| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
14 May 2006 07:05:22 AM |
| Object: |
Why Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
http://www.crisismagazine.com/febmarch2006/shea.htm
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
Mark P. Shea
If you had collared me before I was Catholic and asked my opinion of
Rome's teaching on artificial contraception, I would have said
something like this:
"I understand and applaud the Magisterium's opposition to abortion,
since abortion kills people. But I'm not comfortable with the
Church's stodgy stand on artificial contraception based on Her
opposition to 'interference with nature.' After all, we interfere
with nature all the time when we dye our hair, pierce our ears, and use
sun blockers to avoid the natural process of suntan and skin cancer. So
it seems to me that the real question is not 'Shall we interfere?'
but, 'At what level are we comfortable interfering?'"
This seemed to me a deft deflection of the Church's "intrusive"
teaching-until I started thinking about the challenge of
biotechnology and genetic engineering. I began to recognize that my use
of the word "interference" was a lousy blanket term for describing
every sort of technological fiddling with nature and (as is especially
the case with molecular biology) with persons. Both a gunshot and a
penicillin shot "interfere" with human biology. However, such
interference springs from markedly different intentions and has
markedly different results. Of course, other interference, like
piercing ears or dyeing hair, is largely morally neutral. That's why
indiscriminately labeling everything from vaccination to fetal
harvesting as "interference" and then appealing to "comfort
levels" to determine what shall and shall not be done is-I came to
realize-hopelessly inadequate.
The question of how to care for and love human life at its most basic
level isn't a matter of obeying the whims of human comfort, but of
obeying the will of the Creator of human life. The more I pondered the
momentous dangers posed to the dignity of the human person by
biotechnology, the more perilous and premature my ephemeral
"comfort" dodge appeared. It became obvious to me that matters
pertaining to the most fundamental truths of human existence could not
be left merely to one's sense of comfort, but could only be decided
on a much more solid basis: "What is good, and what is evil?"
I began to wonder, "According to revelation, just what is God up to
in creating a human being?"
Looking at Scripture, we find that the primary image revealed is of God
molding man from the dust of the earth and breathing life into his
nostrils. Thus, as Christianity has always taught, a human being is
revealed from the very beginning to be (1) a creation of the Love who
is God, and (2) a mysterious and fruitful union of spirit (symbolized
by breath) and nature (symbolized by dust).
The word "union" is crucial here. The temptation of our culture is
always to try to separate and exalt either the spiritual or the
physical aspect of the human person. Thus to the gnostic, New Age,
"spiritual" type, human beings are all soul, and the body is just a
disposable Tupperware container for this "essence." Yet this is to
ignore the fact that we experience and know everything (including God)
in a bodily way. We eat, weep, breathe, laugh, pray, sleep, and fight
with our bodies. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in a marriage.
Try telling the bride and groom on their wedding night that the
"highest" form of love is purely "spiritual" in the sense of
disembodiment. And, of course, the seal on the goodness of our physical
humanity is the Resurrection of Christ Himself, whose body is not
disposed of but transfigured and glorified.
On the other hand, those who exalt the physical side of the human
person at the expense of the spiritual are also missing something
vital. Human beings are more than unusually clever pieces of meat.
Contra Carl Sagan, they're more than just "star stuff." They are
somehow more than the sum of their material parts. As St. Thomas tells
us, the soul is the form of the body, the animating principle made
directly by God.
At this point certain Christians may object, "But doesn't Scripture
divide us into body, soul, and spirit? And isn't the spirit what
matters to God?" Well, yes and no. For the purpose of making
rational, descriptive distinctions within the human person, the three
are indeed distinguished (1 Thes 4:23). But Scripture also makes clear
that to really divide these aspects of the human being from one another
is not the intention of God. Why? Because the technical term for the
division of body and soul is not "purity" but "death" (yielding
a corpse and a ghost). And as the whole New Testament bears witness,
it's precisely this terrible division of body and soul that the risen
incarnate Lord came to heal.
By biblical lights, human beings are best described as ensouled bodies
or embodied souls. Accordingly, the creation of human life is best
described as the raising of nature to personhood by the creative act of
the Love who is God. In this, there's a sort of shadow of the
Incarnation of Love Himself. For just as the Incarnation proceeds-as
the Athanasian creed states-"not by the conversion of the Godhead
into flesh, but by the taking up of the manhood into God," so in the
creation of every human life, subhuman nature ("dust" in Old
Testament-speak) is "taken up" to participate in personhood.
The key idea here is the old Thomist maxim, "Grace does not destroy
nature but perfects it." Thus in the creation of every person, atoms
are raised to participate in molecular existence, yet remain atoms.
