Christianity and Copy Protection
Alvin
till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
certainly shows a unique form of morality.
Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
greatest sin.
Sure, piracy sucks and it hurts the industry, but as others have
pointed out, we will never stamp it out completely. Frankly, I find a
lot more things in life to be offensive such as lack of respect for
other people's religious beliefs.
If you really want to support the industry, spend your gaming dollars
on the smaller guys like Jowood or Strategy First instead of feeding
the EA and Valve cash cows.
tom
"Alvin" <alvinst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com...
> Crusted with Doritos chips and red eyes glued to a computer screen
> till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
> certainly shows a unique form of morality.
>
>
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
I don't recall anyone making fun of buddha here - the god that gave us
breath - perhaps I just missed that thread...
Tom
« Les »
> till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
> certainly shows a unique form of morality.
>
>
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
what makes you think the Christian god is my God? In fact why do assume the
Christian God is everyone elses god.
Joe Kramur
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
Maybe because, unlike video games, more people have been murdered, torchered
and oppressed in the name of religion than by any other single cause it
world history, except maybe racism.
Get your OT shit out of here.
Enno Rehling
> Get your OT shit out of here.
Press 'k'. Thread gone forever. If that doesn't work, change your
newsreader. But don't be so stupid to reply to troll-bait, because
chances are the original poster isn't even reading your message - or if
he is, then just to measure his success ("Look mom, I started an idiotic
thread that got 1,000 replies!").
Enno.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve
it through not dying. -- Woody Allen
Joe Kramur
"Enno Rehling" <en...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:blunm6$6me$1...@eressea.uni-paderborn.de...
faster_framerates
debatable.
Software piracy, OTOH, will be a thing of the past once distributors agree
upon a standard way to stop it altogether. And once it cuts into their
profits enough to make a difference.
I wish topics didn't cross paths in newsgroups either; however, we are only
human and newsgroups like this are like a family---you can't choose the
members who comprise it. In other words, we all have to get along.
I would gently suggest you choose your battles.
- f_f
"Alvin" <alvinst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com...
Arcana Dragon
news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com:
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
There is no god - or can you prove otherwise?
--
Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
d++e++N++T+++Om-KAWML!34567'!S'!8!9!u+uC+uF+++uG-u
LB®----uAnC+nH++nP+nI----nPT-nS+++nT----o---oE---xz
http://www.phyton.dk/games.htm
F r e e
i'm not in any church but you surely have a point.... that anti-piracy ferocity is moronic, everybody copies somthing sometimes.... like the jews that wrote the bible Did they pay copyrights to the babilonians? :-)
--
F r e e
I get my kicks in the quick flip-flops!
"Alvin" <alvinst...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com...
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>
>Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>greatest sin.
I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
1) They teach how it's great to be poor, and that rich people have
trouble getting into Heaven and yet the Catholic Church is the single
richest religious organisation on Earth, and the rest of the
God-botherers aren't exactly fucking poor.
2) The Pope tralks about how gays are an abomonation, and are evil.
3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
condoms are the Devil's work.
4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
nothing.
I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
can shove your religion up your arse.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Mark Morrison
Because he's a god with a big 'g', hence God.
Fuck the Christians - see my other post for details.
Philippe Duchon
> alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin) wrote in
> news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> > Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>
> There is no god - or can you prove otherwise?
If there is no god, then it's completely impossible to make fun of
him/her/it. I'm not sure whether it's acceptable, though.
Is it OK to debate the morality/acceptability/legality of impossible
deeds? More importantly - is it OT?
--
Philippe Duchon (duc...@labri.fr)
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the
> ability to operate a gamepad,
I haven't seen anyone mention Odin with a word. Sorry, you referred to
that hodgepodge mixture of Hebrew and Buddhist philosophy that the
Romans adopted in the death-throes of their empire - never mind.
And which of the 1,000 variants of the faith did you refer to?
Christians have generally had no problem to bash other Chrisitans over
petite differences in interpretation - at least on Usenet noone uses a
physical weapon to do the basing.
Ken Rice
says...
>On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
>wrote:
>>Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>>Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>>to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>>goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>>greatest sin.
>I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
>clip
>4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
>can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
>cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
>parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
>case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
>nothing.
>I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
>I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
>can shove your religion up your arse.
Isn't that exactly what the above referenced priests have been doing?
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
Alan Bernardo
"tom" <h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FLAgb.6588$f7.383682@localhost...
You might be right there, Tom. But while we're on the subject of Buddha,
don't you think the guy could've stood to lose a little weight? :)
Alanb
Tom Meyer
news:c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> >Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> >to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> >goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> >greatest sin.
>
> I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
Oh, I probably should resist the temptation to get involved in this
bullshit, but what the hell!
I think these are reasons why it's OK to bash Christians, but not why it's
OK to bash Christianity. The church is an institution of man. But then,
maybe for the purposes of this thread, there isn't meant to be any
distinction.
Brian Christopher Robinson
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
Because God doesn't exist and games do. Duh.
tom
> >
>
> You might be right there, Tom. But while we're on the subject of Buddha,
> don't you think the guy could've stood to lose a little weight? :)
>
> Alanb
Who am I to question a gods eating habits... sounds like blasphemy to me ;)
Tom
One Punch Mickey
> Frankly, I find a
> lot more things in life to be offensive such as lack of respect for
> other people's religious beliefs.
Or lack of respect for people who don't have religous beliefs.
Mark Morrison
>In article <c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com>, drdp...@aol.com
>says...
>
>>On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>>>Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>>>to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>>>goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>>>greatest sin.
>
>>I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
>
>>clip
>
>>4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
>>can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
>>cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
>>parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
>>case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
>>nothing.
>
>>I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
>
>>I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
>>can shove your religion up your arse.
>
>Isn't that exactly what the above referenced priests have been doing?
No, they've been shoving their cocks up boys arses.
But the principle's the same.
Hank
me with:
It does seem a little odd that a guy espousing such an
ascetic, spartan lifestyle would be really, really obese.
Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!
Hank
enlightened me with:
>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:48:10 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>
>>In article <c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com>, drdp...@aol.com
>>says...
>>
>>>On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>>>>Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>>>>to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>>>>goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>>>>greatest sin.
>>
>>>I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
>>
>>>clip
>>
>>>4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
>>>can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
>>>cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
>>>parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
>>>case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
>>>nothing.
>>
>>>I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
>>
>>>I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
>>>can shove your religion up your arse.
>>
>>Isn't that exactly what the above referenced priests have been doing?
>
>No, they've been shoving their cocks up boys arses.
>
>But the principle's the same.
Kudos to you for taking a stand and saying that the church
should stop trying to rehabilitate homosexuals by letting them become
priests. This was a liberal trend started in the '70s and has been an
unqualified disaster ... and were it not for the fact that a lot of
the early homosexual pederast entrants are now Bishops it would have
stopped already. I think the American brand of Catholicism will be
relegated to the fringes because of it.
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>"Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com...
>> On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>> >Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>> >to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>> >goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>> >greatest sin.
>>
>> I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
>
>Oh, I probably should resist the temptation to get involved in this
>bullshit, but what the hell!
>
>I think these are reasons why it's OK to bash Christians, but not why it's
>OK to bash Christianity. The church is an institution of man. But then,
>maybe for the purposes of this thread, there isn't meant to be any
>distinction.
>
If you'd read to the end I actually said
"I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
can shove your religion up your arse."
And if you can't judge a religion by it's followers, and what they do
in it's name and use it to justify it's behaviour, what criteria can
you judge it on ?
Mark Morrison
Can you prove games exist ?
That'll be the next question...
Joe62
<duc...@REMOVETHISlabri.fr> wrote:
>Is it OK to debate the morality/acceptability/legality of impossible
>deeds? More importantly - is it OT?
Sounds like this only part of this thread that IS on optic ... don't
we spend most of our time in these groups debating the merits of doing
impossible things in places that don't exist? ;-)
agray
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:20:05 -0400, "tom" <h...@hotmail.com> enlightened
> me with:
>
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> You might be right there, Tom. But while we're on the subject of
>>> Buddha,
>>> don't you think the guy could've stood to lose a little weight? :)
>>>
>>> Alanb
>>
>>Who am I to question a gods eating habits... sounds like blasphemy to me
>>;)
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
> It does seem a little odd that a guy espousing such an
> ascetic, spartan lifestyle would be really, really obese.
Hmmm... On behalf of any others who may be practicing buddhists here
besides me...
Siddhartha Gautama was not a god. Neither were any of the others who have
been called "buddha" since his day. "Buddha" simply means 'awakened one'
-- the meaning of which is open to interpretation, but generally is assumed
to involve some profound insight into the nature of reality.
Buddhism very specifically does not advocate a spartan lifestyle. It
advises moderation in all things. At the time of Siddhartha's writings,
many Hindu believed that the only way for a person to achieve spiritual
fulfillment was through extreme asceticism and self-denial. Much like
Christ overturning the tables of the moneylenders, Siddhartha created a
scandal by telling people that they did not need to follow a specific set
of rigid religious rules in order to be spiritual.
At any rate, the "fat guy" buddha is a representation of a Japanese monk
from (I believe) 14th century. I forget his name, but he's more important
to the Zen/Mahayana folk than to the Theravadim. The representations of
Buddha from mainland Asia (Burma, India, Tibet), show a man in the peak of
health. This is Siddhartha Gautama.
We have a saying: "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him." It's a
reminder that even Buddha is just a man. Also, it's a reminder that
anyone who claims to hold the absolute truth about anything (i.e. who
claims to be Buddha) is probably a liar or a charlatan.
Some buddhist sects involve gods or deities, but not all. And generally all
buddhists would agree that belief in (Gg)od(s) is not necessary to be a
buddhist.
Anyhow I hope you find this useful or at least not too pedantic :)
--
Andrew Gray
Yaay! We're doomed ---- GIR
Arcana Dragon
news:8236ovcm2mcf2vc9f...@4ax.com:
> Sounds like this only part of this thread that IS on optic ... don't
> we spend most of our time in these groups debating the merits of doing
> impossible things in places that don't exist? ;-)
LOL!!!
--
Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
d++e++N++T+++Om-KAWML!34567'!S'!8!9!u+uC+uF+++uG-u
LB®----uAnC+nH++nP+nI----nPT-nS+++nT----o---oE---xz
stePH
> You might be right there, Tom. But while we're on the subject of Buddha,
> don't you think the guy could've stood to lose a little weight? :)
>
Why bother? The physical body is transitory anyway.
stePH
--
NP: Echolyn, MEI
stePH
> what makes you think the Christian god is my God? In fact why do assume the
> Christian God is everyone elses god.
