"Church Referendum"
UMllerBo
so called "church referendums" have been organized in catholic
communities. They where aimed to express the frustration of many church
members with the Roman attitude towards controversial issues discussed
within many church communities. These issues where:
- equality of all within the church; the overcoming of the gap between
clergy and laymen;
- more influence of local church-institutions towards nominations of
bishops;
- total equality of women within the church - possibility of woman to
become priests;
- for priests free choice between celibatarian or non-celibatarian
life-style;
- positive estimation of sexuality as an important part of God-created
human beings,
that means liberalisation of birth-control apart from abortion, more
positive attitute towards pre-marriage sexual relationships and homosexual
partnerships;
- more emphasis on issues such as peace, social justice and environmental
protection;
- less repression, but more aid and understanding for anybody seeking
contact to church;
(hope, my translations are understandable :-))
Although many of these issues were formulated in very broad terms, the
declaration has been signed by more than two million members of the
catholic church in Austria and Germany (Exactly 505.154 in Austria,
1.483.340 in Germany and 18.284 in Southern Tirol). I did not follow
discussions in this newsgroup for a very long time, but I am sure you have
been discussing these issues in this group as well. So I am not so much
interested in getting responses to these (well known and frequentlty
discussed) petitions. But I would be very intested in finding out if
anything like this is going on in the U.S. as well and what your opinion
on the legitimacy and value of such initiatives is.
peace to you,
Ulrich
Tarasius
umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo) writes:
>
>In some European countries (Austria, Germany) during the last few months
>so called "church referendums" have been organized in catholic
>communities. They where aimed to express the frustration of many church
>members with the Roman attitude towards controversial issues discussed
>within many church communities.
Yes, we have a similar bunch of agitators here too.
>These issues where:
>
>- equality of all within the church; the overcoming of the gap between
>clergy and laymen;
Corporals and sergeants are not equal to colonels and generals.
Some are smart, others not. Some have financial portfolios while others
have empty wallets. What's equality?
>- more influence of local church-institutions towards nominations of
>bishops;
The Kingdom of God is not a republic.
>- total equality of women within the church -
???- what is that, exactly?
> possibility of woman to
>become priests;
Oh. Not possible. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
>- for priests free choice between celibatarian or non-celibatarian
>life-style;
Possible but who wants "preacher's kids" in the parish?
They're as bad as military brats.
>- positive estimation of sexuality as an important part of God-created
>human beings,
>that means liberalisation of birth-control apart from abortion, more
>positive attitute towards pre-marriage sexual relationships and
homosexual
>partnerships;
Sex is one of God's greatest creations. But sin is sin, and not subject to
legislative efforts, petitions or mal-formed conciences.
>- more emphasis on issues such as peace, social justice and environmental
>protection;
>- less repression, but more aid and understanding for anybody seeking
>contact to church;
>
I like that idea - at least on the surface. How and what do we implement?
>(hope, my translations are understandable :-))
>
>Although many of these issues were formulated in very broad terms, the
>declaration has been signed by more than two million members of the
>catholic church in Austria and Germany (Exactly 505.154 in Austria,
>1.483.340 in Germany and 18.284 in Southern Tirol). I did not follow
>discussions in this newsgroup for a very long time, but I am sure you
have
>been discussing these issues in this group as well. So I am not so much
>interested in getting responses to these (well known and frequentlty
>discussed) petitions. But I would be very intested in finding out if
>anything like this is going on in the U.S. as well and what your opinion
>on the legitimacy and value of such initiatives is.
>
>peace to you,
>Ulrich
Ulrich,
Right here on AOL in the Catholic Community section you can read
National Catholic Reporter. This is known in some circles as the
National Catholic Distorter, because of their never ceasing activities
like those you mention. They have an assortment of writers on these
issues. In Oct of '68 they were told by the bishop to remove the word
"Catholic" from the masthead - but they didn't.
Normally I wouldn't recommend it, but since you seem interested in
finding out if we have such fifth-column activity here, it will provide
you with a wealth of information on dissident activities here in the
U.S.A. Pope Paul VI said that the "smoke of Satan" has entered into
the Church. I would not be surprised to find out that most of that
smoke is made in the USA.
This is a veritable hotbed of dissidence. They're affluent and educated.
They are so smart.....that they think there is another Magisterium!
Popular theologians are somehow supposed to be more revered
than the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. As a bonus,
they will twist the Vatican II documents to implement their own
agenda.
I hope this helps you in your quest for information and that you
do not become ill by what you may find.
Veni, Domine Iesu!
Tarasius
Robert F Underhill
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! (see below)
Matt (mhi...@amaranth.com) wrote:
: umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo) wrote:
: >In some European countries (Austria, Germany) during the last few months
: >so called "church referendums" have been organized in catholic
: >communities. They where aimed to express the frustration of many church
: >members with the Roman attitude towards controversial issues discussed
: >within many church communities. These issues where:
: >- equality of all within the church; the overcoming of the gap between
: >clergy and laymen;
: >- more influence of local church-institutions towards nominations of
: >bishops;
: >- total equality of women within the church - possibility of woman to
: >become priests;
: >- for priests free choice between celibatarian or non-celibatarian
: >life-style;
: >- positive estimation of sexuality as an important part of God-created
: >human beings,
: >that means liberalisation of birth-control apart from abortion, more
: >positive attitute towards pre-marriage sexual relationships and homosexual
: >partnerships;
: >- more emphasis on issues such as peace, social justice and environmental
: >protection;
: >- less repression, but more aid and understanding for anybody seeking
: >contact to church;
: >(hope, my translations are understandable :-))
: >Although many of these issues were formulated in very broad terms, the
: >declaration has been signed by more than two million members of the
: >catholic church in Austria and Germany (Exactly 505.154 in Austria,
: >1.483.340 in Germany and 18.284 in Southern Tirol). I did not follow
: >discussions in this newsgroup for a very long time, but I am sure you have
: >been discussing these issues in this group as well. So I am not so much
: >interested in getting responses to these (well known and frequentlty
: >discussed) petitions. But I would be very intested in finding out if
: >anything like this is going on in the U.S. as well and what your opinion
: >on the legitimacy and value of such initiatives is.
: >peace to you,
: >Ulrich
: I have just a simple comment. The Church founded by Christ (the Roman
: Catholic Church) is not a democracy and was not intended to be. It
: is more like a monarchy. With Christ as the King and the Pope as His
: Prime Minister and the Bishops as His other ministers. We have a very
: benevilent king (Christ) who will always do what is in our best
: interest. Making requests and petitions is OK, but when the King
: through His miniters makes a decision it is up to us to obey. Unlike
: a democracy, we cannot vote Him out of office. As long as we
: understand this we will be better off.
: Just my opinion!
: Pax Christi!
: Matt
Hooray for Tarasius!!!
Hooray for Matt!!
Hooray for us - the Mystical Body of Christ!!!
Bob Of Boston
Matt
James Therriault
Yes. There are simular Catholic Reform groups active in
the United States. I disagree with the other individual who
was critical of the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER. It is a very
good source for what is going on in the Catholic Church Today.
Another good source on the Internet is
James Therriault
Sorry, my last message was cut off. NCR is a very good source
of the issues and news of what is going on in the Roman Catholic
Church Today.
Another good internet source for Catholic Issues is the:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CATHOLIC WEB SITE
http://www.microweb.com/burnside/sfbay.htm
What you will find at that site will be discussions on both
sides of issues. You will find the Church position as well
as critical articles by Roman Catholic Theologians. According
to a Franciscan Brother from Chicago, the site is putting
together source information on the various European referendums
and the about to be distributed United States referendum.
UMllerBo
On April 26 tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
<Right here on AOL in the Catholic Community
<section you can read National Catholic Reporter.
<This is known in some circles as the
<National Catholic Distorter, because of their
<never ceasing activities like those you mention.
<Normally I wouldn't recommend it, but since you
<seem interested in finding out if we have such
<fifth-column activity here, ...
Thanks for your hints on this topic, especially
because it seems you gave them in strict opposition
to your personal beliefs! What do you mean by
"some circles"?
<I hope this helps you in your quest for
<information and that you do not become ill by
<what you may find.
Thanks for the good wishes as well. As far as
my spiritual health is concerned I count on the
protection of God and the guidance of the Holy
Spirit!
By the way, it seems as though someone has posted
the text of the declaration (the so called "Church
Referendum") recently in French in this group. My
French is fairly bad, so it's merely an impression.
But in case you are interested in an authentic
translation of the text in English, its available
in the web:
<The Kingdom of God is not a republic
I do have certain problems with this concept. Thinking
of the "Kingdom of God" in time-related and -dependent
political terms and in terms of a certain political and
state system doesn't seem to be appropriate at all to
me. Of course Church acts in history and under certain
political circumstances, but those are subject to change.
Why shouldn't the structure of church and the
decision-making processes within the church be subject
to change as well?
<Corporals and sergeants are not equal to colonels
<and generals. Some are smart, others not. Some have
<financial portfolios while others have empty wallets.
<What's equality?
The analogy you are making to military-based structures
is exactly what I would reject when thinking of the
internal structure of church. I totally agree with you,
when you are suggesting that not everybody is "equal"
as far as personal abilities and talents are concerned.
But should it be an unrevealable fact that the ones with
"financial portfolios" should reign over those with
"empty wallets"?
Peace to you
Ulrich
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4lqmsa$s...@news.amaranth.com>, mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt)
schreibt:
>I have just a simple comment. The Church founded by Christ (the Roman
>Catholic Church) is not a democracy and was not intended to be. It
>is more like a monarchy. With Christ as the King and the Pope as His
>Prime Minister and the Bishops as His other ministers. We have a very
>benevilent king (Christ) who will always do what is in our best
>interest. Making requests and petitions is OK, but when the King
>through His miniters makes a decision it is up to us to obey. Unlike
>a democracy, we cannot vote Him out of office. As long as we
>understand this we will be better off.
Thanks for your comments. I do see your point, however I wonder why
we should limit church in such a way. Isn't it true that many people
turn their backs to church simply because they just dont see a
justification any more for its authoritarian and hegemonistic structure?
(More than 2 Million signatures of Catholics under the declaration
in German speaking countries are a clear indication!)
We live in fairly well functioning democracies, and - thanks God -
have learned reasonably well to accept each other and to
compromise halfway decently. How in the world can I explain to my
growing 11 year old daughter, that democratic values I try to teach
her, apply generally except within the catholic church? Chances are,
that she will have left church long before parents, teachers or priests
had a realistic chance to get her acquainted with the concept of
the "mystical body of Jesus Christ".
Just a few years ago people in Eastern Europe succeeded in
overcoming their totalitarian systems and started new democracies!
Why shouldn't church be allowed to make a move into this direction?
If it doesn't I have the fear that it will loose much credibility at least
in
the Western part of the world; credibility which - especially in the
interest of our children and youth - is urgently needed to meet the
challenges we will face in the "beginning Duomilleneum of Christianity"
(- to use a term in analogy to another discussion in this
group -).
Peace to you
Ulrich
Tarasius
29 Apr, umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo) writes:
>
>On April 26 tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>
><Right here on AOL in the Catholic Community
><section you can read National Catholic Reporter.
><This is known in some circles as the
><National Catholic Distorter, because of their
><never ceasing activities like those you mention.
>
><Normally I wouldn't recommend it, but since you
><seem interested in finding out if we have such
><fifth-column activity here, ...
>
>
>Thanks for your hints on this topic, especially
>because it seems you gave them in strict opposition
>to your personal beliefs! What do you mean by
>"some circles"?
>
People seem to associate in a circles of friends.
Having observed several of these circles, and
generally speaking, I've found the term
"Distorter" for this paper seems popular among those
who love the Church, love the Pope, love what the
Church teaches, try to go to daily Mass & do not
like "ideas" or "theories" to the contrary, especially
if espoused by people with an agenda position
contrary to the teachings of the Church and Pope.
I guess they could be called defenders of the faith.
>
><I hope this helps you in your quest for
><information and that you do not become ill by
><what you may find.
>
>Thanks for the good wishes as well. As far as
>my spiritual health is concerned I count on the
>protection of God and the guidance of the Holy
>Spirit!
