a country where, of 3.5million jews living in shtetl's before
ww2, 1,000 survived.

P. JP2 is terribly brave when it comes to pushing around women.

would that his predecessors had the balls to do the same for human
beings.

> Acknowledging the political sensitivity of his words, he departed from
>his
> prepared text to add: "It was not easy for me to say this

now lets see...a polish pope speaking in poland to a nation that is
99% catholic...yep took alot of guts...

delete the xx from my email address to reply

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97
to

Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:

>Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
>attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.

Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.

I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
tend to give more money to the church.

Nah.

--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis

sophist

unread,
Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97
to

Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>
> >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
> >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
>
> Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
> poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.

CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
marriage
to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
times.
This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
because one can't rely on themselves.

I know I shouldn't talk because of my situation. I am accountable for
that.
If I would have listened to my parents and my faith, I wouldn't have
gotten
pregnant in the first place.

>
> I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
> tend to give more money to the church.

I don't think this is a factor. I would think that rich people would
give more money because they have more to give.

-sophist

Bruce Forest

unread,
Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97
to

In article <5n9amq$2sh$1...@news9.gte.net>, sop...@gte.net wrote:

> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
> > >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
> >
> > Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
> > poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
>
> CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
> marriage
> to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
> times.

Then why is it when you see a plumber with 14 children he is usually
Catholic? I'd love to see statistics on the average number of children per
Catholic family, so I could see if this is merely a false perception, or is
actually true.


> This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
> control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
> because one can't rely on themselves.

If people had that much self control over the most instinctive behanior
there is, we wouldn't have the population problems that we do have. Do you
know what fertility ratings are? That is a measure used by the WHO and Red
Cross to denote the average number of children per woman in any particular
country. There is a direct correlation between high fertility ratings and
poverty. The fertility rating for the US is just below 2. The fertility
rating for Rwanda is more than NINE. That means the average number of
children per woman is nine kids. Interestingly, Rwandan men refuse to use
birth control.

Your idea is sound: the best birth control would not involve breachable
barriers or iffy chemicals. But reality isn't like that, unfortunatly.
Similarly, and as I've repeatedly said, I also wish abortion was obsolete.
But reality isn't like that.

>
> I know I shouldn't talk because of my situation. I am accountable for
> that.
> If I would have listened to my parents and my faith, I wouldn't have
> gotten
> pregnant in the first place.

And you are a fairly pious woman, too. Yet even you succumbed to instict.
How can you expect a few billion far less religious people to accept what
the Pope says, and throw away their birth control meds and devices?

>
> >
> > I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
> > tend to give more money to the church.
>
> I don't think this is a factor. I would think that rich people would
> give more money because they have more to give.

Perhaps rich people would give more per worshiper. But there are far more
poor people than rich people, and anecdotally, I once saw a stat that
illustrated that poor people give disproportionately to religious
organizations. (I can't remember where I saw it, but I'll try and find some
similar stats.) They spend more on lottery tickets too: I think both stats
would go to illustrate the overriding desire for greater fortune in their
lives.

--
Bruce Forest

bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.com
br...@sade.com
flex...@aol.com

"If it's long and dark green and its bite makes you scream that's a moray."

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97
to

sophist <sop...@gte.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:

>> >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
>> >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
>>
>> Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
>> poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
>
>CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
>marriage
>to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
>times.

And the term doctors use for women who use "Natural Family Planning"
is "pregnant".

More Catholic hypocrisy. Condoms are condemmed because they
artificially prevent conception, but NFP is acceptable because it
artificially prevents conception. What crap. It's just a scam to
make sure people have lots of kids, remain poor, and die in poverty.

The Church care nothing for democracy and rights, becuase these
concepts are at odds with a church doctrine that has all earthly
concerns be irrelevant. The Pope is the authority, and that which
challenges the Pope's authority is bad.

>This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
>control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
>because one can't rely on themselves.

In other words, sex is only for procreation.

>I know I shouldn't talk because of my situation. I am accountable for
>that.
>If I would have listened to my parents and my faith, I wouldn't have
>gotten
>pregnant in the first place.

And you're being justly punished for the sin of having sex.

>> I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
>> tend to give more money to the church.
>
>I don't think this is a factor.

Of course not.

> I would think that rich people would
>give more money because they have more to give.

But they don't give more, because they are educated enough to notice
that such a rich church uses the money for it's own purposes first.

John Savard

unread,
Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97
to

wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

>this in a country where, of 3.5million jews living in shtetl's before
>ww2, 1,000 survived.