Molecules are raised to participate in organic chemistry, yet remain
molecules. Organic chemicals are raised to participate in biological
processes, yet remain organic chemicals. And so on as single-celled
life is raised to participate in multi-cellular life, and
multi-cellular life is raised to participate in the life of a human
being. Grace does not spiritualize nature into the ether, but rather
perfects and elevates nature while leaving it fully natural. We are
dust. Yet this dust is-not merely contains-a person.
Given that, the question, "What is God up to in creating human
beings?" can be answered this way: He is raising nature to human
personhood with the ultimate aim (in Christ) of raising human persons
toward supernatural union with Himself and with other glorified
creatures. We are intended to participate-neither as mere animals nor
as mere "spiritual" wraiths but as fully human beings-in the
dynamic life of the Blessed Trinity, wherein the love between the
Father and the Son eternally bears fruit in the Person of the Holy
Spirit. In short, we are made for love and fruitfulness. That is the
scriptural witness. And by a strange coincidence, it's also the
teaching of the Magisterium.
The process of raising creation to personhood happens not by the waving
of magic wands, according to Scripture, but through created agents
(particularly human beings) so that all creation may be completed and
healed. That's the meaning of all that business in Paul's epistles
about being "co-laborers with Christ." Thus, our actions assume a
lawful place in the creative will of God if, in whatever great or small
way, they cooperate in this creative process of love and fruitfulness
according to God's order.
We see this creative cooperation with God's love and fruitfulness
aimed at completion in many ways. For example, as an Evangelical I was
taught to recognize it when natural human life is raised to union with
God through faith in Jesus Christ. Here, I understood clearly, is grace
raising nature par excellence. But I came to see that the same
principle holds in all areas of human life as well.
For example: We fall in love, but instead of simply scarfing up sex and
moving on to greener pastures in unreflective bovine detachment, we
raise sexuality to a higher level by willingly binding ourselves in
committed, covenantal love with wife or husband. In so doing, we
cooperate with grace in completing ourselves and our spouse according
to God's word that says, "It is not good for man to be alone."
Likewise, the completion of this union of love typically results in our
cooperation with God's ordained method for raising created
sub-personal nature (sperm and egg) to personhood (at conception).
After this, we assist in the sustenance, nurturing, beautifying, and
fulfillment of human nature. This is the reason we "interfere" with
human life by giving Junior food, lullabies, education, and a warm bed
instead of leaving him to the elements.
Moreover, the fruitfulness that issues in completion extends even
further. Our love of fruitfulness is also why we dye hair, pierce ears,
put on makeup, do scientific research, sculpt works of art, and compose
poetry. It is why we assist in the perfection of non-human nature by
"tending the Garden" as our First Parents were commissioned to do.
It is why we trim the hedges, breed hardier dogs, plant petunias,
design comfortable furniture, and create the wheel. All these and a
billion others are acts of cooperative completion through which God
makes us loving and fruitful stewards of the earth, including that bit
of earth called our neighbor.
The second way we help grace perfect nature is by cooperating with God
in healing the effects of the Fall of both humans and superhuman
created spirits. This is why we put surgeons' scalpels and milk of
magnesia into human bodies, practice prudence by putting on sunblock,
and take antibiotics. It is also why we take dogs to the vet, pick up
litter, clean Lake Erie, send aid to Katrina victims, protest genocide
in Darfur, repent our sins, forgive our enemies, pray "lead us not
into temptation but deliver us from evil," and write peevish letters
to our senator about the deficit.
Roughly speaking, then, our role as human beings is-in big and small
ways-to be about the business of perfecting, nurturing, and enhancing
by grace a creation intended for beatitude. Such "interference" on
our part isn't interference at all, but the right and proper
cooperative office of human beings as children of God and high priests
and stewards of creation. "For the creation waits in eager
expectation for the sons of God to be revealed...in hope that the
creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought
into the glorious freedom of the children of God" (Rom 8:19-21).
So the scriptural witness is this: Whatever helps nature (especially
human nature) achieve the end for which it is created (namely bounty,
beauty, love, and beatitude) and cooperates with God by raising nature
to personhood and union with Him (prudently and within the natural
bounds of God's twin purposes of love and fruitfulness) is the very
definition of "good."
Conversely, a strong working definition of sin is this: The heart of
sin is to treat persons like things and things like persons. To act
thus is to run the film of creation backwards, to wrench the universe
hard astern. We treat persons like things through sins like pride,
lust, slavery, and murder; we treat things like persons through sins
like idolatry, greed, gluttony, and avarice.
Such things truly are interference. For their purpose, in one way or
another, is to thwart and defeat God's will for love and fruitfulness
while attempting to wring the juice out of creation and consume it for
our own pleasure and power. Such an action constitutes a fundamentally
selfish refusal to cooperate with God and a determination to exploit or
destroy His creation if it bars our will to pleasure and power. Such a
choice is, by its very nature, a denial of love and fruitfulness.
