# Hey, Catholic Church!  Your ignorance is showing!



## DaveNay

Too pissed off to discuss...

IVF is immoral, my ass.


----------



## rback33

DaveNay said:


> Too pissed off to discuss...
> 
> IVF is immoral, my ass.




Oh boy. This could get interesting. 

First off..., I am making an assumption as to why you take such offense to this....

Second... Where is your source for the statement you purport that has been stated? I am guessing the quote or link was lost in your disgust.

Third... Where is Bob. I want to see this one play out...


----------



## DaveNay

rback33 said:


> Second... Where is your source for the statement you purport that has been stated? I am guessing the quote or link was lost in your disgust.



http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf


----------



## thcri RIP

I wondered what pissed you off Dave so I did a search.  Best or first I found  I really don't know why this would piss you off.


----------



## pirate_girl

DaveNay said:


> Too pissed off to discuss...
> 
> IVF is immoral, my ass.



In No. 2377, the Catechism explains why the Church opposes methods that  separate marital love-making from baby-making. 
They dissociate the sexual act  from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no  longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that  entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and  biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and  destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself  contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and  children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper  perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to  say, of the specific act of the spouses' union.
In successful in-vitro fertilization, a human life comes into existence  outside the conjugal act and outside the womb. Conception is the result of a  technician's manipulation of "reproductive materials." The process for the  collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.


----------



## benspawpaw

dont get me started. ok too late. my wonderful grandson was born thru ivf. his mom had her tubes tied in previous marriage. when her and my son got married they wanted a child, and we a grandchild. it seemed the best way (cost me over 16,000). the ones left over after implant were kept frozen in case they needed to try again. it took the first time and we have a wonderful grandson. i wish i could post pics but cant. the left over were kept and later given to a couple who inturn had a child. so i guess you could say i am ok with ivf.GOD WORKS IN WAYS UNKNOWN TO US WE DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND JUST BELIVE


----------



## The Tourist

Look, no one has more disgust and contempt for Rome than I do.  If there is a "whore that rides atop the red dragon" then certainly it is this bunch of thieves and liars that make tinkers look moral.

But I feel this way about enemies.  They're mindless clowns that simply want me dead or silenced, that's why they are the enemy.

If you really want to tear the mask off of this union, *tax them*.  For all of the prime property they own and for all of the revenue they bilk from innocent people, they have plenty of blood money to share.

But my point is this.  They wander around throughout society as this meek little coven with a humble Uriah Heep philosophy.  However, if our Republic would invite their leaders into our government they would land with jackboots and an iron fist.

They are the enemy.  What kind of discourse do you expect from them?  Babies?  Indulgences?  Their hierarchy?  Pay them no homage.  Let them know any fight will be to the end, even if we must endure a Pyrrhic victory.

For me, I'll stand against them even if it means I have to drown them in my own blood.


----------



## Wannafish

pirate_girl said:


> The process for the collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.


 

Nah - it can't be.


----------



## pirate_girl

benspawpaw said:


> dont get me started. ok too late. my wonderful grandson was born thru ivf. his mom had her tubes tied in previous marriage. when her and my son got married they wanted a child, and we a grandchild. it seemed the best way (cost me over 16,000). the ones left over after implant were kept frozen in case they needed to try again. it took the first time and we have a wonderful grandson. i wish i could post pics but cant. the left over were kept and later given to a couple who inturn had a child. so i guess you could say i am ok with ivf.GOD WORKS IN WAYS UNKNOWN TO US WE DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND JUST BELIVE


----------



## pirate_girl

Wannafish said:


> Nah - it can't be.


.. and that's all I'm saying on the matter..


----------



## CityGirl

I believe God is a staunch supporter of invitro fertilization having used this method Himself.


----------



## pirate_girl

thcri said:


> I wondered what pissed you off Dave so I did a search.  Best or first I found  I really don't know why this would piss you off.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081212/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_bioethics


----------



## Melensdad

rback33 said:


> Third... Where is Bob. I want to see this one play out...


Hey, I can respect Dave (and like him) and have a different theology than he does.  I have no problem with that.  

The Catholic Church doesn't believe in artificial means to attempt pregnancy, nor to prevent it.  Its very consistent.  Not everyone agrees with that line of thought.


----------



## rback33

B_Skurka said:


> Hey, I can respect Dave (and like him) and have a different theology than he does.  I have no problem with that.
> 
> The Catholic Church doesn't believe in artificial means to attempt pregnancy, nor to prevent it.  Its very consistent.  Not everyone agrees with that line of thought.




Damn Bob. You let me down. We all know you like Dave and respect his views even though you don't agree. I know the street runs both ways. I expected  a little more debate out of it I guess. 

Personally.. I think I like CG response best... quickly followed by wannafish...


----------



## k-dog

CityGirl said:


> I believe God is a staunch supporter of invitro fertilization having used this method Himself.


 
Exactly what I was thinking, so does the Catholic Church not approve of the way Jesus was conceived?


----------



## The Tourist

Why do guys care?  The vatican isn't going to support your child, just whine about how you're doing it.

Lots of women took birth control during the 1960s when the papists went absolutely bull-moose loonie on anyone defying them.  Did you ever here of any vatican police office arresting anyone?  No, *not one*, not a single unrepentant woman.

So now they're at it again.  The Marines free us from the Axis powers, and the moment their khaki backs are turned millions of Americans are all too eager to hand over those hard-fought freedoms to another idiot in a funny hat.

Yikes, Sonny Barger makes more sense than any pope I've ever seen.  And Sonny doesn't speak pigeon English.  Great googlie mooglie, tens of millions of dollars in the vatican bank and not one of these pedophiles has the brains to take a Berlitz course.

And yet we trust these guys with our personal internal plumbing?  It's called a "pap smear" not a "pope smear."


----------



## Melensdad

k-dog said:


> Exactly what I was thinking, so does the Catholic Church not approve of the way Jesus was conceived?


Well given that invetro didn't exist, its not accurate to say that Jesus was conceived that way.  


The Tourist said:


> Why do guys care?  The vatican isn't going to support your child, just whine about how you're doing it.


Exactly, the only people that this affects are the faithful practicing Catholics.  No one else is effected, and the practicing Catholics are affected by their own choice.  I guess I don't see this as an issue for people to get their panties in a wad about.


----------



## The Tourist

B_Skurka said:


> Catholics are affected by their own choice.


 
That's like saying cigarette smokers light up because it's their choice.  They're hooked.

Most of the "practicing catholics" you mention actually believe that the pope is man's intercessor to God.  Most of the catholics I speak to claim that their faith has a "direct lineage" to Christ and St. Peter.

That's funny, history shows four breaks.  In fact, four popes actually went to war with each other.  The 'winner' was the one that killed the other three.  One pope died in a French prison.

This "choice" is simply a sophisticated game of three-card-monte.  It bilks little old ladies.  It sways governments.  It has killed innumerable millions of "heretics."  A victory plate, which still hangs in the vatican, celebrates the pope's army overrunning the Huguenots with cavalry.  It took three days to butcher the tens of thousands of victims, and the pope was so happy he hung the plate--he should have hung himself.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, unless that's your "choice."


----------



## Melensdad

That is all irrelevant to the topic.  

As DaveNay posted, Catholics believe that artificial insemination, specifically invitro fertilization is immoral.  Those who do not follow the Catholic faith do not necessarily hold the same view.  Therefore, the theology mentioned in the first post really only affects practicing Catholics.  I don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:


> Exactly, the only people that this affects are the faithful practicing Catholics.  No one else is effected, and the practicing Catholics are affected by their own choice.


I guess I must have drank too much.  I agree with you Bob.
Bone


----------



## Melensdad

BoneheadNW said:


> I guess I must have drank too much.  I agree with you Bob.
> Bone



Well I suppose it could be the drinking, but then maybe you actually took the time to read the pdf file that Dave linked to?  Doesn't really matter.  But the PDF file clearly states that the document is addressed to the Catholic faithful.  Given that, I'm not sure why this would be a problem or issue for anyone who is not a Catholic.  If someone else holds a different faith, or no faith, and therefore a different belief set then this is simply not an issue that they need to be concerned with.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:


> Well I suppose it could be the drinking, but then maybe you actually took the time to read the pdf file that Dave linked to?  Doesn't really matter.  But the PDF file clearly states that the document is addressed to the Catholic faithful.  Given that, I'm not sure why this would be a problem or issue for anyone who is not a Catholic.  *If someone else holds a different faith, or no faith, and therefore a different belief set then this is simply not an issue that they need to be concerned with.*


OK, now hold that thought.  I don't want to hijack the thread, but in light of your bolded statement above, I want your opinion of the big hoo-ha that was created when the atheists put up their sign in the Washington State Capital.  One could extend your statement to argue that these people who are so opposed to the atheist sign should just mind their own business.  Believe what you want to believe, the issue (not believing in Jesus) is not something the believers should be concerned with.
What do you think Bob?
Bone


----------



## AndyM

benspawpaw said:


> the left over were kept and later given to a couple who inturn had a child.


----------



## Melensdad

Seems to me that in the Catholic document that was released it was aimed at the Catholic faithful but reported on by the media. 

The atheists, on the other hand, are advertising their beliefs publicly, on public land, to attempt to influence others and therefore they open themselves up to counter arguments.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:


> Seems to me that in the Catholic document that was released it was aimed at the Catholic faithful but reported on by the media.
> 
> The atheists, on the other hand, are advertising their beliefs publicly, on public land, to attempt to influence others and therefore they open themselves up to counter arguments.



The nativity scene is not advertising Catholics' beliefs publicly?  It is on public land.  I have no problem with it, and no problem with the atheist document.  Seems like the people who are against the document are hypocrites.

Bone


----------



## Melensdad

BoneheadNW said:


> The nativity scene is not advertising Catholics' beliefs publicly?  It is on public land.  I have no problem with it, and no problem with the atheist document.  Seems like the people who are against the document are hypocrites.
> 
> Bone



Is the Nativity scene "Catholic" or is it from one of the many non-Catholic Christian groups, or is it from an interdemoninational faith organization?  Not all Christian symbols are Catholic.  Catholics just happen to make up about 25% of the population so we get associated with many things that we are not necessarily responsible for doing.  I know that we have a Nativity scene on our county courthouse lawn but I am pretty sure it was not put there by a Catholic organization.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:


> Is the Nativity scene "Catholic" or is it from one of the many non-Catholic Christian groups, or is it from an interdemoninational faith organization?  Not all Christian symbols are Catholic.  Catholics just happen to make up about 25% of the population so we get associated with many things that we are not necessarily responsible for doing.  I know that we have a Nativity scene on our county courthouse lawn but I am pretty sure it was not put there by a Catholic organization.



My error.  Change the word "Catholic" to "Christian" so that my question now reads: Does the nativity scene (in this case, the one in the Washington State Capital) advertise Christian beliefs publicly?
Bone


----------



## BoneheadNW

The Tourist said:


> Look, no one has more disgust and contempt for Rome than I do.  If there is a "whore that rides atop the red dragon" then certainly it is this bunch of thieves and liars that make tinkers look moral.
> 
> But I feel this way about enemies.  They're mindless clowns that simply want me dead or silenced, that's why they are the enemy.
> 
> If you really want to tear the mask off of this union, *tax them*.  For all of the prime property they own and for all of the revenue they bilk from innocent people, they have plenty of blood money to share.
> 
> But my point is this.  They wander around throughout society as this meek little coven with a humble Uriah Heep philosophy.  However, if our Republic would invite their leaders into our government they would land with jackboots and an iron fist.
> 
> They are the enemy.  What kind of discourse do you expect from them?  Babies?  Indulgences?  Their hierarchy?  Pay them no homage.  Let them know any fight will be to the end, even if we must endure a Pyrrhic victory.
> 
> For me, I'll stand against them even if it means I have to drown them in my own blood.



I just read this for the third time and have no idea what it means.  Anyone want to help me out here?
Bonehead


----------



## Melensdad

BoneheadNW said:


> My error.  Change the word "Catholic" to "Christian" so that my question now reads: Does the nativity scene (in this case, the one in the Washington State Capital) advertise Christian beliefs publicly?
> Bone



OK, now I will agree.  Either one, on public ground, is open for being criticized, ignored, or supported.  

Neither, however, is similar to the document that the Vatican released to its members, largely because the document released is effectively an 'internal' document to members of the Catholic Church.  The 'symbols' on your Washington State Capital property are very different in their intent.  I don't see a problem with having them on the property, others suggest that neither should exist.  But again, those are different issues than the Vatican document, which was simply reported on by the media, but not posted on government land with the intent to influence others.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:


> OK, now I will agree.  Either one, on public ground, is open for being criticized, ignored, or supported.



My opinion is ignored or supported, and if criticized, both should be criticized equally.



> Neither, however, is similar to the document that the Vatican released to its members, largely because the document released is effectively an 'internal' document to members of the Catholic Church. The 'symbols' on your Washington State Capital property are very different in their intent. I don't see a problem with having them on the property, others suggest that neither should exist. But again, those are different issues than the Vatican document, which was simply reported on by the media, but not posted on government land with the intent to influence others.



I agree 100%.

Bonehead


----------



## The Tourist

BoneheadNW said:


> I just read this for the third time and have no idea what it means. Anyone want to help me out here?
> Bonehead


 
I don't try to understand my enemies. They have taken a stance against me, and that's enough.

The catholic church is the biggest bunch of anti-American thieves and scoundrels I have ever seen. And my fellow citizens fall for their drivel daily.

You don't need a foreign sovereign in a funny hat and an anti-American agenda to talk to God. In fact, it's easier and cheaper without their interference. Frak 'em.


----------



## Bobcat

The Tourist said:


> I don't try to understand my enemies. They have taken a stance against me, and that's enough.
> 
> The catholic church is the biggest bunch of anti-American thieves and scoundrels I have ever seen. And my fellow citizens fall for their drivel daily.
> 
> You don't need a foreign sovereign in a funny hat and an anti-American agenda to talk to God. In fact, it's easier and cheaper without their interference. Frak 'em.



You flail away in the darkness, striking out at unseen enemies. Should we pity you your imagined enemies, or fear you for you imagine we are your enemy? In your dreams you desire a murderous rage against the dragon, yet in the morning light there is but a windmill. An ugly cancer grows. We can see it now. Search not here for the dragon, for it is within you.


----------



## The Tourist

Bobcat said:


> You flail away in the darkness, striking out at unseen enemies. Should we pity you your imagined enemies, or fear you for you imagine we are your enemy? In your dreams you desire a murderous rage against the dragon, yet in the morning light there is but a windmill. An ugly cancer grows. We can see it now. Search not here for the dragon, for it is within you.


 
Read the history of any country that allowed papists to influence their governments.


