Pillock.

Oh, yes. And, in order to improve the human race, children can be
murdered by the score if "they would be back in the future, looking
for revenge".

Take your garbage somewhere else.

On 6-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

Of course people and organizations make changes. They often make mistakes
and sometimes contradict themselves. That's why it's important to analyze
the facts yourself instead of just assuming that the church is always
right.
Would you blindly accept the church's past instructions allowing killing
and
enslaving infidels if you lived at that time?

I'm fairly well educated on the Church's moral teachings. I've given them
quite a bit of thought, and 95% of them I have to admit are right.
Superficially, life would be easier if they weren't, but I believe we are
called to a deeper and more profound existence. Now, the 5% is problematic,
is it an acceptable margin of error? Who am I to think that I'm right on
that 5%, given that the Church has been right on the other 95%? She is a
human institution, and can make mistakes. However, She has a fairly good
track record over 2000 years. No other organization of any kind has even
lasted that long. So, I give Her the benefit of the doubt and obey the 5%
(sometimes it's a struggle...)

You really need to read your Bible some more. The so-called Ten
Commandments in Exodus 20 were given as part of a covenant. This covenant
clearly states that if the Israelites obeyed the commandments God would
give
them military victories and allow them to exterminate the people of the
"promised land" and take their land.

True, but the Commandments represent God's will for His people, and now that
everyone is included in the New Covenant, they are just as important.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? I have show you many times that this
is
factually incorrect. Simply repeating the same lie over and over again
won't make it come true.

You showed a declaration of crusade, and couple of other quotes from Papal
documents that were taken out of context. I showed several official flat-out
condemnations of slavery and gave reference to many more. The weight of
evidence is on my side.

Hitler was a fucking Roman Catholic. See my web page at:
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm Why do you continue to
believe the lies of the Vatican when they try to distance themselves from
the truth? Once again, simply repeating the same lie won't make it come
true.

Ol' Adolph was born into a Catholic family. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. So
what?
Let's hear it from the man himself:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow
that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is
Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The
deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by
Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life
of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.
Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic
cultivation of the human failure."

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When
understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine
will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of
absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the
only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by
little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches
cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it
knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

You know what? He sounds like... an ATHEIST.

I see the lower birth rate in the richer countries a sign of growing
secularism, unfortunatly, and the selfish, self absorbtion that comes
with
it. They have *more*, and they need *more*, and children interfere with

the

getting and enjoying of *more*

And I see it as being generous to the next generation. Why would anyone
want to leave their children to die of disease and starvation in an
overpopulated country that they created?

The countries with a low birth rate are the richest ones. We've established
that. Hundreds of thousands of people immigrate to these countries annually
and there is still more than enough to go around. So I have to conclude that
folks in those countries (including mine and yours) are just too selfish to
share that enormous wealth with children.

These countries are too poor for birth control, and the Vatican is trying
to
block humanitarian organizations from providing birth control.

You're stating to sound paranoid. Big Bad Vatican. BOO!

No, Jesus wasn't advocating celibacy, he was clearly advocating
castration.
But I understand your refusal to obey Jesus. It shows you have at least a
little bit of common sense. It's too bad you only use it when your own
welfare is threatened. Why don't you try using it when other people's
welfare is threatened?

(smacking my head in fustration) okay, we're hung up on the word 'eunuch'
aren't we?

I think that early embryos, which are incapable of thinking or feeling
because they have no central nervous system, are not humans at all. They
are human cells. There is nothing morally wrong with killing these cells.
It is no different than throwing out a blood sample, a biopsy, or a piece
of
hair with scalp tissue on the end.

The line! Where's the line? When the nervous system is fully formed?
Partially formed? When?

At later stages, the fetus gradually gets more rights that go along with
it's development.

I think the right to life is the only one we're concerned with. Liberty and
the pursuit of happiness can come after birth.

You and the rest of you stupid-assed Christians obviously have one fucked
up
definition of what a person is. A clump of cells is not a fucking
person!!!

The purpose of that clump of cells is to grow into a living, breathing,
thinking human being. And until *you* define when life starts (the line,
remember?), mine is the only definition we have.

You are moral the equivalent of a mass murderer because of your support
for
the ban on medical research that will most likely save many lives and
benefit all of mankind.

Are we *really* benefiting mankind by destroying the innocents among us?