Yes; we all remember how, in 1939, Poland invaded Germany and then proceeded to
set up concentration camps there to exterminate Germany's Jews as well as their
own.

John Savard

Leo Freeman

unread,
Jun 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/7/97
to


> Then why is it when you see a plumber with 14 children he is usually
> Catholic? I'd love to see statistics on the average number of children
per
> Catholic family, so I could see if this is merely a false perception, or
is
> actually true.

I'D like to see the statistics on the number of plumbers with 14 children!
=8-o

-------------------------------
Live long and prosper,

Leo


Christine A. Owens

unread,
Jun 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/7/97
to

sophist wrote:
>
> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Philip Pullella reports from Kalisz, Poland that Pope John Paul
> > >attacked abortion on Wednesday, condemning the practice as barbaric.
> >
> > Oh gee. The Pope is for having people make lots of babies and stay
> > poor. He's opposed to people taking control of their reproduction.
>
> CORRECTION. The Pope is for abstinence before marriage and after
> marriage
> to practice Natural Family Planning....to abstain during the fertile
> times.
> This is the ultimate control over reproduction because it forces self
> control....it relies on the self and not some chemical or other barrier
> because one can't rely on themselves.

And, it has an astonishingly high failure rate for two reasons:

1. The sort of 'self control' you are talking about means that a married couple must
abstain from sexual relations about half the time . . . which is highly incompatible
with the spontaneous expression of love; and VERY difficult if they have anything other
than the '9 to 5 standard' schedule.

2. Determining a woman's fertile period is not all that easy, and is readily
complicated by illness, travel, or emotional upset; and missing on the 'front end' may
mean that abstinence doesn't work because there are already live sperm in the woman's
body when the signs of fertility are detected.

Chris Owens

Paul Yost

unread,
Jun 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/7/97
to

> > I wonder if that's because poor people tend to be more religious and
> > tend to give more money to the church.
>
> I don't think this is a factor. I would think that rich people would
> give more money because they have more to give.
>
> -sophist

You might think so. But then, one way to get rich is to be frugal, a
virtue, or a tightwad. Ebeneezer Scrooge didn't accumulate his vast
fortune by being generous.


Chris Lyman

unread,
Jun 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/8/97
to

There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.

That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
control or other reproductive issues.

Many Catholics feel the same way.

--
Chris Lyman
If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Jun 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/9/97
to

On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:34:57 GMT, sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard)
wrote:

ah, a little ignorance goes a long way. why did jews in denmark escape
and those in poland didnt? persecution of jews in poland didnt stop
with the holocaust. cardinal glemp tried to make catholicism the state
religion...in 1992.

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,
Jun 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/11/97
to

In article <339b5658...@news.enter.net>, <wf...@enter.netxx> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:34:57 GMT, sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard)
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>
>>>this in a country where, of 3.5million jews living in shtetl's before
>>>ww2, 1,000 survived.
>>
>>Yes; we all remember how, in 1939, Poland invaded Germany and then proceeded to
>>set up concentration camps there to exterminate Germany's Jews as well as their
>>own.
>>
>ah, a little ignorance goes a long way. why did jews in denmark escape
>and those in poland didnt?

Learn something about WWII. Poland was an exception in Nazi occupied
counties as the government there stayed in power up to 1943 or so. Also
Denmark is close to Sweden which was neutral. One should compare the
situation with, say, France and not Denmark.

> persecution of jews in poland didnt stop
>with the holocaust. cardinal glemp tried to make catholicism the state
>religion...in 1992.
>

So? Protestantism is state religion in Denmark.

Osmo


Message has been deleted

Oze McCallum

unread,
Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97
to

Bruce Forest wrote:

<snip>

> Then why is it when you see a plumber with 14 children he is usually
> Catholic? I'd love to see statistics on the average number of children per
> Catholic family, so I could see if this is merely a false perception, or is
> actually true.

<snip>

Actually, I'd like to see the statistics on the average number of children of Catholic plumbers.

And, while we're at it, the average number of children of Protestant hairdressers with the last name of Mahoney.

BTW, how many plumbers HAVE you seen with 14 children?

Oze

Steve Esser

unread,
Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97
to

Pure Silk wrote:

>
> On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:09:08 +0000, chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
> wrote:
>
> >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
> >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
> >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
> >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
> >

Placing your immortal soul on the line by signing your name to teachings
of faith and morals is hardly to be considered "hiding". (BTW, is the
document, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", which I assume Chris is referring
to, considered to be an infallible pronouncement?)

> >That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
> >the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
> >interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
> >control or other reproductive issues.
> >
> >Many Catholics feel the same way.
>

> This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing
> Catholic, and left the church.