----------



## Bobcat

...which is why we have in this country a Constitution devoid of religion. Many religions would try to bend government to their will. The 'ProtestAnts' try to insert themselves into the US government all the time. In the UK the state religion threw the government against Catholics for many generations. You do not spit your vile at them? Your use of the word 'papist' is meant to be derogatory, a slur. Once again, and still, your ugly shows.


I'm off to dream of windmills and Dulcinea...



...enjoy your dragon.


----------



## The Tourist

Good heavens, man, did I ever misreprsent myself as being fair?  Au contraire.  I fight dirty.  And I hate my enemies.

And I'm a student of history.  The Constitution was written on paper by our very human Framers.  To a papist, who actually thinks God has him on speed-dial, this means absolutely nothing.

Of course it's a slur.  They don't like me, I don't like them.  They steer clear of me, and will we have an understanding.  They corner me, and I'll go for steel.  Just like with any other attacker.  The funny hat means nothing to me.


----------



## BigAl RIP

Bobcat said:


> You flail away in the darkness, striking out at unseen enemies. Should we pity you your imagined enemies, or fear you for you imagine we are your enemy? In your dreams you desire a murderous rage against the dragon, yet in the morning light there is but a windmill. An ugly cancer grows. We can see it now. Search not here for the dragon, for it is within you.


 
 YEA BOB !!!! What you Said !!! uhhh... exactly what did you say ???

 Oh crap ... well it sounded really neat anyway !


----------



## BigAl RIP

Bobcat said:


> You flail away in the darkness, striking out at unseen enemies. Should we pity you your imagined enemies, or fear you for you imagine we are your enemy? In your dreams you desire a murderous rage against the dragon, yet in the morning light there is but a windmill. An ugly cancer grows. We can see it now. Search not here for the dragon, for it is within you.


 
YEA BOB !!!! What you Said !!! uhhh... exactly what did you say ???

Oh crap ... well it sounded really neat anyway ! You silver tongue devil


----------



## The Tourist

Why is it so unnatural for me to have likes and dislikes, and enemies?

I'm not actively hunting them, for pete's sake.  I just have boundaries.  But that applies for anyone.  Just leave me be, or buy the ticket.

I have never thrown an *offensive* punch.  But I do not suffer fools.  I believe all papists are fools.  Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## BoneheadNW

The Tourist said:


> Why is it so unnatural for me to have likes and dislikes, and enemies?
> 
> I'm not actively hunting them, for pete's sake.  I just have boundaries.  But that applies for anyone.  Just leave me be, or buy the ticket.
> 
> I have never thrown an *offensive* punch.  But I do not suffer fools.  I believe all papists are fools.  Thus endeth the lesson.



I gotta be honest with you Tourist, after reading some of your posts, you sound like the kind of guy that walks around wearing a tin foil hat, claiming that aliens are trying to take over your brain and use your organs for bad deeds.  You claim that you have never thrown an offensive punch, yet even with this statement, you seem proud to let everyone know that you WILL throw a punch, kind of a passive aggressive statement.  From my experience, aggressive people are generally insecure while those who can truly handle themselves against aggression are mellow.  Does that make sense?

Bonehead


----------



## Melensdad

Hey, Bonehead it sounds like you are trying to insult the "tin foil hat" crowd.


----------



## The Tourist

BoneheadNW said:


> I gotta be honest with you Tourist, after reading some of your posts, you sound like the kind of guy that walks around wearing a tin foil hat


 
Now why is it that my beliefs and postulates make me unbalanced, but your comments about any slant I hold as a free American are better?  Why must I bend to your will to curry favor?

Or as we said as children, "Who died and left you king?"

The sacred ideal here is living in America.  I can speak freely.  I can worship as I wish.  I can be deranged, openly.  I can seek unpopular causes.  And if pushed, I can respond with armed open self defense.

None of these issues are wrong.  The pope is a foreign sovereign.  Bow down if you will, that's your right.

But ask yourself this.  What is his goal?  What does he gain by whipping you into line?  What goals does he have for my country despite never having been voted to office?  And finally, what happens to heretics?

I think the folks actually using tinfoil are the saps who plaster it across their eyes.  Again, there are history books at your local public library in the reference section.  If you are proficient, google some of their noted contributions.

The Medici family might be a good starting point.  Kind of like the Kennedy family with a "license to kill."

BTW, this is not dusty old history.  There still is a "Grand Inquisitor."  He's a monsignor in Spain.

Those who refuse to study history...


----------



## pirate_girl




----------



## AndyM

BoneheadNW said:


> you sound like the kind of guy that walks around wearing a tin foil hat...



I'm starting them off right while they're still young.


----------



## Trakternut

Listen, Tourist, you're entitled to your opinions, as are each of us.  However, lambasting one's religious beliefs doesn't get you very far.  Most of us have some sort of beliefs, be they pure or an amalgamation of several.  Many take such posts by such as you as a personal insult and pretty much stand firm and stubborn when somebody tries to change their thinking.


----------



## Trakternut

Uhhhhhh.........Andy...........isn't that part of your cookstove on top of that kid's head??


----------



## AndyM

Trakternut said:


> Uhhhhhh.........Andy...........isn't that part of your cookstove on top of that kid's head??



We're all out of tinfoil.


----------



## Trakternut

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!    I understand now. Just be sure that thing gets back under the burner by lunchtime!


----------



## The Tourist

Trakternut said:


> lambasting one's religious beliefs doesn't get you very far


 
This is a public forum, of which I am a member, and the idea of open discussion is clearly marked on the section header.

Until someone bans me or worse, I'll will use free discourse to proffer any honest opinion I have. I can't get much clearer than that.

You can offer rebuttal if you wish. Bring it.

(I am now leaving to go to a big area restaurant sampling atmy local Harley dealer.  If you live in Madison, meet me there to continue.  If not, I'll be back in a few hours.)


----------



## waybomb

The Tourist said:


> There still is a "Grand Inquisitor." He's a monsignor in Spain.


 


The Spanish Inquisition
by Monty Python 

*In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film. This was the Spanish Inquisition...* 
_(this transcript is also available with screen shots from the original)_ 

*Chapman:* Trouble at mill.
*Cleveland:* Oh no - what kind of trouble?
*Chapman:* One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.
*Cleveland:* Pardon?
*Chapman:* One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.
*Cleveland:* I don't understand what you're saying.
*Chapman:* [slightly irritatedly and with exaggeratedly clear accent] One of the cross beams has gone out askew on the treadle.
*Cleveland:* Well what on earth does that mean?
*Chapman:* *I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain [Palin] enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles [Jones] has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang [Gilliam] is just Cardinal Fang] 
*Ximinez:* NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again. 
[The Inquisition exits] 
*Chapman:* I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. 
[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals burst in] 
*Ximinez:* NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Cardinal Biggles] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
*Biggles:* What?
*Ximinez:* You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'
*Biggles:* [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that... 
[Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again] 
*Chapman:* I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. 
[JARRING CHORD] 
[The cardinals enter] 
*Biggles:* Er.... Nobody...um....
*Ximinez:* Expects...
*Biggles:* Expects... Nobody expects the...um...the Spanish...um...
*Ximinez:* Inquisition.
*Biggles:* I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect - 
*Ximinez:* Our chief weapons are...
*Biggles:* Our chief weapons are...um...er...
*Ximinez:* Surprise...
*Biggles:* Surprise and --
*Ximinez:* Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! ... our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
*Fang:* You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church. 'My old man said follow the--' 
*Biggles:* That's enough. 
[To Cleveland] Now, how do you plead?
*Clevelnd:* We're innocent.
*Ximinez:* Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! 
[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER] 
*Biggles:* We'll soon change your mind about that! 
[DIABOLICAL ACTING] 
*Ximinez:* Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless-- [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Cardinal -- the rack! 
[Biggles produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Ximinez looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger] 
*Ximinez:* You....Right! Tie her down. 
[Fang and Biggles make a pathetic attempt to tie her on to the drying rack] 
*Ximinez:*Right! How do you plead?
*Clevelnd:* Innocent.
*Ximinez:* Ha! Right! Cardinal, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn. 
[Biggles stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders] 
*Biggles:* I....
*Ximinez:* [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can't. I didn't want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.
*Biggles:* I...
*Ximinez:* It makes it all seem so stupid.
*Biggles:* Shall I...?
*Ximinez:* No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha! 
[Biggles turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack] 
[Cut to them torturing a dear old lady, Marjorie Wilde] 
*Ximinez:* Now, old woman -- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess?
*Wilde:* I don't understand what I'm accused of. 
*Ximinez:* Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS! 
[JARRING CHORD] 
[Biggles holds out two ordinary modern household cushions] 
*Biggles:* Here they are, lord.
*Ximinez:* Now, old lady -- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
*Wilde:* I don't know what you're talking about.
*Ximinez:* Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! 
[Biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture] 
*Ximinez:* Confess! Confess! Confess!
*Biggles:* It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
*Ximinez:* Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
*Biggles:* Yes, lord.
*Ximinez* [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR! 
[JARRING CHORD] 
[Zoom into Fang's horrified face] 
*Fang *[terrified]: The...Comfy Chair? 
[Biggles pushes in a comfy chair -- a really plush one] 
*Ximinez:* So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! 
[They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair] *Ximinez *[with a cruel leer]: Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. [aside, to Biggles] Is that really all it is?
*Biggles:* Yes, lord.
*Ximinez:* I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess
*Biggles:* I confess!
*Ximinez:* Not you!


----------



## BoneheadNW

The Tourist said:


> Now why is it that my beliefs and postulates make me unbalanced, but your comments about any slant I hold as a free American are better?  Why must I bend to your will to curry favor?
> 
> Or as we said as children, "Who died and left you king?"



I don't think that your beliefs make you unbalanced, it is the manner in which you express them that give *the impression, in my opinion*, that you are "out there".  I might agree with you on some subjects, but (to me) you come across as a bit paranoid sometimes.  Just one Bonehead's opinion, that's all.
Bonehead


----------



## The Tourist

I'm now adopting a new policy.  I'll state my case, respond once to legitimate questions and perhaps one rebuttal.

Trying to win a debate by vilifying me or pretending to be a psychiatrist doesn't do one thing to bolster your crumbling argument.

Refute my historical examples, state your own point of view or get out of the way.  Until then, I think you have a lousy debating style and probably are having the devil's own time trying to put two coherent words together.


----------



## DaveNay

The Tourist said:


> I'm now adopting a new policy.  I'll state my case, respond once to legitimate questions and perhaps one rebuttal.
> 
> Trying to win a debate by vilifying me or pretending to be a psychiatrist doesn't do one thing to bolster your crumbling argument.
> 
> Refute my historical examples, state your own point of view or get out of the way.  Until then, I think you have a lousy debating style and probably are having the devil's own time trying to put two coherent words together.


WTF?!


----------



## Cityboy

Trakternut said:


> Listen, Tourist, you're entitled to your opinions, as are each of us. However, lambasting one's religious beliefs doesn't get you very far. Most of us have some sort of beliefs, be they pure or an amalgamation of several. Many take such posts by such as you as a personal insult and pretty much stand firm and stubborn when somebody tries to change their thinking.


 
Tnuts, you're a cool dude, and I look forward to someday meeting you and maybe having a couple of beers and seeing some sights up in your neck of the woods.....but...........(you knew the BIG BUTT was coming).....

This prevalent religious attitude at FF SUCKS! Why can't people question other peoples religious beliefs without those whose beliefs that are getting questioned getting all pissed off and making statements like you just made???????? WTF????? Tolerance my ass! In my experience, religious people exhibit little tolerance for anyone who questions their religious beliefs. In that respect, Christians and Muslims have much in common...INTOLERANCE of dissent toward their respective religions.

You know what people? If your religion is so infallible, why do you get so upset when someone criticizes it? If you KNOW you are RIGHT, why the anger? Perhaps because deep in the core of your being, you actually KNOW that you DO not actually know. 

There is one minister (preacher) that I actually came to respect in my life. One day, he and I were having a one-on-one discussion in his private office about "Salvation". He said to me that day: *"John, if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs, then I have simply wasted a little time, but if I am right, I have avoided Hell*". This man volunteered this information to me. At the time, I was still brainwashed to fear questioning my "faith". But this man opened my eyes to the fact that *NO ONE KNOWS *what will happen when we die. 

All of you proclaimed Christians can claim that you *"know"* to the world, but when you are alone, you have to admit to yourself that you simply do not know, and will not know, until the actual time of your death. You can post anything you want in rebuttal, but the fact is, *you DO NOT know.*

*And I bet everything I have ever achieved, ever owned and ever will achieve or own, that ALL of you pompous Christian asses will recieve quite a surprise at the moment of your death.*


----------



## The Tourist

I'm not questioning religious beliefs. I hope to one day stand on the sea of glass and sing only a song that we can sing.

I dislike liars, snake oil salesmen, shamans, fakirs, witch doctors and the scouting agents for the Detroit Lions Football Team.

If you seek salvation, pick up The Word, study, find the one true God.

But as the Bible states, beware the man who seeks to change times and laws. Oh, he also might want to sell "time share" coupons for pergatory at some very good prices. My Cousin Norma got my Mother out for probably ten grand.

Now, this is America. We say "God Bless America," and I believe He does. America is the land of free enterprise and heavy domestic V-twin motorcycles.

I can wear fancy-schmancy leathers, even clean blue jeans once in a while. So why send your pergatory entertainment dollar to Rome?

Heck, right here in the good old U, S of A I promise to detail my bike with a special blend of "consecrated" aromatic Pig Snot and holier-than-thou wine that our Chief Club Enforcer promises to bless by swinging a chicken over the entire keg.

Yikes, for a competitive dollar I'll yank your entire clan out of pergatory with American iron chains and the rumble of flaming sainted exhaust!

Give your money--in stacks of hundreds, please--to Chico The Merciful The First and my divine directed reign of terror!

I'm as good as the next guy, and I speak English. I've actually read the Bible and I don't molest altar boys. In Rome, I believe that makes me an arch-angel.


----------



## DaveNay

The Tourist said:


> I'm not questioning religious beliefs.  I hope to one day stand on the sea of glass and sing only a song that we can sing.
> 
> I dislike liars, snake oil salesmen, shamans, fakirs, witch doctors and the scouting agents for the Detroit Lions Football Team.
> 
> If you seek salvation, pick up The Word, study find the one true God.
> 
> But as the Bible states, beware the man who seeks to change times and laws.  Oh, he also might want to share "time share" coupons for pergatory at some very good prices.  My Cousin Norma got my Mother out for probably ten grand.
> 
> Now, this is America.  We say "God Bless America," and I believe he does.  America is the land of free enterprise and heavy domestic V-twin motorcycles.
> 
> I can wear fancy-schmancy leathers, even clean blue jeans once in a while.  So why send your pergatoryentertainment dollar to Rome?
> 
> Heck, right here in the good old U, S of A I promise to detail my bike with a special blend of "consecrated" aromatic Pig Snot and holier-than-thou wine that our Chief Club Enforcer promises to bless by swing a chicken over the entire keg.
> 
> Yikes, for a competitive dollar I'll yank your entire clan out of pergatory with American iron chains and the rumble of flaming sainted exhaust!
> 
> Give your money--in stacks of hundreds, please--to Chico the Mericful I and my divine directed reign of terror!
> 
> I'm as good as the next guy, and I speak English.  I've actually read the Bible and I don't molest altar boys.  In Rome, I believe that makes me an arch-angel.