So how does all this affect real life? Well, if we really believe that
we live in an incarnational, created universe, we know as a matter of
first principles that since nature isn't meant to be subject to the
mere whim of man irrespective of God's purpose, still less is human
nature. Thus, any medical fidgeting with human life must be done
(insofar as we wish to avoid evil) not on the basis of our
"comfort" but on the basis of finding the way by which our science
(like everything else we do) is ordered to cooperate with God's call
to raise nature to personhood according to His terms of love and
fruitfulness. Such a criterion has the very practical effect of saving
molecular biology from the Luddites and allowing it to pursue its
promise of doing some very beautiful works of both completion (by
gaining knowledge of the creation) and healing of people who suffer
from various genetic lesions. As long as it does its work without
causing the death or exploitation of persons, it's in accord with the
Good.
But molecular biology (galvanized by the modern spirit of "We can,
therefore we will") not only promises, it threatens. So, for
instance, there's enormous pressure to create disposable embryos
artificially conceived solely for the purpose of research. In the
not-so-distant future, we will learn how to initiate conception in any
nucleic tissue sample handy, not just egg and sperm. Once this becomes
a reality, it would enable the creation of virtually limitless numbers
of test-tube embryos for research use as "fetal harvesting
material." Here the standard of "comfort" is woefully inadequate
to the challenge of deciding what's good and evil.
But revelation gives us very clear grounds to condemn and forbid this
satanic parody of anti-creation. For it's nothing other than the
grave sin of reducing persons to cash-crop things in the very act of
raising cellular nature to personhood via artificial conception. It
would be to enact what T. S. Eliot calls the "greatest treason" by
doing the right thing (raising nature to personhood) for the profoundly
wrong reason of wrenching human life out of the divine context of love
and fruitfulness and making a person into a consumable commodity.
A worldview rooted in the recognition of creation and incarnation can,
therefore, speak with great strength. It can not only bless the right
use of technology (when it's used to cooperate with love and
fruitfulness), but it can also condemn it with authority should it
abusively and violently interfere with the most primal human forms of
love and fruitfulness (between husband and wife, mother and child,
healer and patient, powerful and powerless, Creator and creature) in
order to subject the natural processes of human reproduction to our
will. It can see such abuse for what it is: a twisted parody of God's
loving creative will, since the sole purpose of this interference is to
discard love (by deftly cutting the embryo away from all such
relationships) and twist fruitfulness into the harvesting of a ripening
human life for consumption as a "tissue source." Such a sin is to
divorce nature from grace, to thwart the purposes of God in creation,
to treat persons like things, and to exalt the things of power and
money over persons.
So far, so good. I had been able to come up with some biblically sound
"rules of thumb" for discerning how to navigate the morality of
biotechnology. But in so doing I had to face the disastrous failure of
my own opinions on contraception. For there's no way to justify
artificial contraception that doesn't also justify destroying the
ancient Christian sacramental linkage of sex to love and fruitfulness,
which undergirds any sane ethic toward human life.
After all, if it's wrong to interfere with nature by exalting fat
research endowments and "harvest" profits over cooperation with
God, how was it right to exalt my own pleasure and autonomy over it? I
didn't, of course, ask this question out of a sudden puritanical fear
of sexual pleasure. Rather, I did so out of a newfound realization of
sex as a sacramental participation in the creative, loving, and
fruitful life of the Blessed Trinity (a notion strangely anticipated by
that dusty old Humanae Vitae). With my eye on Paul's comment that I
had been "bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19-20), and my mind filled
with the colossal Catholic picture of the call to love with total
abandon (like Christ), I felt a growing uneasiness with the standard
modern bafflegab that My Body Is My Own. For it suddenly became very
difficult to see such chatter as referring to anything other than
separating the human person from communion with God and neighbor. I
came to the awareness that, in translation, My Body Is My Own usually
meant, "There's no difference whatsoever between how we ought to
address the police and how we ought to address our lover."
For love (like sex) is almost private, and very rightly so. Yet if we
tell our lover My Body Is My Own, in the sense that we mean it in
modern political discourse addressed to the state, we have shot love
dead. As a barrier against abuse, rape, and unjust laws against
interracial or interreligious marriages, such a slogan is perfectly
valid. But when it comes to talking about love (the real
self-surrendering love of both partners to each other and to God), talk
of rights no longer holds absolute sway. A bond of union and a
willingness to bow to the other in mutual submission and self-sacrifice
must be there for love to exist in the fullest Christian sense.
And this is precisely what artificial contraception belies. It is
fingers crossed behind the back, an escape clause from the promise of
full commitment. It is autonomy (from the other), power (over our
child-free future), and a demand that our right to pleasure remain
unencumbered by any "extraneous" business about love and
fruitfulness. Its purpose is to separate man and woman, parents and
children, God's will and our will. Its goal is to strip-mine the gold
of pleasure from the sacramental union of love and fruitfulness,
enthrone autonomy and pleasure as the main thing sex is about, and
declare love and fruitfulness "optional" rather than that which
revelation declares them to be: the very heart of reality.