I give you credit for leaving the church instead of becoming a cafeteria
Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings you want to believe in.

> The church has become very hypocritical

On the contrary, it is the Catholic church which has been a stalwart of
Truth for nearly two millenia. It is the world which has become
self-centered and cynical. Truth has become relative. We have become our
own gods. Therefore, if I say abortion is okay, well then it must be.

> in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
> ultimate ruler of the world.

Too bad he couldn't be :-) I bet what he would really like is a day off.
He gets more done in a day before I even remember that God exists.

> >
> >--
> >Chris Lyman
> >If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
> >"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
> >to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."

--
Steve Esser notsesserATexecpcDOTcom
To flame me directly, remove "not" from my email address.
Cut taxes, starve the Beast!

Pure Silk

unread,
Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97
to

On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:09:08 +0000, chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
wrote:

>There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
>ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
>marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
>of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
>reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
>his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.
>

>That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
>the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
>interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
>control or other reproductive issues.
>
>Many Catholics feel the same way.

This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing

Catholic, and left the church. The church has become very hypocritical


in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
ultimate ruler of the world.
>

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97
to

On 11 Jun 1997 00:05:19 +0300, ronwrote:

>In article <339b5658...@news.enter.net>, <wf...@enter.netxx> wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:34:57 GMT, sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>ah, a little ignorance goes a long way. why did jews in denmark escape
>>and those in poland didnt?
>
>Learn something about WWII. Poland was an exception in Nazi occupied
>counties as the government there stayed in power up to 1943 or so

even more shameful as the poles had a long history of jewish
persecution.

. Also
>Denmark is close to Sweden which was neutral

so? moral courage was not demonstrated by the poles due to their long
history of persecution of jews.


>> persecution of jews in poland didnt stop
>>with the holocaust. cardinal glemp tried to make catholicism the state
>>religion...in 1992.
>>
>
>So? Protestantism is state religion in Denmark.

and when was that done? in the 17th century perhaps? wasnt aware that
contemporary poland was in the 17th century.

Matt Pillsbury

unread,
Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97
to

Steve Esser <nots...@execpc.com> writes:

> Pure Silk wrote:

> > On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:09:08 +0000, chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
> > wrote:

> > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
> > >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
> > >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
> > >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.

> Placing your immortal soul on the line by signing your name to teachings


> of faith and morals is hardly to be considered "hiding". (BTW, is the
> document, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", which I assume Chris is referring
> to, considered to be an infallible pronouncement?)

It's actually rather unclear. There is debate in the Catholic theological
community about whether this judgement is infallible or not. There was an
article about it in a recent Newsweek.

Also, I'm hardly an expert on Catholic doctrine, but even if it is an
infallible judgement, it seems that a later Pope (or even JPII) could change
things so that nuns have exactly the same duties and priveleges that priests
do, and then we simply would have gender-specific labels for a single position.

[...]



> > The church has become very hypocritical

> On the contrary, it is the Catholic church which has been a stalwart of
> Truth for nearly two millenia. It is the world which has become
> self-centered and cynical. Truth has become relative. We have become our
> own gods. Therefore, if I say abortion is okay, well then it must be.

The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from con-
sistant.

[...]

--Matt Pillsbury

Chris Lyman

unread,
Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97
to

nots...@execpc.com wrote:
# Pure Silk wrote:
# > chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) wrote:

# > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
# > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
# > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple
# > >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
# > >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
# > >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.

# Placing your immortal soul on the line by signing your name to teachings
# of faith and morals is hardly to be considered "hiding". (BTW, is the
# document, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", which I assume Chris is referring
# to, considered to be an infallible pronouncement?)

I just realized that I'm mistaken; JPII did *not* claim to be making
an infallible pronouncement. I'm truly sorry for any misunderstanding.

# > >That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch
# > >the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit
# > >interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth
# > >control or other reproductive issues.

# > >Many Catholics feel the same way.

# > This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing
# > Catholic, and left the church.

# I give you credit for leaving the church instead of becoming a cafeteria
# Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings you want to believe in.

# > The Church has become very hypocritical.

# On the contrary, it is the Catholic church which has been a stalwart
# of Truth for nearly two millenia. It is the world which has become
# self-centered and cynical. Truth has become relative. We have become
# our own gods. Therefore, if I say abortion is okay, well then it must be.

You don't know much history, do you? If the Church was a "stalwart of
truth", why were Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Newton, Darwin et al.
persecuted?

