14
   

Write to the American Catholic Bishops...

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 10:15 am
@chai2,
The Catholic Church is petrified, in so many ways, but in this case I'm talking about the fear the bishops have of losing the entire business if they start actually telling the women of this day and age how to run their reproductive lives.

Joe(There is no longer the fear of hell amongst them)Nation
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 12:24 pm
@Joe Nation,
Their putting more effort into this issue than what they did when priests were raping and molesting children. What gives?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 01:23 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Finn: You misunderstood. I, if you will read the initial post again, am trying to save the American Catholic Church. Not an easy task, as you can well imagine, but one that, I am sure Spendius will agree, is the most important undertaking of this era. (The image the word undertaking creates is unfortunate.)


You sureness is out of place Joe. I don't think saving the ACC is the most important undertaking of this era or any other era. I have already postulated that the RC Church may well have written the ACC off as past the point of no return. The image you say is unfortunate is so for you because it provides a glimpse of the sort of things uppermost in your mind when you come back to us and seems to be the main principle of your opposition to the Church as if you are one of the chosen few who deplores such things. It's a sort of claim to pseudo-sainthood. Like you are special in this respect and have a constant felt need to be informing us all of the fact. All it informs me of is that you are obsessed with the matter.

Quote:
Spendius has many times implied, he never says outright, (then again he never say anything outright) that without the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and I'm sure he includes the American and perhaps even the Irish contingents in his thoughts, our civilization is doomed to fall into a Darwinian maelstrom from which there is no escape, a reality that will be nothing but days of hideous sin and nights of perdition.


I say plenty of things outright. Too outright for some. Have you any examples of my implying something by not saying them outright? I certainly don't think there is any "doom" or "fall" in the prospect of embracing the Darwinian position. Simply a momentous change in which there is no sin. There can only be misdemeanours and felonies. Hence Government will either allow Christian sexual ethics not covered by present law to become defunct or provide legal restraints in their place.

The USSC will be eventually called upon to decide how much female flesh may be displayed in public places, bare bosoms having been in fashion in numerous societies, as also naked bottoms, and having nothing but their own misogyny to guide them. And that after a few years of disputation during which the lookers will have been pushing their boat out. I'm not necessarily against sin and perdition. I simply ask you what you think it will result in and whether you approve of it and the progress towards it.

In discussing various sects and heresies, such as Christians living in Islamic states, Nestorians amidst the Persians and Jews in Byzantine, Oswald Spengler wrote-

Quote:
.... they did not and could not belong to it, and consequently were thrown back upon their own jurisdictions. If by reason of their numbers or their missionary spirit they became a threat to the continuance of the identity of the state and creed-community, persecution became a national duty.


As with Bradley Manning now. And Mr Assange. Both of whom have many supporters. The fact that our persecutions are more humane is neither here nor there. The persecution itself is the decisive fact. Not that JTT will agree that our persecutions are more humane no doubt citing figures of deaths, maimings and disablements on a numerical scale far surpassing what those primitive tribes could manage.

Our capacity to understand why the number of adherents or the missionary spirit of such minorities was conceived as a threat 2 or 3 thousand years ago is extremely limited and any condemnation of those persecutions needs must condemn all persecutions or admit to subjectivity and to the tacit assumption that they are addressing people of low intelligence.

What you seem to be asking for beneath a veil of cheap sarcasm is that women are free to get out of line.

Stock up on tin hats, ammo and corned beef is my advice.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 01:48 pm
Quote:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Galations Chap 3 Verse 16. King James version. Not included in the British and Foreign Bible Society version.

It goes without saying that the USSC will be exceedingly jealous to guard its rights under the constitution to make sure that we are justified by the works of the law alone and to take a dim view of any rivals in that respect.

That's explains what Catholic means. It justifies people under all legal jurisdictions who belong to the body of the faith. The USSC is restricted to what is a provincial corner of the world containing a mere fraction of mankind. The law justifies Assad in Syria. The non-Christian powers on the UNSC have vetoed action against him. So don't sit there condemning Assad because his supreme court has provided his justification.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 02:02 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

The Catholic Church is petrified, in so many ways, but in this case I'm talking about the fear the bishops have of losing the entire business if they start actually telling the women of this day and age how to run their reproductive lives.