And quite successfully, too. For the vast majority of our culture is
still quite prepared to intone-as I once did-the tired old singsong
that the Church "thinks sex is dirty" and fears the very idea of
sexual pleasure is too wicked for words. "That's why the Church
hates birth control," says our culture, "It wants people to pay for
a tumble under the sheets and not just get away with all that fun
scot-free." Yet, ironically, those who say this simply prove the
Church's critique of our culture. For to assert that commitment and
parenthood are "payment" is to assert one's own deeply held
belief that love and fruitfulness are a ball and chain, and the real
point of life is autonomy and pleasure. It is precisely this
fundamental assumption (an assumption in direct antithesis to the heart
of revelation) that the modern mind cannot even bring itself to
question.
Yet such an assumption must be questioned sooner or later, since the
whole purpose of a life absorbed in the pursuit of autonomy and
pleasure is to move precisely in the direction that reality does not
go. For instead of cooperating with the Creator in the perfection of
nature and the raising of nature to personhood, the whole goal of
artificial contraception and the autonomous, pleasure-centered mindset
behind it is simply to treat nature as if it were ours (thus reducing
nature's Blessed Creator to the status of "thinghood") and to
treat human beings like things by reducing them to a set of biological
processes. And, as history bears abundant testimony, this decision to
subject persons to My Pleasure and Autonomy doesn't stop with mere
contraception. It inexorably (and swiftly) leads to an abortion
mentality in which the child is reduced to a thing called a fetus, and
the fetus is reduced to a disposable commodity. In our country, this
precipitous slide took only eight years, from Griswold to Roe.
At this point, the Zeitgeist replies, "So! You think women should do
nothing but breed, do you?" Well, no, not really. It simply doesn't
follow that because we are obliged to cooperate with God that we're
therefore obliged to have as many children as possible, regardless of
the consequences. Cooperating with God means "cooperating with
God," not "bearing 26 children in a row." It means openness to
His love and fruitfulness. It means not crossing our fingers behind our
backs when we say, "I give all of myself to you" (which is what the
act of sex intrinsically means). It means honoring the created nature
God has made, not only with respect to natural fertility, but with
respect to natural infertility as well. For it's perfectly legitimate
(if one has, for instance, a limited income) to chart a woman's
natural periods of infertility and (if one wishes to avoid pregnancy)
restrain one's sexual appetite for a day or two till this
God-created, God-given infertility begins.
Why is that different from artificial contraception? Because it's
cooperation, not interference. That is, it isn't an attempt to thwart
God's creative purposes in order to wrench sexual pleasure and
personal autonomy out of the sacramental context in which God created
it. It is instead an attempt to say yes to God's gift of sex and
power in the context which He has given (including the natural cycles
of fertility and infertility).
My mind, therefore, has changed concerning the Church's sexual ethic.
More and more, I find it as difficult to separate Her sacramental view
of the universe from my so-called private life as it is to separate my
"private life" from my family and my God. And as I look at the
wasteland of millennial American culture, it becomes increasingly clear
to me that the modern technological impulse that created the idol of
"reproductive rights" has taken a profoundly disastrous turn in its
unshakable faith that the fundamental human problems are technological,
not moral and spiritual. To treat the enormous sacramental mystery of
sexuality like a plumbing problem is preposterously simple-minded. To
fail to see the immensity of sex as one of our deepest participations
in the creative work of God is myopic in the extreme.
Yet the unalterable fact remains (according to revelation) that the
goal of the universe is love and fruitfulness "in accordance with
nature and grace" (since God is the Maker of both). It is not to skim
off pleasure and autonomy and dispose of love and fruitfulness as
troublesome and useless dross. We are far too important, and our life
and love far too precious a sacrament, to be taken so lightly and
treated so disposably. That is why my wife and I, as partners in the
sacrament of marriage, have chosen to remain open to the love and
fruitfulness of God here, as we have sought to do in all the other
areas of our lives. That is also why I now pray that God will grant us
all a deeper vision of His calling and show us again the depth of His
love and fruitfulness in every aspect of our lives. May He teach us
anew the dance of humility, joy, and creativity in the land of the
Trinity, where all our loves reside. And may we, who have traded our
dignity for pride and our joy for pleasure, return in humility, love,
and fruitfulness to the steps of that Great Dance.
Mark P. Shea is the senior editor for www.CatholicExchange.com.
.
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
19 May 2006 09:08:12 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Terry Cross <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:
bam wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446ca882$0$65449$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we
should
practice what we preach.
Good idea.