Like I said before, I don't know how you sleep at
night with all the immoral things that you approve of. It's obvious that
your selfish and greedy desire for a place in a fictional paradise has
caused you to abandon all your intelligence and become a moronic idiot who
simply repeats whatever the Church tells you to say.

Hey, we'll never get to paradise if we give up trying. Besides, what about
your desire for a paradise were no one suffers from disease or debilitation,
and lives to 150? All it will cost is some embryos, fetuses, infants...

It's time to face
reality and accept responsibility for the immoral actions that you are
doing, so that innocent people don't have to die for your stupidity and
your
greedy desires.

Greedy desires? We're not the ones who want your 'paradise' or clones, or
blonde haired blue eyed genetically engineerd super children...
Innocent people, that's right. Innocent people. We want to protect innocent
people.

No, you Christian assholes are fucking immoral idiots. You yourself are
the
moral equivalent of a mass murderer. Of course you don't realize this
because you let your greedy desire for heaven overtake your intelligence
and
rationality.

There's no guarantee of Heaven, ever. It's a gift freely given by God to us
undeserving sinners. In the meantime, we have these lives on this world, and
we're going to do our best to make Heaven here.

You said that the morally correct thing is to lock up Nazis, not execute
them. Since the allies executed them, the only logical conclusion is that
you believe the allies have acted immorally. You just refuse to accept
the
logical conclusion of the Vatican's teachings, and like a robot you
blindly
accept them.

Yeah, but I also said that it could be argued that they posed a threat to
people even if they were locked up forever, and therefore, executing them
would be justifiable.

There is not an acceptable replacement for embryonic stem cells at this
time. Every day that goes by means that more people are likely to die or
remain cripples because of your insane and immoral beliefs that a clump of
cells is the same as a human. It's time you grew up and accept the
responsibility of your actions. You are the moral equivalent of a mass
murderer. Wake up and smell the death at your hands.

The unfortunate people who may die or remain handicapped have had the
privilege of living lives.

It is immoral to create a life and then
immediatly snuff it out.

You are a fucking idiot who blindly follows whatever the Church says
because
of your selfish and greedy desire to get to heaven. You are morally no
different than a suicide bomber.

That's quite a stretch. A suicide bomber murders indiscriminately out of
blind hatred (and the desire for 72 virgins) We do what we do for the love
of the whole human race.

I don't see how the Vatican apologized for anything when it says that the
Vatican can't sin.

The Vatican City is a sovereign nation, it's very small and wasn't involved
with the whole inquisition thing. It's most famous citizen, Pope John Paul
II, didn't have anything to do with it either, yet he expressed regret and
apologized, hoping to find closure for the issue. Not good enough for SOME
people! EvilEd has a looong memory! Though I doubt he was around 600 years
ago to witness the event, he's still psychologically scarred!

You need to accept your responsibility for the deaths caused by your
support
for the ban on stem cell research.

Okay, but you need to accept responsibilty for the deaths caused by your
support for stem cell research.

On 6-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

Of course people and organizations make changes. They often make mistakes
and sometimes contradict themselves. That's why it's important to analyze
the facts yourself instead of just assuming that the church is always
right.
Would you blindly accept the church's past instructions allowing killing
and
enslaving infidels if you lived at that time?

I'm fairly well educated on the Church's moral teachings. I've given them
quite a bit of thought, and 95% of them I have to admit are right.
Superficially, life would be easier if they weren't, but I believe we are
called to a deeper and more profound existence. Now, the 5% is problematic,
is it an acceptable margin of error? Who am I to think that I'm right on
that 5%, given that the Church has been right on the other 95%?

On 6-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

Hitler was a fucking Roman Catholic. See my web page at:
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm Why do you continue to
believe the lies of the Vatican when they try to distance themselves from
the truth? Once again, simply repeating the same lie won't make it come
true.

Ol' Adolph was born into a Catholic family. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. So
what? Let's hear it from the man himself:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow
that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is
Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The
deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by
Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life
of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.
Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic
cultivation of the human failure."

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When
understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine
will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of
absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the
only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by
little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches
cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it
knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

You know what? He sounds like... an ATHEIST.

First I have to
understand WHY the Church teaches what it does, and understanding that, ask
myself, 'Do I honestly think I know better?' The answer is always no.

On 3-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

Sorry, but I think a total ban on capital punishment is immoral. I think
it
is immoral to say that mass murderers like Hitler and Osama bin Laden do
not
(or did not) deserve to die.