WTF?!


----------



## DaveNay

The Tourist said:


> But as the Bible states, beware the man who seeks to change times and laws.
> 
> Now, this is America. We say "God Bless America," and I believe He does. America is the land of free enterprise and heavy domestic V-twin motorcycles.



Ummmmm.....America was created as a direct result of men seeking to change the times and the laws.  If not for them, we'd still hold allegiance to The Crown.


----------



## BigAl RIP

The Tourist said:


> I'm not questioning religious beliefs. I hope to one day stand on the sea of glass and sing only a song that we can sing.
> 
> I dislike liars, snake oil salesmen, shamans, fakirs, witch doctors and the scouting agents for the Detroit Lions Football Team.
> 
> If you seek salvation, pick up The Word, study, find the one true God.
> 
> But as the Bible states, beware the man who seeks to change times and laws. Oh, he also might want to sell "time share" coupons for pergatory at some very good prices. My Cousin Norma got my Mother out for probably ten grand.
> 
> Now, this is America. We say "God Bless America," and I believe He does. America is the land of free enterprise and heavy domestic V-twin motorcycles.
> 
> I can wear fancy-schmancy leathers, even clean blue jeans once in a while. So why send your pergatory entertainment dollar to Rome?
> 
> Heck, right here in the good old U, S of A I promise to detail my bike with a special blend of "consecrated" aromatic Pig Snot and holier-than-thou wine that our Chief Club Enforcer promises to bless by swinging a chicken over the entire keg.
> 
> Yikes, for a competitive dollar I'll yank your entire clan out of pergatory with American iron chains and the rumble of flaming sainted exhaust!
> 
> Give your money--in stacks of hundreds, please--to Chico The Merciful The First and my divine directed reign of terror!
> 
> I'm as good as the next guy, and I speak English. I've actually read the Bible and I don't molest altar boys. In Rome, I believe that makes me an arch-angel.


 
 Tourist ??? Are you ok??? *I mean mentally* ? Your startin to really go off the deep end here . In some past post You  talk of grabbin your steel and pokin someone ,which i assume you mean knifing someone that trys anything against you . Why are you so pissed off ?

    You try that crap up here in Idaho and there is a pretty good chance  you will be looking down the wrong end of a gun barrel and *they will* pull the trigger and cancel your ticket . 

   Get back on your meds , Enjoy your extended time the good Lord just gave to you, to be with your wife who was ill , Ride your Harley , and enjoy what life has to offer .


----------



## Tractors4u

I was wondering how long it would take to bring up the fact that he is a biker. Next he will mention how he can tinker his way out of hell. Wait, I'll bet he can get a mirror image edge on the devils pitch fork!


----------



## The Tourist

No, I'm on the level.

What really is the difference from the drivel I wrote when compared to the sewage that flows out of Rome?

Do you think a biker in fancy leather is truly any different than a pope?  The Bible asks the question, "Where are the sinless?"  And the answer is "Lo, not one."

The pope can bilk you out of indulgences, heck, so can I.  I have a copy right here in my home, and I used to work for a printing company, I can easily get a fancier version.

*But look at your responses*.

When a biker says it, you immediately believe he's a crazed imposter.  When some papist dons some fancy linen and declares himself infallible you all bend a knee to the emissary of God.

There is a catalog published by the catholic church where you can buy knick-knacks and vestments.

_If you did not know me_, and I came to your church, and I donned vestments out of this catalog, I'll bet good money that many of you would bow and kiss my high school class ring.

Worship He who is your Father.


----------



## Cityboy

Hey guys....

How much of this criticisim of Tourist is actually about the "esoteric" nature of his posts, rather than your thin skin concerning your religion?


----------



## Tractors4u

I'm not Catholic.


----------



## DaveNay

Cityboy said:


> Hey guys....
> 
> How much of this criticisim of Tourist is actually about the "esoteric" nature of his posts, rather than your thin skin concerning your religion?


More like my inability to understand his disjointed and non-sequitur ramblings that seem to be completely disassociated with the subject matter.


----------



## The Tourist

DaveNay said:


> More like my inability to understand his disjointed and non-sequitur ramblings that seem to be completely disassociated with the subject matter.


 
Actually, Dave, my views and comments are as valid as any Papal Bull.

(That's what a Roman edict is called, a 'bull.'  It appears Jehovah has a sense of humor.)

The original post exposes the foreign sovereign's attitude about free American women choosing any birth path they might desire.

To that end, a guy in a funny hat does a cheap card trick, magically produces some gilt edge paper and claims he had a light snack with The Lord.  He annouces that he knows more than Willie G. Davidson and demands that all of our emancipated females fall in line.

On the other side of the aisle a biker blows a fart, opens a history book and reads some very telling pages about the lies and misconceptions Rome has used to stay in power.  He produces a shop rag scented with Pig Snot, points out that this wax was made in America, and reminds the crowd that so were they.  The pope has no power here.

That's the debate so far.  Did I miss anything?


----------



## pirate_girl

The Tourist said:


> The pope has no power here.
> 
> That's the debate so far.  Did I miss anything?


Yes.. you missed the fact that no Catholic on the forum CARES to read the shit you spew.
It's full of anger and insanity.
Once I was thinking you were a pretty ok sorta guy.
Now.....


----------



## The Tourist

You're still not getting it.

Being a shyster isn't just a catholic thing, although they're pretty good at it.

If a protestant minister twisted the words of The Bible, (and let's not forget the TV evangelists who bilked millions) I'd be just as angry.

I can't think of a lower sewer rat than one who feeds off of the sincere spirituality of decent people.  And I'm not alone here.

Have you forgotten about The Amazing Randi and the hokesters he's exposed?  Have you forgotten the hoax sold to my family?  Look below at what they sold my cousin!  If you're not mad, you should be.

I keep it on a shelf in my home with my parents co-mingled ashes.  It's a tribute to the witch doctors who preyed upon my cousin in her grief.

Are you saying that you wish to defend this robbery--whether it's protestant, Muslim, biker or catholic?  Sin is sin.


----------



## Cityboy

Cityboy said:


> Tnuts, you're a cool dude, and I look forward to someday meeting you and maybe having a couple of beers and seeing some sights up in your neck of the woods.....but...........(you knew the BIG BUTT was coming).....
> 
> This prevalent religious attitude at FF SUCKS! Why can't people question other peoples religious beliefs without those whose beliefs that are getting questioned getting all pissed off and making statements like you just made???????? WTF????? Tolerance my ass! In my experience, religious people exhibit little tolerance for anyone who questions their religious beliefs. In that respect, Christians and Muslims have much in common...INTOLERANCE of dissent toward their respective religions.
> 
> You know what people? If your religion is so infallible, why do you get so upset when someone criticizes it? If you KNOW you are RIGHT, why the anger? Perhaps because deep in the core of your being, you actually KNOW that you DO not actually know.
> 
> There is one minister (preacher) that I actually came to respect in my life. One day, he and I were having a one-on-one discussion in his private office about "Salvation". He said to me that day: *"John, if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs, then I have simply wasted a little time, but if I am right, I have avoided Hell*". This man volunteered this information to me. At the time, I was still brainwashed to fear questioning my "faith". But this man opened my eyes to the fact that *NO ONE KNOWS *what will happen when we die.
> 
> All of you proclaimed Christians can claim that you *"know"* to the world, but when you are alone, you have to admit to yourself that you simply do not know, and will not know, until the actual time of your death. You can post anything you want in rebuttal, but the fact is, *you DO NOT know.*
> 
> *And I bet everything I have ever achieved, ever owned and ever will achieve or own, that ALL of you pompous Christian asses will recieve quite a surprise at the moment of your death.*


 
Damn!! Did ya'll just ignore my post above????? Figures.....

Once again, you guys are stabbing at Tourist because (I think) he is poking at your religion. Did any of you proclaimed "Christian folk even read MY post above???

*Christianity is BULLSHIT!*

Any of you want to take me on in my claim above? THAT is ultimately what the OP was saying here. The Catholic Church is the epitome of arrogance in it's proclaimations that invitro fertiliziation is somehow a sin.

*Catholicisim is Total BULLSHIT!*

You guys believe that some jackass in a fancy hat and wearing a robe and a ring that you would dive through your own ass to kiss is infalibale???????? ????WTF???? 

You have got to be shitting me!!??

Catholics.....Get a grip on yourselves and your fairytale religion.......


----------



## pirate_girl

I have Steven's ashes in an urn at my bedside.

I also have medals..a holy card- not a spiritual enrollment- but _still_ have many cards from family and friends (who had masses said at this or that shrine) to get me through the grief I felt AS A CATHOLIC WOMAN who lost her husband.
If I hadn't offered up prayer for his soul AS A CATHOLIC, or accepted the gifts of love from those who adored him, quite frankly I couldn't have gotten through it.

I light a candle for him still to this day when I feel like crap and have a need to pop into the side door at church, if for nothing else than to spend time letting my mind go and take in the love of He who keeps me sane.

We get it Chico.. you have a big thing against The Church.
Some of us happen to love it.
It's been my experience here that honest debate and discussion goes on, and yes.. it's gotten heated at times.

Never have I read such hateful stuff as you've said in previous posts.
Guess I'll just have to ignore you.


----------



## pirate_girl

Cityboy said:


> Damn!! Did ya'll just ignore my post above????? Figures.....
> 
> Once again, you guys are stabbing at Tourist because (I think) he is poking at your religion. Did any of you proclaimed "Christian folk even read MY post above???
> 
> *Christianity is BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Any of you want to take me on in my claim above? THAT is ultimately what the OP was saying here. The Catholic Church is the epitome of arrogance in it's proclaimations that invitro fertiliziation is somehow a sin.
> 
> *Catholicisim is Total BULLSHIT!*
> 
> You guys believe that some jackass in a fancy hat and wearing a robe and a ring that you would dive through your own ass to kiss is infalibale???????? ????WTF????
> 
> You have got to be shitting me!!??
> 
> Catholics.....Get a grip on yourselves and your fairytale religion.......


Wasn't it you CB who started a thread a while back wanting to know the religious background of the forum members?
You seemed to enjoy that thread quite a bit and even encouraged more members to post.
I don't get the anger here.. I really don't.


----------



## BigAl RIP

I have said it here before on FF that if someone wants to believe in Frogs as the Almighty , thats fine with me and i'll respect that *as long as they respect my right to believe in my "God" .* They do not have to agree , just respect my right to feel that way .

   Can I say I agree with the Catholic religion and their beliefs ?  Nope ,not even a little bit .... but I will *respect* your right to want to be Catholic and believe that way ,if you care too . I feel the same way for Mormons,JW's , Seven Day Adventist , Atheist , and used car salemen . 
  As long as you do not make the mistake trying to shove your religion or beliefs down my throat we are cool with each other . 

   You won't answer to me when you die someday ,so there ain't much I can do about it anyway .


----------



## Cityboy

pirate_girl said:


> Wasn't it you CB who started a thread a while back wanting to know the religious background of the forum members?
> You seemed to enjoy that thread quite a bit and even encouraged more members to post.
> I don't get the anger here.. I really don't.


 
Yup. I remember that thread. That thread was about tolerance.

Are you guys being tolerant toward Tourist's views????


----------



## The Tourist

I believe this debate has fallen into a trap many forum discussions undergo.  I doubt anyone is actually reading the responses--or they have just decided to harp.

The fact is I don't care who the huckster is.  I use my family's example as an abuse deliberately done to a grieving family by fakirs.

My cousin Norma loved my Mother.  They were very close in age, and Norma often spoke about my Mother as she would her own sister.  When my parent's first born boy--who would have been my older brother--died as an infant, it was Norma who helped take down the baby's room.

These were sincere and devoted people.  My Mother was haunted by that pain and loss her entire life, and it bled into the relationship she shared with me.  And never in a good way.  She drank.

Norma loved my Father, who was an atheist.  After their deaths, Norma spoke often of them "looking down from heaven."  She felt that my Father was such a good man that God would forgive him in His infinite wisdom.

Into this painfully injured and dysfunctional family slinks the church.

Oh, they professed, our beloved daughter Marian suffers in pergatory!  Just pay us, and we will say a series of eleven masses and buy her out of this eternal pain and agony...

So Norma in her grief ponies up untold thousands of dollars in ransom money.  A few weeks later I receive this charlatan's triptych, so slovenly done they pinched on costs by eliminating *the traditional third side*!

So pardon me the usual spiel about holiness.  If the papists are infallible, then it follows that all of their edicts are right and just.  If all is right and just, then the extraction of funds from injured mourners must meet their criteria for "righteousness."

If you love God, then consider this singular abuse of a religious family.  If I do one thing in my life, I will expose the thieves who did this wrong.


----------



## pirate_girl

BigAl said:


> I have said it here before on FF that if someone wants to believe in Frogs as the Almighty , thats fine with me and i'll respect that *as long as they respect my right to believe in my "God" .* They do not have to agree , just respect my right to feel that way .
> 
> Can I say I agree with the Catholic religion and their beliefs ?  Nope ,not even a little bit .... but I will *respect* your right to want to be Catholic and believe that way ,if you care too . I feel the same way for Mormons,JW's , Seven Day Adventist , Atheist , and used car salemen .
> As long as you do not make the mistake trying to shove your religion or beliefs down my throat we are cool with each other .
> 
> You won't answer to me when you die someday ,so there ain't much I can do about it anyway .


I TRULY respect every forum members religious beliefs.
There are many paths to Heaven.
There are some here who don't believe. Fair enough.
But it's not fair to target one and have it become a festival of hate.
My God.. it's almost Christmas!


----------



## Tractors4u

If there was some level of decency to the debate it would be tolerable.  There is a group here that although they would say they don't believe in God, actually act as though they are angry at God or hate God.  Tourist seems to acknowledge that he believes in a higher power, but his debating skills leave something to be desired.  I think he is kind of funny.


----------



## pirate_girl

Cityboy said:


> Yup. I remember that thread. That thread was about tolerance.
> 
> Are you guys being tolerant toward Tourist's views????


He mentioned being a SDA a while back.
I asked him a few questions out of interest, as I recall.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't drag his beliefs through the mud and discount them.

Ok.. he can rag on Rome, The Holy Father and every single thing that The Church teaches ad nauseum.
The Tinker can do as he pleases... I don't care.