>
Arrogant self-righteousness is typical of most Christians I've encountered.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Can you prove games exist ?
I'd answer you if I thought you existed.
El Senor
> Crusted with Doritos chips and red eyes glued to a computer screen
> till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
> certainly shows a unique form of morality.
Nice troll!
-Mike
.hoy.
: alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin) wrote in
: news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com:
: > Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
: > Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
: There is no god - or can you prove otherwise?
but there certainly exists Copy Protection, and something so vile
could only be created from someone with the expressed intent to keep
the Holy process of Creation soley Hers.
--
.hoy.
Mark Morrison
Coby
> Sure, piracy sucks and it hurts the industry, but as others have
> lot more things in life to be offensive such as lack of respect for
> other people's religious beliefs.
ALVIN!!!
--
Coby
'69 Z28 '99 XX '01 FLSTF '01 XX '72 710M '03 Tiger
James_
>"Hnak the Rapper" wrote in message
>Knight37 wrote
>
> All we needed was another friggin' copyright thread. :(
>
>No, what we need is Alvin starting a crossposted thread named
>"Christianity and CD copy protection."
>
>;)
Bateau
\__/___ Alvin ran through the
LI-\o-' streets of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
| waving an axe and screaming:
/ \
<snip>
Wow he sure pulled in a big catch.
--
| _ .\ ~~ _ ^~
| <')_,/ , ; .\ >(')__, . ` ' ,
| (_~=/ \._`.'. .\ (_~_/ _, _..-''-._,____,----,____
| ='- \=~_) ; .\ ~^~~^~ ` (_~_/ `'--'` `~~~~)_)=\_\-.(
| -'= .\ ~^~ ~^~~^~
ICQ:11367619 EMAIL:bateau:-)jupiter-io.net WEB:http://tyrian2000.cjb.net
Phil-on-a-hill
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver....@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:ufzi4a...@broadpark.no...
> Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > Can you prove games exist ?
>
> I'd answer you if I thought you existed.
I'm not even sure I exist.
Alvin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> >Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> >goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> >greatest sin.
>
Bashing out of ignorance. Maybe you should wipe the sewage from your
eyes before commiting verbal vomit
> 1) They teach how it's great to be poor, and that rich people have
> trouble getting into Heaven and yet the Catholic Church is the single
> richest religious organisation on Earth, and the rest of the
> God-botherers aren't exactly fucking poor.
The Bible does not teach that's it's great to be poor. Also, being
poor does not always mean lack of monetary health.
> 2) The Pope tralks about how gays are an abomonation, and are evil.
Kudos to the Pope. It's unnatural and spreads disease. The person
isn't evil, but the act is.
> 3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
> they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
> condoms are the Devil's work.
Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa, and it's not getting the
job done. Condoms does not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
stop the spread of Aids.
> 4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
> can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
> cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
> parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
> case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
> nothing.
You're crazy if you think God approves of these actions.
> I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
>
> I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
> can shove your religion up your arse.
God hates religion. Reference Jesus and the Pharisees.
Alvin
> > Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>
Yes, in a lot more ways than you can prove that there is no god, or
did you die and come back from the grave to tell us there is no
afterlife?
Invader Zim
(snip)
>
> Kudos to you for taking a stand and saying that the church
> should stop trying to rehabilitate homosexuals by letting them become
> priests. This was a liberal trend started in the '70s and has been an
> unqualified disaster ... and were it not for the fact that a lot of
> the early homosexual pederast entrants are now Bishops it would have
> stopped already. I think the American brand of Catholicism will be
> relegated to the fringes because of it.
>
to go with this one for a second and ask you, what about the priests that
raped/rapes nuns then?
I doubt they're gay. In fact, I doubt homosexuality has anything to do with
rape at all, regardless of it's boys, girls, men, women or even animals
that are the victims.
-Invader Zim
Spam Cop
> I don't open unknow attachments.
>
>
> "Enno Rehling" <en...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:blunm6$6me$1...@eressea.uni-paderborn.de...
1. Your Newsreader can't handle OpenPGP/MIME (RF 2440, November 1996)
2. Your Newsreader can't deal with MIME (RFC 2045, November 1997)
3. Your Newsreader ignores Followup-To: poster (RFC 1036, December
1987)
4. You don't know how to ignore a troll.
You're working with software that became outdated in 1987. That's
kinda like self-flaggelation, I never understoof why people do that,
either. Gotta have religion involved.
FYI, the post that you couldn't read is here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&frame=right&th=cf60a3afa895c9bd&seekm=d2ec46.0310070658.5e70f69c%40posting.google.com#link9
Hank
enlightened me with:
And non-Christians aren't? I think you just proved yourself
wrong ... zealots of every religion are righteous ... but the
anti-religious zealots are the worst, because as soon as they hear a
religious term they're off on some tirade ... and then rationalize it
by insisting that supposedly some religious group does it all of the
time ... to someone. Yet strangely I have never had it happen to
me, or anyone I know, and I'm not religious at all.
However, anti-religious freakazoids going nuts I see all of
the time ... especially in here.
Hank
<hahano...@death.poo> enlightened me with:
What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
infallible by becoming priests? Bad people can't become priests? Of
course they can. He was simply trying to allege that priests were
all out having sex with boys ... which isn't true. The % of priests
guilty of molestation is almost identical to the % of Yale professors
guilty of molestation, yet I don't hear him insulting Yale professors,
who by and large are probably pretty good people.
You might have a point if something in Catholicism said you
should go rape nuns or have sex with boys. It says nothing of the
kind. If pederast homosexuals get into the priesthood, it's because
they get in either by lying or by allowance from other pederasts in
the priesthood.
My point was that while the Church does not prohibit
homosexuals from joining the priesthood, it does prohibit
homosexuality and certainly sex with minors. What they need to do to
re-establish trust is to stop insisting that they will change
homosexuals by letting them into the priesthood and start protecting
the congregation. Condemning many to try and save a few has been a
huge mistake and it started when the church liberalized its stance.
They have now had to spend a whole lot of money in settlements ... so
hopefully they will get a clue.
H
Michael Cargill
news:i9e6ov0gfbp003938...@4ax.com...
>
> And non-Christians aren't? I think you just proved yourself
> wrong ... zealots of every religion are righteous ... but the
> anti-religious zealots are the worst, because as soon as they hear a
> religious term they're off on some tirade ... and then rationalize it
> by insisting that supposedly some religious group does it all of the
> time ... to someone. Yet strangely I have never had it happen to
> me, or anyone I know, and I'm not religious at all.
> However, anti-religious freakazoids going nuts I see all of
> the time ... especially in here.
Thats because religion is bullshit, and it is annoying hearing people talk
about it as if it was real.
Hearing people talk about The Force in Star Wars as if it was real is just
as ludicrous.
--
Craftily Guffed by Michael Cargill
----------------------------------
Eat My Cheese!
Go, Dog. Go!
Hnak the Rapper
Now I know how Jerry Seinfeld felt like when he made Elaine ask Poppy
about his thoughts on abortion. :)
Hank
<mikeme...@myrealbox.com> enlightened me with:
>"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
>news:i9e6ov0gfbp003938...@4ax.com...
>>
>> And non-Christians aren't? I think you just proved yourself
>> wrong ... zealots of every religion are righteous ... but the
>> anti-religious zealots are the worst, because as soon as they hear a
>> religious term they're off on some tirade ... and then rationalize it
>> by insisting that supposedly some religious group does it all of the
>> time ... to someone. Yet strangely I have never had it happen to
>> me, or anyone I know, and I'm not religious at all.
>> However, anti-religious freakazoids going nuts I see all of
>> the time ... especially in here.
>
>Thats because religion is bullshit, and it is annoying hearing people talk
>about it as if it was real.
>Hearing people talk about The Force in Star Wars as if it was real is just
>as ludicrous.
Thank you for proving my point.
Highlandish
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
>
> pointed out, we will never stamp it out completely. Frankly, I find a
> lot more things in life to be offensive such as lack of respect for
> other people's religious beliefs.
>
>
> on the smaller guys like Jowood or Strategy First instead of feeding
> the EA and Valve cash cows.
fuck Christianity and all gods, good and evil is a man made concept that
only exists in this universe inside our minds.
however, at all times, thou shalt not steal. do not take a mans properties,
his time, his ideas, his happiness or future.
--
Do not fear the reaper, you can't go to hell twice.
Add the word "USENET" to the subject line to email me.
white-list mail filter in use
Highlandish
> Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa, and it's not getting the
> job done. Condoms does not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
> Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
> the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
> stop the spread of Aids.
are you kidding, the only natural high 3rd world sufferers get when they
have no money is to shag, you wanna take their last free enjoyment away? you
god freaks have no grip on reality.
> God hates religion. Reference Jesus and the Pharisees.
god is not jesus.
Coby
> Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com>...
>
> Kudos to the Pope. It's unnatural and spreads disease. The person
> isn't evil, but the act is.
LOL. You could say the same thing about posting to Usenet.
> You're crazy if you think God approves of these actions.
Insane leprechaun-lovers kill me. Thanks fer the laffs!
Coby
> Arcana Dragon <thi...@n.invalid.adress.com> wrote in message
> news:<3f82e49c$0$83049$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>...
>
> Yes, in a lot more ways than you can prove that there is no god, or
> did you die and come back from the grave to tell us there is no
> afterlife?
He doesn't need to (dis)prove anything. You're the one with this whacky and
highly improbable notion about an invisible leprechaun that exists outside of
time and controls our destinies.
brian
> have no money is to shag, you wanna take their last free enjoyment away?
Only natural high? Last free enjoyment??
What about GOD?! He who so lavishly fills their plates.. or um, hands..
with food and.. wait, nevermind.
Michael Cargill
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:40:10 +0100, "Michael Cargill"
> <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> enlightened me with:
> >>
> >> wrong ... zealots of every religion are righteous ... but the
> >> anti-religious zealots are the worst, because as soon as they hear a
> >> religious term they're off on some tirade ... and then rationalize it
> >> by insisting that supposedly some religious group does it all of the
> >> time ... to someone. Yet strangely I have never had it happen to
> >> me, or anyone I know, and I'm not religious at all.
> >> However, anti-religious freakazoids going nuts I see all of
> >> the time ... especially in here.
> >
> >Thats because religion is bullshit, and it is annoying hearing people
talk
> >about it as if it was real.
> >Hearing people talk about The Force in Star Wars as if it was real is
just
> >as ludicrous.
