| 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: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
14 May 2006 11:57:40 PM |
|
|
Because they need all the little kids to molest.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2437 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antonio Forza" |
|
| Title: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 09:06:59 AM |
|
|
On 14 May 2006 05:05:22 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
The catholic church wants people within its sphere of influence to
create more people who are likely to also remain within its sphere of
linfluence.
The catholic church cares not that human population is spiralling out
of control, and that many of the people who follow its edicts are
impoverished, and would benefit greatly by the use of birth control.
If you want to understand the truth behind the "teachings" of the
catholic church, just follow the money, and all will become clear.
--
Mental Anarchy - Free Your Mind
http://mentalanarchy.com
--
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Misogyny: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 03:59:50 PM |
|
|
Antonio Forza wrote:
On 14 May 2006 05:05:22 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
The catholic church wants people within its sphere of influence to
create more people who are likely to also remain within its sphere of
linfluence.
The catholic church cares not that human population is spiralling out
of control, and that many of the people who follow its edicts are
impoverished, and would benefit greatly by the use of birth control.
If you want to understand the truth behind the "teachings" of the
catholic church, just follow the money, and all will become clear.
If all they desired were adherents, then they would have the
priests, nuns, monks and so forth work hard at reproduction.
I think there is an even more basic hatred of sex and women
rooted in the patriarchal history of the Church. It probably
goes back to pre-Christian times, since the Church absorbed
a lot of pagan influences during the period of its formation.
There were sex- and woman-hating cults in the ancient world
that must have attracted the apparatchiks of the Roman
Empire (from which the Church takes its name, its structure,
and its capital city).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Misogyny: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 04:20:24 PM |
|
|
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147813190.119183.277500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Antonio Forza wrote:
On 14 May 2006 05:05:22 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
The catholic church wants people within its sphere of influence to
create more people who are likely to also remain within its sphere of
linfluence.
The catholic church cares not that human population is spiralling out
of control, and that many of the people who follow its edicts are
impoverished, and would benefit greatly by the use of birth control.
If you want to understand the truth behind the "teachings" of the
catholic church, just follow the money, and all will become clear.
If all they desired were adherents, then they would have the
priests, nuns, monks and so forth work hard at reproduction.
I think there is an even more basic hatred of sex and women
rooted in the patriarchal history of the Church. It probably
goes back to pre-Christian times, since the Church absorbed
a lot of pagan influences during the period of its formation.
There were sex- and woman-hating cults in the ancient world
that must have attracted the apparatchiks of the Roman
Empire (from which the Church takes its name, its structure,
and its capital city).
Also, the church needs the poor.
There's no better way to make people poor than making them have eight or
nine mouths to feed.
The poor and the church go hand in hand.
It is the poor who support the church, particularly the Roman Catholic
Church.
They give what little they can on the false promise of everlasting riches in
the next life.
It's a neat trick, if you can get away with it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Misogyny: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 04:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cuu0qF17jpllU1@individual.net...
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147813190.119183.277500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Antonio Forza wrote:
On 14 May 2006 05:05:22 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
The catholic church wants people within its sphere of influence to
create more people who are likely to also remain within its sphere of
linfluence.
The catholic church cares not that human population is spiralling out
of control, and that many of the people who follow its edicts are
impoverished, and would benefit greatly by the use of birth control.
If you want to understand the truth behind the "teachings" of the
catholic church, just follow the money, and all will become clear.
If all they desired were adherents, then they would have the
priests, nuns, monks and so forth work hard at reproduction.
I think there is an even more basic hatred of sex and women
rooted in the patriarchal history of the Church. It probably
goes back to pre-Christian times, since the Church absorbed
a lot of pagan influences during the period of its formation.
There were sex- and woman-hating cults in the ancient world
that must have attracted the apparatchiks of the Roman
Empire (from which the Church takes its name, its structure,
and its capital city).
Also, the church needs the poor.
There's no better way to make people poor than making them have eight or
nine mouths to feed.
The poor and the church go hand in hand.
It is the poor who support the church, particularly the Roman Catholic
Church.
They give what little they can on the false promise of everlasting riches
in the next life.
It's a neat trick, if you can get away with it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the
way that God made me, and then God will save me from God?"