----------



## The Tourist

pirate_girl said:


> The Tinker can do as he pleases.


 
Well, it would be nice if an emissary sent me a gilt edged triptych to that fact. I could put it on the shelf next to Mom's and feel complete.

We're Americans. We can think, do and worship as we wish. I do not have a human who is my 'holy father.' I do have a mechanic named Ryan that does miracles.

Just exactly when does my Mom get out of pergatory? When the check clears?


----------



## Trakternut

Cityboy said:


> Tnuts, you're a cool dude, and I look forward to someday meeting you and maybe having a couple of beers and seeing some sights up in your neck of the woods.....but...........(you knew the BIG BUTT was coming).....
> 
> This prevalent religious attitude at FF SUCKS! Why can't people question other peoples religious beliefs without those whose beliefs that are getting questioned getting all pissed off and making statements like you just made???????? WTF?????You're absolutely right! Tolerance my ass! In my experience, religious people exhibit little tolerance for anyone who questions their religious beliefs. In that respect, Christians and Muslims have much in common...INTOLERANCE of dissent toward their respective religions.Again, right. Political and religious discussions have started more fights and caused more people to be alienated from each other than just about any other subject.
> 
> You know what people? If your religion is so infallible, why do you get so upset when someone criticizes it? If you KNOW you are RIGHT, why the anger? Perhaps because deep in the core of your being, you actually KNOW that you DO not actually know.
> 
> 
> *And I bet everything I have ever achieved, ever owned and ever will achieve or own, that ALL of you pompous Christian asses will recieve quite a surprise at the moment of your death.*






I can't argue with one thing you said, CB.


----------



## The Tourist

We've all thrown a punch here, blew up our blood pressure and then enjoyed a good night's sleep.

I would ask the mods to lock this thread while we're all still friends.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

The Tourist said:


> We've all thrown a punch here, blew up our blood pressure and then enjoyed a good night's sleep.
> 
> I would ask the mods to lock this thread while we're all still friends.


 
Generally, we don't lock threads unless a user goes totally off the deep end and is posting endless attacks in a thread and we are considering (discussing) banning them.  Then we may lock the thread.

I just reviewed this thread and don't see any explicit name calling (feel free to point out if I missed anything).  In general, while it is a "heated" thread, everyone has been reasonably well behaved.

I'll go back to my popcorn now.  You kids have fun and be good.


----------



## The Tourist

PBinWA said:


> Generally, we don't lock threads


 
And generally, I would agree.

However, even courts have commented that while we enjoy free speech, there are such things as "fighting words."

For example, you can get beaten to a pulp in a biker bar for using the epithet "poser."

Anywhere else in the country it might bring a laugh.

Such is the case of religion. I don't believe you have to say very much to insult some very devoted people. My guess is that we've upset some people quite a bit.

Additionally, because I don't censor much of my own speech, I'll bet I'm on several "ignore lists" today.

I honestly don't see much good in continuing this debate.


----------



## Bobcat

The Tourist said:


> <snip>
> I would ask the mods to lock this thread while we're all still friends.



We are not friends, according to you. *You* have called us your enemies, remember? You claim we want you dead or silenced. We made no such claim. You call us fools not to be suffered. Some came here to discuss the thread topic and were instead threatened and attacked by your words as you feigned defense. No one threatened or attacked you.



The Tourist said:


> Look, no one has more disgust and contempt for Rome than I do.  If there is a "whore that rides atop the red dragon" then certainly it is this bunch of thieves and liars that make tinkers look moral.
> 
> *But I feel this way about enemies.  They're mindless clowns that simply want me dead or silenced, that's why they are the enemy*.
> 
> If you really want to tear the mask off of this union, *tax them*.  For all of the prime property they own and for all of the revenue they bilk from innocent people, *they have plenty of blood money to share.*
> 
> But my point is this.  They wander around throughout society as this meek little coven with a humble Uriah Heep philosophy.  However, if our Republic would invite their leaders into our government they would land with jackboots and an iron fist.
> 
> *They are the enemy. * What kind of discourse do you expect from them?  Babies?  Indulgences?  Their hierarchy?  Pay them no homage.  *Let them know any fight will be to the end, even if we must endure a Pyrrhic victory.
> 
> For me, I'll stand against them even if it means I have to drown them in my own blood.*





The Tourist said:


> *I don't try to understand my enemies. They have taken a stance against me, and that's enough.*
> 
> The catholic church is the biggest bunch of anti-American thieves and scoundrels I have ever seen. And my fellow citizens fall for their drivel daily.
> 
> You don't need a foreign sovereign in a funny hat and an anti-American agenda to talk to God. In fact, it's easier and cheaper without their interference. Frak 'em.






The Tourist said:


> *Good heavens, man, did I ever misreprsent myself as being fair?  Au contraire.  I fight dirty.  And I hate my enemies.*
> 
> And I'm a student of history.  The Constitution was written on paper by our very human Framers.  *To a papist, who actually thinks God has him on speed-dial, this means absolutely nothing.*
> 
> *Of course it's a slur.  They don't like me, I don't like them.  They steer clear of me, and will we have an understanding.  They corner me, and I'll go for steel.  Just like with any other attacker. * The funny hat means nothing to me.





The Tourist said:


> *Why is it so unnatural for me to have likes and dislikes, and enemies?*
> 
> *I'm not actively hunting them, for pete's sake.*  I just have boundaries.  But that applies for anyone.  Just leave me be, or buy the ticket.
> 
> *I have never thrown an offensive punch.  But I do not suffer fools.  I believe all papists are fools.*  Thus endeth the lesson.





And on a final note.....



This is a 'biker'....




And this is a 'biker'...




While this is a motorcycle 'rider'...


----------



## DaveNay

The Tourist said:


> We've all thrown a punch here, blew up our blood pressure and then enjoyed a good night's sleep.
> 
> I would ask the mods to lock this thread while we're all still friends.


Considering it's my thread, not yours, I see no reason to lock it.


----------



## DaveNay

Bobcat said:


> We are not friends, according to you. *You* have called us your enemies, remember? You claim we want you dead or silenced. We made no such claim. You call us fools not to be suffered. Some came here to discuss the thread topic and were instead threatened and attacked by your words as you feigned defense. No one threatened or attacked you.


This thing about being enemies is...both sides have to agree that they are enemies, otherwise it's just paranoia.


----------



## daedong

fight you bastards!  





DISCLAIMER
The poster exercised his right to express himself in his own country's slang


----------



## rback33

I must say this thread has been quite entertaining. I am bit confused by CB's vehement replies since nothing was aimed at him and he was the only one that was truly riled up near as I can tell. Granted, I read most of this thread last night after a LONG day of shopping and I have not reviewed over what I perceived last night. I could be wrong....


----------



## BoneheadNW

The Tourist said:


> I believe this debate has fallen into a trap many forum discussions undergo.  I doubt anyone is actually reading the responses--or they have just decided to harp.
> 
> The fact is I don't care who the huckster is.  I use my family's example as an abuse deliberately done to a grieving family by fakirs.
> 
> My cousin Norma loved my Mother.  They were very close in age, and Norma often spoke about my Mother as she would her own sister.  When my parent's first born boy--who would have been my older brother--died as an infant, it was Norma who helped take down the baby's room.
> 
> These were sincere and devoted people.  My Mother was haunted by that pain and loss her entire life, and it bled into the relationship she shared with me.  And never in a good way.  She drank.
> 
> Norma loved my Father, who was an atheist.  After their deaths, Norma spoke often of them "looking down from heaven."  She felt that my Father was such a good man that God would forgive him in His infinite wisdom.
> 
> Into this painfully injured and dysfunctional family slinks the church.
> 
> Oh, they professed, our beloved daughter Marian suffers in pergatory!  Just pay us, and we will say a series of eleven masses and buy her out of this eternal pain and agony...
> 
> So Norma in her grief ponies up untold thousands of dollars in ransom money.  A few weeks later I receive this charlatan's triptych, so slovenly done they pinched on costs by eliminating *the traditional third side*!
> 
> So pardon me the usual spiel about holiness.  If the papists are infallible, then it follows that all of their edicts are right and just.  If all is right and just, then the extraction of funds from injured mourners must meet their criteria for "righteousness."
> 
> If you love God, then consider this singular abuse of a religious family.  If I do one thing in my life, I will expose the thieves who did this wrong.



Let's consult the dictionary, shall we?


----------



## Cityboy

rback33 said:


> I am bit confused by CB's vehement replies since nothing was aimed at him and he was the only one that was truly riled up near as I can tell. ....


 
Wrong assumption. I was quite calm and simply observing the usual Christian hypocrisy that is frequently exhibited here. I use caps and bold type to highlight my points, not to shout. People tend to be blind when it comes to their religious beliefs, and often get angry when someone challenges their belief in their version of the cosmic Santa Claus. I find it interesting how these tolerant Christian folk often gang up on someone like Tourist. Sure, Tourist posts some stuff that seems "out there", but in this case, he spoke out against the sacred cow of Catholicism and got attacked for it. I was simply pointing out my perception of their true motive.


----------



## rback33

Cityboy said:


> Damn!! Did ya'll just ignore my post above????? Figures.....
> 
> Once again, you guys are stabbing at Tourist because (I think) he is poking at your religion. Did any of you proclaimed "Christian folk even read MY post above???
> 
> *Christianity is BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Any of you want to take me on in my claim above? THAT is ultimately what the OP was saying here. The Catholic Church is the epitome of arrogance in it's proclaimations that invitro fertiliziation is somehow a sin.
> 
> *Catholicisim is Total BULLSHIT!*
> 
> You guys believe that some jackass in a fancy hat and wearing a robe and a ring that you would dive through your own ass to kiss is infalibale???????? ????WTF????
> 
> You have got to be shitting me!!??
> 
> Catholics.....Get a grip on yourselves and your fairytale religion.......


 


Cityboy said:


> Wrong assumption. I was quite calm and simply observing the usual Christian hypocrisy that is frequently exhibited here. I use caps and bold type to highlight my points, not to shout. People tend to be blind when it comes to their religious beliefs, and often get angry when someone challenges their belief in their version of the cosmic Santa Claus. I find it interesting how these tolerant Christian folk often gang up on someone like Tourist. Sure, Tourist posts some stuff that seems "out there", but in this case, he spoke out against the sacred cow of Catholicism and got attacked for it. I was simply pointing out my perception of their true motive.


 

So... when you were using the term bullshit followed by exclamation points (many), you were not riled up and only highlighting your point? I guess it begs the question... How would you type it if you WERE riled up?

As far as Chico being "attacked".... I didn't read into his replies that he truly felt that way as some perceived it. I know he likes a good debate and tie that in with his religious beliefs and things get interesting. I find it ironic that at the beginning of the thread I was looking for Bob and Dave to have their own "discussion" about the subject and even tried to prod it along only to become resigned to the fact that the thread would die quickly. Thank you all for proving that wrong!


----------



## jpr62902

I can't resist.  I gotta throw some troll chum in the cyber waters ....

Irony\hypocrisy #1:  Calling the powers-that-be in the Vatican a buncha dragon-riding whores, then complaining that the thread has become too hostile and therefore should be locked down.

Irony\hypocrisy #2:  Complaining that the poster of the above vitriol shouldn't be "attacked" for those views, but not before calling Christianity and Catholicism "total bullshit."

And to top it all off, complaining either directly or indirectly that "free speech" is some how being suppressed at Forums Forums, suggesting it's a public forum.

Wrong.  Forums Forums is a private forum open to the public.  This is Doc's house and the mods here are his aids to help maintain civility (Doc and the Mods - got a ring to it, eh?).  Civil discourse\debate is infinitely more valuable than ad hominem bickering.  This forum, in the 3+ years I've been here, always encourages healthy debate, yet quickly (and rightly so) quells adolescent "I know you are, but what am I?" types of exchanges.

There is a great example of civility on the first page of this thread.  Dave vehemently disagrees with the Catholic church's position on IVF.  Bob simply responds that this is simply the church's position publication for the benefit of Catholics, not a judgmental edict to be heeded by all on earth -- what's the big deal?


----------



## pirate_girl

jpr62902 said:


> I can't resist.  I gotta throw some troll chum in the cyber waters ....
> 
> Ironyhypocrisy #1:  Calling the powers-that-be in the Vatican a buncha dragon-riding whores, then complaining that the thread has become too hostile and therefore should be locked down.
> 
> Ironyhypocrisy #2:  Complaining that the poster of the above vitriol shouldn't be "attacked" for those views, but not before calling Christianity and Catholicism "total bullshit."
> 
> And to top it all off, complaining either directly or indirectly that "free speech" is some how being suppressed at Forums Forums, suggesting it's a public forum.
> 
> Wrong.  Forums Forums is a private forum open to the public.  This is Doc's house and the mods here are his aids to help maintain civility (Doc and the Mods - got a ring to it, eh?).  Civil discoursedebate is infinitely more valuable than ad hominem bickering.  This forum, in the 3+ years I've been here, always encourages healthy debate, yet quickly (and rightly so) quells adolescent "I know you are, but what am I?" types of exchanges.
> 
> There is a great example of civility on the first page of this thread.  Dave vehemently disagrees with the Catholic church's position on IVF.  Bob simply responds that this is simply the church's position publication for the benefit of Catholics, not a judgmental edict to be heeded by all on earth -- *what's the* *big deal*?


He thinks he is..


----------



## pirate_girl

BoneheadNW said:


> Let's consult the dictionary, shall we?


I did some consulting myself..

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652


----------



## Bobcat

jpr62902 said:


> I can't resist.  I gotta throw some troll chum in the cyber waters ....
> 
> Ironyhypocrisy #1:  Calling the powers-that-be in the Vatican a buncha dragon-riding whores, then complaining that the thread has become too hostile and therefore should be locked down.
> 
> <snip>




Correctamundo, O bubble-faced one. In _The Tourists_ very first post to this thread, he threatens to drown Catholics in his own blood. Yet he is the one who was attacked?! He called Catholics fools and thieves. Yet we were intolerant?!

Hmmm, this reminds me of something...




Friends, _Romans_, countrymen, lend me your ears. 
I come to bury _the Pope_, not to praise him. 
The evil that men do lives after them; 
The good is oft interrèd with their bones. 
So let it be with _the Pope_. The noble _Tourist_ 
Hath told you _the Pope_ was ambitious. 
If it were so, it was a grievous fault, 
And grievously hath _the Pope_ answered it. 
Here, under leave of _The Tourist_ and the rest -- 
For _The Tourist_ is an honorable man, 
So are they all, all honorable men -- 
Come I to speak in _the Popes_ funeral. 
He was my friend, faithful and just to me. 
But _The Tourist_ says he was ambitious, 
And _The Tourist_ is an honorable man. 
He hath brought many captives home to _Rome_, 
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. 
Did this in _the Pope_ seem ambitious? 
When that the poor have cried, _the Pope_ hath wept. 
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. 
Yet _The Tourist_ says he was ambitious, 
And _The Tourist_ is an honorable man. 
You all did see that on the Lupercal 
I thrice presented him a kingly crown, 
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition? 
Yet _The Tourist_ says he was ambitious, 
And sure he is an honorable man. 
I speak not to disprove what _The Tourist_ spoke, 
But here I am to speak what I do know. 
You all did love him once, not without cause. 
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? 
O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, 
And men have lost their reason! 
Bear with me. 
My heart is in the coffin there with _the Pope_, 
And I must pause till it come back to me.