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
Please point out the zealotry in my reply.
Joe Kramur
"Spam Cop" <schick....@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9f58d067.03100...@posting.google.com...
> "Joe Kramur" <.@.> wrote in message
news:<3f82e0a7$0$35830$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com>...
> > I don't open unknow attachments.
> >
> >
> > "Enno Rehling" <en...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > news:blunm6$6me$1...@eressea.uni-paderborn.de...
>
> 1. Your Newsreader can't handle OpenPGP/MIME (RF 2440, November 1996)
> 2. Your Newsreader can't deal with MIME (RFC 2045, November 1997)
> 3. Your Newsreader ignores Followup-To: poster (RFC 1036, December
> 1987)
> 4. You don't know how to ignore a troll.
I guess I'm not the only one. lol
>
> You're working with software that became outdated in 1987.
As you might be able to see from the headers of my post (under X-message)
I'm using OE6 which, as far as I know, is using default settings. But I'll
take a closer look at my properties. Thanks.
> That's
> kinda like self-flaggelation, I never understoof why people do that,
> either. Gotta have religion involved.
I'm not sure I understood the interconnectedness of your last three
sentences.
Sure, I'll check the thread in Deja.
Dirtyred
> Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!
My hamster's bigger than your hamster!!!11!!!!!!
Eric Nielsen
for Jesus.
Invader Zim
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:22:16 +0200, "Invader Zim"
> <hahano...@death.poo> enlightened me with:
>
>> Hank wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Kudos to you for taking a stand and saying that the church
>>> should stop trying to rehabilitate homosexuals by letting them
>>> become priests. This was a liberal trend started in the '70s and
>>> has been an unqualified disaster ... and were it not for the fact
>>> that a lot of
>>> the early homosexual pederast entrants are now Bishops it would have
>>> stopped already. I think the American brand of Catholicism will be
>>> relegated to the fringes because of it.
>>>
>> while i'm not sure that was exactly what mark was trying to say, i'm
>> going to go with this one for a second and ask you, what about the
>> priests that raped/rapes nuns then?
>> I doubt they're gay. In fact, I doubt homosexuality has anything to
>> do with rape at all, regardless of it's boys, girls, men, women or
>> even animals that are the victims.
>>
>> -Invader Zim
>>
>
> What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
> infallible by becoming priests?
um, no. at what point did i state ANYTHING of the kind? I asked you a
question about priests raping nuns and asserted that rape has nothing to do
with sexual orientation.
I'm also of the opinion that there's more of the priests rape nuns than the
priests that rape boys.
Again, homosexuality has nothing to do with rape.
Bad people can't become priests? Of
> course they can. He was simply trying to allege that priests were
> all out having sex with boys ... which isn't true. The % of priests
> guilty of molestation is almost identical to the % of Yale professors
> guilty of molestation, yet I don't hear him insulting Yale professors,
> who by and large are probably pretty good people.
> You might have a point if something in Catholicism said you
> should go rape nuns or have sex with boys. It says nothing of the
> kind.
I never claimed it did.
If pederast homosexuals get into the priesthood, it's because
> they get in either by lying or by allowance from other pederasts in
> the priesthood.
that has nothing to do with my question.
> My point was that while the Church does not prohibit
> homosexuals from joining the priesthood, it does prohibit
> homosexuality and certainly sex with minors. What they need to do to
> re-establish trust is to stop insisting that they will change
> homosexuals by letting them into the priesthood and start protecting
> the congregation.
that still doesn't address the issue of priests raping nuns. I also doubt
they feel they can "change" homosexuals any more than heterosexuals, as the
priests aren't supposed to have a sexuality at all.
Homosexuals don't have sex with minors either unless they're wrong in the
head.
Condemning many to try and save a few has been a
> huge mistake and it started when the church liberalized its stance.
> They have now had to spend a whole lot of money in settlements ... so
> hopefully they will get a clue.
Again, it still won't change the issue of priests raping nuns.
the only possible solution to this issue, if we were to follow your example,
would be to disallow all heterosexuals from becoming priests. Because hey,
only straight people rape people of the opposite sex.
Now MY solution is to either get rid of the church completely, or to stop
covering up what goes on behind closed doors and actually punish the
perpetrators. A crime is a crime, it doesn't matter what your sexual
orientation is. It should be punished equally.
-Invader Zim
Invader Zim
> Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>>> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the
>>> ability
>>> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>>> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited
>>> the
>>> greatest sin.
>>
>> I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
>
> Bashing out of ignorance. Maybe you should wipe the sewage from your
> eyes before commiting verbal vomit
>
>
>> 1) They teach how it's great to be poor, and that rich people have
>> trouble getting into Heaven and yet the Catholic Church is the single
>> richest religious organisation on Earth, and the rest of the
>> God-botherers aren't exactly fucking poor.
>
>
> The Bible does not teach that's it's great to be poor. Also, being
> poor does not always mean lack of monetary health.
>
>
>> 2) The Pope tralks about how gays are an abomonation, and are evil.
>
> Kudos to the Pope. It's unnatural and spreads disease.
who are you to define what's natural and what isn't?
And how does it spread disease anymore than "normal" sex does?
The person
> isn't evil, but the act is.
Morality (as in good vs. evil) is confined to culture, not a universal fact
of life. To state otherwise would be a show of arrogance, prejudice and
intolerance.
>
>
>> 3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
>> they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
>> condoms are the Devil's work.
>
> Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa, and it's not getting the
> job done. Condoms does not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
> Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
> the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
> stop the spread of Aids.
newsflash: millions of people in Africa don't even know what AIDS nor
condoms ARE. Why don't YOU go read a "freaking" sociology study on the
matter before uttering such BS.
-Invader Zim
Invader Zim
that is not a valid argument for the existence of god.
i could tell you i believe in cthulhu and that he lies sleeping under the
sea. you can't disprove that fact because you haven't been under the sea to
witness the absense of his great slumbering body, just like I haven't died
and come back to tell everyone that there is no afterlife.
now, if you had quoted Decartes' meditations, or even referred to him, you
would have had a both valid and sound argument for the existence of god,
however the problem lies in whether or not the people debating this issue
agree with Descartes' premisses.
-Invader Zim
Mark Morrison
>"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
>news:i9e6ov0gfbp003938...@4ax.com...
>>
>> And non-Christians aren't? I think you just proved yourself
>> wrong ... zealots of every religion are righteous ... but the
>> anti-religious zealots are the worst, because as soon as they hear a
>> religious term they're off on some tirade ... and then rationalize it
>> by insisting that supposedly some religious group does it all of the
>> time ... to someone. Yet strangely I have never had it happen to
>> me, or anyone I know, and I'm not religious at all.
>> However, anti-religious freakazoids going nuts I see all of
>> the time ... especially in here.
>
>Thats because religion is bullshit, and it is annoying hearing people talk
>about it as if it was real.
>Hearing people talk about The Force in Star Wars as if it was real is just
>as ludicrous.
Oops - now you've pissed off all the Jedis !!!
You'd better hope only the Light Side ones find you...
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Michael Cargill
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:40:10 +0100, "Michael Cargill"
> <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >Thats because religion is bullshit, and it is annoying hearing people
talk
> >about it as if it was real.
> >Hearing people talk about The Force in Star Wars as if it was real is
just
> >as ludicrous.
>
> Oops - now you've pissed off all the Jedis !!!
>
> You'd better hope only the Light Side ones find you...
My Dr Spock impression will keep them at bay.
Nanoo-nanoo!
Lynley James
wrote:
>
>"tom" <h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:FLAgb.6588$f7.383682@localhost...
>>
>> "Alvin" <alvinst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com...
>> > Crusted with Doritos chips and red eyes glued to a computer screen
>> > till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
>> > certainly shows a unique form of morality.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>> > Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>> > to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>> > goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>> > greatest sin.
>>
>> I don't recall anyone making fun of buddha here - the god that gave us
>> breath - perhaps I just missed that thread...
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>
>You might be right there, Tom. But while we're on the subject of Buddha,
>don't you think the guy could've stood to lose a little weight? :)
>
>Alanb
>
You saying he sets a bad example for all those that follow his
teachings?
Lynley ;O)
Mark Morrison
wrote:
> What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
>infallible by becoming priests? Bad people can't become priests? Of
>course they can. He was simply trying to allege that priests were
>all out having sex with boys ... which isn't true. The % of priests
>guilty of molestation is almost identical to the % of Yale professors
>guilty of molestation, yet I don't hear him insulting Yale professors,
>who by and large are probably pretty good people.
Yes, but what if Yale was covering up all the allegations against
their professors ?
Or told the parents that their children were liars, then quietly moved
the professor away to 'meditate' for a while, then sent them to
another university where only their immendiate superiors were told
they were rapists ?
The fact that priests abused boys in their care is bad enough, but for
the Church to go to extreme legths to cover it up, for the sake of
their reputation, is sickening.
And to THEN stand in front of a congregation/TV and preach on how
important it is to be chaste and truthful is just fucking obscene.
Oh, and the questions of abuse by priests and homosexuals as clergy
are 2 entirely seperate issues.
Gay men don't become priests in order to abuse children - pedophiles
do.
It just pisses me off when you have the Pope saying, in official
statements when talking about the rift in the Anglican Church between
the ones who wants gays to be ordained and the ones who don't, that
"Although being homosexual isn't a sin, practising homosexualtily is a
vile and evil act" when, for God knows how long, his own church has
been covering up the fact that a known number of piests have been
sodomising boys in their care without fear of punishment. Not only
without fear of punishment, but in the knowledge that if the kids DO
tell another priest, it'll get covered up and the offendingpriest
moved to a new parish where he's free to start again.
And this is why I dislike Christianity - they preach one thing while
practising another. They are free to do whatever they want, while
telling Christians how to live their lives in accordance to Christ's
teaching. And then CHARGE MONEY FOR IT !!!
Fucking unreal.
Mark Morrison
This is a long post, but people like Alvin annoy me. If this thread
is already pissing you off, this is going to make it worse. Just skip
it...
On 7 Oct 2003 14:57:07 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
wrote:
>Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<c4q5ovsb5537q0dbh...@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
>> >Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
>> >to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
>> >goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
>> >greatest sin.
>>
>> I think it's OK to bash Christianity because -
>
>Bashing out of ignorance. Maybe you should wipe the sewage from your
>eyes before commiting verbal vomit
Ignorance ? I had RE studies in school and I follow what happens in
the press.
