On 22-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

Many nasty folks have used God as excuse for inexcusable things. So
what?

This shows that Hitler killed the Jews because of his religious beliefs.
Could it be any clearer?

Catholic doctrine implicitly prohibits murder, nor does it condemn Jews.

OBVIOUSLY, if Hitler was Catholic, he would have behaved a little
differently, so saying he killed the Jews because he was Catholic is
ludicrous. In reality (remember that?) he was a raving lunatic who wanted

kill people.

Besides, he excommunicated himself *ipso facto* by his
actions, and therefore was not Catholic for most of his career as a crazed
dictator. So there.

This clearly shows the anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church in Hitler's
early years

Oh yes. It <ahem> clearly shows that.

The Vatican is the biggest bullshitter when it comes to historical
revisionism.

The problem with the Holy See is that it keeps it's records secret.

A lot of
these wacky theories go around and around until they become legend, and a
lot of people believe them. If the Church had opened it's records sooner,

lot of this could have been avoided. Then again, facts rarely seem to

these things.

Both dictatorships and religious beliefs can cause mass murders. It is
important to be able to determine the causes of these mass murders

of believing the ***** that the Church tells you. If you are going

stick to your above statement then you need to admit your argument about
atheist beliefs killing people is *****. Which is it?

Dictatorships and abuse of power caused the mass murders we discuss.
Religion (or lack of) had little to do with it.

You really need to read some real history instead of simply lying about
stuff. Do an internet search on Franco and Mussolini and you will see
plenty of evidence that they were Catholics.

Yeah, they had baptismal certificates just like I do. I think you're

the point. They were BAD men not because they were Catholic. They were

BAD. BAD. BAD. BAD. Get it?

You lied when you said I "just shrug when asked 'when does a person

a
person?'".

Yeah, yeah, I know, the law says a person isn't entitled to rights until
they draw breath (actual breath, not the reflexive breathing movements

do *in utero*) Therefore that's your position. If the law should change
someday, will your opinion change too? You talk about me not thinking for
myself....

The Church is gay bashing. Just because there are others who are worse
doesn't make the Church innocent.

Hmmm. 50 years ago, the Church had the same position. Was it gay bashing
then?

No, the term hadn't even been invented yet.

In 50 years from now, it
will still have the same position. Will it still be gay bashing? Yes? Are
you sure?

Our society's current wide acceptance of the 'gay lifestyle' (and
the media's glorification of it) may change... it's done so before.

Point is, the Church's opinion on homosexuality only applies to it's
members, who are members by CHOICE. Some Catholics will express that
opinion, and it's their constitutional right to do so, just like everybody
else, especially if the government's social policy affects them.

Let's look at those points...(with some clarification)

1) (gay sex) acts of grave depravity,
2) (gay sex is) intrinsically disordered.
3) They (gay sex) are contrary to the natural law.
4) Under no circumstances can they (gay sex) be approved.
5) (gay sex is) objectively disordered
6) [and if they can refrain from homosexuals acts] they can and should
gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is nothing here that incites hatred. If you cannot bring yourself to
respect someone else's opinion even though it doesn't agree with yours,

you're the one who's 'bashing' dontcha think?

It's good you see my point. Homosexuals are wired that way.

Your point is shared not only by me, but by the Church as well, don't
forget.

They don't
make a choice to be homosexuals. It's like being left handed. So why
should we condemn them for being born that way? Who are they hurting by
having consensual adult homosexual sex?

Nobody condemns them for being born that way, BUT, when they go having sex
with one another, it's an affront to human dignity.

I don't see any victim here.
However, I do see a victim when Christians start gay bashing. They
discriminate against them and often tried to have them arrested.
Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has recently started defending them

these attacks.

Well, some Christians are real boneheads, you won't get any arguement from
me over that. You and I seem to have differing definitions of
'discriminate', however. Basic right vs. left, I suppose.

The
Dems

need to protect their sacred cows (ie. Roe vs. Wade) from those nasty
Reps
who might make a judgement according to their conscience.

You have that backwards.

Now, how did I know you would say that? I must be psychic.

All the dictionaries I looked in say "legal union" not "sacred

Dictionaries? Check the Catechism.

I read the Catechism when I need a good laugh. For definitions I use a
dictionary.

Now, now. Respect the opinions of others.

As for the concept of a monogamous 1 man, 1 woman life long union, I'm

pretty sure it's a Judeo-Christian ideal that is only shared with a

other cultures.

Are you really this fucking stupid??? Nearly every culture has marriage
like this.

Well, let's see. Muslims? Up to 3 wives, I do believe.

Buddhists? Nothing
specific, but Asian cultures certainly don't value monogamy.

Mormons? Never mind.

Secular society? Serial monagamy at best, marriage is certainly not a
valued institution.

Animist cultures? I dunno, how many wives does the chief
get? With a few exceptions, it seems every culture that values a
heterosexual life long monogamous union is or has been influenced so by
Christianity. And, as I'm sure you'll point out, some of the old testament
patriarchs had multiple wives.

And by the way, much of the Old Testament has no problem with a one

many wives situation. God even specifically allowed this when he gave
Moses
the commandments. See Exodus 21:10 "If he takes another wife, he shall
not
withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights." For a real
shocker try reading the surrounding context of this verse. There are
dozens
more examples like this.

Well, there you go.