>
>By the way, it seems as though someone has posted
>the text of the declaration (the so called "Church
>Referendum") recently in French in this group. My
>French is fairly bad, so it's merely an impression.
>But in case you are interested in an authentic
>translation of the text in English, its available
>in the web:
>
>http://www.neckar-alb.de/kvb/
>
Thanks for the tip. I do hope it doesn't read like
the rotting garbage out of Wisconsin.
><The Kingdom of God is not a republic
>
>I do have certain problems with this concept. Thinking
>of the "Kingdom of God" in time-related and -dependent
>political terms and in terms of a certain political and
>state system doesn't seem to be appropriate at all to
>me. Of course Church acts in history and under certain
>political circumstances, but those are subject to change.
Well, if Jesus wanted to say, "Seek first the Republic of
God," He would have said that. But He didn't, and He is
the King of Kings. President of Presidents just doesn't
measure up.
>Why shouldn't the structure of church and the
>decision-making processes within the church be subject
>to change as well?
Because there is nothing wrong with it as is, to
warrant any structural change.
We are to take the Church to the times - not take
the times into the Church. The times will do as
they may -they shall not prevail against the Church.
If the Pope and the bishops in union with him want
to change something, that's okay. But as a
result of a presumptuous petition drive, or some
popular vote of the laity the Church is to yield?
I don't think so. The voice of the people
is not always the Voice of God.
><Corporals and sergeants are not equal to colonels
><and generals. Some are smart, others not. Some have
><financial portfolios while others have empty wallets.
><What's equality?
>
>
>The analogy you are making to military-based structures
>is exactly what I would reject when thinking of the
>internal structure of church. I totally agree with you,
>when you are suggesting that not everybody is "equal"
>as far as personal abilities and talents are concerned.
>But should it be an unrevealable fact that the ones with
>"financial portfolios" should reign over those with
>"empty wallets"?
We are in a war. There is an enemy with a plan who
prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Everyone
has their place, including those who have no idea what
their place is or want a different role. Not too many want
to be a private or corporal, to shut up, carry their cross
and march to their crucifixion. Just about everyone wants
to be the general with the power and prestige. They don't
understand that more shall be required. Maybe there
is a sin here somewhere, something to do with coveting?
Perhaps there is not an awareness of the debt we all owe,
you know, the big one we can only pay meager interest on -
our redemption? Instead, we're worried about the content
of our worldly wallet, or the size of our portfolio of world
holdings - unaware of that something more profound we
may be selling out in our pre-occupied lives.
>
>Peace to you
>Ulrich
>
And the Lord's Peace to you,
Tarasius
Tarasius
Ulrich,
I went over the the web site to see this document that
you mentioned. I am very sorry, but this sure does
look like the same garbage out of the Land O'Lakes.
I read the WHOLE thing. It took me a while, for I had
to go out for fresh air many times. Just the preamble
is gagging. Look at it! I am really sad to here that the
Church over there is suffering from the same developing
schismatic traumas as the Church is here.
Petition of the People of the Church
In union with the Austrian KirchenVolksBegehren
(Petition of the People of the Church)
**Petition
and parallel initiatives in other countries,
**the heresy is everywhere folks
we urge the men and women of the church--all lay people,
priests, religious, and bishops-
**they want everybody to participate in this
-to support long overdue reforms in the Catholic church.
**long overdue reforms? No, no, no, the overdue reform
**is of the People called to holiness
We hope for an intense discussion and for the
gradual implementation
**intense discussion? Blah Blah Blah-that's how women
**get their way-by-wearing down the men. Yackety Yack
of the demands
**DEMANDS??? Excuse me?
of the Petition to ensure that humanity
**what happened to "man"? what's this "humanity"?
**think we have an anthropological error here
will continue to have access to the Christian core message
**CORE message? It's all or nothing.
and the church in the next millennium.
In the spirit of Vatican II
**Just hold on right there. Vatican II was not Pentacost II !!
**I am sick of people misinterpreting Vatican II like sola scriptura
**fanatics with their pendantic savagery, hysterical antics and
**silly polemics for what they think is politically correct,
**rather than the TRUTH.
This is heresy, Ulrich, and I pray that you are not involved.
Agnus Dei miserere nobis.
Tarasius
MAYAN GIRL
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>I'm sick of...
>**fanatics with their pendantic savagery, hysterical antics and
>**silly polemics for what they think is politically correct,
>**rather than the TRUTH.
Me too, Tarasius, and that includes YOU. You and a few others on here
moan and gripe about people who've changed the status quo (socially), and
how they're the cause of the downfall of this country. Then you say
something like:
>**intense discussion? Blah Blah Blah-that's how women
>**get their way-by-wearing down the men
>of the Petition to ensure that humanity
>**what happened to "man"? what's this "humanity"?
IS IT SO DAMN SURPRISING WHY THERE WAS A WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST
PLACE? BECAUSE OF CRAP LIKE THIS and it makes me sick. Are you the
misogynist you appear to be? Do you think that women are so manipulative?
What kind of experiences have you had with women? So women should be
seen and not heard? Men are the alpha and the omega? Anyone writing
anything similar but about MEN would have been labeled a FEMINAZI by you,
T. How convenient for you to label so easily those who disagree with you.
But when you say it, it's TRUTH.
How can such "good Catholics" come across as such misogynist, racist,
prejudiced idiots? You all want to go back to the good ole days when all
these "other" people knew their places. Wonderful for the middle class
and upper middle class white man but not for the REST OF US. Oh, I'm
sorry, I forgot. There is no more prejudice in our society; only against
those poor ole aforementioned white men.
Some other NITWIT awhile back wanted to know why can't "good Catholics"
write "deragatory" letters to the papers about gays, feminists, etc., if
they can. !!!!!???HELLO???!!!!! Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of
what a Christian is all about?
Take the recommendation so often bandied about by the "good Catholics"
when they point out the beam in someone else's eye: Go to confession and
ask for forgiveness for holding such hate against HALF THE HUMAN RACE!
Your SOUL depends on on it, T!
I think it is people like you that "progressive" Catholics are trying to
leave in the dust.
Castrating feminist in Christ,
(What some of you will call me for picking on poor T.)
Laura
Tarasius
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) writes:
>
>tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>
>>I'm sick of...
>>**fanatics with their pendantic savagery, hysterical antics and
>>**silly polemics for what they think is politically correct,
>>**rather than the TRUTH.
>
>Me too, Tarasius, and that includes YOU. You and a few others on here
>moan and gripe about people who've changed the status quo (socially), and
>how they're the cause of the downfall of this country. Then you say
>something like:
>
>>**intense discussion? Blah Blah Blah-that's how women
>>**get their way-by-wearing down the men
>
>>of the Petition to ensure that humanity
>>**what happened to "man"? what's this "humanity"?
I hereby want to express my sincerest gratitude to you Mayan Girl,
for coming in here at this point and proving my assertion
so vehemently with all this Blah Blah Blah Yackity Yack
trying to wear us down. |
V
Thanks again for proving the point very well indeed, and providing such
a fine example of what I was talking about.
Tarasius
Matt
Let me start off by confessing that I did not read T.'s post that
MAYAN GIRL is responding to, therefore I am not defending T. or his
post. Having said that, let's go........
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
[snipped]
>IS IT SO DAMN SURPRISING WHY THERE WAS A WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST
>PLACE? BECAUSE OF CRAP LIKE THIS and it makes me sick. Are you the
>misogynist you appear to be?
HOLD IT! I have to get out my dictionary..... where is misogynist?
Oh here it is... "Of or characterized by a hatred of women." YIKES!
Not me!
Back to the fray.....
> Do you think that women are so manipulative?
I do! But so are men. "People can be manipulative" is more correct.
> What kind of experiences have you had with women?
Mostly good for me.
> So women should be seen and not heard? Men are the alpha and the omega? Anyone writing
>anything similar but about MEN would have been labeled a FEMINAZI by you,
>T.
And rightly so. However, those who write it about women are
MasculiNazi's as well.
[snipped]
>How can such "good Catholics" come across as such misogynist, racist,
>prejudiced idiots?
WOW..... where did T. say he hated women, blacks, and other
minorities. Did he do that?!?!
> You all want to go back to the good ole days when all
>these "other" people knew their places.
When does this stop being informative and begin being just plain old
"name calling"? Here maybe?!?!
[snipped]
>Some other NITWIT awhile back wanted to know why can't "good Catholics"
>write "deragatory" letters to the papers about gays, feminists, etc., if
>they can. !!!!!???HELLO???!!!!! Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of
>what a Christian is all about?
Well somebody is...... Keep in mind it is different to speak out
against "a person" as opposed to speaking out against a "behavior".
The gay lifestyle is contray to the Christian life.... right?!?! St.
Paul says:
1 Cor 6:
9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers
will inherit the kingdom of God.
The Cathechism says:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as
acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that
"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary
to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Am I being a bigot by pointing out that the gay lifestyle is wrong?
>Take the recommendation so often bandied about by the "good Catholics"
>when they point out the beam in someone else's eye: Go to confession and
>ask for forgiveness for holding such hate against HALF THE HUMAN RACE!
>Your SOUL depends on on it, T!
Does one hate someone by simpley stating that what they are doing is
wrong. If so, isn't that what you are doing in this post?
>I think it is people like you that "progressive" Catholics are trying to
>leave in the dust.
Just curious.... what is a "progressive" Catholic"?
>Castrating feminist in Christ,
>(What some of you will call me for picking on poor T.)
Not me!
Pax Christi!
Matt
Pro Vitae! (For Life)
Matt
***********************************************************
"Any country that accepts abortion
is not teaching its people to love,
but to use any violence to get what
they want"
- Mother Teresa 2-3-94
************************************************************
Bill Silverthorn
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>I hereby want to express my sincerest gratitude to you Mayan Girl,
> for coming in here at this point and proving my assertion
>so vehemently with all this Blah Blah Blah Yackity Yack
>trying to wear us down.
Tarasius,
Not that I am any more of a favorite of yours, but this is twice that you have
made your anti-female nature known .... I think her advice to you is very
sound:
>Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of what a Christian is all about?
>Take the recommendation so often bandied about by the "good Catholics"
>when they point out the beam in someone else's eye: Go to confession and
>ask for forgiveness for holding such hate against HALF THE HUMAN RACE!
>Your SOUL depends on on it, T!
Bill
MAYAN GIRL
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>I hereby want to express my sincerest gratitude to you Mayan Girl,
>for coming in here at this point and proving my assertion
>so vehemently with all this Blah Blah Blah Yackity Yack
>trying to wear us down.
(previuos post)
>>**intense discussion? Blah Blah Blah-that's how women
>>**get their way-by-wearing down the men
>Thanks again for proving the point very well indeed, and providing such
>a fine example of what I was talking about.
>Tarasius
So sorry, I should have just let you get away with your misogynist
statement like a good little woman. In fact what am I doing here when
there are clothes to washed and ironed, food to cook, etc?
Laura
MAYAN GIRL
I got cut off last time so this may be something of a repeat of the other
message.
mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt) wrote:
>Let me start off by confessing that I did not read T.'s post that
>MAYAN GIRL is responding to, therefore I am not defending T. or his
>post. Having said that, let's go........
Interesting. His comments that I was referring to are in my post.
>"People can be manipulative" is more correct.
Sure they are. But he didn't say that. He said women and was referring
to a character deficit he sees in women.
>And rightly so. However, those who write it about women are
>MasculiNazi's as well.
Oh, did Rush come up with that label too?
WOW..... where did T. say he hated women,
>>**intense discussion? Blah Blah Blah-that's how women
>>**get their way-by-wearing down the men
Oh, I don't know, but IMHO, that comes damn close.
>blacks, and other
>minorities. Did he do that?!?!
That was referring to the next post.
>Some other NITWIT awhile back wanted to know why can't "good Catholics"
>write "deragatory" letters to the papers about gays, feminists, etc., if
>they can. !!!!!???HELLO???!!!!! Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of
>what a Christian is all about?
>Well somebody is......(UNCLEAR on the concept of what a Christian is all
>about) Keep in mind it is different to speak out
>against "a person" as opposed to speaking out against a "behavior".