>
>> 1) They teach how it's great to be poor, and that rich people have
>> trouble getting into Heaven and yet the Catholic Church is the single
>> richest religious organisation on Earth, and the rest of the
>> God-botherers aren't exactly fucking poor.
>
>
>The Bible does not teach that's it's great to be poor. Also, being
>poor does not always mean lack of monetary health.
Then what about all the "It is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of
Heaven" ?
And the big show Christ put on tipping over the moneylenders tables ?
>> 2) The Pope tralks about how gays are an abomonation, and are evil.
>
>Kudos to the Pope. It's unnatural and spreads disease. The person
>isn't evil, but the act is.
Heterosexual sex spreads disease, too. In fact, in the UK STD's are
on the rise among teens and people in their twenties. Now, unless
they're all gay...
>> 3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
>> they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
>> condoms are the Devil's work.
>
>Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa, and it's not getting the
>job done. Condoms does not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
>Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
>the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
>stop the spread of Aids.
>
Condoms aren't being used among Christian Africans, because their
local Churches tell them not to use them. The churches would rather
see the spread of AIDS continue, and families continue to have babies
by the dozen in a country that's can't support them, than face up to
the simple truth that people like to fuck, and will do so.
This isn't the only cause, of cause. They also have a pile of
witch-doctors going around telling people they can cure AIDS.
I read a story a few months ago about witch-doctors telling peopel
that sex with a virgin blood will cure AIDS. The result ? A huge
increase in rapes of young girls, with babies as young as 2 being
raped by men desperate to cure their AIDS.
Religion, eh ?
>
>> 4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
>> can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
>> cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
>> parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
>> case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
>> nothing.
>
>You're crazy if you think God approves of these actions.
This is the important point people like you fail to make - to the
Church, spreading the word of God, and living according to His
teachings, is a distant second to their primary goal - protect the
Church.
It has always been this way way. They've messed around with dates and
events to increase the spread of their religion, edited and rewritten
the Bible, made up rules so that people are forced to come to Church
unless they want to go to Hell (Hello ? Confession ?!?! God is
everwhere, but you're not allowed to ask forgiveness unless you go to
a church and ask a PRIEST for God's forgiveness. Biggest scam ever !)
What God wants you to do isn't terrible important to the church - they
just want to to do as to do as they say. And only they know what God
wants.
>> I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
>>
>> I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
>> can shove your religion up your arse.
>
>
>God hates religion. Reference Jesus and the Pharisees.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11789b.htm
http://www.acts1711.com/jesus2a.htm
I didn't see anything about God hating religion.
This first link mentions the Pharisees as the precursors to modern
Christianity.
Interestingly, the second link gives us this...
"I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in
the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him
that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book."
Now I'm no theologian, but it reads to me that Christ gave us the word
of God, and to add or remove from that text, is prohibited by God (and
punishable by all sorts of things - banishment, death, plagues).
So you have God on one side, and the Christian Church on the other.
The question is, Alvin, what are you following ?
Christianity, or God and Christ ? It looks like you can't have
both...
magnulus
Catholic priests did some bad things, therefore all Christians are liars and
cons).
Mark Morrison
<mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>"Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:8ju7ovombvhen0cj2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:40:10 +0100, "Michael Cargill"
>> <mikeme...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Thats because religion is bullshit, and it is annoying hearing people
>talk
>> >about it as if it was real.
>> >Hearing people talk about The Force in Star Wars as if it was real is
>just
>> >as ludicrous.
>>
>> Oops - now you've pissed off all the Jedis !!!
>>
>> You'd better hope only the Light Side ones find you...
>
>My Dr Spock impression will keep them at bay.
>Nanoo-nanoo!
ROFL !
Hank
enlightened me with:
>Hank wrote:
>> Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!
>
>My hamster's bigger than your hamster!!!11!!!!!!
>
It's a genetic thing. You shouldn't make fun of people
because your hamster was born gifted.
stePH
> god is not jesus.
>
In my understanding of Christian beliefs, Jesus *is* God, in the form of
man.
stePH
--
NP: Transatlantic, SMPTe "In Held ('twas) In I"
Hank
enlightened me with:
>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:23:34 GMT, Hank <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
>>infallible by becoming priests? Bad people can't become priests? Of
>>course they can. He was simply trying to allege that priests were
>>all out having sex with boys ... which isn't true. The % of priests
>>guilty of molestation is almost identical to the % of Yale professors
>>guilty of molestation, yet I don't hear him insulting Yale professors,
>>who by and large are probably pretty good people.
>
>Yes, but what if Yale was covering up all the allegations against
>their professors ?
Both instances are crimes. No one here stated that the
Church was right in covering up anything.
>
>Or told the parents that their children were liars, then quietly moved
>the professor away to 'meditate' for a while, then sent them to
>another university where only their immendiate superiors were told
>they were rapists ?
I agree. This is a shocking concern. And in many cases
you'll find that the bishops in charge were homosexual ... and the
priests had the dirt on them. But that isn't the official story ...
the official story is that the Bishops were practicing 'forgiveness.'
Again, if the church would get back to its roots ... being a
moral force in the world, instead of something I have to look
suspiciously at regarding my children because they have chosen to
engage in social engineering, it would have a lot more credibility
than it does now.
>Oh, and the questions of abuse by priests and homosexuals as clergy
>are 2 entirely seperate issues.
>
>Gay men don't become priests in order to abuse children - pedophiles
>do.
There were very few pedophiles. These were pederasts and only
interested in boys. If you have sex with a 16 year old girl, you are
not a pedophile, except to people who don't know the difference.
You are, however, a pederast and will go to jail. Yet the 16 year
old may look like an adult ... and a child does not.
But if your overall point were true ... that homosexuality
isn't the issue ... then there would be a lot more girls that were
victims. And there aren't. So it is very much a gay men issue.
>And this is why I dislike Christianity - they preach one thing while
>practising another. They are free to do whatever they want, while
>telling Christians how to live their lives in accordance to Christ's
>teaching. And then CHARGE MONEY FOR IT !!!
>
>Fucking unreal.
I don't think you can blame Christianity in general for the
crimes committed by some Catholic priests. Well, you can, because
you hate religion with the same irrationality and intolerance that
some religious people hate you. That doesn't make your brand of
zealotry better than theirs.
joe~V~3838
"Alan Bernardo" <mas...@oforion.net> wrote in message news:v7Cgb.58029$%h1.42296@sccrnsc02...
>
> "tom" <h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FLAgb.6588$f7.383682@localhost...
> >
> > "Alvin" <alvinst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com...
> > > Crusted with Doritos chips and red eyes glued to a computer screen
> > > till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
> > > certainly shows a unique form of morality.
> > >
> > >
> > > Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath and the ability
> > > to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> > > goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> > > greatest sin.
> >
> > breath - perhaps I just missed that thread...
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
> You might be right there, Tom. But while we're on the subject of Buddha,
> don't you think the guy could've stood to lose a little weight? :)
>
> Alanb
>
I don't know, He'd be right at Home in the USA !
joe
Hank
enlightened me with:
>>> 3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
>>> they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
>>> condoms are the Devil's work.
>>
>>Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa, and it's not getting the
>>job done. Condoms does not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
>>Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
>>the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
>>stop the spread of Aids.
>>
>Condoms aren't being used among Christian Africans, because their
>local Churches tell them not to use them. The churches would rather
>see the spread of AIDS continue, and families continue to have babies
>by the dozen in a country that's can't support them, than face up to
>the simple truth that people like to fuck, and will do so.
Not to interrupt, but it's a little funny that the one
organization that promotes abstinence before marriage, no infidelity,
no homosexuality and no drug use is somehow being blamed by you for
creating the one disease that didn't exist before rampant
homosexuality and IV drug use became fashionable.
You will likely find a way to blame the church for the budget
deficit as well.
I think you just hate religion, which is fine, but you're
trying to rationalize it in a lot of silly ways. Just accept your
hatred and move on with life.
Hank
<hahano...@death.poo> enlightened me with:
>>> while i'm not sure that was exactly what mark was trying to say, i'm
>>> going to go with this one for a second and ask you, what about the
>>> priests that raped/rapes nuns then?
>>> I doubt they're gay. In fact, I doubt homosexuality has anything to
>>> do with rape at all, regardless of it's boys, girls, men, women or
>>> even animals that are the victims.
>>>
>>> -Invader Zim
>>>
>>
>> What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
>> infallible by becoming priests?
>
>um, no. at what point did i state ANYTHING of the kind? I asked you a
>question about priests raping nuns and asserted that rape has nothing to do
>with sexual orientation.
>I'm also of the opinion that there's more of the priests rape nuns than the
>priests that rape boys.
>Again, homosexuality has nothing to do with rape.
Okay, maybe I did misunderstand your point then. You're not
really making valid comparisons. You're trying to say that because
97% of the child assaults were on boys ( and thus a homosexual issue )
and 100% of the nun assaults were on women ( thus a heterosexual issue
) that the rapes are the bigger issue and homosexuality is not a
factor?
I don't know the numbers on priest rape worldwide ... I know
that in the US they aren't even close to homosexual pederasty in the
priesthood. I think you really have to broaden the definition of
rape to say that violent intercourse against nuns is the same as abuse
of authority and seduction of children. Both are crimes, but much
different forms.
So are you contending that, given the same circumstances in
remote Africa or wherever, the raping priests would have raped men?
We do know that the molesting priests had no interest at all in girls
... so it is a homosexual issue and not simply a child abuse issue.
I think that needs to be addressed. If the instances of nun rape are
as high as you claim, that certainly merits concern, but it wasn't the
concern I was posting about, since I don't know much on the subject
... whereas homosexual pederasty in priest numbers are widely
available.
>
>> My point was that while the Church does not prohibit
>> homosexuals from joining the priesthood, it does prohibit
>> homosexuality and certainly sex with minors. What they need to do to
>> re-establish trust is to stop insisting that they will change
>> homosexuals by letting them into the priesthood and start protecting
>> the congregation.
>
>that still doesn't address the issue of priests raping nuns. I also doubt
>they feel they can "change" homosexuals any more than heterosexuals, as the
>priests aren't supposed to have a sexuality at all.
>
>Homosexuals don't have sex with minors either unless they're wrong in the
>head.
Exactly ... but this was my critique of the liberalization of
the American church and the problems it caused. They truly believed
that all homosexuals were conflicted and in pain and letting them into
the priesthood would give them a way to deal with that pain. The
priesthood would change them rather than them changing the priesthood.
Clearly this was not the case ... some pederasts were going to get
into the priesthood, once the church position changed, simply to have
more opportunities.