Gee. I wonder why the RCC is so 'keen' on assisting our 'cousins' across
Mexico way to enter the United States illegally? It wouldn't have a *single*
thing to do with the fact that a whole heck of a lot of them are RC, would
it? And wouldn't really such staunch religionists help keep a neo-con
cause -- an American theocracy -- alive, and even help assist and fuel the
right-wing *evangelical* drive to, 'Take Back America for Christ!' Nah.
I must have just taken too many of my 'ridiculous' pills this morning.
Oh well.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 02:18:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 02:24:05 PM |
|
|
In article <8ukh625nthkpian6s72cmad9vsj0409sqt@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
Really?
Chapter and verse, please:
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antonio Forza" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 09:11:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:18:08 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
So you also shun all medicines and synthetic materials? How can you
possibly be using a computer?
--
Mental Anarchy - Free Your Mind
http://mentalanarchy.com
--
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 10:44:02 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Antonio Forza <antonioforza@yahoo.com>
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
You claim you don't lie, and yet there you are lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 02:22:05 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 06:06:30 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 06:52:11 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 08:01:12 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 07:05:27 AM |
|
|
In article <7v9ag.24194$Sl4.6056@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
• A penalectomy sounds fair.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 08:26:21 AM |
|
|
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1605060505270001@192.168.1.100...
In article <7v9ag.24194$Sl4.6056@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions,
and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
• A penalectomy sounds fair.
You're kissing the woman's ***** again - as all sophists do.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
17 May 2006 07:44:30 AM |
|
|
In article <Gpkag.49103$MM6.9867@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"•R L Measures" <r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1605060505270001@192.168.1.100...
In article <7v9ag.24194$Sl4.6056@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions,
and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
• A penalectomy sounds fair.
You're kissing the woman's ***** again - as all sophists do.
• hitting a woman is bad form, except of course by tearful request.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mordecai! mldavisplease dont" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 08:16:10 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
BAM
As I have never seen such a load of utter self service trollop since the last
election - I will pass on your "Scholars."
--
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: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 10:14:42 PM |
|
|
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:446927DA.9FE59F91@internode.on.net...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions,
and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
BAM
As I have never seen such a load of utter self service trollop since the
last
election - I will pass on your "Scholars."
--
Mordecai!
Who cares?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mordecai! mldavisplease dont" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 10:37:01 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:446927DA.9FE59F91@internode.on.net...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions,
and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
BAM
As I have never seen such a load of utter self service trollop since the
last
election - I will pass on your "Scholars."
--
Mordecai!
Who cares?
BAM
err - you do.
If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by G_d so
life begins before conception.
Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create life, you
are engaged in murder.
From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want by
starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
--
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: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 08:22:15 AM |
|
|
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
cares?
BAM
err - you do.
If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
So anyone who says "who cares?" really cares because the person said "who
cares". I'll let the audience decide.
Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
Jump in the nearest lake?
PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by
G_d so
life begins before conception.
That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create life,
you
are engaged in murder.
Keep worshipping the sophists; it's going to take you a lot of work to get
to their level though.
From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want by
starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
Perhaps you should start by learning what truth is.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 10:22:24 AM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by
G_d so
life begins before conception.
That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
life: the period from birth to death
Mirriam Webster Dictionary
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mordecai! mldavisplease dont" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 09:38:59 AM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
cares?
BAM
err - you do.
If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
So anyone who says "who cares?" really cares because the person said "who
cares". I'll let the audience decide.
My lady - you were expressing your anger - were you not?
Your anger testifies a care factor.
As for the audience - if I did care (which I do not) then I would hazard a guess
that they hate you because of your "Christian love" and as such - they would
take my side. However - they would be doing so because they respond to your hate
.... err Christian love - rather than on the merits of the claim.
Thus they are biased .. in my favour but that is moot.
As such I must discount their testimony.
Ergo, I am indifferent to their judgement - even though I predict it would be in
my favour.
Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
Jump in the nearest lake?
Ah, Christian love.
PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by
G_d so
life begins before conception.
That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create life,
you
are engaged in murder.
Keep worshipping the sophists; it's going to take you a lot of work to get
to their level though.
From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want by
starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
Perhaps you should start by learning what truth is.
BAM
Oh I have learned the truth.
Christian love is my measure. I measure it - constantly. I have decided I do
not like it.