>The gay lifestyle is contray to the Christian life.... right?!?! St.
>Paul says:
[snipped]
>Am I being a bigot by pointing out that the gay lifestyle is wrong?
I said that this other person wanted to write "derogatory" letters about
these people. Her word, not mine. That implies something different than
just saying that as a Christian, I disagree with this lifestyle.
>Does one hate someone by simply stating that what they are doing is
>wrong. If so, isn't that what you are doing in this post?
I agree I was very hard on T and I may have gotten carried away, but that
kind of statement can not just be let go. If I had done that, Matt,
that would have been a sin of omisison. He and the other poster did more
than just say something was "wrong." "Wrong" for him is when women speak!
Look at his reply. I'm aware of my sin, he has no clue. His sin has so
much more dimension to it since it disparages half the human race and yet
he sees no connection between it and the response it provokes. I mean it
when I said that this is exactly the kind of stuff that spawned the
women's movement; it was not born out of a vacuum, contrary to popular
belief. His comments mean that sexism is alive and well. In this "good
Catholic" ng.
"Sin rarely remains private. Social sins, such as political oppression
and discrimination, the exploitation of one class of people by another,
abuse of our natural environment, and the unjust distribution of the
world's wealth, usually result from private sins, such as thoughtless
greed and selfishness."
"It's not enough to correct a social ill if the human heart, where social
sin originates, is not healed and made well. And it's not enough to be
"saved" as a private individual unless the social, political and economic
dimensions of my life change, too." (From Catholic Update, What It Means
to Be Saved. Published with ecclesiastical approval.)
That's what a "progressive" Catholic" is.
And it means (to me) that you can't live that and believe that women are
"bad," people deserve what they get, Limbaugh and Buchannan are right.
(oh, uh.)
Laura
TimothyCTX
At a feminist rally, a speaker once asked:
"Where would man be without woman?"
Out of the back of the auditorium a male voice answers:
"Back in the Garden Of Eden, eating strawberries!"
Bill Silverthorn
mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt) wrote:
>maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>[snipped]
>>IS IT SO DAMN SURPRISING WHY THERE WAS A WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST
>>PLACE? BECAUSE OF CRAP LIKE THIS and it makes me sick. Are you the
>>misogynist you appear to be?
>HOLD IT! I have to get out my dictionary..... where is misogynist?
>Oh here it is... "Of or characterized by a hatred of women." YIKES!
>Not me!
<big smile> Thanks Matt for looking up that word for all of us!!! and also a
double thanks for your very diplomatic reply....
Hang in there Mayan Girl ...
Bill
Tarasius
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) writes:
>tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>
>
>>I hereby want to express my sincerest gratitude to you Mayan Girl,
>> for coming in here at this point and proving my assertion
>>so vehemently with all this Blah Blah Blah Yackity Yack
>>trying to wear us down.
>
>Tarasius,
>
>Not that I am any more of a favorite of yours,
What makes you think that? Come back home.
>but this is twice that you
>have
>made your anti-female nature known .... I think her advice to you is
very
>sound:
>
>>Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of what a Christian is all about?
>>Take the recommendation so often bandied about by the "good Catholics"
>>when they point out the beam in someone else's eye: Go to confession
and
>>ask for forgiveness for holding such hate against HALF THE HUMAN RACE!
>>Your SOUL depends on on it, T!
>
>
>Bill
>
Bill,
I am not anti-female. I love women. It is a known fact that women have
a higher developed verbal ability. Look at any of the studies, in
particular
those involving nuclear magnetic resonance cat scans. It's as if they have
a daily allotment more than that of men. Men and women are wired
differently. Nothing will change that, not even "social engineering."
This is a sin of hating half the human race?
Many can utilize this ability for mischief. Men can too, but generally not
as effectively. This mischief appears most apparently in the attempts to
de-sex language. Hence Bible translations like "let us make man in our
image" is changed to "let us make humans in our own image".
A severe anthropological misunderstanding then occurs, by negating
"male and female He created them". The attempt is to make the sexes
identical (i.e."equal") - which is stupid. He didn't make Adam and Eve
as a single androgynous being and then cut "it" in two in order to make
male and female - like what was erroneouly taught in my RCIA class by
a woman who wants to be a priest. Bogus theology justifying itself.
I pray that when you return you will be met at the door by a Catholic,
and not something else.
I don't know where your denomination-less stance is, Bill, but you will
see that among people called "Christian" - it is the bark of Peter that
will remain taking the same stand on the issues, when all the others
flee. Example - 1930's - all mainline denominations condemned
contraception. The ranks are thining out, aren't they? Paul VI's
Humanae Vitae was prophetic. Oughta tell ya somethin. Eph 6:13
One of God's greatest creations is sex. I am not among those who think
He made a mistake creating male and female. A bogus assertion has
been made that I have committed some sort of hate crime (sin) against
HALF OF THE HUMAN RACE. Blah Blah Blah Yackity yack.
Note also that "advocates" of tolerance usually don't have much.
Viva la difference!
Tarasius
I'm still waiting on your explanation of Col 1:24 as to how this fits
into your idea of redemption and salvation.
Tarasius
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) writes:
>IS IT SO DAMN SURPRISING WHY THERE WAS A WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST
>PLACE? BECAUSE OF CRAP LIKE THIS and it makes me sick. Are you the
>misogynist you appear to be?
I am not the misogynist you have convinced yourself of seeing.
>Do you think that women are so manipulative?
Do you deny it?
> What kind of experiences have you had with women?
A great variety. Many very rewarding. Nasty one in RCIA dang near
kept me from entering the Church with her bogus liberation theology,
goofey "catholic" publications, etc.
> So women should be seen and not heard?
I didn't say that. Women have better verbal skills - known fact.
And they can mis-use it very effectively when they want to.
There is a proper time for everyone to be silent. Men can too, but not
with the great expertise of women with an agenda in verbal conversation.
>Men are the alpha and the omega?
No, Mayan Girl. Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and Omega".
What prompted this response?
>Anyone writing anything similar but about MEN would have
been labeled a FEMINAZI by you,T.
I don't use the term. You are wrong here too.
>How convenient for you to label so easily those who disagree with you.
> But when you say it, it's TRUTH.
Sorry, I should have used the phrase "THE TRUE TEACHINGS OF
THE CHURCH" - I had no idea it would be construed as "THE TRUTH
according to Tarasius". Please forgive me this oversight.
>How can such "good Catholics" come across as such misogynist, racist,
>prejudiced idiots?
I am not a misogynist. That is a necessary requirement of your ideology
at present which is at odds with the world. I am not a racist, you would
know that if you saw my wife and kids. I don't think I'm the prejudiced
one here.
>You all want to go back to the good ole days when all
>these "other" people knew their places.
When was this? Before contraception? Before my time?
As far as places, God has a place for both you and me.
Let us pray that we do His Will, not ours. Then maybe
we will find our places in His purpose.
> Wonderful for the middle class and upper middle class white man but
>not for the REST OF US. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. There is no more
prejudice
>in our society; only against those poor ole aforementioned white men.
You got only one thing correct here. I would be considered as
a white man. Sorry if you see that as a sin, I was born that way. Did I
miss something? Does this entitle me to special treatment or abuse?
Further, I do not believe I meet the minimum requirements for middle
class. However I do have a job, and bought the computer with a credit
card. Compared to the world statistics I suppose I'm filthy rich because
I have a car that leaks, a faucet of water that leaks, and a flush toilet
that
leaks. But they are owned by someone else and I have to make payments
for them - or else they will take them away.
>Some other NITWIT awhile back wanted to know why can't "good Catholics"
>write "deragatory" letters to the papers about gays, feminists, etc., if
>they can. !!!!!???HELLO???!!!!! Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of
>what a Christian is all about?
Yes, I am unclear about your concept of what a Christian is, given your
responses here. Is this the much touted "spirit" of Vatican II?
>Take the recommendation so often bandied about by the "good Catholics"
>when they point out the beam in someone else's eye: Go to confession
and
>ask for forgiveness for holding such hate against HALF THE HUMAN RACE!
>Your SOUL depends on on it, T!
But I do not hate half the human race as you assert. I love them. They
are so wonderfully different. I love you too, Mayan Girl, regardless of
what you may perceive me to be or do wrong to me. I have benefited
from our short relationship and hope you have too.
>I think it is people like you that "progressive" Catholics are trying to
>leave in the dust.
>
Please don't do that. Stay home in Holy Mother Church.
>Castrating feminist in Christ,
>(What some of you will call me for picking on poor T.)
Do you really think that is a healthy view of yourself
and your brothers?
>Laura
>
You are a unique woman, singularly conceived in the
mind of God, a child of God with a purpose and a free
will to find and fulfill that purpose.
Tarasius
Matt
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt) wrote:
>>Let me start off by confessing that I did not read T.'s post that
>>MAYAN GIRL is responding to, therefore I am not defending T. or his
>>post. Having said that, let's go........
>Interesting. His comments that I was referring to are in my post.
Sometimes I don't get all the posts. I don't know why, cheap service
I guess. I only saw what I commented on and that didn't seem all that
bad. Oh God, does that mean I hate women too.... what will I tell my
wife :-) Sorry 'bout that. Just a little humor there.
[snipped]
>>And rightly so. However, those who write it about women are
>>MasculiNazi's as well.
>Oh, did Rush come up with that label too?
He probably would if there was a N.O.M (national organization for men)
that was as militantly liberal and anti-family as N.O.W. is.
[snipped]
>"Sin rarely remains private.
I agree... actually I would go so far as to say that it is NEVER
private.
> Social sins, such as political oppression
>and discrimination, the exploitation of one class of people by another,
>abuse of our natural environment, and the unjust distribution of the
>world's wealth, usually result from private sins, such as thoughtless
>greed and selfishness."
Agreed!
>"It's not enough to correct a social ill if the human heart, where social
>sin originates, is not healed and made well. And it's not enough to be
>"saved" as a private individual unless the social, political and economic
>dimensions of my life change, too." (From Catholic Update, What It Means
>to Be Saved. Published with ecclesiastical approval.)
>That's what a "progressive" Catholic" is.
If so, then IMHO, the Church has always been progressive. If you
don't beleive me just read some of the Pope's writings during the
industrial revolution on the rights of workers for example.
>And it means (to me) that you can't live that and believe that women are
>"bad," people deserve what they get, Limbaugh and Buchannan are right.
>(oh, uh.)
Laura, you say such beautiful things then turn around and ruin it by
name calling. Please say that I am wrong. Are you saying you beleive
that Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchannan believe that women are
"bad," people deserve what they get? I watch Rush everyday and have
never once heard him say this or even imply this. Where do you get
this from? Have you ever taken the time to listen to Rush or watch
his show? Most who say things like you said haven't. When Rush
speaks of "FemiNazi's" he is speaking of the radical faction of NOW.
IMHO, he is right, these women are way out of line with mainstream
America. Am I not allowed to say this just because I am a man? If it
makes you feel better my wife and mother feel the same way.
Tarasius
, maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) writes:
>
>So sorry, I should have just let you get away with your misogynist
>statement like a good little woman. In fact what am I doing here when
>there are clothes to washed and ironed, food to cook, etc?
>
>Laura
Oh Dear. This does not look good at all. I think you may have just
slapped some of your sisters in the face very hard.
I've always had a problem with the "I'm just a housewife" syndrome..
Why is this supreme position looked down upon by some
women? Do they have some sort of macho thing - like some guys
do - so they think the measure of a woman is the size of her financial
portfolio? "I wanna be - a macho woman!"
A housewife could never be compensated for the value of her
endeavors with mere money. It's an equivalent of several corporate
positions all rolled (roled?) into one. First of all, the woman is
family communications central, and we aren't talking some sort
of cheap phone company either. Her position is vital in the
maintainance and propagation of the higher values of
civilization to the next generation and the solidification of the family
unit. Her financial statements after every pay period and keeping
the accounts balanced and current show fiscal responsibility.
She's in charge of transportation and related logistics.
Ahhh...this could go on and on. Ain't nothin like a mom, a real
mom that is. A kid could learn a lot sitting at mom's feet watchin
her ironing, helping with the dishes, or in the kitchen talking about
life. That's a lot of responsibility for a woman - a lot more than mere
factory work, or real-estate, or sales, or any of that 40 plus hour
a week demeaning tripe that's only good for the money and the
exhaustion.