>Condemning many to try and save a few has been a
>> huge mistake and it started when the church liberalized its stance.
>> They have now had to spend a whole lot of money in settlements ... so
>> hopefully they will get a clue.
>
>Again, it still won't change the issue of priests raping nuns.
Maybe those priests are Italian? I think they will contend
that nuns batted their eyelashes, so it was a seduction?
>
>the only possible solution to this issue, if we were to follow your example,
>would be to disallow all heterosexuals from becoming priests. Because hey,
>only straight people rape people of the opposite sex.
>
>Now MY solution is to either get rid of the church completely, or to stop
>covering up what goes on behind closed doors and actually punish the
>perpetrators. A crime is a crime, it doesn't matter what your sexual
>orientation is. It should be punished equally.
>
>-Invader Zim
Of course, everyone agrees with you here. Closing the church
is not an option ... again, the % of molesting priests is almost
identical to the % of molesting professors at Yale, yet no one is
saying that Yale should be closed, much less all universities.
What does need to be addressed is the root cause ... and
that's what I was discussing. Punishment was never the issue ... if
you read the papers, you can quickly figure out that prisoners have
their own bizarre code of ethics and child molesters consistently get
treated the worst.
H
Damocles
<ckre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Alvin <alvinst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> God hates religion. Reference Jesus and the Pharisees.
>
>god is not jesus.
Jesus built my hotrod.
Alfredo Tutino
< snip >
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> Christianity, make fun of the God that gave you breath
To me, simply because there is no such God. Even to others,
His/Her/Its/Their existence must be an act of faith - no fact, that is to
say, but a unfounded (but deeply held, sometimes) belief. A fact I can
respect, but not bow my standards to.
and the ability
> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
I do not think digital piracy is necessarily a bad thing, and generally do
not scream against it in NGs. If I'm not into it is much more by an
ingrained habit of doing things "the right (or at least the usual) way" -
plus lack of time and sheer lazyness - than by anything else.
> Sure, piracy sucks and it hurts the industry, but as others have
> pointed out, we will never stamp it out completely. Frankly, I find a
> lot more things in life to be offensive such as lack of respect for
> other people's religious beliefs.
Respecting other people religious belief is one thing - asking people to
shut up is another, and try to prohibit blasphemy another again. The last
goes against free speech right, that to me (and to any true upholder of
democracy) is much more important than respecting other people's belief.
Then there is the matter of delicacy and good taste, and the rule of thumb
"never offend a person unless you have a very strong reason for it" - all
things that I try (with mixed results, I'd say) to respect.
But let me remind you of this: it's you who decide to feel offended by what
someone else says - not the thing itself that is objectively offensive. Even
if something is meant to be offensive (and it's not the case for most of
what you read here - at worst it's superficial), it's still up to you to
decide if you feel offended, or just sad, or amazed, or whatever.
BTW, the best catholic priests say that all kind sinning is bad not because
it harms God, but because it harms the sinner.
< rather sound advice snipped>
Alfredo
Alfredo Tutino
> On 7 Oct 2003 16:48:13 GMT, Brian Christopher Robinson <a@b.c> wrote:
>
> >alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin) wrote in
> >news:d2ec46.031007...@posting.google.com:
> >
> >> to operate a gamepad, yet if someone dares mention piracy, everyone
> >> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> >> greatest sin.
> >
>
> Can you prove games exist ?
>
> That'll be the next question...
I know I can play them - ergo... :-)
That's Hegel's answer (sort of) to such questions BTW... And I find it still
works (on its level).
Alfredo
Invader Zim
hahaha lol i'm listening to that song right now!
-Invader Zim
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> I know I can play them - ergo... :-)
Ludo ergo sum - I play, therefore I am.
Mark Morrison
<tor.iver....@broadpark.no> wrote:
I used to love Ludo - haven't played for ages, though.
Michael Mendelsohn
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:23:34 GMT, Hank <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com>
> wrote:
> > What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
> >infallible by becoming priests? Bad people can't become priests? Of
> >course they can. He was simply trying to allege that priests were
> >all out having sex with boys ... which isn't true. The % of priests
> >guilty of molestation is almost identical to the % of Yale professors
> >guilty of molestation, yet I don't hear him insulting Yale professors,
> >who by and large are probably pretty good people.
>
> Yes, but what if Yale was covering up all the allegations against
> their professors ?
> the Church to go to extreme legths to cover it up, for the sake of
> their reputation, is sickening.
>
> And to THEN stand in front of a congregation/TV and preach on how
> important it is to be chaste and truthful is just fucking obscene.
They also preach that if you repent, your sins will be forgiven -
something that differentiates the catholic church (not the only
christian church by a long way) from Yale.
mendel
--
Feel the stare of my burning hamster and stop smoking!
Alfredo Tutino
Invader Zim <hahano...@death.poo> wrote in message
bm0sa7$2odd$5...@news.cybercity.dk...
In fact, as everyone who ever studied a little philosophy should knows the
problem of "demonstrating" the existence of god was completely solved by
Kant, who proved that none of the "demonstrations" proposed up to his time
was correct. No other serious attempt at demonstration has followed, by
universal accord among philosophers and (most - by far) theologicians; the
quest has been practically abandoned - with the exception of a few not very
seroius or learned priests, who usually make appeal to some inner knowledge
that everybody is supposed to have but ateists are wilfully suppressing,
generally out of sheer malignancy or passion for "mnisfguided freedom" - no
serious argument at all, because they try to make a matter of subjective
feeling into a matter of objective knowledge.
However, of course, true religious belief can be, and generally is (and
quite possibly should be) independent of rational demonstration: it is
faith, not knowledge. I do not believe in, say, Pitagora's theoreme, I know
it to be true (under some premises, of course: but there can be no knowledge
without shared premises, and there are ways to make them explicit and
subject to discussion, rather than misterious objects of faith).
So. I have nothing against people who believe in any kind of god - as long
as they do not try to impose their subjective beliefs on anybody else. I do
respect them as persons, but not their beliefs (that I prefer to criticise,
rather than to bash or make fun of, however - with exceptions, of course);
and I may or may not respect or accept their actions - going by my moral
choices, that I often find to be more exacting, if more or less as
arbitrary, than most religion-based codes.
Alfredo
.hoy.
: ____ On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700
: \__/___ Alvin ran through the
: LI-\o-' streets of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
: | waving an axe and screaming:
: / \
: <snip>
: Wow he sure pulled in a big catch.
By off-topic Christianity thread standards, it's a guppy. This one
is past middle-age and still hasn't reached the 100 reply mark yet.
The Christianity and Gaming thread a few months back...now that was
nice...over a thousand replies and stayed active for god (*ahem*)
knows how long =P
--
.hoy.
agray
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:57:09 -0700, stePH <acet...@earthlink.net>
> enlightened me with:
>
>>« Les » wrote:
>>
>>> what makes you think the Christian god is my God? In fact why do assume
>>> the Christian God is everyone elses god.
>>>
>>
>>Arrogant self-righteousness is typical of most Christians I've
>>encountered.
>>
>>stePH
>
> And non-Christians aren't? I think you just proved yourself
> wrong ... zealots of every religion are righteous ... but the
> anti-religious zealots are the worst, because as soon as they hear a
> religious term they're off on some tirade ... and then rationalize it
> by insisting that supposedly some religious group does it all of the
> time ... to someone. Yet strangely I have never had it happen to
> me, or anyone I know, and I'm not religious at all.
> However, anti-religious freakazoids going nuts I see all of
> the time ... especially in here.
(Now where did I put that Captain Obvious hat? Oh, well, have to make
do...)
You do realize what you've done, I hope. You're ranting about people who
rant about people who rant.
--
Yaay! We're doomed ---- GIR
Hnak the Rapper
".hoy." <fa...@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:vo912qk...@corp.supernews.com...
That thread lasted six months and just came a few hundred shy of hitting
5,000 messages.
Highlandish
wasnt that Hezeus Rodrigus?
--
Do not fear the reaper, you can't go to hell twice.
Add the word "USENET" to the subject line to email me.
white-list mail filter in use
Mean_Chlorine
> Crusted with Doritos chips and red eyes glued to a computer screen
> till 3am, the average gamer that inhabits these gaming groups
> certainly shows a unique form of morality.
But it IS a form of morality. We're not immoral, or even amoral. We're
just... differently moralized.
> Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> copy protection, make fun of the companies that gave you half-life and
> the gamepad, yet if someone dares mention Christianity, everyone
> goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> greatest sin.
Bizarre. Almost as if they had their priorities straight.
> Sure, christianity sucks and it hurts the society, but as others have
> pointed out, we will never stamp it out completely. Frankly, I find a
> lot more things in life to be offensive such as lack of respect for
> other people's choice of hardware (console or PC).
Actually, that was very well said. Couldn't said it better myself.
> If you really want to support religion, spend your charity dollars
> on the smaller guys like Hare Krishna or the Copts instead of feeding
> the Catholic and various Lutheran cash cows.
Alvin is kickin butt and bustin caps for goodness!
Alvin, I always thought you were just a troll, but your penetrating
intellect clearly thrusts deeper into the recesses of philosophical
intercourse than most think possible!
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
This is not the only way it happens.
In the city I live in, there was one of these cases only instead of a
Priest it was the Choir Director. The married with children choir
director. The church found out about his pederasty and did basically
nothing, because to do anything about it would call attention to it and
make the church look bad.
The story broke anyway and the Choir Director was arrested and convicted
and sent to prison.
The church looked _really_bad_ since it became public knowledge that
they had covered it up.
Oh and it was a Catholic church, go figure.
It's not entirely a Gay Priest issue, nor about the church becoming more
liberal in the 70's - look at all the reports of abuse of Indian
Children going back to the 20's.
See among others:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/clergy/clergy164.html
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/081002_wellesley.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/soulwound.html
>>Oh, and the questions of abuse by priests and homosexuals as clergy
>>are 2 entirely seperate issues.
>>
>>Gay men don't become priests in order to abuse children - pedophiles
>>do.
>
> There were very few pedophiles. These were pederasts and only
>interested in boys. If you have sex with a 16 year old girl, you are
>not a pedophile, except to people who don't know the difference.
>You are, however, a pederast and will go to jail.
You need to check your dictionary, pederasty is specifically man-boy
sex.
Also 16 isn't under the age of consent everywhere, so sex with a 16 year
old girl wouldn't get you arrested much less imprisoned in either the UK
(where 16 is the age of consent last I heard) or Canada (where it's 14)
Nor in many parts of the USA - it's been some years since I saw a list
of the ages of consent but I still remember that New Mexico was 13, and
Delaware 12 (as long as the guy was under 18).