----------



## jpr62902

Yee donning the grocery bag chapeau, me thinks we agree on all points ...


----------



## pirate_girl

jpr62902 said:


> Yee donning the grocery bag chapeau, me thinks we agree on all points ...


LOL!!!


----------



## Deadly Sushi

Ask yourself..... is it in the Bible!!!!!!??????

IF the Catholic Church decided to make up some law.... is it based on the BIBLE!?!? 

If its not then I dont give a crap who says its a law. I call it false teaching.

Simple, no?


----------



## pirate_girl

Deadly Sushi said:


> IF the Catholic Church decided to make up some law.... is it based on the BIBLE!?!?


Yes.
The End.
Amen.


----------



## Deadly Sushi

pirate_girl said:


> Yes.
> The End.
> Amen.




Not always. Sometimes it is man-based and not Bible-based.

Crap I just wrote an example! Now its gone


----------



## Cityboy

jpr62902 said:


> I can't resist. I gotta throw some troll chum in the cyber waters ....


 
OK, I'll bite...........




jpr62902 said:


> Ironyhypocrisy #2: Complaining that the poster of the above vitriol shouldn't be "attacked" for those views, but not before calling Christianity and Catholicism "total bullshit."


 
Who was "complaining"? Stating the obvious is not complaining nor is it hypocritical. It makes no difference if people want to skewer Tourist or anybody else for that matter, but at least be honest about why you are attacking that person. Many here think Christianity is a sacred cow, far too sacred to even be critcized. That is ultimately why most of you attacked him in the manner that you did. That is why Christianity, and specifically Catholicism is complete and utter bullshit as is most all organized religion, with the possible exception of Zen Buddhism, which is actually more of a philosophy rather than a religion.

I see through the "Christian veil" of tolerance and call it like I see it.


----------



## Cityboy

rback33 said:


> So... when you were using the term bullshit followed by exclamation points (many), you were not riled up and only highlighting your point? I guess it begs the question... How would you type it if you WERE riled up?


 
Visualize me chuckling and smiling as I typed. Does one need to be riled up to use the term bullshit? Was I "riled up" as you suggest? Nope. Fired up a little perhaps, like the feeling a linebacker gets when the blitz leads straight to the unprotected quarterback, or the running back was committed to the hole I chose to fill and the tackle was a classic hit-lock-lift-and-drive for a nice loss of yardage. Yup, felt pretty good.

It's all just a game. Have fun with it.


----------



## rback33

Cityboy said:


> Visualize me chuckling and smiling as I typed. Does one need to be riled up to use the term bullshit? Was I "riled up" as you suggest? Nope. Fired up a little perhaps, like the feeling a linebacker gets when the blitz leads straight to the unprotected quarterback, or the running back was committed to the hole I chose to fill and the tackle was a classic hit-lock-lift-and-drive for a nice loss of yardage. Yup, felt pretty good.
> 
> It's all just a game. Have fun with it.



Cheater. U used terms you knew I would understand....


----------



## Melensdad

Deadly Sushi said:


> Ask yourself..... is it in the Bible!!!!!!??????
> 
> IF the Catholic Church decided to make up some law.... is it based on the BIBLE!?!?
> 
> If its not then I dont give a crap who says its a law. I call it false teaching.
> 
> Simple, no?


Are there not valid teachings that were not in the Bible but were handed down via oral or other traditions from the original apostles?  I'm not specifically talking about Catholics, but also in Orthodox and Jewish tradition as well are there not things that were not in the original books but have been passed down from the original times of the religion, and if so, then why would those be false teaching?  

Just curious...

Now if you want to talk about false teaching then let's discuss the Rapture.  That is a theory that was only developed in the 1800s.  There are many Christian teachings, and in fact entire offshoots of the Christian sects, that are only 50, 100 or 500 years old that were basically formed because the original Church (Catholic or Orthodox) refused to change.


----------



## Cityboy

rback33 said:


> Cheater. U used terms you knew I would understand....


 
Yup. Even typed 'em real slow for ya too.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Cityboy said:


> It makes no difference if people want to skewer Tourist or anybody else for that matter, but at least be honest about why you are attacking that person.



To quote DaveNay, post #62:


> More like my inability to understand his disjointed and non-sequitur ramblings that seem to be completely disassociated with the subject matter.


That is my only criticism of the guy.  Perhaps if I could understand what he was trying to say, I would agree with some of it.  Sounds like the ramblings of someone on mind-altering substances to me.  Again, just my opinion.
Bone


----------



## waybomb

Oh well, here I go...

I was born a Catholic, but after my experiences in grammar and 2 years of HS, I'm done with it. I put up with 10 years of beatings at the hands of alleged virgin nuns and celibate priests and Christian brothers, all while being preached to about love thy neighbor and all that do-as-I-say, not-as-I do BS. Just so you know my perspective.

I understand Tourist just fine.

What he is attempting to show, I believe, is that the organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church, puts up this show of knowing all and even has a human being at its head that is "infallible". 

Now if that is true, than how did the Inquisition occur, and why is there still an Inquisitor? How come people were banished or worse for claiming the planets and sun revolved around the Earth? How many people died or suffered because the of the infallible-one's perspective of things? And, on a personal note, who sanctioned my beatings? Certainly not the Pope, but the Monsignor certainly knew, as well as the head brother in HS. Some church.

Now of course, the Catholic religion is not the only religion with past events they'd like to forget, even some modern ones with modern issues, such as Islam. Are they not following their equivalent of the Pope? 

Claiming that IVF is forbidden is a man-made rule. For shits and giggles, let's say the bible is really "The Way". Where does it say IVF is forbidden? Specifically IVF, not a man made interpretation of some ancient words that could somehow be twisted and interpreted as meaning IVF? It doesn't, so here we go again with the infallible one's humanness ruining or degrading many people's lives.


----------



## jpr62902

Cityboy said:


> Who was "complaining"?


 
Well, you, for starters.


----------



## Melensdad

*Just for clarification, the Pope is not, nor does he claim to be infallible. * Not sure why so many people seem to state that, but its not true.  There are some very rare exceptions where a Pope can make an statement and that can be considered infallible, not all Popes do it, and when it is done it only applies to a very narrow theological issue.  The Pope, however, is just a man.  A sinner like the rest of us.  He even goes to confession.


----------



## Cityboy

jpr62902 said:


> Well, you, for starters.


 
Somehow I expected a better argument from a man of jurisprudence.

You must do real estate closings.....


----------



## daedong

waybomb said:


> Oh well, here I go...
> 
> I was born a Catholic, but after my experiences in grammar and 2 years of HS, I'm done with it. I put up with 10 years of beatings at the hands of alleged virgin nuns and celibate priests and Christian brothers, all while being preached to about love thy neighbor and all that do-as-I-say, not-as-I do BS. Just so you know my perspective.
> 
> I understand Tourist just fine.
> 
> What he is attempting to show, I believe, is that the organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church, puts up this show of knowing all and even has a human being at its head that is "infallible".
> 
> Now if that is true, than how did the Inquisition occur, and why is there still an Inquisitor? How come people were banished or worse for claiming the planets and sun revolved around the Earth? How many people died or suffered because the of the infallible-one's perspective of things? And, on a personal note, who sanctioned my beatings? Certainly not the Pope, but the Monsignor certainly knew, as well as the head brother in HS. Some church.
> 
> Now of course, the Catholic religion is not the only religion with past events they'd like to forget, even some modern ones with modern issues, such as Islam. Are they not following their equivalent of the Pope?
> 
> Claiming that IVF is forbidden is a man-made rule. For shits and giggles, let's say the bible is really "The Way". Where does it say IVF is forbidden? Specifically IVF, not a man made interpretation of some ancient words that could somehow be twisted and interpreted as meaning IVF? It doesn't, so here we go again with the infallible one's humanness ruining or degrading many people's lives.



Fred its sad hearing stories about the abuse that religious organizations have condoned by their silence. 
Unfortunately bible believers would say what ever happens is Gods will.  Bob S maybe you would like to make a comment regarding this.


----------



## pirate_girl

daedong said:


> Unfortunately bible believers would say what ever happens is Gods will.


Hardly..
For want of a better term, sometimes "sh!+ (just) happens".


----------



## daedong

pirate_girl said:


> Hardly..
> For want of a better term, sometimes "sh!+ (just) happens".



So nothing is Gods will?


----------



## pirate_girl

daedong said:


> So nothing is Gods will?


I believe in Divine Providence, but also know things _simply happen_.
Why I don't know. God's ways are not our ways.
Again, that's where faith (and acceptance) comes in.


----------



## Melensdad

daedong said:


> Unfortunately bible believers would say what ever happens is Gods will.



I thought PG handled it well.  God does give us free will.  Consequently you misunderstand our theology.  Perhaps your thoughts apply to some other religions?


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> Consequently you misunderstand our theology


 
I think Vin understands it perfectly, as do I, but Vin can verify that for himself. It seems to me that those who are closest to it are the most blind to the evil of it.




B_Skurka said:


> Perhaps your thoughts apply to some other religions?


 
It certainly does apply to most organized religions, especially Christianity. This thread is evidence of it.


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> I think Vin understands it perfectly, as do I, but Vin can verify that for himself. It seems to me that those who are closest to it are the most blind to the evil of it.
> ...
> It certainly does apply to most organized religions, especially Christianity. This thread is evidence of it.


Not sure that I understand what you are saying.

Vin stated/asked:_  "Unfortunately bible believers would say what ever happens is Gods will.  Bob S maybe you would like to make a comment regarding this."

_Within the context of Catholicism, God gives us free will.  So if Vin, or you, understand it perfectly, then the statement/question would not have been asked, at least not regarding the Catholic faith. That is why I wondered if he might have been thinking of some of the offshoots of Christianity as some do believe that there is no free will, but only God's will.

BTW, "Christianity" in and of itself is not an organized religion.


----------



## pirate_girl

It was my understanding that Vin was asking if everything that happens on this earth to us and around us, good or bad, is God's will.


----------



## Melensdad

pirate_girl said:


> It was my understanding that Vin was asking if everything that happens on this earth to us and around us, good or bad, is God's will.


Well that was also my understanding.  But as he asked if I would like to comment on it, and as he knows I am a Catholic, and as this thread was originally discussion the Catholic faith, then I presumed that he wanted the Catholic perspective.  That is what I gave him, which simply reinforced what you wrote, as your's was also from the Catholic perspective.  Cityboy's reply did not seem to grasp the difference between many of the other Christian offshoot beliefs and the Catholic beliefs.  Clearly there are many differences between Catholic teaching and the teachings/beliefs of the literally hundreds of offshoot Christian religions.


----------



## Trakternut

We're taught how GOD is not a tyranical being.   We hear how HE is a loving, gracious GOD, which is demonstrated by him sending his SON to save us. It is much like a person who has fallen overboard of a boat and is drowning.  If no one makes some sort of lifesaving device available, the outcome is, surely, that the individual will drown. Now, someone throws a life ring out to him and it lands within arm's reach. The drowning person now has a choice to make. Leave the ring go and drown, upon which, his death will be of his own doing, or, he can grasp the life ring and be pulled to safety.
 We humans are drowning in a sea of sin.  Jesus Christ was "thrown" to us. GOD would love nothing better than to see us grasp this Lifeline and be saved. However, he allows us to make the choice ourselves. Many will ignore the Lifeline and will drown. GOD does not celebrate, rather HE weeps when this happens, but, as a GOD who has endowed mankind with free choice, he lets us do what we choose. So, if any person finds him/herself condemned to Hell, it is of that person's own choosing, not GOD's.
I hope I've made my position clear.


----------



## pirate_girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sP0.../catholic-church-coke&feature=player_embedded


..
Ok.. gotcha Bob 
.. and Monte.. that was beautiful..


----------



## jpr62902

Cityboy said:


> Somehow I expected a better argument from a man of jurisprudence.
> 
> You must do real estate closings.....


 
Actually I haven't done a closing in over a decade.  I just do litigation now.  If I were "working" I'd simply say, "Objection.  Argumentative."  And the objection would be sustained.

Read Waybomb's post.  He's not all that thrilled with the Catholic religion, explains why, and then leaves it at that.   He doesn't call Catholics blind, intolerant or assert that they believe in fairytales.  He does not say that Christianity or Catholicism is unfettered "bovine scatology" (thank you General Schwarzkopf).

Firing off broad based diatribes about a topic is of no use in a discussion or debate.

Presenting facts and logical conclusions therefrom is.


----------



## American Woman

The Tourist said:


> My cousin Norma loved my Mother. They were very close in age, and Norma often spoke about my Mother as she would her own sister. When my parent's first born boy--who would have been my older brother--died as an infant, it was Norma who helped take down the baby's room.
> 
> These were sincere and devoted people. My Mother was haunted by that pain and loss her entire life, and it bled into the relationship she shared with me. And never in a good way. She drank.
> 
> Norma loved my Father, who was an atheist. After their deaths, Norma spoke often of them "looking down from heaven." She felt that my Father was such a good man that God would forgive him in His infinite wisdom.
> 
> Into this painfully injured and dysfunctional family slinks the church.
> 
> Oh, they professed, our beloved daughter Marian suffers in pergatory! Just pay us, and we will say a series of eleven masses and buy her out of this eternal pain and agony...
> 
> So Norma in her grief ponies up untold thousands of dollars in ransom money. A few weeks later I receive this charlatan's triptych, so slovenly done they pinched on costs by eliminating *the traditional third side*!
> 
> So pardon me the usual spiel about holiness. If the papists are infallible, then it follows that all of their edicts are right and just. If all is right and just, then the extraction of funds from injured mourners must meet their criteria for "righteousness."
> 
> If you love God, then consider this singular abuse of a religious family. If I do one thing in my life, I will expose the thieves who did this wrong.





Cityboy said:


> Wrong assumption. I was quite calm and simply observing the usual Christian hypocrisy that is frequently exhibited here. I use caps and bold type to highlight my points, not to shout. People tend to be blind when it comes to their religious beliefs, and often get angry when someone challenges their belief in their version of the cosmic Santa Claus. I find it interesting how these tolerant Christian folk often gang up on someone like Tourist. Sure, Tourist posts some stuff that seems "out there", but in this case, he spoke out against the sacred cow of Catholicism and got attacked for it. I was simply pointing out my perception of their true motive.