It's time to evaluate the experiment of "liberation". Since the
introduction of the birth control pill, we've seen the sexual revolution
with women reduced to sex objects, the VD explosion, crime
increase, men loosing any sense of honor toward each other
or toward women, perversion education in the schools and any
one with moral values deemed primitive or prejudiced.
I think it's pretty obvious that the experiment has utterly failed.
Not only is it a failure, but indeed it is a great evil, for who would
benefit from driving a big wedge between the participants of one
of the most elemental and intimate relationship of man and
woman becoming a family? The human race sure hasn't benefited
at all.
Yes, the whole birth control "liberation" has brought us to the
same sick state the Romans were in when Christianity was
very young. Like the Romans, our "great" civilization also
practices contraception, abortion, infanticide and suicide.
Soon we may even have shows of executions on TV - our
modern electronic Colliseum of entertainment and (gag)
culture. Guess that's how our culture is becoming pagan.
(and I'm the misogynist?)
The people must have their circus! -Caesar
Tarasius
UMllerBo
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) schreibt
am 6 May 1996 09:58:29 -0400:
>Sorry for having caused such inconviniences to you.
>I generally find it rewarding to deal with opinions
>other than my own, though.
>>No inconvenience at all. I get a steady diet of this
>>stuff. Kind of like the arsenic eaters of Bavaria. Some
>>sort of natural resistance built in?
Never heart of Bavarian arsenic eaters. I like
their local brew, though.
>To me it appears that women in general
>should be given the opportunity to take a much more active part
>not only in charity but especially right within church! It would
>certainly be an enrichment!
>>What do you mean by "would be"? Already have! St. Therese Lisieux,
>>St. Monica, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Claire
>>...and the list goes on!
As far as I know none of the women you mentioned were priests.
>And I don't see any "anthropological
>error" at all in accepting that one half of mankind is of female,
>the other half of male sex.
>>I don't either. I accept that as fact - abt a 50-50 split, male and
>>female, just like God made them. There error occurs when "equal
>>in dignity" is interpreted as "identical".
Sorry if I misunderstood you on that point before.
But I never proposed the two sexes to be "identical".
Horrible thought! As far as church is concerned,
I suppose we can easily agree on the principle as
expresses in Canon 208 of the revised Code of Canon Law:
"There exists among all the Christian faithful, in
virtue of their rebirth in Christ, a true equality with
regard to dignity and activity; all cooperate in the
building up of the body of Christ in accord with each
one's own condition and function."
I agree, however, that the problem arises - which is
generally true for all texts with legal impact - when it
comes down to interpretation.
>I even dont see anything wrong in
>ordaining outstanding individuals out of the first mentioned
>half as priests and as far as I understand in early church
>female leadership was not irregular at all.
>>Well, we have the long tradition of Judaism up until the church,
>>Followed by the long tradition of the Church (3000 yrs or
>>more total?) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis plus an Ad Dubium
>>to the effect. Just what does it take?
>>What part of "no" is misunderstood?
But don't we have to assume that Jesus broke with Jewish
tradition at least in his relationships to women? I have
the impression that he started something totally new in
this respect. It's not the "No" that's misunderstood, it's the
question of legitimacy of this "No". And it must be allowed
to raise it and to hope for a further discussion - also within
church.
>Are they sinners?
>>We all are.
I agree! My prior statement was not very sensible.
>Should they all leave church and
>leave it to those sharing your views?
>>My views are not what counts, it the Church Teachings.
Seems to me that there is a correspondence between
the two. So lets put it in another way: Is there or should
there be a place in church for those who disagree with
some of the Church Teachings? My answer is a clear "YES".
>>These "ruins" denies the indefectability of the Church.
Because of its vulnerability I am so worried!
>People are put together on this world and in this church,
>and they better try to move on TOGETHER! But without dialogue,
>without debate and discussion and without acceptance for each
>other this will not succeed!
>>Yes. However togetherness of the sake of togetherness is void.
So is it just up to (human) patience at what point we stop
talking? Sorry, that thought frustrates and frightens me!
>Another (horrible!) schisma would>be on the horizon!
>>Wake up. It's been here for some time now. It's just a matter of
>>discipline from the Vatican to deliniate it.
If only disciplinary measures can prevent the schism from
happening, (my dictionary doesn't give me a useful explanation
of the term "deliniate" ;-)) I am very, very pessimistic.
Pax
Ulrich
Tarasius
mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt) writes:
>
>Tarasius,
> Be careful, I think I agree with what you are trying to say.
However,
>I would urge you to be careful lumping everything that happened from
>about the 1950's to now as women's "liberation" and calling it bad.
>Many good things happened too. I think we can all agree that doors of
>opportunity have been openned for women and that is a good think.
>
> You must clarify this or you are going to have MayanGirl
misunderstand
>just what you are trying to say. Do you see what I mean?
>
>Pax Christi!
>Matt
>
>
Matt,
I see what you mean. I was using "liberation" in the wide use, not
exclusively
women's sole possession. It's the whole "worldview" of liberation,
women's, men's,
sexual, etc... abolishing sure norms, blurring the meaning of freedom,
justice and
rights, and the denial of any objective truth, and establishing the
individual self
as the measure of all things. It's all tied in with the "liberation"
provided by
relativism and subjectivism.
Thank you,
Tarasius
MAYAN GIRL
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>I've always had a problem with the "I'm just a housewife" syndrome..
>Why is this supreme position looked down upon by some
>women?
It's looked down upon by society in general. It has never been considered
"really worthwhile." We pay it lipservice, but that's all. Ask any
middle aged woman facing divorce, who spent all her married life at home.
>A housewife could never be compensated for the value of her
>endeavors with mere money.
Ah, and that's why we don't even try.
>A kid could learn a lot sitting at mom's feet watchin
>her ironing, helping with the dishes, or in the kitchen talking about
>life.
What could that same kid learn watching dad do it? You make it sound as
it all that ironing, cooking, cleaning is fun. I bet mom could do just as
much if not more with said kid if she didn't have to all that alone.
>That's a lot of responsibility for a woman - a lot more than mere
>factory work, or real-estate, or sales, or any of that 40 plus hour
>a week demeaning tripe that's only good for the money and the
>exhaustion.
Ah, yes. Ozzie and Harriet's '50s. Wasn't it a time? And Harriet never
looked exhausted from keeping up that big house. BTW, I don't know of
many women who would refer to their work as "tripe." I find that to be
very demeaning.
>It's time to evaluate the experiment of "liberation".
All liberation? Of everybody? Ah. Pre-60s America. Wasn't it a grand
time had by all? Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native
Americans, women.
>Since the introduction of the birth control pill, we've seen the sexual
>revolution with women reduced to sex objects,
When weren't women sex objects? In the history of some parallel universe?
>perversion education in the schools
Explain. Are you talking about that whole language vs. phonics thing?
>I think it's pretty obvious that the experiment has utterly failed.
You see what I mean? Must be talking about that parallel universe again.
>Not only is it a failure, but indeed it is a great evil, for who would
>benefit from driving a big wedge between the participants of one
>of the most elemental and intimate relationship of man and
>woman becoming a family?
You must be referring to those feminazis that Rush says think all straight
sex is rape.
>Like the Romans, our "great" civilization also
>practices contraception, abortion, infanticide and suicide.
All four have been practiced throughout much of history. We don't have
the market on any of them.
>Soon we may even have shows of executions on TV - our
>modern electronic Colliseum of entertainment and (gag)
>culture. Guess that's how our culture is becoming pagan.
WOW! All THAT from women's liberation? Imagine! I learn ever so much
through your posts T.
Laura
Matt
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>>
>Matt,
>I see what you mean. I was using "liberation" in the wide use, not
>exclusively
>women's sole possession. It's the whole "worldview" of liberation,
>women's, men's,
>sexual, etc... abolishing sure norms, blurring the meaning of freedom,
>justice and
>rights, and the denial of any objective truth, and establishing the
>individual self
>as the measure of all things. It's all tied in with the "liberation"
>provided by
>relativism and subjectivism.
>Thank you,
>Tarasius
I agree with you and you have made some good points here.
Pax!
Matt
***************************************************
Not even a hundred hate the Catholic Church,
But millions hate what they mistakenly believe the
Church to be.
-- the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
******************************************************
Matt
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>>A kid could learn a lot sitting at mom's feet watchin
>>her ironing, helping with the dishes, or in the kitchen talking about
>>life.
>What could that same kid learn watching dad do it? You make it sound as
>it all that ironing, cooking, cleaning is fun.
And some people make it sound like having a "career" is "fun". None
of it is fun (at least not all the time) IT IS WORK!
> I bet mom could do just as
>much if not more with said kid if she didn't have to all that alone.
One would assume that if the woman chose a vocation as a housewife the
by necessity the man is at his job.
>>That's a lot of responsibility for a woman - a lot more than mere
>>factory work, or real-estate, or sales, or any of that 40 plus hour
>>a week demeaning tripe that's only good for the money and the
>>exhaustion.
>Ah, yes. Ozzie and Harriet's '50s. Wasn't it a time?
[snipped]
>>It's time to evaluate the experiment of "liberation".
>All liberation? Of everybody? Ah. Pre-60s America. Wasn't it a grand
>time had by all? Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native
>Americans, women.
Why do you lump the 50's all together as something bad?
>>Since the introduction of the birth control pill, we've seen the sexual
>>revolution with women reduced to sex objects,
>When weren't women sex objects? In the history of some parallel universe?
Now who has their head in the sand? Come on MayanGirl. You know as
well as anyone that sexual exploitation of men and women is way worse
today than it has been in a long time. The main difference is that
women are active participates in their own exploitation.
>>perversion education in the schools
>Explain. Are you talking about that whole language vs. phonics thing?
No... how about the teacher in Conn. helping students who are having
trouble with their "sexual identity".
>>I think it's pretty obvious that the experiment has utterly failed.
>You see what I mean? Must be talking about that parallel universe again.
Wake up MayanGirl! Get your head out of the sand. Things are much
worse now than they have ever been. OK fine there were problems with
women's rights in the 50's, but did you have movies like "Showgirl" or
strip clubs being seen as OK by society. Compare the teen pregnancy
rate 1950 to 1995. Is this what you call progress for women?
>>Not only is it a failure, but indeed it is a great evil, for who would
>>benefit from driving a big wedge between the participants of one
>>of the most elemental and intimate relationship of man and
>>woman becoming a family?
>You must be referring to those feminazis that Rush says think all straight
>sex is rape.
I must admit I am getting a little tired of the "bash Rush" comments,
since it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Just
for the record; Rush did not make up the "straight sex is rape"
concept. He merely reported it.
>>Like the Romans, our "great" civilization also
>>practices contraception, abortion, infanticide and suicide.
>All four have been practiced throughout much of history. We don't have
>the market on any of them.
Maybe not, but with 1.5 million abortions per year and abortions on
demand through the ninth month, we are a large corner of the market.
>>Soon we may even have shows of executions on TV - our
>>modern electronic Colliseum of entertainment and (gag)
>>culture. Guess that's how our culture is becoming pagan.
>WOW! All THAT from women's liberation?
I don't think that is what T. said (or meant to say). It came from
the "sexual" liberation which came in on the caot tails of the woman's
movement.
Keep in mind MayanGirl, to say that certain aspects of the woman's
movement were bad is not condemning the whole thing. It seems YOU are
the one trying to say that one must love it ALL or leave it. Cannot
T. or myself express a dissagreement with part of the concept.
BTW, I may be wrong but it seems to me that you and T. do not
dissagree on as much as you think and that sometimes you are just
trying to pick a fight. Relax a bit....
Pax Christi!
Matt
Matt
> Imagine! I learn ever so much
>through your posts T.
>Laura
Pro Vitae! (For Life)
MAYAN GIRL
mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt) wrote:
>And some people make it sound like having a "career" is "fun". None
>of it is fun (at least not all the time) IT IS WORK!
My point is that he is over romanticizing being a housewife (working
mother, home economist or whatever pc term is in vogue).