>Yet the 16 year
>old may look like an adult ... and a child does not.
Just to add a little surrealism to this, the child porn law in Canada
doesn't say "under 18" but "appears to be under 18".
All that "barely legal" porn coming out of the US and Australia counts
as child porn in Canada if they look under 18, no matter what age they
actually are.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Hank
enlightened me with:
>> I agree. This is a shocking concern. And in many cases
>>you'll find that the bishops in charge were homosexual ... and the
>>priests had the dirt on them. But that isn't the official story ...
>>the official story is that the Bishops were practicing 'forgiveness.'
>> Again, if the church would get back to its roots ... being a
>>moral force in the world, instead of something I have to look
>>suspiciously at regarding my children because they have chosen to
>>engage in social engineering, it would have a lot more credibility
>>than it does now.
>
>This is not the only way it happens.
>In the city I live in, there was one of these cases only instead of a
>Priest it was the Choir Director. The married with children choir
>director. The church found out about his pederasty and did basically
>nothing, because to do anything about it would call attention to it and
>make the church look bad.
>
>The story broke anyway and the Choir Director was arrested and convicted
>and sent to prison.
>
>The church looked _really_bad_ since it became public knowledge that
>they had covered it up.
>Oh and it was a Catholic church, go figure.
>
>It's not entirely a Gay Priest issue, nor about the church becoming more
>liberal in the 70's - look at all the reports of abuse of Indian
>Children going back to the 20's.
>See among others
I agree with most of what you said here but it strays from the
point. Is gay sex with minors a fundamental aspect of the church? Of
course not ... but I began responding when allegations issued forth
that it was.
Homosexual predators ( and heterosexual kind, which there are
very few of in the priesthood) are not made that way by their job, but
they sometimes choose a job that makes them easier targets. I stated
that the church erred by taking a liberal stance that they should be
included regardless of their sexuality ... this has been a mistake and
needs to be corrected. There are a lot of parents out there who do
not trust their children with priests ... and that is a serious
problem.
The church can do its part in two ways. Stop eliminating the
actual faithful from seminaries in America if they follow the church
rather than following the American notions of allowing birth control,
homosexuality and other things. Start cleaning house when it comes
to criminals, instead of insisting that they can forgive and move on.
Let what is Caesar's be Caesars ... is the saying. Criminals
need to be put in jail. And stop putting risky people into the
priesthood.
ls as clergy
>>>are 2 entirely seperate issues.
>>>
>>>Gay men don't become priests in order to abuse children - pedophiles
>>>do.
>>
>> There were very few pedophiles. These were pederasts and only
>>interested in boys. If you have sex with a 16 year old girl, you are
>>not a pedophile, except to people who don't know the difference.
>>You are, however, a pederast and will go to jail.
>
>You need to check your dictionary, pederasty is specifically man-boy
>sex.
>
>Also 16 isn't under the age of consent everywhere, so sex with a 16 year
>old girl wouldn't get you arrested much less imprisoned in either the UK
>(where 16 is the age of consent last I heard) or Canada (where it's 14)
>Nor in many parts of the USA - it's been some years since I saw a list
>of the ages of consent but I still remember that New Mexico was 13, and
>Delaware 12 (as long as the guy was under 18).
Okay, fine ... it doesn't invalidate my point. It is illegal
to have sex with someone under the age of consent, even if that age
changes in various states or countries. None of the priests in
trouble had consensual relations with someone of age in their
respective states.
But these were not pedophiles ... they were overwhelmingly
pederasts. The only instances of girls accusing priests of anything
were found to be baseless.
>
>>Yet the 16 year
>>old may look like an adult ... and a child does not.
>
>Just to add a little surrealism to this, the child porn law in Canada
>doesn't say "under 18" but "appears to be under 18".
>All that "barely legal" porn coming out of the US and Australia counts
>as child porn in Canada if they look under 18, no matter what age they
>actually are.
>
>Xocyll
I guess that's a good thing. yayyyy Canada!!
Chris Schack
Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com> wrote:
>WARNING !!!
>
>This is a long post, but people like Alvin annoy me. If this thread
>is already pissing you off, this is going to make it worse. Just skip
>it...
I simply can't believe anybody took an obvious spoof of recent flamewars
quite so seriously as all this...
Chris Schack
Hermann Hesse
Some would argue that since homosexuality appears in nature, it is, in fact,
natural. Others would argue that homosexual behaviour violates the laws of
evolution, and couldn't have appeared naturally. Ironically, these latter
usually don't take the laws of evolution all that seriously anyway. I prefer
the word 'abnormal' instead, since homosexuality _does_ deviate from the
norm, no matter what value you place in either word.
> And how does it spread disease anymore than "normal" sex does?
Anal sex is much more likely to cause ruptures, which increases the chance
of transferring the disease.
> Morality (as in good vs. evil) is confined to culture, not a universal
fact
> of life. To state otherwise would be a show of arrogance, prejudice and
> intolerance.
From a Christian point of view, morality _is_ a universal fact, written in
stone - literally. And most of us consider certain values based on Christian
morality as universal facts as well: theft, murder and infidelity is wrong
in our culture, but not necessarily in others. Pedophilia is abnormal and
filthy in our society, whereas homosexuality is accepted. In ancient Greece,
the situation was reversed. Freedom, which in particular Americans seem to
hold close to their hearts, is another value which hasn't existed for more
than a few hundred years, at least not in the modern sense of the word, yet
we consider it to be a fundamental human right.
"When in Rome" could be applied to any given dictator and/or mass murderer.
We cannot judge them according to our morality, right? While I agree with
your point, I'd rather be intolerant, arrogant and biased than allowing
slavery, torture, rape or what have you, in our society - or anywhere.
// Hermann
Invader Zim
>> who are you to define what's natural and what isn't?
>
> Some would argue that since homosexuality appears in nature, it is,
> in fact, natural. Others would argue that homosexual behaviour
> violates the laws of evolution, and couldn't have appeared naturally.
> Ironically, these latter usually don't take the laws of evolution all
> that seriously anyway. I prefer the word 'abnormal' instead, since
> homosexuality _does_ deviate from the norm, no matter what value you
> place in either word.
sure, i'll agree with that.
>
>> And how does it spread disease anymore than "normal" sex does?
>
> Anal sex is much more likely to cause ruptures, which increases the
> chance of transferring the disease.
So heterosexuals don't have anal sex? How do lesbians have anal sex?
You see my point here, right? heh
>
>> Morality (as in good vs. evil) is confined to culture, not a
>> universal fact of life. To state otherwise would be a show of
>> arrogance, prejudice and intolerance.
>
> From a Christian point of view, morality _is_ a universal fact,
> written in stone - literally. And most of us consider certain values
> based on Christian morality as universal facts as well: theft, murder
> and infidelity is wrong in our culture,
these aren't just christian values you know. these values existed long
before christianity did.
but they still don't have anything to do with the issue of homosexuality,
which I was talking in reference to. Sorry if I wasn't making myself clear
enough.
(snip)
> "When in Rome" could be applied to any given dictator and/or mass
> murderer. We cannot judge them according to our morality, right?
> While I agree with your point, I'd rather be intolerant, arrogant and
> biased than allowing slavery, torture, rape or what have you, in our
> society - or anywhere.
... you equate homosexuality to slavery, torture and rape?
If not (and I doubt you do LOL), I don't see how this point fits in with the
one I was making.
-Invader Zim
Mark Stahl
"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
news:5l68ovs5fffeau9rk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:32:05 +0200, "Invader Zim"
> <hahano...@death.poo> enlightened me with:
>
> >>> while i'm not sure that was exactly what mark was trying to say, i'm
> >>> going to go with this one for a second and ask you, what about the
> >>> priests that raped/rapes nuns then?
> >>> I doubt they're gay. In fact, I doubt homosexuality has anything to
> >>> do with rape at all, regardless of it's boys, girls, men, women or
> >>> even animals that are the victims.
> >>>
> >>> -Invader Zim
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
> >> infallible by becoming priests?
> >
> >um, no. at what point did i state ANYTHING of the kind? I asked you a
> >question about priests raping nuns and asserted that rape has nothing to
do
> >with sexual orientation.
> >I'm also of the opinion that there's more of the priests rape nuns than
the
> >priests that rape boys.
> >Again, homosexuality has nothing to do with rape.
>
> Okay, maybe I did misunderstand your point then. You're not
> really making valid comparisons. You're trying to say that because
> 97% of the child assaults were on boys ( and thus a homosexual issue )
wrong. the fact that 100% of the child assaults were on children makes them
a pedophile issue. there is no particular homosexual issue, except with
adults. are priests also raping adult men?
> and 100% of the nun assaults were on women ( thus a heterosexual issue
> ) that the rapes are the bigger issue and homosexuality is not a
> factor?
homosexuality is not particularly a factor, no.
> I don't know the numbers on priest rape worldwide ... I know
> that in the US they aren't even close to homosexual pederasty in the
> priesthood. I think you really have to broaden the definition of
> rape to say that violent intercourse against nuns is the same as abuse
> of authority and seduction of children. Both are crimes, but much
> different forms.
> So are you contending that, given the same circumstances in
> remote Africa or wherever, the raping priests would have raped men?
> We do know that the molesting priests had no interest at all in girls
actually, no. with pedophelia it is often an issue of access and age, not
gender. in fact, what is often found to be most stimulating to the pedophile
is the lack of gender differentiation. most pedophiles by far have a
heterosexual orientation vis a vis adults.
> ... so it is a homosexual issue and not simply a child abuse issue.
it would be difficult for you to be more incorrect about this issue.
> I think that needs to be addressed. If the instances of nun rape are
> as high as you claim, that certainly merits concern, but it wasn't the
> concern I was posting about, since I don't know much on the subject
> ... whereas homosexual pederasty in priest numbers are widely
> available.
>
> >
> >> My point was that while the Church does not prohibit
> >> homosexuals from joining the priesthood, it does prohibit
> >> homosexuality and certainly sex with minors. What they need to do to
> >> re-establish trust is to stop insisting that they will change
> >> homosexuals by letting them into the priesthood and start protecting
> >> the congregation.
> >
> >that still doesn't address the issue of priests raping nuns. I also doubt
> >they feel they can "change" homosexuals any more than heterosexuals, as
the
> >priests aren't supposed to have a sexuality at all.