I think Chico just got the horse before the cart....all his anger showed before his reason. Like Waycomb he has had some harsh experiences with the Catholic religion. He was just showing his anger with the talk of "slaying dragons, and the enemies blood" I think he reads a lot and has a descriptive way of telling his story. All this enemy talk was towards the Catholic religion...not the defensive members here. Not the first "loving Christian here embraced his sad story, because they were mad at him. His sanity was continually questioned along with throwing the Bible at him, and his story was skipped over like he never put it out there. But Waycomb's sad story is understandable....????
I'm not an atheist, but I can clearly see where CB is coming from. I personally have ditched any religion, because I can't live my life continually by their rules. It's like making a promise and not being able to keep it.


----------



## jpr62902

Ok, so I finally read the Instruction _Dignitas Personae_ on Certain Bioethical Questions.

What I gather is that the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF has 2 bases:

1.  The predominant reason:  Human existence begins at fertilization and therefore, the zygote, or embryo, is entitled to the same rights, respect and dignities as you or me.  The problem with IVF is that so many embryos are discarded or carved up for biological research, etc.  It's as if you or I were discarded, subjected to cruel experimentation, etc.

The lion's share of this publication was based on this premise.

2.  Supplanting the conjugal act between a husband and wife is "illicit."  Now it depends on their meaning of the word "illicit."  It could mean "prohibited", or it could mean "not approved."  Regardless, I read nothing that indicated that IVF would lead to excommunication because it replaced sex between husband and wife.

Now I respect reason #1, but I don't agree with it.  I was raised a Catholic, but I guess not as a good one.  A zygote simply doesn't have the ........  Oh never mind.  Let's just say I respect the view, but don't agree with it.

And reason #2?  C'mon folks!  It's almost as if the Catholic Church is saying parenthetically, "We want you married folks to get laid!"  What da heck is wrong with that?


----------



## pirate_girl

American Woman said:


> because I can't live my life continually by their rules. It's like making a promise and not being able to keep it.


Faith keeps some going, even though they stumble every inch of the way.
It hasn't got anything to do with darkening the doors of a church, but living with your conscience and realizing that there is something bigger than you that guides you.


----------



## waybomb

What's wrong with it is there is <no> compasion for the couples that can not have their own baby any other way. Who are these virgins and celibates telling normal human beings what they can be doing, with no explicit basis, such as the Bible stating IVF is forbidden, or even frowned upon?


----------



## American Woman

jpr62902 said:


> And reason #2?  C'mon folks!  It's almost as if the Catholic Church is saying parenthetically, "We want you married folks to get laid!"  What da heck is wrong with that?


We married couples still get laid! (don't ask Redneck)
We just choose not to have a kid every time we do it.
I have had one kid IVF and the other 3 are "the regular way" I can't tell any difference in them....


----------



## waybomb

American Woman said:


> I can't tell any difference in them....


 

Try name tags................


----------



## American Woman

waybomb said:


> What's wrong with it is there is <no> compasion for the couples that can not have their own baby any other way. Who are these virgins and celibates telling normal human beings what they can be doing, with no explicit basis, such as the Bible stating IVF is forbidden, or even frowned upon?


No body to me What I do in my bedroom (or not )
 is none of his business


----------



## American Woman

waybomb said:


> Try name tags................


Hmmmmmm.....I never thought of that one


----------



## jpr62902

waybomb said:


> What's wrong with it is there is <no> compasion for the couples that can not have their own baby any other way. Who are these virgins and celibates telling normal human beings what they can be doing, with no explicit basis, such as the Bible stating IVF is forbidden, or even frowned upon?


 
Read the publication and you'll understand the mindset.  But to be clear, I don't think anyone here says you have to agree with it, or more importantly, that you're wrong if you don't agree with it.

http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf


----------



## pirate_girl

American Woman said:


> No body to me What I do in my bedroom (or not )
> is none of his business


You aren't Catholic, so why would you even worry about it what the Holy Father or The Church thinks?


----------



## American Woman

pirate_girl said:


> You aren't Catholic, so why would you even worry about it what the Holy Father or The Church thinks?


Oh I'm sorry.....Did I sound worried?


----------



## pirate_girl

I have to wonder how many of the members who are so intent to jump on the Catholic church, have ever attended a Mass in their entire life?
.. and I don't mean attending a funeral mass or a wedding out of respect for a friend.
I mean going into a church out of curiousity and just sitting there and listening and watching.. and LEARNING something about it.


----------



## AndyM

American Woman said:


> I have had one kid IVF and the other 3 are "the regular way" I can't tell any difference in them....



I haven't had time to jump in until now, and probably won't get time to debate it to the extent I would like, but I feel strongly about this issue.  

If someone is Catholic and feel IVF is wrong, then those are their beliefs and they can do or don't as they believe to be right.  
However, since I'm not Catholic, we will do as the beliefs of our Christian (I really don't like to label it beyond that even though our church building has a denomination associated with it) faith directs us.  We believe embryos are human lives, and all human life is important.  

Regular IVF wouldn't work in our situation, but we were able to use leftover embryos from someone else's IVF transfer.  It's quite amazing to know she was in the freezer for eight years at eight cells.  To me (my opinion), it's quite sad to know there are other lives (possibly in the same freezer) who won't get any older and are considered "medical research" while one shelf below was another embryo that became my daughter.


----------



## American Woman

AndyM said:


> To me (my opinion), it's quite sad to know there are other lives (possibly in the same freezer) who won't get any older and are considered "medical research" while one shelf below was another embryo that became my daughter.


Awwwww, that's a sweet story.
I have been in both positions. I got pregnant while on the pill, and then next thing I know a few years later I was having trouble conceiving. I was so grateful for answered prayers, and how far medical science has come.


----------



## pirate_girl

I don't have a thing against IVF.. but when science starts _messing around_ with the embryos... well...


----------



## AndyM

American Woman said:


> Awwwww, that's a sweet story.



Oh, that's just the beginning... there's much more to the story and I will get into that some other time.


----------



## jpr62902

Excellent posts, both AW and AndyM.  Now this thread is back on track.  Glad to read that a great deal of joy has been brought to your lives via IVF!


----------



## waybomb

pirate_girl said:


> I have to wonder how many of the members who are so intent to jump on the Catholic church, have ever attended a Mass in their entire life?
> .. and I don't mean attending a funeral mass or a wedding out of respect for a friend.
> I mean going into a church out of curiousity and just sitting there and listening and watching.. and LEARNING something about it.


 
I did. A lot. Almost became an alter boy. In fact, I even went on a road trip to a Seminary to see what it was like. But something wasn't right between the priests and the boys. I don't believe any of the funny stuff ever actually happened there, but the ground was fertile. But at the time, I had no idea what didn't feel right, all I knew it just did not feel right. 

But anyway, there's no point to debate your point. You are a solid Catholic, and I am not, and we probably will not change. I am fine with that. Are you?


----------



## thcri RIP

waybomb said:


> I did. A lot. Almost became an alter boy. I





I was an alter boy.  Drank wine and went to a free Minnesota Twins game every year.  NO seriously I was an alter boy for about 4 years.  Used to do Mass one week out every two months or so.


----------



## Melensdad

jpr62902 said:


> Read the publication and you'll understand the mindset.  But to be clear, I don't think anyone here says you have to agree with it, or more importantly, that you're wrong if you don't agree with it.
> 
> http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf



I think I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to make this same point early on in the thread.  

This pertains to faithful Catholics, it does not pertain to those who choose not to follow the Catholic beliefs.  I'm still unsure why this has become any sort of an issue with people.  Those people who are not Catholic are not asked to follow this, there is no attempt to influence laws here regarding this issue, and the teachings of a church that do not affect you should not be of any concern to you.

How is this any different than Orthodox Jews saying that the Jewish faithful should not eat pork because it is an unclean meat?


----------



## pirate_girl

waybomb said:


> I did. A lot. Almost became an alter boy. In fact, I even went on a road trip to a Seminary to see what it was like. But something wasn't right between the priests and the boys. I don't believe any of the funny stuff ever actually happened there, but the ground was fertile. But at the time, I had no idea what didn;t feel right, all I knew it just did not feel right.
> 
> But anyway, there's no point to debate your point. You are a solid Catholic, and I am not, and we probably will not change. I am fine with that. Are you?


Fred, I know the church's history with the controversy surrounding gay priests.
I'm sorry that you had that experience, or at least felt uneasy.
Perfectly understandable.
I'm not exactly a solid Catholic these days, but I love my faith and will defend it til the day I die.
I'm cool with anyone who wants to debate it.


----------



## waybomb

I understand this is a Catholic thing and all. And I should not concern myself with it. 

But I worry about people. Catholic followers who can not have babies the Catholic way, intercourse, but could using science, can't. I had a son. Prior to having a child, I figured I could have gone through life without one. But now that I had one, I don't know that I could be a whole person without one. Now, these observant Catholics that are physically challenged, will never experience the joy of a child, or the frustrations. THAT is horrible!

Why, because some humans are interpretting or speaking for God? Just as in my examples of horrible events in the past?

Now, why would God have given us this wonderful ability to allow challenged couples to have their own baby, and then say they can not?


----------



## pirate_girl

waybomb said:


> Now, why would God have given us this wonderful ability to allow challenged couples to have their own baby, and then say they can not?


That's when you allow your conscience to be your guide.
I believe God guides the hand of medical science in a lot of ways, but it's up to the individual as to whether they want to adhere staunchly to what the church teaches, or say to hell with it, and choose to be a lukewarm/ smorgasbord Catholic.


----------



## Melensdad

waybomb said:


> I understand this is a Catholic thing and all. And I should not concern myself with it.
> 
> But I worry about people. Catholic followers who can not have babies the Catholic way, intercourse, but could using science, can't.



Well let me try to put this in as non-confrontational way as possible, I do not believe you do understand.  

You say Catholic followers 'can't' have IVF but I think that if a prayerfully faithful Catholic couple was faced with this situation they would 'choose' not to have IVF.  Catholicism is a choice.  We follow the teachings because we want to, not because we have to.  It is our choice.  The choice brings sacrifices and some of those sacrifices are not understood by others but that is OK, we don't ask you to understand.  If you want to learn, sincerely, there are plenty of resources and the teachings are consistent.


----------



## American Woman

pirate_girl said:


> I don't have a thing against IVF.. but when science starts _messing around_ with the embryos... well...





AndyM said:


> Oh, that's just the beginning... there's much more to the story and I will get into that some other time.


These two posts go together for me. If science wasn't messing around with the of embryos connecting I wouldn't have my 12 and 5 yearold lumps of sugar 



B_Skurka said:


> Those people who are not Catholic are not asked to follow this, there is no attempt to influence laws here regarding this issue, and the teachings of a church that do not affect you should not be of any concern to you.
> 
> How is this any different than Orthodox Jews saying that the Jewish faithful should not eat pork because it is an unclean meat?


What's wrong with questioning it (asking Why)? My son in law is Hindu and only eats meat on certain days, he believes in Carma (what goes around comes around) He believes in God, and he believes in Jesus. If I hadn't asked him questions and debated a little I wouldn't know a thing about it. I like to debate and ask about others religion. I haven't heard of any that are ALL bad...yet.


----------



## jpr62902

B_Skurka said:


> I think I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to make this same point early on in the thread.
> 
> This pertains to faithful Catholics, it does not pertain to those who choose not to follow the Catholic beliefs. I'm still unsure why this has become any sort of an issue with people. Those people who are not Catholic are not asked to follow this, there is no attempt to influence laws here regarding this issue, and the teachings of a church that do not affect you should not be of any concern to you.
> 
> How is this any different than Orthodox Jews saying that the Jewish faithful should not eat pork because it is an unclean meat?


 
Glad to see you back in this fray, Bob.  I do want your opinion.  From this publication, it almost seems as if the Vatican would get on board with IVF if embryos weren't frozen, discarded, etc., but treated according to the principles of _Donum vitae_.  Also, there's no discussion akin to "Thou shallt not ..."  I'm reading, "We don't like it, but do it if you must."  Waddya think?


----------



## Deadly Sushi

If the rule isnt Bible based.... and I dont think it is.... then it is MANs rule not GODs rule. In other words..... if you dont follow it it doesnt matter. Tell whomever to go scratch.


----------



## waybomb

B_Skurka said:


> . If you want to learn, sincerely, there are plenty of resources and the teachings are consistent.


 

OK, consistent with what? What was consistent about the Inquisition and what Jesus taught? Yes, plenty of Catholics sacrificed. But is your faith blind to the autrocities created by the Church?

I guess I am not making my point as I am not a great literary genius. I guess my point is that the Church can be wrong, has proven it, and what is so bad about questioning it?

The responses to the questions all seem to be revolving around the thought that this is what the Church teaches, so it must be right. That would hold water if the Church has been right all along, but when looking into the past, there are planty of examples where the Church was wrong, deadly wrong,  and as with the Tourist, the followers were ready willing and able to shoot the questioner of the faith. Some of those dead folks were right. And the Church silenced them.


----------



## pirate_girl

American Woman said:


> If science wasn't messing around with the of embryos connecting I wouldn't have my 12 and 5 yearold lumps of sugar


 I was talking about embryonic stem cell research.....not your blessed brats


----------



## Melensdad

American Woman said:


> What's wrong with questioning it (asking Why)?


Nothing.  I question things all the time.  But look at the title to the thread.  That is not questioning.  Look at some of the other comments.  Those are not questioning.  I've actually tried to give some explanation as I can.  I do not consider myself an apologist for the Church, there is too much I do not know.  But I share what I can.


jpr62902 said:


> Glad to see you back in this fray, Bob.  I do want your opinion.  From this publication, it almost seems as if the Vatican would get on board with IVF if embryos weren't frozen, discarded, etc., but treated according to the principles of _Donum vitae_.  Also, there's no discussion akin to "Thou shallt not ..."  I'm reading, "We don't like it, but do it if you must."  Waddya think?


I pretty much see the same thing.  The Church is very consistent on some issues, and the fact that many of the embryos (which many consider to be human babies) are destroyed, or used in labs for experiments, etc is very likely the biggest problem with IVF for the Church.  I suspect that if 1 embryo could be created and implanted at a time then the Church would likely support it.


----------



## American Woman

pirate_girl said:


> I was talking about embryonic stem cell research.....not your blessed brats


I said lumps of sugar...not brats


----------



## American Woman

B_Skurka said:


> Nothing.  I question things all the time.  But look at the title to the thread.  That is not questioning.  Look at some of the other comments.  Those are not questioning.  I've actually tried to give some explanation as I can.


  Agreed
 It does kinda make you come out swing'in when your attacked from the git'go.