>One would assume that if the woman chose a vocation as a housewife the
>by necessity the man is at his job.
So he can't help out?
>Why do you lump the 50's all together as something bad?
I didn't label it as all bad. Where did I say that Matt? My point is
that the 50s weren't as *wonderful* as some would have us believe. Teen
pregnancy rate aside, do you really think most people would like to live
in the fifties again? No one I know would. That's why I listed all those
groups. McCarthyism. No. Let's be real here, we didn't reach Nirvana in
the 50s.
>Now who has their head in the sand? Come on MayanGirl. You know as
>well as anyone that sexual exploitation of men and women is way worse
>today than it has been in a long time. The main difference is that
>women are active participates in their own exploitation.
Matt, in your glee to defend T., you're not (conveniently) reading what he
posted. "with women reduced to sex objects." Again I reiterate, when
in history weren't women sex objects?
>No... how about the teacher in Conn. helping students who are having
>trouble with their "sexual identity".
I hardly think that qualifies the blanket statement "perversion in
schools." No one has said there aren't problems in public education but
really.
>Wake up MayanGirl! Get your head out of the sand. Things are much
>worse now than they have ever been. OK fine there were problems with
>women's rights in the 50's, but did you have movies like "Showgirl" or
>strip clubs being seen as OK by society.
That may have been started by the sexual revolution (they were more
underground before), but CAPITALISM has made it reach new heights. Ever
been to Las Vegas? It's capitalism run amuck. Before you go labeling me a
pinko, I'm asking how much of our societal ills are actually caused by our
capitalistic system. When the common denominator is always $$$$$$, what
do you think will happen? How sleazy something may be doesn't matter if
it will make a buck. "Showgirls" is the product of a company that wants
to earn money. Sex just happens to be an easy, reliable way to make
money. It is not ONE thing (like liberation) that has caused our society
to come to its present state; it is a multitude of things. We have
people who spent alot of time and energy trying to get prayer back in
school, but what voices were raised when the CEO of ATT makes (what?) a
couple of million in bonuses after laying off some 45,000 workers? We're
so selective in what the evils of our time are, including me. But which
of the two has a greater impact on our society?
>I must admit I am getting a little tired of the "bash Rush" comments,
>since it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Just
>for the record; Rush did not make up the "straight sex is rape"
>concept. He merely reported it.
Right. Read it out of Ms. Magazine. Don't be such a Dittohead Matt.
Tones of what Rush has said has been PROVEN to be wrong. It has been
PROVEN that he likes to play fast and loose with the facts. Not to
mention bash people like the poor. "Piglets at the teat of the mother
pig" referring to welfare. I'll email you more to save this thread from
that.
>Keep in mind MayanGirl, to say that certain aspects of the woman's
>movement were bad is not condemning the whole thing.
Get YOUR head out of the sand Matt! He is and has!
>It seems YOU are the one trying to say that one must love it ALL or leave
>it.
I'M trying to point out to T. that it isn't responsible for all the social
ills of our time like he thinks it is.
Laura
Tarasius
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) writes:
<<big snip>>
>Ah, yes. Ozzie and Harriet's '50s. Wasn't it a time? And Harriet never
>looked exhausted from keeping up that big house. BTW, I don't know of
>many women who would refer to their work as "tripe." I find that to be
>very demeaning.
The demeaning tripe I was referring to, was that typically encountered
by the male in his workplace - little encouragement, recognition or
respect, working in foul places and compromised situation for a
meager wages. That "glamorous" marketplace. Then in some cases
- I guess - he can look forward to going home. (maybe not)
>>It's time to evaluate the experiment of "liberation".
>
>All liberation? Of everybody?
Anything called "liberation" - the false "freedoms" promised by
humanistic philosophies like subjectivism, relativism,
deconstructionalism....ad nauseum.
> Ah. Pre-60s America. Wasn't it a grand
>time had by all? Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native
>Americans, women.
?????
>>Since the introduction of the birth control pill, we've seen the sexual
>>revolution with women reduced to sex objects,
>
>When weren't women sex objects? In the history of some parallel
universe?
More so today and by "choice" too.
>>perversion education in the schools
>
>Explain. Are you talking about that whole language vs. phonics thing?
No, I mean crap going on in NYC and Philly - closed door sex ed,
first grade books like "Heather has Two Mommies", "Daddy's
Roomate", or how about "Gloria goes to Gay Pride"?? That perversion
education.
>>I think it's pretty obvious that the experiment has utterly failed.
>
>You see what I mean? Must be talking about that parallel universe again.
>
>>Not only is it a failure, but indeed it is a great evil, for who would
>>benefit from driving a big wedge between the participants of one
>>of the most elemental and intimate relationship of man and
>>woman becoming a family?
>
>You must be referring to those feminazis that Rush says think all
straight
>sex is rape.
No, I'm talking about the Devil. He's the benefactor of these errors.
>>Like the Romans, our "great" civilization also
>>practices contraception, abortion, infanticide and suicide.
>
>All four have been practiced throughout much of history. We don't have
>the market on any of them.
Sure, but no civilization has focused its engineering, manufacturing
and marketing so as to bring it to such a high efficiency and
prevalence. We practice it so much more high tech.
>
>>Soon we may even have shows of executions on TV - our
>>modern electronic Colliseum of entertainment and (gag)
>>culture. Guess that's how our culture is becoming pagan.
>
>WOW! All THAT from women's liberation? Imagine! I learn ever so much
>through your posts T.
Not exactly.
>
>Laura
Tarasius
MAYAN GIRL
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
> That "glamorous" marketplace. Then in some cases
> - I guess - he can look forward to going home. (maybe >not)
Is there a serpent in T.'s garden? "- I guess -" ????
Bill Silverthorn
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
> w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) writes:
>>tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I hereby want to express my sincerest gratitude to you Mayan Girl,
>>> for coming in here at this point and proving my assertion
>>>so vehemently with all this Blah Blah Blah Yackity Yack
>>>trying to wear us down.
>>
>>Tarasius,
>>
>>Not that I am any more of a favorite of yours,
>What makes you think that? Come back home.
>>but this is twice that you have made your anti-female nature known ....
>>I think her advice to you is very sound:
>>
>>>Are we UNCLEAR on the concept here of what a Christian is all about?
>>>Take the recommendation so often bandied about by the "good Catholics"
>>>when they point out the beam in someone else's eye: Go to confession and
>>>ask for forgiveness for holding such hate against HALF THE HUMAN RACE!
>>>Your SOUL depends on on it, T!
>I am not anti-female. I love women. It is a known fact that women have
>a higher developed verbal ability. Look at any of the studies, in particular
>those involving nuclear magnetic resonance cat scans. It's as if they have
>a daily allotment more than that of men. Men and women are wired
>differently. Nothing will change that, not even "social engineering."
>This is a sin of hating half the human race?
No, but this complement was not contained in your earlier posts.
>Many can utilize this ability for mischief. Men can too, but generally not
>as effectively. This mischief appears most apparently in the attempts to
>de-sex language. Hence Bible translations like "let us make man in our
>image" is changed to "let us make humans in our own image".
The attempts to de-sex language are truly not valid in most cases but
in some they do serve some good. Regardless, you could take some tips
from Rush Limbaugh on being able to attack only the "femi-nazi's" and
not all females .... I appreciate that you are now saying that you did
not mean to come across that way but that is how it read and not just
to Mayan Girl.
>A severe anthropological misunderstanding then occurs, by negating
>"male and female He created them". The attempt is to make the sexes
>identical (i.e."equal") - which is stupid. He didn't make Adam and Eve
>as a single androgynous being and then cut "it" in two in order to make
>male and female - like what was erroneouly taught in my RCIA class by
>a woman who wants to be a priest. Bogus theology justifying itself.
>I pray that when you return you will be met at the door by a Catholic,
>and not something else.
You have lost me here ..... first of all, I have returned ... after
being lost for 40 years ... and what, pray tell, would meet anyone at
the <assumed> catholic door you wish me to return to but a catholic?
Not sure of the point here following your discussion of male and
female ...
>I don't know where your denomination-less stance is, Bill,
Simply Christian, Tarsius, removing as many religious trappings of man
that I can .... ( I do still catch myself making the sign of the cross
once in awhile ... but healing takes time <g>)
>but you will
>see that among people called "Christian" - it is the bark of Peter that
>will remain taking the same stand on the issues, when all the others
>flee. Example - 1930's - all mainline denominations condemned
>contraception. The ranks are thining out, aren't they? Paul VI's
>Humanae Vitae was prophetic. Oughta tell ya somethin. Eph 6:13
Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
30's? Which denominations have "changed" their posture? Please put
up a few more facts and then I will tell you if it tells me something.
I am not for "modernizing" the church but making a statement that the
catholic church is almost the only denomination left to condemn
contraception which was 90% uninvented when it was not alone ....
well, that is just another way of saying that regardless of "time" the
catholic church will remain in the past. Trust me, I commend the RCC
for being vocally out in front on abortion, homosexuality and a good
number of other issues .... but perhaps birth control is something
that needs a bit more review by the RCC .... at least IMHO.
>One of God's greatest creations is sex. I am not among those who think
>He made a mistake creating male and female.
That's refreshing to hear .... some other thread had anyone thinking
of sex (within marriage) as anything other than for procreation as
absolute "perversion" .... good to hear from a more rational catholic
on God's gift to man and woman.
>I'm still waiting on your explanation of Col 1:24 as to how this fits
>into your idea of redemption and salvation.
Please ask away ... I am currently rebuilding my computer (it was
stolen) and am without my usual handy reference aids. However, using
the trusty old manual paper and ink bible:
Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you and I fill up in
my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for
the sake of his body, which is the church. "
Is it Paul's reference to the church that you want me to explain in my
terms?
Bill
Matt
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>mhi...@amaranth.com (Matt) wrote:
>>And some people make it sound like having a "career" is "fun". None
>>of it is fun (at least not all the time) IT IS WORK!
>My point is that he is over romanticizing being a housewife (working
>mother, home economist or whatever pc term is in vogue).
Maybe, but the "women's movement" equaly over romanticized being a
career woman (or man).
[snipped]
>Matt, in your glee to defend T.,...
The glee you detect is the glee to defend what I think is right.
> ...you're not (conveniently) reading what he
>posted. "with women reduced to sex objects." Again I reiterate, when
>in history weren't women sex objects?
Look again. The term was "REDUCED to sex objects". There will always
be the sexual component of a male- female interaction. However, there
was in the past, better moral control of when and how this sexual
component was expressed. Now, all I ever see on TV is people jumping
into bed.
[snipped]
>>Wake up MayanGirl! Get your head out of the sand. Things are much
>>worse now than they have ever been. OK fine there were problems with
>>women's rights in the 50's, but did you have movies like "Showgirl" or
>>strip clubs being seen as OK by society.
>That may have been started by the sexual revolution (they were more
>underground before), but CAPITALISM has made it reach new heights.
WRONG! Capitalism with MORALS works fine. Capitalism WITHOUT morals
it what you discribe below. Lack of MORALS is the root of the
problem.
> Ever
>been to Las Vegas? It's capitalism run amuck. Before you go labeling me a
>pinko, I'm asking how much of our societal ills are actually caused by our
>capitalistic system. When the common denominator is always $$$$$$, what
>do you think will happen? How sleazy something may be doesn't matter if
>it will make a buck. "Showgirls" is the product of a company that wants
>to earn money.
If society had the MORALS not to go to the movie it wouldn't make any
money would it?
> Sex just happens to be an easy, reliable way to make
>money.
In a society devoid of MORALS.
>It is not ONE thing (like liberation) that has caused our society
>to come to its present state; it is a multitude of things. We have
>people who spent alot of time and energy trying to get prayer back in
>school, but what voices were raised when the CEO of ATT makes (what?) a
>couple of million in bonuses after laying off some 45,000 workers?
Barbra Striesan (sp?) and Robin Williams make a heck of a lot more
than any AT&T CEO and no one complains about that. If I, little "Joe
average American", have stock in AT&T and it requires down sizing to
keep the comapany competive, then the CEO has a moral responsibility
TO ME to do what he is paid to do. BTW, most CEO bonuses are based on
the companies performance.