I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what
are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for
the
unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group?
The Catholic church doesn't stand up for anybody. The demand
obedience. If they stood up for "the unborn" then the Catholic
church would be providing actual money to help women.
Open your eyes Ray.
I have. $100,000,000 for a new cathedral in LA while demanding that
women live in poverty rather than be allowed abortions.
We're free Ray. We can do whatever we want.
Catholic Charities is a huge charity organization.
And still more money goes to the church.
Catholics have
started and operated more hospitals than any other church.
And charge a lot of money for medical care.
The
Catholics run homes for unwed mothers, welfare houses, youth hostels,
schools, nursing colleges, and orphages.
I went to them for help during my dog days in Vegas and was told they
were "out of funding". Out of funding? How much does the Catholic Church
take in every year again, and yet they can't fund their own missions?
What happened? Guys couldn't look at you anymore?
Guys have been looking at me since I was 12.
Whoop-de-doo. That really makes you unique.
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
BAM
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
20 May 2006 06:31:48 AM |
|
|
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
20 May 2006 12:58:13 PM |
|
|
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 06:59:22 AM |
|
|
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 09:59:30 AM |
|
|
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 10:18:44 AM |
|
|
In article <Xe%bg.41046$QU3.23821@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
• masturbation
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 03:16:06 PM |
|
|
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060818440001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xe%bg.41046$QU3.23821@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last
visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
• masturbation
Oh, now I get it. So that was sexkitten's way of ducking the argument.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 10:05:17 PM |
|
|
In article <_T3cg.78280$Jk3.59201@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060818440001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xe%bg.41046$QU3.23821@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last
visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
• masturbation
Oh, now I get it. So that was sexkitten's way of ducking the argument.
• Bingo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 03:43:33 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060818440001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xe%bg.41046$QU3.23821@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last
visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
• masturbation
Oh, now I get it. So that was sexkitten's way of ducking the argument.
You haven't had an argument since you've been posting here, and it was
your comment I was responding to. So what exactly did I duck? Be specific.
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 05:01:21 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4470d134$0$4664$6d36acad@fe5.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060818440001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xe%bg.41046$QU3.23821@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
• masturbation
Oh, now I get it. So that was sexkitten's way of ducking the argument.
You haven't had an argument since you've been posting here, and it was
your comment I was responding to. So what exactly did I duck? Be specific.
The fact that you're a foetucidal maniac.
http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info_zone/WeekByWeek/Weekly08.htm
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
21 May 2006 06:10:27 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4470d134$0$4664$6d36acad@fe5.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060818440001@192.168.1.100...
In article <Xe%bg.41046$QU3.23821@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2105060459220001@192.168.1.100...
In article <BMIbg.39934$QU3.22201@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2005060431480001@192.168.1.100...
In article <1Pubg.51092$iB2.18185@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
...
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit
to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
• I think it refers to male automanipulation.
Ahhh - jogging?
• nope, automanipulation is a euphemism for the Big M.
Ahhhhhh.........what?
• masturbation
Oh, now I get it. So that was sexkitten's way of ducking the argument.
You haven't had an argument since you've been posting here, and it was
your comment I was responding to. So what exactly did I duck? Be specific.
The fact that you're a foetucidal maniac.
Now what, exactly, did that have to do with the subject of Catholic
Charities?
http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info_zone/WeekByWeek/Weekly08.htm
Oh lookie, E.T. Phone Home.
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
19 May 2006 09:31:27 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446df848$0$24265$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446d4ad5$0$24223$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Terry Cross <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:
bam wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446ca882$0$65449$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we
should
practice what we preach.
Good idea.
I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what
are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for
the
unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group?
The Catholic church doesn't stand up for anybody. The demand
obedience. If they stood up for "the unborn" then the Catholic
church would be providing actual money to help women.
Open your eyes Ray.
I have. $100,000,000 for a new cathedral in LA while demanding that
women live in poverty rather than be allowed abortions.
We're free Ray. We can do whatever we want.
Catholic Charities is a huge charity organization.
And still more money goes to the church.
Catholics have
started and operated more hospitals than any other church.
And charge a lot of money for medical care.
The
Catholics run homes for unwed mothers, welfare houses, youth hostels,
schools, nursing colleges, and orphages.
I went to them for help during my dog days in Vegas and was told they
were "out of funding". Out of funding? How much does the Catholic Church
take in every year again, and yet they can't fund their own missions?
What happened? Guys couldn't look at you anymore?
Guys have been looking at me since I was 12.
Whoop-de-doo. That really makes you unique.
Then don't bring the subject up.
What does this have to do with anything, other than your last visit to
Rosie Palm?
(whatever that means)
Oh, I think you understood.
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 06:41:33 AM |
|
|
In article <446c1548$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, wrote:
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we should
practice what we preach.
Good idea.