----------



## pirate_girl

American Woman said:


> I said lumps of sugar...not brats


Mmmkk.. lumpsa sugahh brats...


----------



## pirate_girl

B_Skurka said:


> *The Church is very consistent on some issues, and the fact that many of the embryos (which many consider to be human babies) are destroyed, or used in labs for experiments, etc is very likely the biggest problem with IVF for the Church.  I suspect that if 1 embryo could be created and implanted at a time then the Church would likely support it*.


Absolutely.


----------



## American Woman

pirate_girl said:


> Mmmkk.. lumpsa sugahh brats...


That's better


----------



## waybomb

B_Skurka said:


> I suspect that if 1 embryo could be created and implanted at a time then the Church would likely support it.


 
So, saving some percentage of the embryos, and allowing a loving couple to have a child, or two, or more, is bad, just to make a point about science? 

How is that consistent?


----------



## Melensdad

waybomb said:


> So, saving some percentage of the embryos, and allowing a loving couple to have a child, or two, or more, is bad, just to make a point about science?
> 
> How is that consistent?


Very consistent with the sanctity of life followed by the Church.  In fact I can't see how it is inconsistent.  If an embryo is life, and if the Church holds life as sacred, then the Church would oppose any practice that destroys life.  That is, at least from what I can read in the document, the reason it is opposed.  The process of IVF creates multiple fertilized embryos and only a small % of them are used.  As each is a life, those that are destroyed _(either directly or via some sort of research) _are, in real terms, aborted.


----------



## waybomb

B_Skurka said:


> aborted.


 
I thought a life is not so until conception, according to Catholicism? Then  it is not akin to abortion.

Doesn't a woman expel embryos naturally if there is no conception?


----------



## jpr62902

waybomb said:


> So, saving some percentage of the embryos, and allowing a loving couple to have a child, or two, or more, is bad, just to make a point about science?
> 
> How is that consistent?


 
I think the point is about the discarded embryos, which are still considered to be human life, to be afforded the same respect as you or me.

Interesting.  The Catholic Church has drawn a line.  Humanity begins at the creation of a zygote.  A fertilized egg.  Therefore, this embryo should afforded the same rights, respect and treatment as a fetus, a child and an adult.  If these embryos are discarded, dissected or otherwise disembodied, as if you or I were, then the Catholic Church is against that.

What is also interesting is that the Vatican says it's okay to get embryonic stem cells from the placenta, umbilical cord and fetuses who have died from natural causes.

Again, the Catholic Church has drawn a line.  Where do you draw yours?  Is it okay to perform medical experimentation on death sentence inmates?  Yeah, that's an extreme, but it's a legitimate question.  Where do you draw your line?


----------



## jpr62902

waybomb said:


> I thought a life is not so until conception, according to Catholicism? Then it is not akin to abortion.
> 
> Doesn't a woman expel embryos naturally if there is no conception?


 
No, because an "embryo" is a fertilized egg or ovum.


----------



## AndyM

waybomb said:


> Doesn't a woman expel embryos naturally if there is no conception?



That's EGGS you're thinking of... an embryo is the result of a fertilized egg by a sperm.


----------



## waybomb

I stand corrected.


----------



## Melensdad

jpr62902 said:


> No, because an "embryo" is a fertilized egg or ovum.





AndyM said:


> That's EGGS you're thinking of... an embryo is the result of a fertilized egg by a sperm.



Exactly.  An embryo is actually a baby human.  It is considered an embryo, by some, until birth.  It is considered a human, not an embryo, by others from the time of conception.  

Now it is possible for a mother to miscarry and that would result in the walls of the vagina to slack off an attached baby/embryo during the menstral process (perhaps PG, being a nurse could give a better description of this process).  But generally no, the mother does not expel embryos.


----------



## pirate_girl

B_Skurka said:


> Now it is possible for a mother to miscarry and that would result in the walls of the vagina to slack off an attached baby/embryo during the menstral process (perhaps PG, being a nurse could give a better description of this process).  But generally no, the mother does not expel embryos.


an anembryonic pregnancy?


----------



## jpr62902

I get to correct Bob!

Actually, it would be the walls of the uterus that would slack off the embryo, hence, a miscarriage.

Am I right, PG?


----------



## pirate_girl

jpr62902 said:


> I get to correct Bob!
> 
> Actually, it would be the walls of the uterus that would slack off the embryo, hence, a miscarriage.
> 
> Am I right, PG?


Why aren't you a Doctor?


----------



## jpr62902

Because I'm too smart for that and became a lawyer instead.


----------



## pirate_girl

jpr62902 said:


> *Because I'm too smart for that* and became a lawyer instead.


haha!!!


----------



## Trakternut

pirate_girl said:


> Why aren't you a Doctor?



Rumor has it that he's played one on a few occasions!


----------



## jpr62902

Trakternut said:


> Rumor has it that he's played one on a few occasions!


 
And I'll thank you not to bring this matter up again.  My sex life is none of y'alls' bidnis.


----------



## pirate_girl

jpr62902 said:


> And I'll thank you not to bring this matter up again.  My sex life is none of y'alls' bidnis.


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> Not sure that I understand what you are saying.
> 
> Vin stated/asked:_  "Unfortunately bible believers would say what ever happens is Gods will.  Bob S maybe you would like to make a comment regarding this."
> 
> _Within the context of Catholicism, *God gives us free will*.  So if Vin, or you, understand it perfectly, then the statement/question would not have been asked, at least not regarding the Catholic faith. That is why I wondered if he might have been thinking of some of the offshoots of Christianity as some do believe that there is no free will, but only God's will.
> 
> BTW, "Christianity" in and of itself is not an organized religion.



What free will did Fred have!

As we are talking about Catholics, I will make this comment Bob. Catholics are hypocritical they generally practice very different to that of theological Catholicism. I have heard many strong Catholics including priests consoling people by saying it was Gods will. 
How dare you insinuate that I do not understand. I was surrounded by Catholics for most of my life.


----------



## Melensdad

Vin, clearly you do not understand, and in all likelihood the Catholics you were surrounded by do not understand either.  The sad fact is that 50% of the "Catholics" are non-practicing Catholics.  They claim the religion but could not pass a 1st grade level test on the theology. Those of us who practice the faith learn more every day. Those who don't clearly follow their own path.  As to the priests to which you are referring, I can only suggest that some do not know their theology very well either.  One of my best friends is a Catholic priest, I've corrected him.



jpr62902 said:


> I get to correct Bob!
> 
> Actually, it would be the walls of the uterus that would slack off the embryo, hence, a miscarriage.


Bob was clearly NOT a biology major.  I know the concept but not all the words.  Thanks for the correction.  

Usually I just refer to such things as *"the girl parts."*


----------



## Tractors4u

B_Skurka said:


> Vin, clearly you do not understand, and in all likelihood the Catholics you were surrounded by do not understand either. The sad fact is that 50% of the "Catholics" are non-practicing Catholics. They claim the religion but could not pass a 1st grade level test on the theology. Those of us who practice the faith learn more every day. Those who don't clearly follow their own path. As to the priests to which you are referring, I can only suggest that some do not know their theology very well either. One of my best friends is a Catholic priest, I've corrected him.


 
Good points Bob.  People are human and make mistakes or they are just plain wrong.  What I see from some people who ridicule the church is that all are bad.  If a cop is crooked then are all cops crooked?  If you have a teacher that has an affair with student, are all teachers pedophiles?  No to either example.  So why are all Catholics so horrible or Christians in general?  I am not Catholic and I don't pretend to understand everything about their faith but I have learned quite a bit from reading Bob and P.G.'s posts here.  There are crooked pastors and priests.  There are people that get up and sing for their own glory and those that sing to glorify God.  There are churches that have some wonderful outreach programs and yes some of these churches are quite large.


----------



## waybomb

Does the Church condemn this practice:

A couple has the female's eggs saved.
a couple has the male's sperm saved.

In the future, one egg is removed, and left with some sperm, cell development begins, and an embryo forms. Then this one egg is placed into the womb and a baby is born.


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> Vin, clearly you do not understand, and in all likelihood the Catholics you were surrounded by do not understand either.  The sad fact is that 50% of the "Catholics" are non-practicing Catholics.  They claim the religion but could not pass a 1st grade level test on the theology. Those of us who practice the faith learn more every day. Those who don't clearly follow their own path.  As to the priests to which you are referring, I can only suggest that some do not know their theology very well either.  One of my best friends is a Catholic priest, I've corrected him.



Your right Bob, I will never understand your arrogance. I was brought up in a devout Catholic environment, I had a convent education, was an Altar boy for probably 15 years, My Mother went to Mass every day and my father went at least twice a week.  I had an uncle who was a Jesuit priest, and two aunties who were nuns in the Sisters of Saint Joseph  (You probably don't know of them ). 
To tell me I don't understand Catholics is a nonsense, get you head out of your arse mate.


----------



## Melensdad

Ah, the Jesuits.  That explains it.  They are nearly in schism with the Pope and have been warned about their theology.


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> Ah, the Jesuits.  That explains it.  They are nearly in schism with the Pope and have been warned about their theology.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus#Jesuits_today



> The Jesuits today form the largest religious order of priests and brothers in the Catholic Church, with 19,216 serving in 112 nations on six continents,




Bob, piss weak irrelevant reply!


----------



## Melensdad

Vin, actually the Jesuits and the Maryknolls are some of the most frequently excommunicated of the priests.


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> Vin, actually the Jesuits and the Maryknolls are some of the most frequently excommunicated of the priests.


Logic man, they are of the greater numbers!


----------



## Cityboy

jpr62902 said:


> Actually I haven't done a closing in over a decade. I just do litigation now. If I were "working" I'd simply say, "Objection. Argumentative." And the objection would be sustained.
> 
> Read Waybomb's post. He's not all that thrilled with the Catholic religion, explains why, and then leaves it at that. He doesn't call Catholics blind, intolerant or assert that they believe in fairytales. He does not say that Christianity or Catholicism is unfettered "bovine scatology" (thank you General Schwarzkopf).
> 
> Firing off broad based diatribes about a topic is of no use in a discussion or debate.
> 
> Presenting facts and logical conclusions therefrom is.


 
Ahh, but this is not a court of law, counselor. It is a forum of biased opinions of all kinds, and bullshit ad infinitum. A jesters court, perhaps, so -Objection overruled- 

Forgive me, oh litigious one, for voicing my opinion and calling the situation as I see it. But the facts as I see them is that the vast majority of strife on this planet is caused by religion, specifically Islam and Christianity. Eliminate those two ridiculous religions and we would be several millennia closer to world peace by now.

Here is another fact for you. Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they are going to obey, and discard the parts they do not want to obey. Call it "Christian Evoloution". Over time, more and more of these alleged "holy" scriptures are ignored. Hopefully, some day, as more and more layers of this onion are peeled away, this man-made religion will cease to exist. I do give Christians credit for evolving over the centuries, something Islam has failed to do on any significant scale thus far. 

So, you see, what I just stated above in two paragraphs is the same thing as simply stating that religion is indeed bullshit. If you keep picking and choosing what parts of your religion you will obey or not obey, then it is a farce, is it not? If the bible is indeed "The Word of God", then Christians are compelled to follow it to the letter. Regardless of how you attempt to justify this selective "faith", the fact is this Christian Selectivity essentially proves that the bible is either a work of fiction, or every single one of you selective Christians are are on the road straight to Hell.

I do have to admit that Catholicism is the perfect religion for Selective Christians. Where else but the Catholic church can one go out and commit adultery, fornicate, post nude photographs, post and watch porno movies on the internet, get sloshing drunk, and then go sit in a tiny booth behind a curtain, completely hungover, and confess all your "sins" to a man who is not allowed to have sex and be forgiven so you can go out next Saturday night and do it all over again. (Wonder what he's actually doing on his side of the booth as he listens to these ribald tales? ) What a deal!


----------



## Melensdad

daedong said:


> Logic man, they are of the greater numbers!


No sir, they are often of bad theology, often espousing the theory of Liberation Theology which has been soundly berated by our last two Popes.  When the head of the Jesuit order died recently and a new head was named he was called to Rome to find out if the order would work to come into full communion with the faith, something that the prior head of the Jesuits resisted.  The Jesuits are known for their rogue ways.


----------



## jpr62902

Cityboy said:


> Ahh, but this is not a court of law, counselor. It is a forum of biased opinions of all kinds, and bullshit ad infinitum. A jesters court, perhaps, so -Objection overruled-
> 
> Forgive me, oh litigious one, for voicing my opinion and calling the situation as I see it. But the facts as I see them is that the vast majority of strife on this planet is caused by religion, specifically Islam and Christianity. Eliminate those two ridiculous religions and we would be several millennia closer to world peace by now.
> 
> Here is another fact for you. Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they are going to obey, and discard the parts they do not want to obey. Call it "Christian Evoloution". Over time, more and more of these alleged "holy" scriptures are ignored. Hopefully, some day, as more and more layers of this onion are peeled away, this man-made religion will cease to exist. I do give Christians credit for evolving over the centuries, something Islam has failed to do on any significant scale thus far.
> 
> So, you see, what I just stated above in two paragraphs is the same thing as simply stating that religion is indeed bullshit. If you keep picking and choosing what parts of your religion you will obey or not obey, then it is a farce, is it not? If the bible is indeed "The Word of God", then Christians are compelled to follow it to the letter. Regardless of how you attempt to justify this selective "faith", the fact is this Christian Selectivity essentially proves that the bible is either a work of fiction, or every single one of you selective Christians are are on the road straight to Hell.
> 
> I do have to admit that Catholicism is the perfect religion for Selective Christians. Where else but the Catholic church can one go out and commit adultery, fornicate, post nude photographs, post and watch porno movies on the internet, get sloshing drunk, and then go sit in a tiny booth behind a curtain, completely hungover, and confess all your "sins" to a man who is not allowed to have sex and be forgiven so you can go out next Saturday night and do it all over again. (Wonder what he's actually doing on his side of the booth as he listens to these ribald tales? ) What a deal!


 
Just so I'm sure I understand your position, you believe that Christians\Catholics would don't "follow the Bible to the letter" are hypocrites destined for hell?


----------



## princess

CityBoy I would like to respond to a few of your statements one of which is one of the most common misunderstandings that I have found about the Catholic faith.  

I'd first like to say that I respect your views even while not agreeing with them as a whole.  As for the subject of IVF..it for me as a Catholic is another point along with birth control and the "sin" of homosexuality that I don't agree with the postition of the Vatican and/or fundamentalist Christians.  I understand that in some eyes that makes me a heretic.  I don't follow or agree with all the Bible says..I'm not a submissive wife but an equal partner, I don't own slaves and I think, do and say countless sins every day.  However I do find peace, solace and hope in the Bible and in the Catholic faith and for that alone I feel Catholicism and Christianity as a whole have value.  (and yes I would agree that the Bible and faith can be twisted and distorted to further hate and evil..but that's another debate )

Now you are a bit confused as to the purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  The confessional is not...by any means...a get out of jail free card.  In order to recieve absolution one must TRULY be contrite and sincerely make the effort not to fall again.  Think of it as a team effort b/w man and priest to stay on the right path.  Forgiveness is there but NOT without true contrition.  