> We're
>so selective in what the evils of our time are, including me. But which
>of the two has a greater impact on our society?
MORAL DECAY!!!!!!!!!
>>I must admit I am getting a little tired of the "bash Rush" comments,
>>since it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Just
>>for the record; Rush did not make up the "straight sex is rape"
>>concept. He merely reported it.
>Right. Read it out of Ms. Magazine. Don't be such a Dittohead Matt.
Then don't be such a "anti-Dittohead" MayanGirl.
>Tones of what Rush has said has been PROVEN to be wrong.
What the heck is a "tone".
> It has been
>PROVEN that he likes to play fast and loose with the facts.
Never seen it in the 5 years I have been tuned in.
> Not to mention bash people like the poor.
Untrue!
> "Piglets at the teat of the mother pig" referring to welfare.
How is that bashing the poor? That is exactly what our welfare
society has made some people. If you choose to ignore it.... well
then.... who is truly harming the poor?
> I'll email you more to save this thread from that.
That would be great.
>>Keep in mind MayanGirl, to say that certain aspects of the woman's
>>movement were bad is not condemning the whole thing.
>Get YOUR head out of the sand Matt! He is and has!
I'm sorry, I just didn't see it. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough on
this issue.
>>It seems YOU are the one trying to say that one must love it ALL or leave
>>it.
>I'M trying to point out to T. that it isn't responsible for all the social
>ills of our time like he thinks it is.
I think part of the problem here is that MayanGirl is thinking of
women's liberation in general and T (and I) are speaking more of the
sexual revolution. Does that amke sense? Would love to hear from T
and MayanGirl on this particular asspect of the discussion.
Pax!
Matt
Tarasius
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) writes:
>
>tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
<< snip>>
>>I am not anti-female. I love women. It is a known fact that women have
>>a higher developed verbal ability. Look at any of the studies, in
particular
>
>>those involving nuclear magnetic resonance cat scans. It's as if they
have
>
>>a daily allotment more than that of men. Men and women are wired
>>differently. Nothing will change that, not even "social engineering."
>>This is a sin of hating half the human race?
>
>No, but this complement was not contained in your earlier posts.
It is not intended as a compliment or a slap. That would depend on how the
ability is used. It's just plain fact. The talent can be used to
skillfully
diffuse a hostile situation, or it can be used to create one. One uses
the proper tool for the job - and if you have a better tool to do the job
-
you use it. The tool isn't inherently good or ill. The woman's verbal
grinder
is usually the better one. Men and women are different in more ways than
just the plumbing. The wiring is different too. It's common knowledge,
except for those who rebel against it. I wasn't aware of any obligation on
my part to supply recent scientific studies in anticipation of someone's
tirade.
Oh, shoot! Let's see if I get "the grinder" in response to this post.
>
>>Many can utilize this ability for mischief. Men can too, but generally
not
>>as effectively. This mischief appears most apparently in the attempts to
>>de-sex language. Hence Bible translations like "let us make man in our
>>image" is changed to "let us make humans in our own image".
>
>The attempts to de-sex language are truly not valid in most cases but
>in some they do serve some good.
Just maybe it's no good at all in the final analysis.
>Regardless, you could take some tips
>from Rush Limbaugh on being able to attack only the "femi-nazi's" and
>not all females ....
I'm not attacking anyone. Someone perceived an attack.
I appreciate that you are now saying that you did
>not mean to come across that way but that is how it read and not just
>to Mayan Girl.
Okay. Thanks.
>>A severe anthropological misunderstanding then occurs, by negating
>>"male and female He created them". The attempt is to make the sexes
>>identical (i.e."equal") - which is stupid. He didn't make Adam and Eve
>>as a single androgynous being and then cut "it" in two in order to make
>>male and female - like what was erroneouly taught in my RCIA class by
>>a woman who wants to be a priest. Bogus theology justifying itself.
>>I pray that when you return you will be met at the door by a Catholic,
>>and not something else.
>
>You have lost me here ..... first of all, I have returned ... after
>being lost for 40 years ...
to Holy Mother Church? Where the battle is hottest because it is the
center of the enemy's focus ?
> and what, pray tell, would meet anyone at
>the <assumed> catholic door you wish me to return to but a catholic?
someone who says they're Catholic, but is teaching something else.
>Not sure of the point here following your discussion of male and
>female ...
I had a feminist RCIA instructor, okay? I know a little about this
heresy, I battled it entering the Church. She was "dissident central"
for the parish. I pulled out the Catechism or some Church documents
to refute what she was teaching - not a very Christian thing to do
in some circles. I did not become a Catholic for the "community".
I walked in "off the street" - with no "sponsor" out of obedience to God's
call.
When I heard myself being labeled as a "troublemaker" - I thought
they were just concerned I might bring in some strange ideas or try to
steel "the sheep" out of the Church, evangelize or something. I had
no idea that the "threat" that I brought was Catholic faith itself. That's
why I said that I hope you are met by a Catholic at the door when you
come home to Holy Mother Church.
I've seen some pretty crass "stuff" in so called "Catholic Churches"
-( like scantily clad women doing "liturgical dance") --and it's
scandalous!
I can see why people loose what little they have, leave and settle for
less
- especially when less has all the surface appearances of being more.
>
>>I don't know where your denomination-less stance is, Bill,
>
>Simply Christian, Tarsius, removing as many religious trappings of man
>that I can .... ( I do still catch myself making the sign of the cross
>once in awhile ... but healing takes time <g>)
>
And keep it simple too. We wouldn't want any moral dilemma confusing
our lives or altering a lifestyle would we? We gotta get rid of those
trappings
of guilt, sin and other unhealthy attitudes. Can we get a drive thru
version
for convenience of our mobile society?
>>but you will
>>see that among people called "Christian" - it is the bark of Peter that
>>will remain taking the same stand on the issues, when all the others
>>flee. Example - 1930's - all mainline denominations condemned
>>contraception. The ranks are thining out, aren't they? Paul VI's
>>Humanae Vitae was prophetic. Oughta tell ya somethin. Eph 6:13
>
>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>30's?
Yes, production, marketing and technology combined with false
"liberation" from humanistic ideologies hike the prevalence.
But it's been around for a long time. The Romans had a wide variety of
prescriptions before and after intercourse to prevent pregnancies.
Look up the oath of Hypocrates and find a "pagan" doctor having his
students take an oath not to prescribe a pessary. The Didache explicitly
rejects abortion and infanticide. Ancient Greeks and Romans did it, -what
makes you think it didn't exist in the USA 60 years ago? Few people
use horse-drawn buggies anymore in a fuel injection market.
>Which denominations have "changed" their posture? Please put
>up a few more facts and then I will tell you if it tells me something.
I told you - all the mainline denominations have changed their stance,
pick one - Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian......- but now, unlike
the firm Catholic teaching, they make no firm stand against
contraception. Some of them even have women "pastors" which was
a no no back in the 30's too. Visit a large used Christian bookstore,
or better yet check out a local seminary library and look in the archives
for
their old -"Manuals of Discipline", "Synod minutes" etc. and compare
the old records with whats coming out from them today. This isn't rocket
science. They multiply by division - always a new variety. Tailor made
religion, find the one meeting your specifications!. Democracy in action
on theological ideals - a free competitive marketplace for ideas of
"relative" truths.
>
>I am not for "modernizing" the church but making a statement that the
>catholic church is almost the only denomination left to condemn
>contraception which was 90% uninvented when it was not alone ....
>well, that is just another way of saying that regardless of "time" the
>catholic church will remain in the past. Trust me, I commend the RCC
>for being vocally out in front on abortion, homosexuality and a good
>number of other issues .... but perhaps birth control is something
>that needs a bit more review by the RCC .... at least IMHO.
Uh-huh. Pick and choose. Why? Because of MHO! Tsk Tsk.
>
>>One of God's greatest creations is sex. I am not among those who think
>>He made a mistake creating male and female.
>
>That's refreshing to hear .... some other thread had anyone thinking
>of sex (within marriage) as anything other than for procreation as
>absolute "perversion" .... good to hear from a more rational catholic
>on God's gift to man and woman.
>
>>I'm still waiting on your explanation of Col 1:24 as to how this fits
>>into your idea of redemption and salvation.
>
>Please ask away ... I am currently rebuilding my computer (it was
>stolen) and am without my usual handy reference aids. However, using
>the trusty old manual paper and ink bible:
>
> Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you and I fill up in
>
> my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for
>
> the sake of his body, which is the church. "
>
>Is it Paul's reference to the church that you want me to explain in my
>terms?
>
>Bill
"what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions"
HUH? WHAT? What is that saying? Why is THAT verse in the Bible?
What is still lacking? What was not final? Why is this a cause for
rejoicing?
Tarasius
Thomas Paul
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>Let's be real here, we didn't reach Nirvana in
>the 50s.
Nope, we reached Nirvana in the 90's. "Smells like teen spirit."
---------------------------------------
Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there
is no positive truth in religion, but that one god
is as good as another.
--John Henry Newman
---------------------------------------
Bill Silverthorn
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>I'm still waiting on your explanation of Col 1:24 as to how this fits
>into your idea of redemption and salvation.
Now that I have my computer bible reloaded, let's discuss what it is
you are looking for:
"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake,
which is the church."
To keep in context, the following 3 verses read:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God
which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from
generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of
this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the
hope of glory.
And you are asking "how it fits into my idea of redemption and
salvation"??? Well my "idea" is not alone for one thing ... I have
been a christian all my life and I still do not profess to be a
preacher, teacher, scholar, etc. in things biblical so let's be clear
on that ... I read the scriptures just as you do and then ask, test,
read again, read the greater text before and after, ask again and then
learn and move on to the next verse, chapter, book, etc. So not
really being familiar with this "verse" let me "wade into your pool"
..
Before seeking any aids, my first impression is that Paul is asking to
fill all of himself that is not currently filled with Christ .... he
also seems to be stating that the church is made up of the people that
do likewise .... much of what I was taught even as a catholic. As you
read on, through the other verses, he also seems to confirm that what
was kept for a few in the old covenant was now for the many in the
new.
Checking first my favorite "automated" protestant guide, Matthew
Henry, he states in reference to all four verses:
"Both the sufferings of the Head and of the members are called the
sufferings of Christ, and make up, as it were, one body of
sufferings. But He suffered for the redemption of the church; we
suffer on other accounts; for we do but slightly taste that cup of
afflictions of which Christ first drank deeply. A Christian may be
said to fill up that which remains of the sufferings of Christ, when
he takes up his cross, and after the pattern of Christ, bears
patiently the afflictions God allots to him. Let us be thankful that
God has made known to us mysteries hidden from ages and generations,
and has showed the riches of his glory among us. As Christ is
preached among us, let us seriously inquire, whether he dwells and
reigns in us; for this alone can warrant our assured hope of his
glory. We must be faithful to death, through all trials, that we may
receive the crown of life, and obtain the end of our faith, the
salvation of our souls."
Seems like I got pretty close .... I don't really have any other
sources with me at the moment to consult .... but go ahead, let me
know what "trap" or "snare" you have laid for me ..... <g>
In Jesus Name,
Bill
Bill Silverthorn
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
> w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) writes:
>>
>>tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>>>A severe anthropological misunderstanding then occurs, by negating
>>>"male and female He created them". The attempt is to make the sexes
>>>identical (i.e."equal") - which is stupid. He didn't make Adam and Eve
>>>as a single androgynous being and then cut "it" in two in order to make
>>>male and female - like what was erroneouly taught in my RCIA class by
>>>a woman who wants to be a priest. Bogus theology justifying itself.
>>>I pray that when you return you will be met at the door by a Catholic,
>>>and not something else.
>>
>>You have lost me here ..... first of all, I have returned ... after
>>being lost for 40 years ...
>to Holy Mother Church? Where the battle is hottest because it is the
>center of the enemy's focus ?
I would call Christianity as a whole as being in the enemy's focus ...
I see and have been much more active in my "battle's" with the enemy
since coming out of my religious comfort .... Sure, the RCC spends a
lot of time defending it's beliefs from other christians (me included,
and I must stop doing that ...) but that is not from the enemy ... it
is to a great extend self inflicted ...