When is the Vatican going to condemn the allies for executing Nazi war
criminals? Are you willing to do the same?

It's not easy being Christian

. The ends do not justify the means (I struggle
with this one, myself) mass murderers should not be killed. It's the old 2
wrongs and a right thing...

Marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman. -Oh, how medieval!

That works for me, but it obviously doesn't work for the 5 to 10% of the
population that are homosexuals.

(I was comparing Catholic values with secular values in a sarcastic
fashion... just in case you didn't get it.) 5-10% of folks are homosexual.
They can't marry. Being a man, I can't bear children. My daughter cannot be
a priest. That's life.

Adultery is bad. -What a bunch of prudes.

It's not as bad as torturing and killing people.

Torturing is bad. -Not if it's consensual!

Hey, they got one right! I wonder if they had a long debate before they
figured out that murder was wrong. Oh that's right, they didn't know this
until their god told them it was wrong.

Natural law and divine law are in agreement on this issue.

Live together in peace and brotherhood.

Sounds good in theory.

-And not have sex? Sickos!

You forgot to add "...except with little altar boys".

Such hypocrisy! 85% of the sexual abuse cases that have occured were between
homsexual priests and teenage boys. Something secular, atheistic society
would call a 'normal, consensual relationship.'

Contraception is good. It saves the world from the horrors of
overpopulation. Just look at all the starvation and disease in the many
largely Catholic third world countries.

Reality check! Ready? Here it comes...
A) Those countries have little government, and what they do have is
incompetent or corrupt, they are torn by continuous civil, ethnic and
religious warfare, they have little or no civil liberties, no
infrastructure, no power, no clean water. To blame their problems on the
Church's contraceptive policy is beyond absurd.
B) The Church also bans fornication, and it's a much worse sin than using
contraception. It's just as absurd to say that there are millions of people
ignoring the 'ban' on fornication, but for some strange reason are *obeying*
the ban on contraception.
C) Which countries are suffering from overpopulation? India? China?
Bangladesh? Not Catholic countries. It would this is not exclusively a
'Catholic problem.'

I have seen quite a few Catholic writings lately saying that pedophilia
only
applies to sex with pre-pubescent children, not teen-agers.

Catholic writings? It's a general trend in all of our society, teens seem to
no longer be considered children at all. Besides, if the Church changes it's
position on sex before marriage, or the evil of exploiting children, I'm
sure we'll all hear about it.

The Vatican didn't feel that all people are equal for most of it's
existence. They were constantly condemning, and sometimes killing, the
Jews
and still condemn atheists at nearly every chance they get.

*sigh* Haven't we been over that? Read the Catechism and see what it
condemns.

If no one is getting hurt, and they all want to do it, I don't see where
it's any of my business to be breaking up wild orgies. Many people think
that sex is a natural and wonderful thing even between multiple people, or
God forbid, people of the same sex! I think it is totally immoral to tell
consenting adults what they can or can't do in the privacy of their
bedrooms.

I couldn't give a rat's arse what consenting adults do to each other either,
BUT, fornication (especially of the 'freaky' sort) is injurious to our
dignity as human beings, and if between same sexes, against the natural law.

What about stem cell research? The Vatican is against that and real live
people are going to be harmed and killed because of your stupid religion
and
the insane belief in the existence of a soul.

It's back to the end not justifying the means. It's wrong to kill a living
being, even if it is to save another. I'm sure you wouldn't murder a child
to save another. Just who decides when a fetus (which, apparently, is not a
person and completely disposable) becomes a person (and is therefore
'worthy' of being allowed to live.)?

An apology requires an acknowledgment of the offense, along with
expressing
regret or asking pardon.

He did that.

. The Pope never acknowledged the fault of the
Church in these offensives. He only blamed sinners in the Church.

The Church is the Christians that form it, and they are all sinners.

Look at the pedophilia scandal. The Church never took any
responsibility for it's actions and always blamed it on a few bad apples.

Well, actually, it was just a few 'bad apples', but the whole affair was
handled in a deplorable way, and that has been recognized, and reforms are
being made. However, the truth is, it was not caused by priestly celibacy,
or by the lack of female priests, as secular society seems to think.

On 3-Jun-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:

It's not as bad as torturing and killing people.

Torturing is bad. -Not if it's consensual!