# > in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the
# > ultimate ruler of the world.

# Too bad he couldn't be :-) I bet what he would really like is a day off.
# He gets more done in a day before I even remember that God exists.

Does he have a blue ox? ;-)

Cheryl Morris

unread,
Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97
to

I do not know who said what I have cited below:

> >
> > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades.

The debate about allowing clergy to marry has been going on for more
than decades. It is one of the things which the Eastern Orthodox and
Roman Catholic Churches have been debating for over a thousand years.

Cheryl

Papa Jack

unread,
Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97
to

Pure Silk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:09:08 +0000, chr...@plonk.net
> >Chris Lyman wrote:
> >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
> >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
> >marry. This debate has been going on for decades. A couple

> >of years back, Pope John Paul II declared this debate over and
> >reaffirmed that priests can only be celibate males. To support
> >his position, he hid behind the doctrine of papal infallibility.

> >That was the moment I realized how irrelevant and out of touch


> >the Pope has become. Because of that, I'm not the least bit

> >interested in what the Pope has to say about abortion, birth

> >control or other reproductive issues.

> >Many Catholics feel the same way.

==================================================================


> Pure Silk wrote:
> This is specfically the reason that I am not longer a practicing

> Catholic, and left the church. The church has become very hypocritical


> in it's teachings and in my opinion, the Pope is trying to become the

> ultimate ruler of the world.

==================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Christians believe the New Testament is the inspired word of God.
The teachings concerning a woman's place in church are clear and
distinct. Thus, the Pope would have little choice considering
the following guidance:

1 Timothy, Chapter 2:

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided
hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
_________________________________________

1 Corinthians 14
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the
congregations of the saints,
34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak
in the church.
_________________________________________

Please remember, this is NOT me writing this. I am simply reporting
what the New Testament states. I do not want our feminists friends
screeching that Papa Jack said women should shut up in church. That's
the guidance to the early churches by the Apostle Paul.

Chris Lyman

unread,
Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97
to

papa...@express-news.net wrote:

# Christians believe the New Testament is the inspired word of God.
# The teachings concerning a woman's place in church are clear and
# distinct. Thus, the Pope would have little choice considering
# the following guidance:
#
# 1 Timothy, Chapter 2:
#
# 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest
# apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided
# hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
# 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
# 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
# 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
# the man, but to be in silence.
# 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
# 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
# the transgression.
# 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
# continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

# 1 Corinthians 14
# 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the
# congregations of the saints,
# 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
# to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
# 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
# own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak
# in the church.

# Please remember, this is NOT me writing this. I am simply reporting
# what the New Testament states. I do not want our feminists friends
# screeching that Papa Jack said women should shut up in church. That's
# the guidance to the early churches by the Apostle Paul.

Papa Jack is a Bible-thumper! Who would have thunk it? Unfortunately
for him, he doesn't know much about what he is talking about. He's not
aware, for instance, of 1st century worship practices, or that Paul was
addressing specific problems in the churches to which he was he was
writing. Papa Jack's interpretation of the above passages is based on
a cultural norm that has long since died, and keeping such an
interpretation in circulation is the equivalent of keeping Lenin's
body on display, pumped full of formaldehyde, at least imo.

Is Papa Jack aware that crucial roles in the development of the early
church were filled by women, as well as men? Consider the example
of Lydia: she was Paul's first European convert to Christianity. As a
woman of means, she provided the financial support for her city's first
Christian church. Then there's Phoebe, who Paul described as 'sister',
'deacon', and 'patroness', and who Paul regarded as a functional equal
in the early Church. And there's Priscilla, wife of Aquila. The two of
them preached the Gospel in Roman synagogues, and got booted out of
Rome for their trouble. They later founded a church in Ephesus. Paul
expressed his undying gratitude to *both* of them.

And let's not forget that Jesus welcomed women into his circle and
treated them with more respect than was generally given to women
in those days. Indeed the *first* person to see the risen Christ was
a woman, Mary Magdalene, and thus she became an apostle of the
Resurrection.

The shape of one's genitalia does not determine one's ability to teach,
to offer pastoral care or to administer the sacraments. I do wish
Papa Jack would stop presuming to speak for Christians.

Harry K.

unread,
Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97
to

Actually, I'd like to see the statistics on Rwandan Catholics...Heh,
heh!

Harry K.

Cheryl Morris

unread,
Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97
to

Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>
>
> The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from con-
> sistant.
>
Until the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
Orthodox Church were one and as such, I would imagine the Western part
of the Church operated under the same canon laws as the Eastern part,
and there were canon laws against abortion.