Too often we like to group all that attack us or all that we do in
error as "from the enemy" when often the "enemy" sits on the sidelines
and laughes while watching us do his work for him ... that goes for
individual christiians as well as entire churches ..
>> and what, pray tell, would meet anyone at
>>the <assumed> catholic door you wish me to return to but a catholic?
>someone who says they're Catholic, but is teaching something else.
That would not be good ....
>>Not sure of the point here following your discussion of male and
>>female ...
>I had a feminist RCIA instructor, okay? I know a little about this
>heresy, I battled it entering the Church. She was "dissident central"
>for the parish. I pulled out the Catechism or some Church documents
>to refute what she was teaching - not a very Christian thing to do
>in some circles. I did not become a Catholic for the "community".
>I walked in "off the street" - with no "sponsor" out of obedience to God's
>call.
>When I heard myself being labeled as a "troublemaker" - I thought
>they were just concerned I might bring in some strange ideas or try to
>steel "the sheep" out of the Church, evangelize or something. I had
>no idea that the "threat" that I brought was Catholic faith itself. That's
>why I said that I hope you are met by a Catholic at the door when you
>come home to Holy Mother Church.
On that I can relate ... there are many "teachers" within not just
catholic but other christian denominations that feel that if you don't
do exactly as they do you are wrong .... (oops ... did I just self
incriminate myself??? <g> )
> I've seen some pretty crass "stuff" in so called "Catholic Churches"
>-( like scantily clad women doing "liturgical dance") --and it's
>scandalous!
Absolutely!!!! (where is this church? <g> ) just kidding ...
Liturgical dance as an expression is good, as is many other
expressions found in the charismatic movement ... but I would have to
agree with you that "scantily clad" is not good...
>I can see why people loose what little they have, leave and settle for less
>- especially when less has all the surface appearances of being more.
There is also a lot outside of the RCC that truly does give more ...
please don't push the stereotype too far ...
>>>I don't know where your denomination-less stance is, Bill,
>>
>>Simply Christian, Tarsius, removing as many religious trappings of man
>>that I can .... ( I do still catch myself making the sign of the cross
>>once in awhile ... but healing takes time <g>)
>>
>And keep it simple too. We wouldn't want any moral dilemma confusing
>our lives or altering a lifestyle would we? We gotta get rid of those
>trappings of guilt, sin and other unhealthy attitudes. Can we get a drive thru
>version for convenience of our mobile society?
Do you always mock anyone that simply answers your question? Removing
sin is hardly what I am referring to ... reducing my "religion" to its
purest form of a "relationship" with God, reading the bible
regularily, praying in multiple denomination settings, etc. is NOT
what I would call a "mobile" society .... One does not have to have a
denomination with extensive genealogys, holy hardware, hiarchical
positions, to be a good Christian, Tarsius.
>>>but you will
>>>see that among people called "Christian" - it is the bark of Peter that
>>>will remain taking the same stand on the issues, when all the others
>>>flee. Example - 1930's - all mainline denominations condemned
>>>contraception. The ranks are thining out, aren't they? Paul VI's
>>>Humanae Vitae was prophetic. Oughta tell ya somethin. Eph 6:13
>>
>>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>>30's?
>Yes, production, marketing and technology combined with false
>"liberation" from humanistic ideologies hike the prevalence.
>But it's been around for a long time. The Romans had a wide variety of
>prescriptions before and after intercourse to prevent pregnancies.
>Look up the oath of Hypocrates and find a "pagan" doctor having his
>students take an oath not to prescribe a pessary. The Didache explicitly
>rejects abortion and infanticide. Ancient Greeks and Romans did it, -what
>makes you think it didn't exist in the USA 60 years ago? Few people
>use horse-drawn buggies anymore in a fuel injection market.
Are we not making a large jump from contraception to abortion and
infanticide? Must these three things be grouped in the same category?
>>Which denominations have "changed" their posture? Please put
>>up a few more facts and then I will tell you if it tells me something.
>I told you - all the mainline denominations have changed their stance,
>pick one - Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian......- but now, unlike
>the firm Catholic teaching, they make no firm stand against
>contraception. Some of them even have women "pastors" which was
>a no no back in the 30's too. Visit a large used Christian bookstore,
>or better yet check out a local seminary library and look in the archives
>for
>their old -"Manuals of Discipline", "Synod minutes" etc. and compare
>the old records with whats coming out from them today. This isn't rocket
>science. They multiply by division - always a new variety. Tailor made
>religion, find the one meeting your specifications!. Democracy in action
>on theological ideals - a free competitive marketplace for ideas of
>"relative" truths.
My my .... aren't we bitter .... And isn't the RCC taking a bit of
heat in this same area with the changes of vatican II? Wasn't it a
new revelation never before allowed to be even thought that people
outside the catholic church can find salvation as well? It sure
didn't exist before vat 2!!!
>>I am not for "modernizing" the church but making a statement that the
>>catholic church is almost the only denomination left to condemn
>>contraception which was 90% uninvented when it was not alone ....
>>well, that is just another way of saying that regardless of "time" the
>>catholic church will remain in the past. Trust me, I commend the RCC
>>for being vocally out in front on abortion, homosexuality and a good
>>number of other issues .... but perhaps birth control is something
>>that needs a bit more review by the RCC .... at least IMHO.
>Uh-huh. Pick and choose. Why? Because of MHO! Tsk Tsk.
No ... I don't pick and choose ... I also don't agree with many people
in the catholic church (as evidenced on this board) who want to
believe that marital sex is strictly for reproduction ... any thoughts
otherwise are perversion .... so I am just being consistant with my
beliefs.
>>>I'm still waiting on your explanation of Col 1:24 as to how this fits
>>>into your idea of redemption and salvation.
>>
>>Please ask away ... I am currently rebuilding my computer (it was
>>stolen) and am without my usual handy reference aids. However, using
>>the trusty old manual paper and ink bible:
>>
>> Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you and I fill up in
>> my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for
>> the sake of his body, which is the church. "
>>
>>Is it Paul's reference to the church that you want me to explain in my
>>terms?
>"what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions"
>HUH? WHAT? What is that saying? Why is THAT verse in the Bible?
>What is still lacking? What was not final? Why is this a cause for
>rejoicing?
That, my dear brother, is the KJV of the verse in question ....please
give me your NASB version and let's compare.
Bill
Thomas Paul
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) wrote:
>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>30's? Which denominations have "changed" their posture? Please put
>up a few more facts and then I will tell you if it tells me something.
Actually you are quite mistaken here, Bill. Contraception has been
around for millenia. Perhaps you failed to notice that some condoms
are made from sheeps intestine, not latex. Condoms have been found
everywhere civilized humans have been found. I remember a show on the
discovery channel about a castle in Scotland from the middle ages that
is being restored. Condoms made from sheeps intestines were found.
They hadn't been destroyed because they had been submerged in a peat
bog next to the castle. Peat bogs contain no oxygen so bacteria were
unable to eat the condoms.
MAYAN GIRL
>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>30's?
:Actually you are quite mistaken here, Bill. Contraception has been
:around for millenia. Perhaps you failed to notice that some condoms
:are made from sheeps intestine, not latex. Condoms have been found
:everywhere civilized humans have been found.
Actually Bill didn't say that contraception hasn't been around forever.
He mentioned "latex, the pill, etc." Of course condoms have a long
history; they were Don Juan's favorite. But condoms made from sheep
intestine are more porrous and more prone to fail. Ancient Egyptian women
used crocodile dung because of the acidity.
What Bills seems to be saying here is that better contraceptions have a
recent history.
Laura
Bill Silverthorn
TOM...@PIPELINE.COM (Thomas Paul) wrote:
>w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) wrote:
>>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>>30's? Which denominations have "changed" their posture? Please put
>>up a few more facts and then I will tell you if it tells me something.
>Actually you are quite mistaken here, Bill. Contraception has been
>around for millenia. Perhaps you failed to notice that some condoms
>are made from sheeps intestine, not latex. Condoms have been found
>everywhere civilized humans have been found. I remember a show on the
>discovery channel about a castle in Scotland from the middle ages that
>is being restored. Condoms made from sheeps intestines were found.
>They hadn't been destroyed because they had been submerged in a peat
>bog next to the castle. Peat bogs contain no oxygen so bacteria were
>unable to eat the condoms.
I am aware of condoms made from sheeps intestines ... that is why I
specifically listed latex as being an "improvement" since the 30's ....
However, I never really knew some of the other facts you listed
...interesting.
Bill
Tarasius
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) writes:
[mega-snip]
>>>
>>>Simply Christian, Tarsius, removing as many religious trappings of man
>>>that I can .... ( I do still catch myself making the sign of the cross
>>>once in awhile ... but healing takes time <g>)
>>>
>>And keep it simple too. We wouldn't want any moral dilemma confusing
>>our lives or altering a lifestyle would we? We gotta get rid of those
>>trappings of guilt, sin and other unhealthy attitudes. Can we get a
drive
>thru
>>version for convenience of our mobile society?
>
>Do you always mock anyone that simply answers your question?
No, not always. But having been there and done that - being just a
"simple Christian" - I feel qualified to do so. It is simpler for sure.
No denominations, simple theology, no sacraments - just "Me and the
Bible and the Lord. Forget formality. And yes, I've seen Drive Inn
Theaters used for drive in Sunday services.
Removing
>sin is hardly what I am referring to ... reducing my "religion" to its
>purest form of a "relationship" with God, reading the bible
>regularily, praying in multiple denomination settings, etc. is NOT
>what I would call a "mobile" society .... One does not have to have a
>denomination with extensive genealogys, holy hardware, hiarchical
>positions, to be a good Christian, Tarsius.
>
Yeah - forget any formal worship. Toss out the incense. Who's this
Jesus think He is anyway? Some sort of King with a throne or
something? Yeah, throw out the bishops too - just because we had
them in the NT church is no reason to keep them. In fact - make
everyone a bishop and throw out all the church buildings because
we don't need them to be good Christians either.
>>>>but you will
>>>>see that among people called "Christian" - it is the bark of Peter
that
>>>>will remain taking the same stand on the issues, when all the others
>>>>flee. Example - 1930's - all mainline denominations condemned
>>>>contraception. The ranks are thining out, aren't they? Paul VI's
>>>>Humanae Vitae was prophetic. Oughta tell ya somethin. Eph 6:13
>>>
>>>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>>>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>>>30's?
>
>>Yes, production, marketing and technology combined with false
>>"liberation" from humanistic ideologies hike the prevalence.
>>But it's been around for a long time. The Romans had a wide variety of
>>prescriptions before and after intercourse to prevent pregnancies.
>>Look up the oath of Hypocrates and find a "pagan" doctor having his
>>students take an oath not to prescribe a pessary. The Didache explicitly
>>rejects abortion and infanticide. Ancient Greeks and Romans did it,
-what
>>makes you think it didn't exist in the USA 60 years ago? Few people
>>use horse-drawn buggies anymore in a fuel injection market.
>
>Are we not making a large jump from contraception to abortion and
>infanticide? Must these three things be grouped in the same category?
Your ordered them in their proper sequence. Yes, same category - sin.
You picked and chose to leave Holy Mother Church.
> I also don't agree with many
people
>in the catholic church (as evidenced on this board) who want to
>believe that marital sex is strictly for reproduction ... any thoughts
>otherwise are perversion .... so I am just being consistant with my
>beliefs.
>
>>>>I'm still waiting on your explanation of Col 1:24 as to how this fits
>>>>into your idea of redemption and salvation.
>>>
>>>Please ask away ... I am currently rebuilding my computer (it was
>>>stolen) and am without my usual handy reference aids. However, using
>>>the trusty old manual paper and ink bible:
>>>
>>> Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you and I fill up in
>>> my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for
>>> the sake of his body, which is the church. "
>>>
>>>Is it Paul's reference to the church that you want me to explain in my
>>>terms?
>
>>"what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions"
>>HUH? WHAT? What is that saying? Why is THAT verse in the Bible?
>>What is still lacking? What was not final? Why is this a cause for
>>rejoicing?
>
>That, my dear brother, is the KJV of the verse in question ....please
>give me your NASB version and let's compare.
>
>Bill
>
Bill,
I see now that this Bible quoting isn't going to go anywhere.