I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for the unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group?
The Catholic church doesn't stand up for anybody. The demand
obedience. If they stood up for "the unborn" then the Catholic
church would be providing actual money to help women.
They're not.
The church makes demands but offers very little.
And THAT is hypocrisy.
• That's the very nature of selling salvation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 08:21:34 AM |
|
|
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1805060441330001@192.168.1.100...
In article <446c1548$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
wrote:
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we
should
practice what we preach.
Good idea.
I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for the
unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group?
The Catholic church doesn't stand up for anybody. The demand
obedience. If they stood up for "the unborn" then the Catholic
church would be providing actual money to help women.
They're not.
The church makes demands but offers very little.
And THAT is hypocrisy.
• That's the very nature of selling salvation.
Wow. There's a fresh idea. "Selling salvation". And how, pray tell, does the
Church sell salvation? Because if they do, believe me, I'll buy it.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 05:43:03 PM |
|
|
In article <ix_ag.53449$MM6.32369@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1805060441330001@192.168.1.100...
In article <446c1548$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
wrote:
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we
should
practice what we preach.
Good idea.
I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for the
unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group?
The Catholic church doesn't stand up for anybody. The demand
obedience. If they stood up for "the unborn" then the Catholic
church would be providing actual money to help women.
They're not.
The church makes demands but offers very little.
And THAT is hypocrisy.
• That's the very nature of selling salvation.
Wow. There's a fresh idea. "Selling salvation". And how, pray tell, does the
Church sell salvation? Because if they do, believe me, I'll buy it.
• One donates monies according to the guidelines the archdiocese
provides. However, RCs get off easy compared to Mormons, who donate c. 6x
more per dollar of gross income. Apparently, heaven with a seraglio of
babes with perfect T and A costs more.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
17 May 2006 06:08:09 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446b4158$0$24219$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446a8511$0$24202$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446a3960$0$24214$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446a1e20$0$24194$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446a0042$0$24252$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Assault and battery w/ intent to commit grevious bodily harm,
possibly attempted murder depending on the severity of the
attack. Same as you'd give for any other attack.
But nothing for the miscarriage itself?
That *is* for the miscarriage, or weren't you aware that they
can be physically damaging and even fatal if the woman
hemorrhages?
You won't accept my hypothetical because you can't answer it.
WTF??????? I answered it, you moron. Count the chevrons. *YOU*
won't respond to it because *YOU* can't. Don't project your
problems onto me.
You said, "same as you'd give for any other attack", which can
only mean that the miscarriage means nothing, since the charge
would be the same whether there were a miscarriage or not.
It's at the least assault and at the worst, murder. Where do you
get "means nothing" out of that? The charge is of necessity more
serious than simple assault if there had been no miscarriage
because a miscarriage can kill, where a punch to the stomach
generally won't. Do you get it now?
So the death of the infant carries no penalty?
The deliberate death of an *infant* is murder, but that wasn't what
you were talking about.
Beating around the bush again.
Running away like an altar boy with a priest behind him again.
Why are you afraid to answer
a simple question?
*yawn* I answered it. Why are you so afraid to read or acknowledge
it?
Just another Catholic coward.
Coward?
You. Yes.
If anyone's a coward it's you. I ask a straight question
I gave a straight answer. Count the chevrons.
You see what you want to see.
No, that would once again be you. We see pregnant women- you see an
incubator for more kids to molest.
Abortion is the worst form of child abuse.
Abortion does not involve a child in anywhere but christian fantasies (and
we see from the news reports why they want more kids).
And the number of abortions
compared to the number of molestations makes the molestations only mildly
annoying.
Only to a Catholic desperate for a distraction.
I also notice that whenever you're out of tricks you turn over the queer
priest card, despite the irrelevance. What happened to the Crusades and
the Inquisition?
I don't recall mentioning any homosexual priests. I mentioned pedophiles,
but that's a different thing. And it's certainly not irrelevant. *Your
church*, that is soooo anxious to love and protect a fetus, covered up for
pedophiles and in fact made sure they had a plentiful supply of live, born
children to choose from.
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we should
practice what we preach. I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for the unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group?
They have no right to stand up for the fetus over the woman, period. The
fact that they protect and procure for pedophiles just clarifies their
reasoning.
That we should throw in
the towel and tell you to go ahead and kill them?
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is "embarrassing
to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"?
Heretic murder. Inquisition. Support for Hitler. The Crusades, the
Cathar slaughter. The AIDS crisis. Pick a time period, they'll be
killing someone.
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 12:12:58 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is "embarrassing
to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"?
Heretic murder. Inquisition. Support for Hitler. The Crusades, the Cathar
slaughter. The AIDS crisis. Pick a time period, they'll be killing
someone.