What happened for the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, I do not
know.

Cheryl

Alan B. Mac Farlane

unread,
Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97
to

The new testament writers, hated women big time.

Prior to that, the female or the Garden of Eden, that Eve chick, was
beguiled by the Serpent. The new testament people twisted that into Eve
as being the bringer of evil instead of knowledge, and she was conned just
like Adam was.

And the con games go on.

The female is still abused, and Congress wants to do an OJ on women.

Cut, make them bleed, kill them off for their own beliefs.

And dispite all this new testament brouhaha, one must deal with Exodus
21:22-27 that clearly shows a fetus is a zero.

It has no breath of life, it can not be killed, it has no soul.

Abortion is not murder.

SumBuddie

In article <chrisl-1506...@news.minn.net>, chr...@plonk.net

Alan B. Mac Farlane

unread,
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to

Hey guys and gals.

The Lisa Ryan chick is leave and go old Terry Meuwsen is back tomorrow.

I would rather see old thunder theighs woman instead of young sucking
penis woman on the Pat Robertson Show.

The new boycott stuff is:

Kingsford Charcoal (use natural Mesquite coals, much better stuff)
Miracle Grow
Hormel
Purina
Nabisco and


Lanacane. There is a new product called Tech-Nu that can get off the
grocery shelf, and it is all natural and will break down poison oak,
sumac, ivy oils under the skin. It is best used prior to contact with the
plants, but will work very well hours or days after contact. Just follow
directions, and apply as frequently as necessary to keep the itch away.

Oh.

Call up Chevy for me. At 1-800-950-TAHOE (7246) and ask for the
literature about the Chevy Tahoe.

They will want you phone number, tell them it is unlisted. They will want
to know what vehicle you drive right now, just lie to them, say a 92 BMW.
Give them your mailing address, let them know you saw their phone number
on tee-vee somewhere, play dumb.

Get about 20 million of so of you guys to turn the wheel and make them pay
big time for supporting the Jim Jones talk of Pat Robertson and his cult.

They want to destroy themselves for him, and take you with them.

That is if you cooperate.

Keep up the good work.

Alan

Peter Nyikos

unread,
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to

Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:

>Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>>
>>
>> The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from con-
>> sistant.

It's ALWAYS been a serious sin according to the Roman Catholic Church.
It's only the NATURE of the sin that has been debated. In the
Middle ages there was a general view, taken over from Aristotle,
that ensoulment happens only at 40 days for male unborn and
80 days for female unborn, but that only meant that abortion
prior to that point was not classed as "murder". It was still
a serious sin, though.

In the 1860's, with the advancement of our knowledge of how
conception happens, the RCC reverted to the old standard,
upheld by the early Church Fathers, that abortion is murder.

>Until the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
>Orthodox Church were one and as such, I would imagine the Western part
>of the Church operated under the same canon laws as the Eastern part,
>and there were canon laws against abortion.

>What happened for the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, I do not
>know.

See above.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208


Peter Nyikos

unread,
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to

Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:

>I do not know who said what I have cited below:
>> >

>> > >There's been this debate within the Catholic Church about the
>> > >ordination of women as priests and about allowing clergy to
>> > >marry. This debate has been going on for decades.

>The debate about allowing clergy to marry has been going on for more


>than decades. It is one of the things which the Eastern Orthodox and
>Roman Catholic Churches have been debating for over a thousand years.

And they haven't allowed either yet, have they? Eastern Orthodox
married men can become priests, but it doesn't work the other
way around, does it?

By the way, Cheryl, as long as I have you on the line, so to speak:
Have you gotten any of my e-mail responses to you? You've sent
me some very interesting e-mail in the past year from time
to time, but some of my e-mail replies to you bounced, and
all of it went unanswered as far as I can recall.

Matt Pillsbury

unread,
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to

Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:

> Matt Pillsbury wrote:

> > The RCC's position on abortion for the past 2000 years has been far from
> > consistant.

> Until the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
> Orthodox Church were one and as such, I would imagine the Western part
> of the Church operated under the same canon laws as the Eastern part,
> and there were canon laws against abortion.

Indeed.



> What happened for the Roman Catholic Church after the schism, I do not
> know.

AFAIK, the RCC has always had canon laws against abortion. It is simply that
the strength of the prohibition (or the magnitude of the sin) has varied
greatly over that time. From the strong initial prohibitions of the Didache to
an attitude throughout most of the High Middle Ages and Renaissance that made
abortion a *lesser* infraction than contraception (doesn't *that* sound weird
to our 20th century ears?)