In another thread you're still denying the Eucharist. Everyone here
has been trying help you, but you're still locked up in your own
ideology. My experience indicates that dissident behavior is usually
accompanied by some sin that hasn't been dealt with. I'm not the one
to call you on that - I've got a different set to deal with of my own.
I once observed that you where so discusting as to remind me of
myself. I was wrong. I apologize for that. After considering what I've
learned of you and in digging up more of my past and making
a more accurate comparison - I see now that you are nowhere near
discusting enough. I guess I'm totally unprepared to deal with a cradle
Catholic that chose to leave Holy Mother Church. I have a totally
different baseline of experience. It took me a couple of decades out of
atheism to find out the truth about the Catholic Church. She's been
smeared pretty bad by those she calls separated brethren. I've been
there-done that too- a totally an ignorant ass. There are even those that
think she's some Babylonian pagan system of idolatry! Calling her the
"Whore of Babylon" - not even realizing that if they're serious about the
charge - then they are her daughters, the harlots and abominations
of the earth.
When I woke up to the fact that there is a God, I tried reading
the Bible. It flat out didn't make a whole lot of sense. I spent over 20
years looking for anyone who really understood it. (Not nearly
enough penance for where I'd been - but God is merciful) Do you
really have a concept of how many different interpretations are out
there? Everyone last one of them is correct too. That can't be.
We got the Jehovah's Witnesses saying it says this, The Baptists
saying it says that. The Assemblies of God saying something
different still. And let's don't forget it's big TV business too, -----
love that $$$$$.
So, having come to the conclusion that the Bible was either
severly corrupted or else only certain people were given the key
to this mysterious code, I kept looking for the key - or someone that
could help me decode the mess. I've observed churches here that
said this thing, and there that said no that's not right, this is. Blah
blah blah yackety yack yack. It's no wonder to me that there is
such affinity to abandon the pursuit for secular garbage.
Been there - done that too. But I couldn't come to join a single one
of those churches. They haven't got the whole thing. It was solely
an authority issue, "Why? Because Rev. So&so said it?." Most all
of them claim the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
Well, God did better than just that.
Now, you think I'm bitter about it? I will not deny that I am a Catholic
with an attitude. I have problems calling toilet paper "bathroom tissue"
just to satisfy some concept of political correctness or vague "warm
fuzzy" non-offensive manner. The truth isn't popular doncha know.
It wasn't too popular with me - but my idea of truth was popular for me.
I remember when I came to a point where my arguement with God was
down to "NO! You don't know what You are saying God, or You wouldn't
be asking me to join the Catholic Church!" But I did. Obedience is a
strange thing for an rebel. St. Thomas Aquinas, I think it was,
equates obedience with love. I'm still trying to figure that one out,
but for now I'll just have to settle on "Thy rod and Thy staff comfort
me."
So, here you come across my path having done a pick and choose
to leave Holy Mother Church. Weren't you told to stay in the yard and
not go out into the street? You've been a naughty boy. Take it from a
kid who came from the other side of the tracks. Come home. You're
doing a pretty good job at it but I don't want you to become as big a jerk
as me before you realize it. Believe me, it isn't an accomplishment to
be proud of. Are you someone who can learn from another's mistakes
or are you truly a fool like me? Don't answer that question here, but in
your heart. Aren't you the least bit sorry? Come back home.
The "big spanking" isn't that bad. Afterwards you will realize that you
ARE back Home.
Tarasius
Tarasius
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) writes:
That's it? Out of the entire post I get a one line response?
Does that mean I'm doing better?? I hope so.
Am I to consider home to a additional hostile situation is a
"serpent" in the garden for the man? Interesting
concept Mayan Girl. When I was writing that line I was
thinking of an old friend and fellow grunt worker - a few
years ago. He had me follow him home to help with
something. It had been a particularly demeaning day
where the boss and senior co-workers were especially
crass, lewd and crude. (I hope you've never seen the
place - one notch up from a junk yard - girlie calendars
and all - what a pig sty) Well, we got to his house and
his wife immeadiately lit into him with a riot act supreme.
Personally, I've got it pretty good in that department.
In fact, I think I'll take her out to her favorite restaurant
because you reminded me of the fact and I should be
grateful to God for her. She brings me much delight!
Now if I can just figure out where to get the $30.
Maybe I outta take that old camera to the pawn shop
- yeah that outta work. I'm going to miss it, but not
as bad as I'd miss her.
Thank you Mayan Girl. {{Hug}} You're precious!
Tarasius
John Médaille
In article <4nbkkv$b...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, mhi...@amaranth.com wrote:
>WRONG! Capitalism with MORALS works fine. Capitalism WITHOUT morals
>it what you discribe below. Lack of MORALS is the root of the
>problem.
IMHO, this is at best, an oversimplification. The truth is, capitalism has no
morals, at least not intrinsic to it. Capitalism refers all such questions to
the marketplace. This proposition has been condemned over and over again in
the Churches Social encyclicals, including several condemnations by the
current pontiff.
Indeed, there is very little difference between Captialism and Communism in
their attitude towards religion and morality. Communism treats religion as an
opiate and rival to the class struggle; Capitalism treats it as a distraction
from the market struggle. Both treat man as a purely economic entity and then
treat economics as all-encompassing. Man is thus reduced to a cipher.
To give but one concrete example (among millions) the selling of jeans by
showing "crotch shots" of children is an example of referring morals to the
marketplace. The very act of refferral is not neutral in itself but carries
grave implications.
John
Bill Silverthorn
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>>30's?
>:Actually you are quite mistaken here, Bill. Contraception has been
>:around for millenia. Perhaps you failed to notice that some condoms
>:are made from sheeps intestine, not latex. Condoms have been found
>:everywhere civilized humans have been found.
>Actually Bill didn't say that contraception hasn't been around forever.
>He mentioned "latex, the pill, etc." Of course condoms have a long
>history; they were Don Juan's favorite. But condoms made from sheep
>intestine are more porrous and more prone to fail. Ancient Egyptian women
>used crocodile dung because of the acidity.
>What Bills seems to be saying here is that better contraceptions have a
>recent history.
>Laura
Thank you Laura for correctly reading my statement ... I know that I would
sure lean toward "rhythm" rather than sheep guts and crocodile dung if I
was married in the 30's !!!! <g>
Bill
Bill Silverthorn
tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
>I see now that this Bible quoting isn't going to go anywhere.
>In another thread you're still denying the Eucharist. Everyone here
>has been trying help you, but you're still locked up in your own
>ideology. My experience indicates that dissident behavior is usually
>accompanied by some sin that hasn't been dealt with. I'm not the one
>to call you on that - I've got a different set to deal with of my own.
I have tried to believe in the "species" but I cannot. I miss the
reverence of the Communion service but that is only a statement that makes
me interested in what the Lutherans, Anglicans view in communion.
>I once observed that you where so discusting as to remind me of
>myself. I was wrong. I apologize for that. After considering what I've
>learned of you and in digging up more of my past and making
>a more accurate comparison - I see now that you are nowhere near
>discusting enough.
??? I guess I should thanks??? <g>
>I guess I'm totally unprepared to deal with a cradle Catholic that
>chose to leave Holy Mother Church.
>I have a totally
>different baseline of experience. It took me a couple of decades out of
>atheism to find out the truth about the Catholic Church. She's been
>smeared pretty bad by those she calls separated brethren. I've been
>there-done that too- a totally an ignorant ass. There are even those that
>think she's some Babylonian pagan system of idolatry! Calling her the
>"Whore of Babylon" - not even realizing that if they're serious about the
>charge - then they are her daughters, the harlots and abominations
>of the earth.
True ... I know these people exist ... as much as I may aggrevate a few
here, I will protest for the RCC to those that say as such.
>When I woke up to the fact that there is a God, I tried reading
>the Bible. It flat out didn't make a whole lot of sense. I spent over 20
>years looking for anyone who really understood it. (Not nearly
>enough penance for where I'd been - but God is merciful)
I am impressed .... I spent that time and more within the catholic church
without an understanding of the bible ... but surrounded by nuns, priests,
etc. that supposedly should have been ...
>Do you
>really have a concept of how many different interpretations are out
>there? Everyone last one of them is correct too. That can't be.
No, it can't, you are correct.
>We got the Jehovah's Witnesses saying it says this, The Baptists
>saying it says that. The Assemblies of God saying something
>different still. And let's don't forget it's big TV business too, -----
>love that $$$$$.
Let's keep the JW's separate ... they have literally printed their own
bible, changing certain words.
>So, having come to the conclusion that the Bible was either
>severly corrupted or else only certain people were given the key
>to this mysterious code, I kept looking for the key - or someone that
>could help me decode the mess. I've observed churches here that
>said this thing, and there that said no that's not right, this is. Blah
>blah blah yackety yack yack. It's no wonder to me that there is
>such affinity to abandon the pursuit for secular garbage.
Amen ... there are different teachings ... one needs to be able ti
discern.
>Been there - done that too. But I couldn't come to join a single one
>of those churches. They haven't got the whole thing. It was solely
>an authority issue, "Why? Because Rev. So&so said it?." Most all
>of them claim the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
>Well, God did better than just that.
He certainly did ... and if an interpretation is based on "rev so&so"
without any other backup, well I would think that you got yourself into a
wrong group with that one..... I have not had that problem in my bible
study groups.
>Now, you think I'm bitter about it? I will not deny that I am a Catholic
>with an attitude. I have problems calling toilet paper "bathroom tissue"
>just to satisfy some concept of political correctness or vague "warm
>fuzzy" non-offensive manner. The truth isn't popular doncha know.
<Smile>
>It wasn't too popular with me - but my idea of truth was popular for me.
>I remember when I came to a point where my arguement with God was
>down to "NO! You don't know what You are saying God, or You wouldn't
>be asking me to join the Catholic Church!" But I did. Obedience is a
>strange thing for an rebel. St. Thomas Aquinas, I think it was,
>equates obedience with love. I'm still trying to figure that one out,
>but for now I'll just have to settle on "Thy rod and Thy staff comfort
>me."
You are definitely a different character here on this board and I thank you
for your time, tone and dialogue here on this board.
>So, here you come across my path having done a pick and choose
>to leave Holy Mother Church. Weren't you told to stay in the yard and
>not go out into the street? You've been a naughty boy. Take it from a
>kid who came from the other side of the tracks. Come home. You're
>doing a pretty good job at it but I don't want you to become as big a jerk
>as me before you realize it. Believe me, it isn't an accomplishment to
>be proud of. Are you someone who can learn from another's mistakes
>or are you truly a fool like me? Don't answer that question here, but in
>your heart. Aren't you the least bit sorry? Come back home.
>The "big spanking" isn't that bad. Afterwards you will realize that you
>ARE back Home. >Tarasius
I always enjoy your messages, T.
God Bless,
Bill
Thomas Paul
maya...@aol.com (MAYAN GIRL) wrote:
>>Let's study this point .... what contraceptions did we have in the
>>1930's? Didn't latex, the pill, etc. all get invented "since" the
>>30's?
>:Actually you are quite mistaken here, Bill. Contraception has been
>:around for millenia. Perhaps you failed to notice that some condoms
>:are made from sheeps intestine, not latex. Condoms have been found
>:everywhere civilized humans have been found.
>Actually Bill didn't say that contraception hasn't been around forever.
>He mentioned "latex, the pill, etc." Of course condoms have a long
>history; they were Don Juan's favorite. But condoms made from sheep
>intestine are more porrous and more prone to fail. Ancient Egyptian women
>used crocodile dung because of the acidity.
>What Bills seems to be saying here is that better contraceptions have a
>recent history.
Actually, that is not what Bill's post says and not what I get from it
when I read it. he is saying that the Protestant Churches did not
chnage their teaching on birth control because birth control was only
developed in the 30's. This is clearly inaccurate.
----------------
A nation must have a religion and that religion must
be under the control of the government.
---Napoleon Bonaparte 1801
MAYAN GIRL
TOM...@PIPELINE.COM (Thomas Paul) writes:
>Actually, that is not what Bill's post says and not what I get from it
>when I read it.
You read it wrong TP, he posted saying so. Nyah, nyah. :-]
Laura