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
And who got the last laugh. Poor, sick Voltaire:
VOLTAIRE'S SAD DEATH
"On two or three occasions, notwithstanding his fearful impiety,
notwithstanding the universal contagion of his blasphemy, he had experienced
that God would receive his repentance and Confession. During his sojourn in
Saxe he fell into a dangerous sickness, and received the sacraments
publicly, with great sentiments of humility and repentance, which lasted as
long as the danger. In Paris, on the night of February 25, 1778, he was
seized with a vomiting of blood, which frightened him so much that the next
morning he wrote the following note to an ecclesiastic:
"You promised, sir, to come and hear me. I beg you, be so kind as to come
immediately.
Voltaire, February 26th 1778"
Not seeing the priest coming, the sick man sent his niece, Madame Denis, to
bring him, and on the 2nd day of March made his Confession, after having
written a formal recantation of the scandals of his literary life. This
production, which we subjoin, was made public in time, and deposited with
Mr. Momet, the notary in Paris:
"I declare that, being seized with a vomiting of blood, at the age of 84
years, and not being able to drag myself to Church, the Rev. Pastor of St.
Sulpice has had the kindness to augment the number of his good works by the
additional one of sending to me the Abbe Gautelier, priest; I have made my
Confession to him; and that, if God dispose of me, I die in the Catholic
religion, in which I was born, hoping in the divine mercy to deign to pardon
all my faults. If I have scandalized the Church, I ask pardon of God, and
the Church.
Voltaire March 2nd 1778"
"In the house of the Marquis of Villete, in the presence of Abbe Mignon, my
nephew, and the Marquis of Villevielle my friend.
(signed) Mignot Villevielle"
This time also his penitence disappeared with his danger. Some weeks
afterward he had a relapse and again called a priest; but, surrounded by
infidels who would not listen to him, and who hindered the priest from
approaching him, he died on the 30th of May, in the most frightful state of
rage and despair. Fury took possession of his soul, and God alone knows the
rest. What we know is that he died as he had lived, and we know also that
the
same may happen to all those who say, "I will confess before I die"."
Msgr. Louis Gaston de Segur
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 01:34:40 AM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 08:18:46 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446c1580$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
Ray - stay out of the abortion debate. You're a homo - a non-entity in this
subject.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 08:33:01 AM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446c1580$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
Ray - stay out of the abortion debate. You're a homo - a non-entity in this
subject.
And your proof of that assertion is...?
Maybe you should move somewhere other than South Beach, Bryan.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 10:24:37 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyj7lape.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446c1580$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
Ray - stay out of the abortion debate. You're a homo - a non-entity in
this
subject.
And your proof of that assertion is...?
Maybe you should move somewhere other than South Beach, Bryan.
Maybe Ray can for speak for himself, and maybe you could butt out.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 05:08:31 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyj7lape.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446c1580$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
Ray - stay out of the abortion debate. You're a homo - a non-entity in this
subject.
And your proof of that assertion is...?
Maybe you should move somewhere other than South Beach, Bryan.
Maybe Ray can for speak for himself, and maybe you could butt out.
Quit posting your dreck in a public unmoderated newsgroup, and then
you might have a legitimate complaint.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mordecai! mldavisplease dont" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 05:54:34 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyj7lape.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446c1580$0$65473$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
Ray - stay out of the abortion debate. You're a homo - a non-entity in this
subject.
And your proof of that assertion is...?
Maybe you should move somewhere other than South Beach, Bryan.
Maybe Ray can for speak for himself, and maybe you could butt out.
Quit posting your dreck in a public unmoderated newsgroup, and then
you might have a legitimate complaint.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
Gee - BAM is upset that others are allowed to question her slander?
If she is a slanderer - which seems VERY obvious from her posts - then why are we
not permitted to tell her what she is?
She certainly does not have any problems in telling lies about others ... and
spreading gossip.
It seems she has one rule for herself -and another rule for everyone else.
The question I ask myself is WHY do these ... bullies ... think they are above the
law of social acceptability? After all, they USE this law for power.
Sigh ... the last one I tackled was in the midst of an emotional crisis and was
taking out her feelings on everyone else. Her motives were obvious - "everyone
loved her" the queen bee so to speak. She was used to using a pile of emotional
blackmail techniques which all centred on "her approval" which had obviously never
been threatened. Thus, if we were "nice" she might "deign" to smile on us.
But on the internet - the body language does not work. She cannot control through
sex appeal ... she cannot intimidate by the way she speaks, she only had words -
and the attitudes of confidence that everyone would give in to her.
Got a bit of a shock when I did not give in to her.
I was not interested in the superficial - I was only interested in her essential
desires and heart motivation.
She was not a nice person - and I certainly was not interested in her "approval"
and she certainly did not earn MINE.
The internet is good because you can see the true essence of someone easily -
without the 85% body language messages.