--Matt Pillsbury

Oze McCallum

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

How about Rwandan Catholic plumbers with 14 children?

Oze

Oze McCallum

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

Chris Lyman wrote:

<snip>

> Is Papa Jack aware that crucial roles in the development of the early
> church were filled by women, as well as men? Consider the example
> of Lydia: she was Paul's first European convert to Christianity. As a
> woman of means, she provided the financial support for her city's first
> Christian church. Then there's Phoebe, who Paul described as 'sister',
> 'deacon', and 'patroness', and who Paul regarded as a functional equal
> in the early Church. And there's Priscilla, wife of Aquila. The two of
> them preached the Gospel in Roman synagogues, and got booted out of
> Rome for their trouble. They later founded a church in Ephesus. Paul
> expressed his undying gratitude to *both* of them.
>
> And let's not forget that Jesus welcomed women into his circle and
> treated them with more respect than was generally given to women
> in those days. Indeed the *first* person to see the risen Christ was
> a woman, Mary Magdalene, and thus she became an apostle of the
> Resurrection.
>
> The shape of one's genitalia does not determine one's ability to teach,
> to offer pastoral care or to administer the sacraments. I do wish
> Papa Jack would stop presuming to speak for Christians.

Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in the church. Just
that they should not be in a Pastor's role.


Oze

Oze McCallum

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

A quick question for you Alan.

If you don't like Pat Robertson or his show, why do you watch it?

Oze

Pat Winstanley

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
m...@ever.com> writes

>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
>the church. Just
>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.

Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?

Who says so?

Why should women who need guidance from the church have to talk about
intimate matters with a man, when those intimate matters concern the
woman's relationship with a man?

What gives men the knowledge and experience to be able to deal with
women's problems and concerns (rather than human in general problems
and concerns)?

What, exactly, do you see as a Pastor's role? What in that role excludes
women from performing that role?

Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"

*Thomas, Gordy*

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

> Oze McCallum wrote:
>
> A quick question for you Alan.
>
> If you don't like Pat Robertson or his show, why do you watch it?

Some people watch it.

Some people watch out for it.

Gordy Thomas

Oze McCallum

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

OK. I guess some clarification is in order. The way I read that message
from Paul Pat is that the leader of a church should be a man, not
necessarily that all counselors and or other teachers should be. In fact,
I think it would be very inappropriate if all of them were.

Oze

Alan B. Mac Farlane

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

He has Jim Jones or David Korish talk going on in his religion.

He says that all the Christian Fundamentals, the salt of the earth 700
club members are on the speartip of God with the droughts, floods, storms,
earthquakes, blizzards and the like getting them. And then later, God's
speartip with thrust on thru and get all the heathens and non - believers.

In Prophat Pat's world everybody dies, this is anti scriptural as well as
false prophacy. Heck some 2000 years ago he would have been stoned to
death by the good bereans.

But like most civilized societies, some people are alive, simply because
it is against the law to kill them. Though there are still a few good
bereans left.

I watch his program to ferit out more false prophacy and sickness, as well
as to work the boycott and take his money away.

He has the right of free speech and free press just like you and I do.

And that's ok.

He is a mulit millionair and a senator's son.

Fine pay for his religion of greed and stingyness.

Hope that is useful to you in addressing your quest.

Warmest regards.

Alan


In article <33A8AD...@ix.netcom.com>, "*Thomas, Gordy*"

John Savard

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
>m...@ever.com> writes

>>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
>>the church. Just
>>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.

>Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?

>Who says so?

Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.

Thus, for many Christians, the discussion comes to a sudden and absolute end. If
modern society is coming to a recognition that women have not been fairly
treated in the past, and the will to accept women as the equals of men, all well
and good...

provided it does not lead to any attempt whatsoever, in any way, shape or form,
to subject the Word of God to the sort of critical scrutiny that is willing to
accept other sources of information as capable of overruling the Word of God.

We may smile and shake our heads at those who hold such simple beliefs;

those who have bumper stickers that say: "God said it. I believe it. That
settles it.";

those who learned about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel as
children, and still take them seriously;

but the effort to forcibly suppress the practice of such beliefs, which is what
it ultimately boils down to, is wrong both because it is a violation of the
human rights described by the First Amendment ("Thou shalt not make for thyself
an established church...") and because, to the extent that such an effort is
successful in leading some to skepticism, those so led may throw the ethical
baby out with the superstitious bathwater.

John Savard

Alan B. Mac Farlane

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

I look at these religious bigots, their arrogance, blindness and manner
that they add and take away from the bible.

Oh Gawd, forgive them for they know not what they do.