I hope I worded this well.  Religion is such a volatile subject and cuts right to the core of who we are as people.  

Peace


----------



## pirate_girl

^^ which proves that a lot of Catholic thought/opinion is wide and varied..
Excellent post Princess!!


----------



## American Woman

princess said:


> In order to recieve absolution one must TRULY be contrite and sincerely make the effort not to fall again. Forgiveness is there but NOT without true contrition.
> Peace


Hey Princess! Long time no see
 I can understand why CB said what he did about the confessions being like a "get out of jail free card" A person can truly feel remorse over and over as they keep committing the same crime. It's called addiction.


----------



## pirate_girl

It's called sin, which every single one of us are guilty of.

Let's understand the sacrament of confession a bit better shall we?
Simply going and performing the ritual isn't going to get you anywhere.
Like Princess alluded to, you first have to examine your conscience,which is time spent REALLY thinking about the things you've done to put a wedge between yourself and God.

If you truly feel sorry in your heart, then you receive the sacrament of reconciliation with a priest (and NO, these days it's not always behind a curtain in a dark confessional) I prefer face to face myself.

Sin can be a _crime_ if you break the laws of the land.
In the eyes of Mother Church, it's human nature and we have the sacraments to help us get through it, and hopefully one day will get it right (as in my case) and find my way back to the church that I was raised in and so love. 

PS.. my posts are about MY experience in my real life here and now.. not anything I've shared over the internet which will cause some of you to come down on me with judgement. 
I know what's right, and God loves me just as I am.
He loves all of us just as we are right now.


----------



## rback33

hey it princess under rbacks profile b/c I um...dropped my laptop lol....(and I don't want to hear about kharma cityboy!!!!!)  LMAO

AW ...good to see you!  I don't think its fair to add the burden of addiction to my previous post as I was refering to general sins that an individual struggles with and not an addiction such as alcoholism, drug addiction or gambling...once these become an addiction...in my opinion..they become a disease and while the action is not something that glorifies God I feel that it is in a different scope than my struggle with not losing patience and snapping at rback...


----------



## American Woman

Well what I had on my mind was "chocolate"  Seriously, I'm addicted. Every time I finish my stash I vow never to buy another stash. I quit.
Then I'm right back doing it again. When I said I was going to quit I meant it.


----------



## pirate_girl

American Woman said:


> Well what I had on my mind was "chocolate"  Seriously, I'm addicted. Every time I finish my stash I vow never to buy another stash. I quit.
> Then I'm right back doing it again. When I said I was going to quit I meant it.


Too bad yer not a catlick.. you could give it up fer Lent..


----------



## American Woman

I'll stick with my chocolate addiction


----------



## AndyM

waybomb said:


> Does the Church condemn this practice:
> 
> A couple has the female's eggs saved.
> a couple has the male's sperm saved.
> 
> In the future, one egg is removed, and left with some sperm, cell development begins, and an embryo forms. Then this one egg is placed into the womb and a baby is born.



How about transplanting embryos leftover from someone else's IVF transfer?  Does the Catholic Church have a position on that?  

We felt it was acceptable in our situation, as it was giving a chance for a life to be born, rather than creating more to be frozen.


----------



## American Woman

AndyM said:


> How about transplanting embryos leftover from someone else's IVF transfer?  Does the Catholic Church have a position on that?
> 
> We felt it was acceptable in our situation, as it was giving a chance for a life to be born, rather than creating more to be frozen.


Did that work like an adoption after the baby was born? Or was it an anonymous donor?


----------



## Melensdad

AndyM said:


> How about transplanting embryos leftover from someone else's IVF transfer?  Does the Catholic Church have a position on that?


I'd bet the Catholic Church does, not sure what it is.  The Church believes life is sacred and opposes all things that treat life in a disposable manner.  I'd bet that the Church would support the use of 'leftover' embryos while simultaneously opposing the process that creates the 'leftover' embryos, but that is just my guess.  Just like the concept that the Church can oppose IVF (because of the prior mentioned issues) but cherish the child created by the process.  

Since Princess brought it up, the fact is that the Church welcomes homosexuals but similarly opposed gay unions and relationships.  Seems bizarre to some, but is very consistent with the Church teaching on 'life' issues and the sacrament of marriage and all the things that go with that sacrament.  

Regarding "confession" or the sacrament of reconciliation, PG nailed it.  Its not a get out of jail free card, nor is it hypocritical, but it is very often misunderstood by critics of the Church who don't actually understand it.

The thing about the Catholic Church is that it pretty much has a position on just about anything and everything.  That makes it an easy target for people who don't understand the teachings, and also makes it open to criticism by those who disagree.  

Many other churches simply leave their theology up to their pastors and that allows for a fluid theology.


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> No sir, they are often of bad theology, *often espousing the theory of Liberation Theology *which has been soundly berated by our last two Popes.  When the head of the Jesuit order died recently and a new head was named he was called to Rome to find out if the order would work to come into full communion with the faith, something that the prior head of the Jesuits resisted.  The Jesuits are known for their rogue ways.


Jesuits are the biggest order, Fact. As a whole they have not been denounced. So what the fuk are you on about.


----------



## CityGirl

193 posts to argue religion.  I guess it needs defending.  Faith, however, does not.


----------



## Tractors4u

CityGirl said:


> 193 posts to argue religion. I guess it needs defending. Faith, however, does not.


 
Excellent comment CG, I would give you reps, but it says I must spread them.


----------



## Melensdad

daedong said:


> Jesuits are the biggest order, Fact. As a whole they have not been denounced. So what the fuk are you on about.


Vin, I never wrote that they were denounced.  So what the fuk are you on about.

Pull your head out of your biased and angry ass and actually read what people write without coloring it with your prejudice.  You love to attack Catholics but you do it by misstating what others write and by using casual association that does not show that you know much, if anything, about the correct teachings of the church.


----------



## DaveNay

pirate_girl said:


> Too bad yer not a catlick.. you could give it up fer Lent..


I gave up religion for Lent quite a few years ago.


----------



## rback33

CityGirl said:


> 193 posts to argue religion.  I guess it needs defending.  Faith, however, does not.



Precisely my dear. That is why I have stayed out of it for the most part.

I too must spread Reps around..


----------



## mtntopper

CityGirl said:


> 193 posts to argue religion. I guess it needs defending. Faith, however, does not.


 
 Excellent to the point statement that has great meaning....


----------



## daedong

daedong said:


> What free will did Fred have!
> 
> As we are talking about Catholics, I will make this comment Bob. *Catholics are hypocritical they generally practice very different to that of theological Catholicism.* I have heard many strong Catholics including priests consoling people by saying it was Gods will.
> How dare you insinuate that I do not understand. I was surrounded by Catholics for most of my life.





B_Skurka said:


> Vin, I never wrote that they were denounced.  So what the fuk are you on about.
> 
> Pull your head out of your biased and angry ass and actually read what people write without coloring it with your prejudice. You love to attack Catholics but you do it by misstating what others write and by using casual association that does not show that you know much, if anything, about the correct teachings of the church.







daedong said:


> Your right Bob, I will never understand your arrogance. I was brought up in a devout Catholic environment, I had a convent education, was an Altar boy for probably 15 years, My Mother went to Mass every day and my father went at least twice a week. I had an uncle who was a Jesuit priest, and two aunties who were nuns in the Sisters of Saint Joseph (You probably don't know of them ).
> To tell me I don't understand Catholics is a nonsense, get you head out of your arse mate.



Dear Sir, please show me where I misstating what others have said.
If you use your head and reason, you and I actually agree on the point highlighted but it is you that loves to argue .
It appears that you are the angry one You simply knit picked about the Jesuit Priests,
I think it is time for you to go to confession and admit that you were just being provocative.

Bless me father for I have sinned, its about 30 years since I have been to confession. Father I am sitting here laughing at Bob Skurka and he is serious.


----------



## Melensdad

Vin, now you are just babbling.  

You seem to imply that just because you were surrounded by Catholics that you understand the theology.  Is that via osmosis?


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> Vin, now you are just babbling.
> 
> You seem to imply that just because you were surrounded by Catholics that you understand the theology.  Is that via osmosis?





daedong said:


> What free will did Fred have!
> 
> As we are talking about Catholics, I will make this comment Bob. *Catholics are hypocritical they generally practice very different to that of theological Catholicism*. I have heard many strong Catholics including priests consoling people by saying it was Gods will.
> How dare you insinuate that I do not understand. I was surrounded by Catholics for most of my life.



I post it once again, now who was babbling, We actually agree but Ironically you will not admit it.

I actually said I understand Catholics not all the theology. Maybe it you that needs to read more thoroughly what others write.


----------



## Sir Knight

Deadly Sushi said:


> If the rule isnt Bible based.... and I dont think it is.... then it is MANs rule not GODs rule. In other words..... if you dont follow it it doesnt matter. Tell whomever to go scratch.


Why does it matter if it is bible based or not? The bible didn't fall out of the sky nor was it given to someone on a mountain top nor brought down from heavn by an angel.

It was put together by the CATHOLIC Church in the late 4th century. They decided what was to be included within it's pages and what was to be excluded.

If you accept the bible as the infallible Word of God, then you MUST first accept the INFALLIBLE Authority of the Catholic Church. Only an INFALLIBLE Authority can produce an INFALLIBLE Work -- the bible.

If the authority of the Catholic Church is not infallible, then the bible may not be infallible either because they may have included teachings that don't belong in the bible and excldued teaching that do belong in the bible.

You can't have it both ways. If the bible is infallible, then the AUTHORITY Catholic Church that produced it is also infallible and needs to be obeyed.


----------



## BigAl RIP

Sir Knight said:


> *It was put together by the CATHOLIC Church in the late 4th century.* They decided what was to be included within it's pages and what was to be excluded.
> 
> If you accept the bible as the infallible Word of God, then you MUST first accept the INFALLIBLE Authority of the Catholic Church. Only an INFALLIBLE Authority can produce an INFALLIBLE Work -- the bible.


 

SK
Would you please give me the site or link that proves and provides the basis of this statement ? I would love to read more on this . thanks Al


----------



## Melensdad

BigAl said:


> SK
> Would you please give me the site or link that proves and provides the basis of this statement ? I would love to read more on this . thanks Al


I'd kind of like to see it to.  I know it is the Catholic Church that put together the books that we now call the Bible, that much is historical fact.  It was the only Christian church in existence at the time.  The Catholics and what we now call the Orthodox are very close cousins, founded by the apostles of Jesus.  One main difference is the existence of the Patriarchs and the discussion of the supremacy of the Pope over the Patriarchs or if they are equals.  Still the churches are very closely aligned in traditions, practices and doctrines.  

The Bible was put together a few hundred years after Christ died by his followers, who were descendants of the original apostles and followers and they formed his Church which the Catholics (and the Orthodox) can trace back to the foundation of Christianity via apostolic succession.  

The Bible was altered in the 1500 by Luther and a few others during the 'reformation' when several books of the Bible were removed by them.  That is why the Protestant Bible is smaller than the Catholic/Orthodox Bible.  I believe 9 books are missing (maybe 8?) from the Protestant Bible.

Additionally there is all sorts of debate over translations.  And rightly so.  Some folks prefer a "literal" translation while others prefer an "equivalence" translation.  And certainly when you are dealing with the original Greek texts there is even some debate over what words best accomplish a literal translation. 

I do know that we also have cultural issues.  My in-laws argue that Jesus had brothers and/or sisters.  This is a not to commonly held belief, but one that stems from the fact that some words we use today did/do not have direct correlations to words used 2000 years ago.  Further the meanings of words change with cultural use.  So some folks look at the term "brother" and, without taking into account the cultural use of the word at the time, presume it to mean what we would term blood relation brother.  Others, taking full _context of the time the words were written into account_, translate it to mean a person of close friendship.  

So because of issues like these above, where the Bible was edited and books removed, where translation errors were made, corrected and perhaps remade, etc we have new theologies springing up all time.  Take for example the concept of "The Rapture" that is a concept that is only about 150 years old and dates to a minister in England.  Few Christians actually follow the belief in the rapture theology but many know of it.  Some presume it to be somehow Bible based, and I suppose to John Darby, the Anglican preacher who came up with it, it is somehow Bible based, but the bulk of the Anglican church doesn't even believe it.

So back to your post, I too would love to see an EASY TO READ link to Biblical history.  One that is short enough that I don't have to spend hours reading.


----------



## DaveNay

BigAl said:


> Would you please give me the site or link that proves and provides the basis of this statement ? I would love to read more on this . thanks Al





B_Skurka said:


> I'd kind of like to see it to.
> 
> ...
> 
> So back to your post, I too would love to see an EASY TO READ link to Biblical history.  One that is short enough that I don't have to spend hours reading.



I certainly wouldn't call this authoritative, but it's a start.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html


----------



## Melensdad

Dave, interesting link.  Thanks.  I did notice it only very briefly mentioned that the Catholic Bible differs from the Protestant Bible but only mentions it in passing with one sentence and dates the split to the 1500's.  It does not go into any of the specifics of the books removed at that time or why.


----------



## Sir Knight

BigAl said:


> SK
> Would you please give me the site or link that proves and provides the basis of this statement ? I would love to read more on this . thanks Al


The canon of the Bible was officially determined in the fourth century by Catholic councils and Catholic popes. Historically, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the Bible and to assure us that everything in the Bible is inspired. Apart from the Church, we simply have no way of knowing either truth. In essence, the Bible is a Catholic book. The New Testament was written, copied, and collected by Catholic Christians. The Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God, must have the infallible authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit. To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible.

Even Martin Luther wrote ... "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it."

Christ left a Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name until the end of time. To reject that authority is to reject Christ and His Gospel. Catholics accept the Bible as an authority in matters of faith because it is God's inspired Word. Thus Scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority to govern in His name (Mt 16:13-20, 18:18, Lk 10:16) The Bible also tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6).

The Bible confirms that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in Scripture (John 21:25) and that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25). 1 Tim 3:15 reassures us that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." Chaos can reign as everyone interprets the document according to his whim. That is why it is important to follow the ONLY Church that can trace it's roots back to the Apostles.

I will be back when time permits with books and/or links that you asked for -- I'm on a slow connection and trying to re-find this stuff takes a while and I have to head out to work.


----------



## Sir Knight

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895551373]Where We Got the Bible : Our Debt to the Catholic Church[/ame] by by Henry G. Graham who outlines his conversion Calvinist ministry to Catholicism ... [ame]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm[/ame]


----------