Hey, they got one right! I wonder if they had a long debate before they
figured out that murder was wrong. Oh that's right, they didn't know this
until their god told them it was wrong.

Natural law and divine law are in agreement on this issue.

Live together in peace and brotherhood.

Sounds good in theory.

-And not have sex? Sickos!

You forgot to add "...except with little altar boys".

Such hypocrisy! 85% of the sexual abuse cases that have occured were between
homsexual priests and teenage boys. Something secular, atheistic society
would call a 'normal, consensual relationship.'

Look at the pedophilia scandal. The Church never took any
responsibility for it's actions and always blamed it on a few bad apples.

Well, actually, it was just a few 'bad apples', but the whole affair was
handled in a deplorable way, and that has been recognized, and reforms are
being made. However, the truth is, it was not caused by priestly celibacy,
or by the lack of female priests, as secular society seems to think.

On 2-Jun-2004, George Tirebiter <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote:

So, why is that behavior so rare by the church that is supposed to be
spreading this message?

Not so rare. You have just been focusing on the negative.

And what was the dominant organization in those terrible times? Why did
they set such an awful example?

Are you kidding? If anyone kept their heads above water it was the Church.

Yes. And the conclusion is that the catholic church is always behind the
curve when it comes to moral behavior. They're still behind the curve.
Maybe when the current pope finally goes to hell, the next one will get a
clue that priests fucking altar boys is wrong. The current hierarchy
certainly doesn't think so.

Ah, yes. Moral behavior.
No capital punishment.- Waaaaaay behind.

Marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman. -Oh, how medieval!

Adultery is bad. -What a bunch of prudes.
You still can't kill. -But what if you're a member of a repressed minority?
Bastards.
Live together in peace and brotherhood. -And not have sex? Sickos!
Contraception is bad.

-Oh please... next they'll tell us the age of consent
is too low.
Pedophilia is bad. -See? They're so repressive.

Be honest in your business dealings. -Riiiiight. Just how are you supposed
to get ahead?
All people are equal in dignity. -You can't possibly inlcude white males in
that.
Freaky 5-way carnival sex is to be avoided. -Oh, they expect everyone to
live like freakin' monks!
Abortion is wrong. -Oh, give me a break! Next they'll be expecting us to
take responsibility for our actions!
Take responsibility for

... -That's it! You people are immoral! Sick! Get
away from me!

I think some things are better left 'behind the curve'

Yeah, there is no apology there.

We are asking pardon...
Christians will acknowledge the sins committed...
...and asking your forgiveness...

Yeah. What the heck was I thinking? Good thing 'ol George Tireeater was here
to correct me...

The pope basically puts the blame on others.

Are you suggesting that John Paul II personally committed all those crimes?
(he doesn't look *that* old)

any kid in catechism class
knows, an act of contrition requires accepting responsibility for one's
action.

Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by a not a few of their
number...

That's not an apology.

You wouldn't be trying to be intentionally *difficult* because of your uh...
shall we say, 'prejudice' would you?

On 2-Jun-2004, George Tirebiter <Tirebiter7@netscape.net> wrote:

So what? The pope is explicitly endorsing slavery here, which you claim
the
church never did. Where are the great christian principles here?

Okay, nitty gritty is, it goes against what Jesus taught. Bad Pope! But,
that's how wars were fought in the dark ages... and the Church then was a
human institution sunk into the dark ages along with everybody else.

What
moral light shall we hold them up to?

Exactly, the church wasn't enlightened by secular humanism at that time,
so
its policies were barbaric.
While ordering slavery for saracens. So, we can agree that he was not
opposed to slavery in principle and he was inconsistent in his application

of morality. Situational ethics at its worst.

Again, it's the middle ages,

and the Pope has consigned the prisoners to
slavery instead of torture and death.

And no, there was no secular humanism
to rationalize that the Turks invaded Europe because they were
misunderstood, impoverished, or frustrated. With your 20/20 hindsight, you
will have to be the judge.

Who was it that decreed that jews should wear a star of david in public?
Who declared that they must live in ghettoes? Who declared that they may
not hold any public office? Who declared that christians may not work for
jews? Sounds like the nuremburg laws, right? Actually, these were papal
decrees.

The Pope apologized, the Jews accepted. We're buddies now. EvilEd should now
apologise for mocking their holy scriptures and calling them evil.