Well why don't you post an example that proves your side of the

There is plently of information on the internet. It shouldn't take you
too
long to find a supporting example.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N20/abortion.20w.html

http://www.aauw.org/takeaction/policyissues/minors_access.cfm

http://www.aauw.org/takeaction/policyissues/partial_birth.cfm

http://www.aauw.org/takeaction/policyissues/repro_restrictions.cfm

Catholic doctrine implicitly prohibits murder, nor does
it condemn Jews.

On 22-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

Many nasty folks have used God as excuse for inexcusable things. So
what?

This shows that Hitler killed the Jews because of his religious beliefs.
Could it be any clearer?

Catholic doctrine implicitly prohibits murder, nor does it condemn Jews.
OBVIOUSLY, if Hitler was Catholic, he would have behaved a little
differently, so saying he killed the Jews because he was Catholic is
ludicrous. In reality (remember that?) he was a raving lunatic who wanted to
kill people. Besides, he excommunicated himself *ipso facto* by his
actions, and therefore was not Catholic for most of his career as a crazed
dictator. So there.

This clearly shows the anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church in Hitler's
early years

Oh yes. It <ahem> clearly shows that.

The Vatican is the biggest bullshitter when it comes to historical
revisionism.

The problem with the Holy See is that it keeps it's records secret. A lot of
these wacky theories go around and around until they become legend, and a
lot of people believe them. If the Church had opened it's records sooner, a
lot of this could have been avoided. Then again, facts rarely seem to affect
these things.

Both dictatorships and religious beliefs can cause mass murders. It is
important to be able to determine the causes of these mass murders instead
of believing the ***** that the Church tells you. If you are going to
stick to your above statement then you need to admit your argument about
atheist beliefs killing people is *****. Which is it?

Dictatorships and abuse of power caused the mass murders we discuss.
Religion (or lack of) had little to do with it.

You really need to read some real history instead of simply lying about
stuff. Do an internet search on Franco and Mussolini and you will see
plenty of evidence that they were Catholics.

Yeah, they had baptismal certificates just like I do. I think you're missing
the point. They were BAD men not because they were Catholic. They were just
BAD. BAD. BAD. BAD. Get it?

You lied when you said I "just shrug when asked 'when does a person become
a
person?'".

Yeah, yeah, I know, the law says a person isn't entitled to rights until
they draw breath (actual breath, not the reflexive breathing movements they
do *in utero*) Therefore that's your position. If the law should change
someday, will your opinion change too? You talk about me not thinking for
myself....

The Church is gay bashing. Just because there are others who are worse
doesn't make the Church innocent.

Hmmm. 50 years ago, the Church had the same position. Was it gay bashing
then? No, the term hadn't even been invented yet. In 50 years from now, it
will still have the same position. Will it still be gay bashing? Yes? Are
you sure? Our society's current wide acceptance of the 'gay lifestyle' (and
the media's glorification of it) may change... it's done so before.
Point is, the Church's opinion on homosexuality only applies to it's
members, who are members by CHOICE. Some Catholics will express that
opinion, and it's their constitutional right to do so, just like everybody
else, especially if the government's social policy affects them.

Let's look at those points...(with some clarification)

1) (gay sex) acts of grave depravity,
2) (gay sex is) intrinsically disordered.
3) They (gay sex) are contrary to the natural law.
4) Under no circumstances can they (gay sex) be approved.
5) (gay sex is) objectively disordered
6) [and if they can refrain from homosexuals acts] they can and should
gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is nothing here that incites hatred. If you cannot bring yourself to
respect someone else's opinion even though it doesn't agree with yours, then
you're the one who's 'bashing' dontcha think?

It's good you see my point. Homosexuals are wired that way.

Your point is shared not only by me, but by the Church as well, don't
forget.

They don't
make a choice to be homosexuals. It's like being left handed. So why
should we condemn them for being born that way? Who are they hurting by
having consensual adult homosexual sex?

Nobody condemns them for being born that way, BUT, when they go having sex
with one another, it's an affront to human dignity.

I don't see any victim here.
However, I do see a victim when Christians start gay bashing. They
discriminate against them and often tried to have them arrested.
Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has recently started defending them from
these attacks.

Well, some Christians are real boneheads, you won't get any arguement from
me over that. You and I seem to have differing definitions of
'discriminate', however. Basic right vs. left, I suppose.

The
Dems

need to protect their sacred cows (ie. Roe vs. Wade) from those nasty
Reps
who might make a judgement according to their conscience.

You have that backwards.

Now, how did I know you would say that? I must be psychic.

All the dictionaries I looked in say "legal union" not "sacred union".

Dictionaries? Check the Catechism.

I read the Catechism when I need a good laugh. For definitions I use a
dictionary.

Now, now. Respect the opinions of others.

As for the concept of a monogamous 1 man, 1 woman life long union, I'm

pretty sure it's a Judeo-Christian ideal that is only shared with a few
other cultures.

Are you really this fucking stupid??? Nearly every culture has marriage
like this.

Well, let's see. Muslims? Up to 3 wives, I do believe. Buddhists? Nothing
specific, but Asian cultures certainly don't value monogamy. Mormons? Never
mind. Secular society? Serial monagamy at best, marriage is certainly not a
valued institution. Animist cultures? I dunno, how many wives does the chief
get? With a few exceptions, it seems every culture that values a
heterosexual life long monogamous union is or has been influenced so by
Christianity. And, as I'm sure you'll point out, some of the old testament
patriarchs had multiple wives.