And please send more comets.

My comments to them fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

They believe they are right.

Hitler and the SS believed they were right also.

Keep up the good work guys.

The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.

I can only wonder that the boycott of Prophet Pat Robertson is having an effect.

L8R

Alan

Matt Pillsbury

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard) writes:


> Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
> >m...@ever.com> writes
>
> >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed
> >>roles in the church. Just that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
>
> >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?

> >Who says so?

> Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.

> Thus, for many Christians, the discussion comes to a sudden and absolute end.
> If modern society is coming to a recognition that women have not been fairly
> treated in the past, and the will to accept women as the equals of men, all
> well and good...

[...]

> but the effort to forcibly suppress the practice of such beliefs, which is
> what it ultimately boils down to, is wrong both because it is a violation
> of the human rights described by the First Amendment ("Thou shalt not make
> for thyself an established church...") and because, to the extent that such
> an effort is successful in leading some to skepticism, those so led may
> throw the ethical baby out with the superstitious bathwater.

Of course, I would never propse that we make the Catholic (or any other) Church
accept women as clerics, for the reasons John gives above. As someone who isn't
a member of one of these sects, I really don't care.

Those who are pushing for recognition of women as clergy are not, in fact, sec-
ular humanists intent on running roughshod over the rights of Catholics, but
Catholics who want to bring their church more in line with their beliefs. If
the RCC is willing to alienate these people, that is it's decision.

As a non-Catholic, I think that the Catholics could relieve at least some of
the tension here, as well as head off a potential crisis because there aren't
enough priests in this country, by allowing married clergy. This would mean
they were consistant with just about every other branch of Christianity.

--Matt Pillsbury
matthew_...@brown.edu

DejaVu@--}--

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

John Savard wrote:
>
> Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
> >m...@ever.com> writes
>
> >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
> >>the church. Just
> >>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.
>
> >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
>
> >Who says so?
>
> Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.
SNIP>>
> John Savard
Actually man wrote the bible.....and we christians can only have the
faith that it was done in GOD's grace.....
as for women being in a pastorial role...I strongly dissagree!!
IMO John, I do not see any reasons why a woman would not be a good
pastor...to me it just seems un-natural.
theBOWHUNTRESS>>>>>---------->
RESPECTING THE NATURE OF WHAT THINGS ARE......

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 01:23:50 -0500, "Harry K." <jkp...@pressenter.com>
wrote:

>
>Actually, I'd like to see the statistics on Rwandan Catholics...Heh,
>heh!
>

actually quite a few have been implicated in the genocide there...the
international court of justice has served warrants for several rwandan
nuns now hiding in belgium.

Chris Lyman

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard) wrote:
# Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
# >Oze McCallum <NoSpam...@ever.com> writes
#
# >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much
# >>needed roles in the church. Just that they should not be in a
# >>Pastor's role.

# >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role? Who says so?
#
# Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.

Do you think that God said the following?

"Happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them
against the rock." -- Psalm 137:9

Or would you prefer to apply a more sophisticated hermeneutic to
your understanding of the Bible?

# Thus, for many Christians, the discussion comes to a sudden and
# absolute end.

Really? If that is indeed the case, then "Either this is not the gospel,
or we are not Christians", as Thomas Linacre exclaimed after reading
the Bible for the first time late in his life.

By this, I mean our society has evolved so far from the culture and norms
of the 1st Century, we couldn't possibly say that we are living the sort
of lives which are endorsed by the Bible. In the Bible,

* There is no endorsement for our democratic forms of government.

* There are plenty of explicit endorsements of slavery.

* There are plenty of implicit endorsements for Christians to
persecute Jews, especially in John's Gospel.

* There are implicit endorsements that it's ok to subjucate black people.

So either we toss our democratic, egalitarian society on the scrap heap
of history in order to conform our lives to what the Bible plainly says,

or,

We recognize that the *principles* espoused in the Bible should claim
our loyalty more than the cultural norms and practices of 1st century
Mediterranean societies.

Jeff & Ruth Bolton

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

DejaVu@--}-- wrote:
>
> John Savard wrote:
> >
> > Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <33A812...@ever.com>, Oze McCallum <NoSpam-to-
> > >m...@ever.com> writes
> >
> > >>Paul wasn't talking about the abilities of women to fulfill much needed roles in
> > >>the church. Just
> > >>that they should not be in a Pastor's role.