> >
> >Homosexuals don't have sex with minors either unless they're wrong in the
> >head.
>
generally, no one does.
> Exactly ... but this was my critique of the liberalization of
> the American church and the problems it caused.
which is completely unfounded....
> They truly believed
> that all homosexuals were conflicted and in pain
an obviously mistaken belief, like most of their beliefs....
> and letting them into
> the priesthood would give them a way to deal with that pain. The
> priesthood would change them rather than them changing the priesthood.
> Clearly this was not the case ... some pederasts were going to get
> into the priesthood, once the church position changed, simply to have
> more opportunities.
>
sure, but it's not like there's any connection with homosexuality there.
> >Condemning many to try and save a few has been a
> >> huge mistake and it started when the church liberalized its stance.
> >> They have now had to spend a whole lot of money in settlements ... so
> >> hopefully they will get a clue.
> >
> >Again, it still won't change the issue of priests raping nuns.
>
> Maybe those priests are Italian? I think they will contend
> that nuns batted their eyelashes, so it was a seduction?
> >
> >the only possible solution to this issue, if we were to follow your
example,
> >would be to disallow all heterosexuals from becoming priests. Because
hey,
> >only straight people rape people of the opposite sex.
> >
> >Now MY solution is to either get rid of the church completely, or to stop
> >covering up what goes on behind closed doors and actually punish the
> >perpetrators. A crime is a crime, it doesn't matter what your sexual
> >orientation is. It should be punished equally.
> >
> >-Invader Zim
>
> Of course, everyone agrees with you here. Closing the church
> is not an option
why not? just asking.
> ... again, the % of molesting priests is almost
> identical to the % of molesting professors at Yale,
citation??
> yet no one is
> saying that Yale should be closed, much less all universities.
> What does need to be addressed is the root cause ... and
> that's what I was discussing.
what do you think is the root cause?
> Punishment was never the issue
of course it is. the issue is that the church officials knew about the child
abusers in their midst and didn't punish them!
> ... if
> you read the papers, you can quickly figure out that prisoners have
> their own bizarre code of ethics and child molesters consistently get
> treated the worst.
>
a totally tangental point...
Mark Stahl
"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:06:55 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com>
> enlightened me with:
>
> >On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:23:34 GMT, Hank <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> What about them? You're saying that priests somehow become
> >>infallible by becoming priests? Bad people can't become priests? Of
> >>course they can. He was simply trying to allege that priests were
> >>all out having sex with boys ... which isn't true. The % of priests
> >>guilty of molestation is almost identical to the % of Yale professors
> >>guilty of molestation, yet I don't hear him insulting Yale professors,
> >>who by and large are probably pretty good people.
> >
> >Yes, but what if Yale was covering up all the allegations against
> >their professors ?
>
> Both instances are crimes. No one here stated that the
> Church was right in covering up anything.
> >
> >Or told the parents that their children were liars, then quietly moved
> >the professor away to 'meditate' for a while, then sent them to
> >another university where only their immendiate superiors were told
> >they were rapists ?
>
> I agree. This is a shocking concern. And in many cases
> you'll find that the bishops in charge were homosexual
no you won't. even if you did find that, what difference would that make?
you're claiming that being gay makes you willing to cover up for rapists?
bizarre logic there, hank.
> ... and the
> priests had the dirt on them. But that isn't the official story ...
> the official story is that the Bishops were practicing 'forgiveness.'
> Again, if the church would get back to its roots ... being a
> moral force in the world,
since when was that the church's root?
> instead of something I have to look
> suspiciously at regarding my children because they have chosen to
> engage in social engineering, it would have a lot more credibility
> than it does now.
>
yes, i agree they should stop trying to drag us back into the dark ages on
issues like sexual mores, womens' rights, and a whole host of other social
issues.
> >Oh, and the questions of abuse by priests and homosexuals as clergy
> >are 2 entirely seperate issues.
> >
> >Gay men don't become priests in order to abuse children - pedophiles
> >do.
>
> There were very few pedophiles.
you kept talking about child abuse just moments ago. which is it now? where
are your numbers which support your increasingly dubious claims?
> These were pederasts and only
> interested in boys. If you have sex with a 16 year old girl, you are
> not a pedophile, except to people who don't know the difference.
> You are, however, a pederast and will go to jail. Yet the 16 year
> old may look like an adult ... and a child does not.
> But if your overall point were true ... that homosexuality
> isn't the issue ... then there would be a lot more girls that were
> victims.
not necessarily. oftentimes it is a matter of access.
> And there aren't. So it is very much a gay men issue.
>
so how do you explain the rapes of nuns and girls?
> >And this is why I dislike Christianity - they preach one thing while
> >practising another. They are free to do whatever they want, while
> >telling Christians how to live their lives in accordance to Christ's
> >teaching. And then CHARGE MONEY FOR IT !!!
> >
> >Fucking unreal.
>
> I don't think you can blame Christianity in general for the
> crimes committed by some Catholic priests.
the officials who are in charge covered up the problem and allowed it to
continue. that most certainly is something which christianity in general can
be blamed for. no one is particularly blaming christianity in general for
some crimes committed by some priests; please pay attention.
> Well, you can, because
> you hate religion with the same irrationality and intolerance that
> some religious people hate you. That doesn't make your brand of
> zealotry better than theirs.
>
we still have yet to see any zealotry, except perhaps for your irrational
willingness to turn the catholic molestation cover up into a gay men's
issue. are you a homophobe?
Mark Stahl
"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
actually, there are plenty...
> are not made that way by their job, but
> they sometimes choose a job that makes them easier targets. I stated
> that the church erred by taking a liberal stance that they should be
> included regardless of their sexuality ... this has been a mistake and
> needs to be corrected.
in what way? this is the most ridiculous thing you've posted yet.
> There are a lot of parents out there who do
> not trust their children with priests ... and that is a serious
> problem.
> The church can do its part in two ways. Stop eliminating the
> actual faithful from seminaries in America if they follow the church
> rather than following the American notions of allowing birth control,
> homosexuality and other things.
how can you not "allow" an orientation?
> Start cleaning house when it comes
> to criminals, instead of insisting that they can forgive and move on.
now that *would* be a change for the catholic church, wouldn't it?
> Let what is Caesar's be Caesars ... is the saying. Criminals
> need to be put in jail. And stop putting risky people into the
> priesthood.
>
how does one identify a "risky person"?
> ls as clergy
> >>>are 2 entirely seperate issues.
> >>>
> >>>Gay men don't become priests in order to abuse children - pedophiles
> >>>do.
> >>
> >> There were very few pedophiles. These were pederasts and only
> >>interested in boys. If you have sex with a 16 year old girl, you are
> >>not a pedophile, except to people who don't know the difference.
> >>You are, however, a pederast and will go to jail.
> >
> >You need to check your dictionary, pederasty is specifically man-boy
> >sex.
> >
> >Also 16 isn't under the age of consent everywhere, so sex with a 16 year
> >old girl wouldn't get you arrested much less imprisoned in either the UK
> >(where 16 is the age of consent last I heard) or Canada (where it's 14)
> >Nor in many parts of the USA - it's been some years since I saw a list
> >of the ages of consent but I still remember that New Mexico was 13, and
> >Delaware 12 (as long as the guy was under 18).
>
> Okay, fine ... it doesn't invalidate my point. It is illegal
> to have sex with someone under the age of consent, even if that age
> changes in various states or countries. None of the priests in
> trouble had consensual relations with someone of age in their
> respective states.
> But these were not pedophiles ... they were overwhelmingly
> pederasts.
ok, so the church should kick out the pederasts. what does that have to do
with homosexuality in general?
> The only instances of girls accusing priests of anything
> were found to be baseless.
> >
completely wrong. where are you getting this stuff from?
Mark Stahl
> > On 7 Oct 2003 07:58:49 -0700, alvinst...@hotmail.com (Alvin)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to bash
> > >goes ballistic as if someone commited digital murder, and commited the
> > >greatest sin.
> >
>
> Bashing out of ignorance. Maybe you should wipe the sewage from your
> eyes before commiting verbal vomit
>
>
> > 1) They teach how it's great to be poor, and that rich people have
> > trouble getting into Heaven and yet the Catholic Church is the single
> > richest religious organisation on Earth, and the rest of the
> > God-botherers aren't exactly fucking poor.
>
>
> The Bible does not teach that's it's great to be poor.
it does so. you might try reading it sometime.
> Also, being
> poor does not always mean lack of monetary health.
>
WTF is "monetary health"??
>
> > 2) The Pope tralks about how gays are an abomonation, and are evil.
>
> Kudos to the Pope. It's unnatural
hardly. nothing could be more natural.
> and spreads disease.
so does breathing. maybe you should stop.
> The person
> isn't evil, but the act is.
>
how so?
>
> > 3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
> > they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
> > condoms are the Devil's work.
>
> Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa,
not very much
> and it's not getting the
> job done.
increased use would help.
> Condoms does
"do"
> not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
> Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
> the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
> stop the spread of Aids.
>
abstinence has never been proven to do anything. it is simply unreliable
(many would say unnatural.) meanwhile, regular condom use is well over 90%
effective. what do you know of medical books? what med school did you
attend?
>
> > 4) Gays can't become priests becasue they're evil, but a straight guy
> > can fuck choirboys up the arse, safe in the knowledge his Church will
> > cover it all up, then move him somewhere else. Unless, of course, the
> > parents of the kids go to the press instead of the Church, in which
> > case the Church will say 'sorry' while at the same time admitting
> > nothing.
>
> You're crazy if you think God approves of these actions.
>
since god is a figment of each individual's imaginations, it depends on the
person. some peoples' gods certainly would.
>
> > I could go on, but they're the main things that piss me off.
> >
> > I have nothing against God, or Christ or and his teachings, but you
> > can shove your religion up your arse.
>
>
> God hates religion. Reference Jesus and the Pharisees.
imaginary objects can't hate anything, silly rabbit.
Mark Stahl
"Hermann Hesse" <hr_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EBjhb.32246$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net...
> > who are you to define what's natural and what isn't?
>
> Some would argue that since homosexuality appears in nature, it is, in
fact,
> natural. Others would argue that homosexual behaviour violates the laws of
> evolution, and couldn't have appeared naturally.
yes, but that argument is fundamentally flawed. there are many reasons why
homosexuality evolved-- natural population control, social structuring, and
more.
> Ironically, these latter
> usually don't take the laws of evolution all that seriously anyway.
heh, indeed.
> I prefer
> the word 'abnormal' instead, since homosexuality _does_ deviate from the
> norm, no matter what value you place in either word.