Why don't people like Bam understand this? Weird.
People look at her ... and turn away.
I think she thinks that hurting people who cannot hurt back - who are "anonymous'
so to speak - implies that she can be a ***** without consequences.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong,
and reality is Never wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 12:00:16 PM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
That sort of lying about people makes you no better than a murderer.
Ray - stay out of the abortion debate. You're a homo - a non-entity in this
Everybody can see what the anti-abortion "morality" does to people.
It turns them into hate-filled liars.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 12:27:51 AM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is "embarrassing
to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"?
Heretic murder. Inquisition. Support for Hitler. The Crusades, the Cathar
slaughter. The AIDS crisis. Pick a time period, they'll be killing
someone.
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
1) I have never killed a baby. I leave that to Catholics and other
lunatics. I am a "professed baby killer" only in your imagination.
2) You wouldn't know rational if it came up and hit you with a
clue-by-four. Hint: calling someone a "professed baby killer" when they
are nothing of the kind is not rational. HTH.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
And who got the last laugh.
Voltaire.
Poor, sick Voltaire:
VOLTAIRE'S SAD DEATH
Voltaire's not-so-sad death:
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume120issue1_more.php?id=1226_0_34_0_C
Take Voltaire, for example, a Deist with a refreshing irreverence for
the church. Shortly after a run–in with the local clergy in Ferney in
1768, orders were given by the local bishop that Voltaire should not be
given communion, confessed or absolved. Voltaire insisted he would
commune in defiance of the edict. Feigning illness, Voltaire took to his
bed. Though doctors could find nothing wrong with him, he convinced them
he was at death’s door. A reluctant priest came to his bedside, after
Voltaire threatened legal action against him if he did not come.
Voltaire demanded absolution at once, but the priest presented him with
a profession of faith, drawn up by the bishop, which Voltaire was
required to sign. After long argument, the author had his way, was given
communion and announced that “having God in his mouth”, he forgave his
enemies.
As soon as the priest left, Voltaire leapt from his bed, and announced
to his friend Wagniere: “I have had a little trouble with this comical
genius of a Capuchin; but that was only for amusement, and to accomplish
a good purpose. Let us take a turn in the garden. I told you I would be
confessed and commune in my bed!”
Voltaire’s eagerness to outwit the Church, rather than merely abandon it
completely, seems to have stemmed from his wish for a decent burial,
rather than be “flung into a ditch or buried like a dog”. He did manage
to get a proper funeral in the end, but only through the intervention of
his priest nephew, rather than any recantation.
Despite his dogged refusal to be bullied by the Church, stories soon
spread that on his deathbed, Voltaire was heard to exclaim “I am
abandoned by God and man!” and “I shall go to Hell.” This, despite the
fact that one of the doctors attending him testified that he had been
unable to speak at all due to profuse spitting of blood. He did,
however, communicate in writing to those present, and never once
mentioned God, religion, or the hellfires that awaited him.
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 08:18:03 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446bf898$0$24229$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is
"embarrassing to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"?
Heretic murder. Inquisition. Support for Hitler. The Crusades, the Cathar
slaughter. The AIDS crisis. Pick a time period, they'll be killing
someone.
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
1) I have never killed a baby. I leave that to Catholics and other
lunatics. I am a "professed baby killer" only in your imagination.
2) You wouldn't know rational if it came up and hit you with a
clue-by-four. Hint: calling someone a "professed baby killer" when they
are nothing of the kind is not rational. HTH.
If you have had an abortion then you have killed a baby. I'm being quite
rational. It is you who refuse to admit that a baby is a baby until the
moment of delivery. That's unscientific and barbaric in the Nazi sense.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 11:59:11 AM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446bf898$0$24229$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is
"embarrassing to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"?
Heretic murder. Inquisition. Support for Hitler. The Crusades, the Cathar
slaughter. The AIDS crisis. Pick a time period, they'll be killing
someone.
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
1) I have never killed a baby. I leave that to Catholics and other
lunatics. I am a "professed baby killer" only in your imagination.
2) You wouldn't know rational if it came up and hit you with a
clue-by-four. Hint: calling someone a "professed baby killer" when they
are nothing of the kind is not rational. HTH.
If you have had an abortion then you have killed a baby. I'm being quite
rational.
You're "rational" in the same way that hitler was "rational" about
Jews.
It is you who refuse to admit that a baby is a baby until the
It is you who hates the idea of sexuality and you who wants to make
women suffer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
18 May 2006 01:47:30 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446ca7df$0$65449$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446bf898$0$24229$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is
"embarrassing to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"?
Heretic murder. Inquisition. Support for Hitler. The Crusades, the
Cathar
slaughter. The AIDS crisis. Pick a time period, they'll be killing
someone.
Silly me - expecting a rational reply from a professed baby killer.
| | | | | | |