Joe(There is no longer the fear of hell amongst them)Nation


Oh hey, I'm behind you 100% Joe.

It's all a farce.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 02:16 pm
@chai2,
What isn't chai?

I bet Joe is pleased that you are 100% behind him. It's all a farce Joe. I hope it comforts you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 02:35 pm
@chai2,
That also applies to the conservatives now running for office; they're giving Obama a free gift by making religious' issues political. I can't wait to see how many women actually vote for the GOP in November.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 02:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I should think that Mr Obama's policy of beginning the state control of women's reproductive organs will appeal to some women and not others.

Do you think his policy will affect reproduction rates in GOP ladies? It is obviously designed to affect rates in Dem ladies. It's class and ethnic eugenics in a velvet glove.

What's Mrs Obama's choice of ABC or are we not supposed to ask. 2 kids in all this time has definite implications.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 03:08 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You call it "state control," but you really don't know what you are talking about. Women has the choice to use or not to use; that's called freedom to choose. The state doesn't control women's choice.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 03:16 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
The Catholic Church is petrified, in so many ways, but in this case I'm talking about the fear the bishops have of losing the entire business if they start actually telling the women of this day and age how to run their reproductive lives.

Joe(There is no longer the fear of hell amongst them)Nation
I have never feared hell.

Of whatever interest it proves to be,
some complaints of hell have been forthcoming from
atheists and from people who have returned from death
in hospitals, after committing suicide.
www.IANDS.org
The point was made that suicide is an effective means of birth control;
i.e., designated people who 'd be born of the suicides
were disabled from so doing. The suicides were unhappy about that.
Thay did not like hell much, either.





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 03:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I didn't say it did. It encourages. Like we were gradually encouraged not to smoke as a prelude to legislation. Are you trying to claim it is not low intensity eugenics? Aimed at reducing the growth of the poor and ethnic groups which the whites can't keep up with.

And what do GOP blokes think about Dem blokes who have no fear of the female sex because they have got them fixed up. Publicly. Megaphoned. It's a little lad's game ci. For fans of the Rolling Stones who think the Devil is at the crossroads.

As Tiger Woods might contemplating a seaside clockwork golfer.

I think Mr Obama has made a ghastly mistake. His only hope is that the GOP doesn't know how to exploit it. Or dare not do.

The choice you are talking about is the same as everybody being free to own an ocean going yacht and a mansion.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 04:07 pm
@spendius,
The Emperor Augustus couldn't get the birth rate of the Roman middle and Upper classes increased despite all his powers, which were very considerable, and they were a randy and decadent bunch in a balmy climate.

What methods were the matrons using to prevent themselves being got with child if not the natural ones. They valued the jism as wrinkle cream. Brantome's Gallant Ladies valued it as health food.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 04:50 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
They valued the jism as wrinkle cream.


Well you wouldn't think it looking at the container.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 04:53 pm
@spendius,
spendi, People do not need "encouragement" to have sex; it's ingrown in their genes.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 04:54 pm
@izzythepush,
and it doesn't seem to work very well for vaginas, either...

what were they thinking...???
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 06:11 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Well you wouldn't think it looking at the container.


That just your inferiority complex peeking out izzy.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 06:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
We were not discussing encouragement to have sex. We were discussing encouragement to not have sex.

You're supposed to be a scientist ci. Define your terms. What's "sex"?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 06:17 pm
@Rockhead,
How would you have designed a pussy Rockie?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 07:18 pm
@spendius,
how would one even begin to undertake such a task?

I'm fine with them just as they are, actually. as long as one is careful of the claws...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 04:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
People do not need "encouragement" to have sex; it's ingrown in their genes.


What's genetic about ABC? What's genetic about natural birth control? What's genetic about copulation outside of a mating season? What's genetic about lingerie?

Is rape genetic?

Thanks for ducking the eugenic aspect. We will all take note.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 10:25:20