>
i would prefer "unusual". it doesn't deviate from the "norm", as a certain
proportion of many species is normally observed to be homosexual.
> > And how does it spread disease anymore than "normal" sex does?
>
> Anal sex is much more likely to cause ruptures, which increases the chance
> of transferring the disease.
>
true, but plenty of heterosexuals engage in anal sex.
> > Morality (as in good vs. evil) is confined to culture, not a universal
> fact
> > of life. To state otherwise would be a show of arrogance, prejudice and
> > intolerance.
>
> From a Christian point of view, morality _is_ a universal fact, written in
> stone - literally. And most of us consider certain values based on
Christian
> morality as universal facts as well:
no, the "universal facts" of morality were considered as such long, long
before christianity.
> theft, murder and infidelity is wrong
> in our culture, but not necessarily in others. Pedophilia is abnormal and
> filthy in our society, whereas homosexuality is accepted. In ancient
Greece,
> the situation was reversed.
well, not exactly. homosexuality was often accepted in ancient Greece and
pedophelia wasn't accepted. you're probably thinking of the close sexual
relationships formed between men and boys in ancient Greek culture, but the
"boys" were usually adolescents and young adults, not children.
> Freedom, which in particular Americans seem to
> hold close to their hearts, is another value which hasn't existed for more
> than a few hundred years, at least not in the modern sense of the word,
yet
> we consider it to be a fundamental human right.
>
> "When in Rome" could be applied to any given dictator and/or mass
murderer.
> We cannot judge them according to our morality, right? While I agree with
> your point, I'd rather be intolerant, arrogant and biased than allowing
> slavery, torture, rape or what have you, in our society - or anywhere.
>
for some things, sure. for others-- infidelity, for example-- how far would
you really be willing to go to enforce your moral code?
Mark Stahl
"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:37:53 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdp...@aol.com>
> enlightened me with:
> >>> 3) The Catholic Church talk about how it's good to help people, yet
> >>> they happily let millions of Africans get infected with AIDS because
> >>> condoms are the Devil's work.
> >>
> >>Nonsense. Condoms have been used in Africa, and it's not getting the
> >>job done. Condoms does not 100% protect against the spread of STDS.
> >>Go read a freaking medical book before talking trash. Abstinence as
> >>the Bible teaches is proving to be 100% effective measure in Africa to
> >>stop the spread of Aids.
> >>
> >Condoms aren't being used among Christian Africans, because their
> >local Churches tell them not to use them. The churches would rather
> >see the spread of AIDS continue, and families continue to have babies
> >by the dozen in a country that's can't support them, than face up to
> >the simple truth that people like to fuck, and will do so.
>
> Not to interrupt, but it's a little funny that the one
> organization that promotes abstinence before marriage, no infidelity,
> no homosexuality and no drug use is somehow being blamed by you for
> creating
not creating, but certainly contributing heavily to its spread with its
misinformation campaign and scare tactics.
> the one disease that didn't exist before rampant
> homosexuality and IV drug use became fashionable.
ouch, wrong again. (don't you get tired of it?)
from the best of our knowledge, HIV crossed over to humans via close contact
between humans and other ape species (possibly the consumption of "monkey
meat") in the african bush. heterosexual contact continues to be the
overwhelmingly common mode of transmission. it was only a fluke of
epidemiology that led to its widespread affliction of homosexuals and IV
drug users in the industrialized west.
> You will likely find a way to blame the church for the budget
> deficit as well.
> I think you just hate religion, which is fine, but you're
> trying to rationalize it in a lot of silly ways. Just accept your
> hatred and move on with life.
>
you're being ridiculous. he posts facts and you accuse him of "hatred". look
in the mirror.
James Garvin
>
> (snip)
> > "When in Rome" could be applied to any given dictator and/or mass
> > murderer. We cannot judge them according to our morality, right?
> > While I agree with your point, I'd rather be intolerant, arrogant and
> > biased than allowing slavery, torture, rape or what have you, in our
> > society - or anywhere.
>
> ... you equate homosexuality to slavery, torture and rape?
> If not (and I doubt you do LOL), I don't see how this point fits in with the
> one I was making.
(invader zim scream) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHHAA
(/invader zim scream)
Zim, you haven't been around born again christians very much have you?
That is EXACTLY what they do. I mean just look at their take on
evolution http://www.drdino.com/
Hank
enlightened me with:
No, there is a difference between a pedophile and a pederast.
Since almost all of the minors assaulted were male that does make it a
homosexuality issue. They were not assaulting children, like little
ones that have no difference in their appearance ... most of these
were young teens and there was a clear distinction between males and
females. The priests in trouble liked males. Otherwise the
molestation between males and females would have been equal.
>> I don't know the numbers on priest rape worldwide ... I know
>> that in the US they aren't even close to homosexual pederasty in the
>> priesthood. I think you really have to broaden the definition of
>> rape to say that violent intercourse against nuns is the same as abuse
>> of authority and seduction of children. Both are crimes, but much
>> different forms.
>> So are you contending that, given the same circumstances in
>> remote Africa or wherever, the raping priests would have raped men?
>> We do know that the molesting priests had no interest at all in girls
>
>
>actually, no. with pedophelia it is often an issue of access and age, not
>gender. in fact, what is often found to be most stimulating to the pedophile
>is the lack of gender differentiation. most pedophiles by far have a
>heterosexual orientation vis a vis adults.
You're on pedophilia again. The number of actual pedophilia
instances related to the priests is minute. I agree that some
newspapers continually made this mistake but I hope you're better
educated than most journalists. It wasn't until months into the
scandal that Boston newspapers finally started using the correct term.
But hey, those are Boston journalists so they're extra dumb ... they
also have an agenda that didn't want to paint this as a homosexual
problem, but rather as solely a church problem.
If it were not a church problem you wouldn't have girls
testifying that they were not concerned about being alone with
predator priests ... because they were girls.
>>
>> Of course, everyone agrees with you here. Closing the church
>> is not an option
>
>why not? just asking
Because the church does a lot of good.
>
>> ... again, the % of molesting priests is almost
>> identical to the % of molesting professors at Yale,
>
>citation??
It's called Google. Do the math.
>
>> yet no one is
>> saying that Yale should be closed, much less all universities.
>> What does need to be addressed is the root cause ... and
>> that's what I was discussing.
>
>what do you think is the root cause?
I think the church letting in homosexuals because they
insisted they could reform them was a mistake. This was widespread
in the 70s. We used to joke about it in the 80s ... but no one knew
this kind of thing was really happening.
>> Punishment was never the issue
>
>of course it is. the issue is that the church officials knew about the child
>abusers in their midst and didn't punish them!
Right. In some cases they were attempting to 'rehabilitate'
and 'forgive' them ... in other cases they were also pederasts and the
priests had dirt on the Bishop in charge.
Hank
enlightened me with:
>> the one disease that didn't exist before rampant
>> homosexuality and IV drug use became fashionable.
>
>ouch, wrong again. (don't you get tired of it?)
>
Not wrong. Your advocacy is causing you to pick and choose
facts. I can find a scientist who will state that monkeys caused
crappy Britney Spears music if I try hard enough ... that doesn't make
it true.
>from the best of our knowledge, HIV crossed over to humans via close contact
>between humans and other ape species (possibly the consumption of "monkey
>meat") in the african bush. heterosexual contact continues to be the
>overwhelmingly common mode of transmission. it was only a fluke of
>epidemiology that led to its widespread affliction of homosexuals and IV
>drug users in the industrialized west.
Yes, a fluke ... yet strangely this 'epidemic' only spread in
America when the CDC kept expanding the definition of 'HIV' to include
anemia. The fact is, those two target groups, and the people who come
in contact with them, make up the bulk of the AIDS epidemic.
I appreciate your concern for these people ... but I can't let
you spew out junk science just to advocate a lifestyle.
>
>
>> You will likely find a way to blame the church for the budget
>> deficit as well.
>> I think you just hate religion, which is fine, but you're
>> trying to rationalize it in a lot of silly ways. Just accept your
>> hatred and move on with life.
>>
>
>you're being ridiculous. he posts facts and you accuse him of "hatred". look
>in the mirror.
>
No, you haven't read enough messages. Your lack of knowledge
doesn't make me incorrect. He hates religion.
Hank
enlightened me with:
>>
>> I don't think you can blame Christianity in general for the
>> crimes committed by some Catholic priests.
>
>the officials who are in charge covered up the problem and allowed it to
>continue. that most certainly is something which christianity in general can
>be blamed for. no one is particularly blaming christianity in general for
>some crimes committed by some priests; please pay attention.
>
>> Well, you can, because
>> you hate religion with the same irrationality and intolerance that
>> some religious people hate you. That doesn't make your brand of
>> zealotry better than theirs.
>>
>
>we still have yet to see any zealotry, except perhaps for your irrational
>willingness to turn the catholic molestation cover up into a gay men's
>issue. are you a homophobe?
>
What do you care? Does your 'tolerance' only extend to people
who agree with you? Are you a homosexual? Should that matter in
this discussion?
I live in the metro SF area ... this is the one place where
being a homophobe would cause a lot of grief. So, no, I am not a
homophobe and most of the homosexuals I know are wonderful,
well-adjusted people.
But you sound like you have a need to change the church ...
and it doesn't need changed. Tolerance means there should be room for
every kind of religion ... if you don't like Catholicism, be a
Protestant. Want birth control? Be a Protestant. There are lots
of American Catholics who miss this point ... they think they can pick
and choose buffet style. You can't ... that just makes you a
hypocrite.
So what is your point? Is attacking the person rather than
discussing the point your usual style of debate? Because I sense you
getting more and more irrational. You need to take a breath and go
back and read the posts from the beginning. Coming in at the end and
babbling about things there just makes you look silly.
It is a gay men's issue. The priests in question were almost
all gay ... and all men. Like any high profile case, people are
going to come out of the woodwork and try to make money. You can't
even glean the difference between a pederast and a pedophile, yet you
keep insisting you're right about everything.
If I want wolves to stop eating my chickens, I don't move the
wolf to a different chicken pen ... I get rid of the wolf. Likewise,
when the church discovers this kind of misconduct, they need to get
rid of the priest. And when you find condoms in the showers at
seminary, you need to be asking some questions about whether or not
these priests are serious, or if they think it's the YMCA.
Invader Zim
I actually have, I'm just trying to forget by deluding myself to thinking
there aren't very many of them :/
That site is ... very surreal.
-Invader Zim