Thanks for you testimony on Christian love.
--
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: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 10:02:13 AM |
|
|
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4469E403.13A12D15@internode.on.net...
bam wrote:
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
cares?
BAM
err - you do.
If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
So anyone who says "who cares?" really cares because the person said "who
cares". I'll let the audience decide.
My lady - you were expressing your anger - were you not?
Your anger testifies a care factor.
As for the audience - if I did care (which I do not) then I would hazard a
guess
that they hate you because of your "Christian love" and as such - they
would
take my side. However - they would be doing so because they respond to
your hate
... err Christian love - rather than on the merits of the claim.
Thus they are biased .. in my favour but that is moot.
As such I must discount their testimony.
Ergo, I am indifferent to their judgement - even though I predict it would
be in
my favour.
Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
Jump in the nearest lake?
Ah, Christian love.
PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by
G_d so
life begins before conception.
That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create
life,
you
are engaged in murder.
Keep worshipping the sophists; it's going to take you a lot of work to
get
to their level though.
From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want
by
starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
Perhaps you should start by learning what truth is.
BAM
Oh I have learned the truth.
Christian love is my measure. I measure it - constantly. I have decided I
do
not like it.
Thanks for you testimony on Christian love.
It's an old ploy. Take the aggresive part, and when you get whooped start
whimpering about how your opponent should turn the other cheek.
And since you have no standards, you are morally impervious. However you
still keep the advantage of judging me by my standards. Unfortunately, you
must realize that your judgments have no value, because you don't understand
justice.
BAM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 10:04:00 AM |
|
|
Mordecai! wrote:
Oh I have learned the truth.
Christian love is my measure. I measure it - constantly. I have decided I do
not like it.
Thanks for you testimony on Christian love.
=======
Followrs of Judaism here tell Christians to go to Hell and say that
they want to see Christians dead.
I have seen Judaism's ethics in action and I don't like it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 12:52:46 AM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
[snip]
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
They fail to take into account the specificity of the penalties for
various injuries. These injuries clearly refer only to the woman
because of 'tooth for tooth' - foetuses don't have teeth.
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 08:25:40 AM |
|
|
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1147758766.739918.156730@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
[snip]
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
They fail to take into account the specificity of the penalties for
various injuries. These injuries clearly refer only to the woman
because of 'tooth for tooth' - foetuses don't have teeth.
Well, that solves that. I guess once all your teeth are out you can do
anything you want.
BAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 09:00:32 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
....depending on their stance.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
No, one would not. One would easily come to a completely different
conclusion based upon one actually *reading* the highly detailed and
numerous murder laws in the Bible, which one obviously has not, or one
would certainly have noted the absence of any further mention of a
fetus. One needs to actually read the book he keeps quoting.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
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.
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 10:18:18 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446924ff$0$24267$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
...depending on their stance.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with
much more severely.
No, one would not. One would easily come to a completely different
conclusion based upon one actually *reading* the highly detailed and
numerous murder laws in the Bible, which one obviously has not, or one
would certainly have noted the absence of any further mention of a fetus.
One needs to actually read the book he keeps quoting.
Read the article, *****.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
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?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
15 May 2006 11:02:52 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446924ff$0$24267$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
...depending on their stance.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with
much more severely.
No, one would not. One would easily come to a completely different
conclusion based upon one actually *reading* the highly detailed and
numerous murder laws in the Bible, which one obviously has not, or one
would certainly have noted the absence of any further mention of a fetus.
One needs to actually read the book he keeps quoting.
Read the article, *****.
Read your book first, turned-down-by-crack-whores Bam.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
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?
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: GREED: Why the Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control |
16 May 2006 08:23:40 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446941aa$0$24201$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446924ff$0$24267$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446906e8$0$29242$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
bam wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468c799$0$29306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions,
and
market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
...depending on their stance.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would
have to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with
much more severely.
No, one would not. One would easily come to a completely different
conclusion based upon one actually *reading* the highly detailed and
numerous murder laws in the Bible, which one obviously has not, or one
would certainly have noted the absence of any further mention of a fetus.
One needs to actually read the book he keeps quoting.
Read the article, *****.
Read your book first, turned-down-by-crack-whores Bam.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
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. I said the
assault resulted only in a miscarriage - no other injur | | | | | | | | | | |