> >
> > >Why shouldn't they be in a pastor role?
> >
> > >Who says so?
> >
> > Why, God said so. It's in the Bible.
> SNIP>>
> > John Savard
> Actually man wrote the bible.....and we christians can only have the
> faith that it was done in GOD's grace.....
> as for women being in a pastorial role...I strongly dissagree!!
> IMO John, I do not see any reasons why a woman would not be a good
> pastor...to me it just seems un-natural.
> theBOWHUNTRESS>>>>>---------->
> RESPECTING THE NATURE OF WHAT THINGS ARE......

It seems un-natural because you have probably not seen a number of women
in a pastoral role.

The Bible does not say that women cannot be pastors. On the contrary,
the New Testament has a number of women who were in pastoral/teaching
roles. And they were commended by Paul!

Most of the passages used to deny full ministerial roles to women in the
church are problematic for the translators. Often words in the original
languages are difficult to translate so the translator, probably without
meaning to, falls back on his "comfort" zone.

If people would use passages that are easily translated as their focus,
the issue of women in pastoral and senior pastor roles would not be an
issue.

Alan B. Mac Farlane

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

Hi Guys and Gals.

Rupert Murdock owns the CBN channel now.

Keep taking the money away from him and Pat Robertson, make them pay for
their religion of corporate greed.

There was a chinese-american who was recently killed by a local police
officer. In Rhonert Park, California.

Citizen Kao, was drunk, angry, and waving a paint stick handle around in
the middle of the street at about 2 am.

The police officer who responded, was recently fired from the Rhonert Park
Fire Department for stealing government funds by jacking time cards, and
the City Fathers, said - hey we have to put you in law enforcement - you
are thief.

So this guy turns a corner, loses all police presence, actually he is a
perpatrator and drove his car to within 3 feet of Citizen Kao. Instead of
maintaining boundaries, able to use his other partners strength, the
police battons, or pepper spray, or even shoot to wound. The police dude,
got all scared for his life and blew Citzen Kao away, hand cuffed him, and
then refused to render medical aid or allow Citzen Kao's wife who was a
nurse to intervein. She was threatened with arrest for interfering with a
crime.

The local District Attorney, Mike Mullins, did a white wash with the paper
hanging policeman and his buddies on this murder.

This was very poor police work, with the policeman getting right into the
citizens face and not making an assessment of the situation. The
policeman set himself up for making the murder. This guy did not have on
body armor and was shooting an AK-47 folks, he was waving around a paint
stick on a drunk and could be easily handled.

Anyhow.

Call up 1-800-638-5225 and get some death benefits insurance for burial,
and toss it in the garbage - ok.

Just make them pay for supporting Pat Jonestown Robertson.

Kelloggs is still on the list.

And lets go for everything Italian now. The italian people can thank
Barillia pasta company for this, but they are so close to the corruption
of Rome. And want to destroy themselves and you guys also.

Keep turning the wheel.

We will get there.

Alan

Bob Koopman

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:40:19 -0700, abm...@sonic.net (Alan B. Mac
Farlane) wrote:

>I look at these religious bigots, their arrogance, blindness and manner
>that they add and take away from the bible.
>
>Oh Gawd, forgive them for they know not what they do.
>
>And please send more comets.
>
>My comments to them fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
>
>They believe they are right.
>
>Hitler and the SS believed they were right also.
>

No, the Nazis were socialistic left winged.


>Keep up the good work guys.
>
>The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.

That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.
Imagine taking your kids to Disneyland on "HOMO"day and them watching
HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!

God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.

Opposites ATTRACT.

Bruce Forest

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

And now, the fundie cliche of the week!


In article <33b75247...@news.idt.net>, bkoo...@eagleut.com wrote:

[....]


> God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.


[....]

I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that after he heard it from some
televangelist?

--
Bruce Forest

bfo...@mindspring.com
bfo...@snet.com
br...@sade.com
flex...@aol.com

"If it's long and dark green and its bite makes you scream that's a moray."

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:10:51 GMT, bkoo...@eagleut.com (Bob Koopman)
wrote:

>>
>No, the Nazis were socialistic left winged.

huh? where'd this come from? is that why hitler thought it was his god
given duty to destroy communism? because he was a communist?
sheesh...talk about screwed up ideas of history...

>>
>>The Baptists Fundamentals are not doing a boycott on Disneyland.
>
>That's because they believe in the perverse homosexual lifestyle.

ah, a little bigotry thrown in for good measure.

>Imagine taking your kids to Disneyland on "HOMO"day and them watching
>HOMOS kiss. It makes one naucious thinking about it.....BARF!!

then dont! DUH!!!


>
>God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve NOR Madam and Eve.

bumpersticky theology AND politics...yep, typical redneck.