Gay liaisons set to unhinge the Pope

[Ozzie Osmond]

shakotan said:

Two more reasons why religions are such utterly farcical institutions who cherry pick what should and shouldn't be believed from their own foundation, regardless of moral or ethical content.

That's a huge and sweeping generalisation.

Christanity is named after Christ - in other words the New Testament. If you feel the Christian church is cherry picking from the New Testament it would be interesting to hear which particular elements you consider they are choosing to ignore.

[TheHeretic]

Ozzie Osmond said:

That's a huge and sweeping generalisation.

Christanity is named after Christ - in other words the New Testament. If you feel the Christian church is cherry picking from the New Testament it would be interesting to hear which particular elements you consider they are choosing to ignore.

Do christians believe in the genesis story? Do they believe in Abraham, and Noah? What about Moses? The Ten Commandments? Even Jesus himself stated that he has not come to change anything of the 'old laws'. If you think being a Christian means ignoring the OT I think you are very much mistaken. It is the OT that provides the prophecy for the 'messiah', as well as the justification for the RC church's stance on contraception, homosexuality, and so on.

[Ozzie Osmond]

TheHeretic said:

Do christians believe in the genesis story? Do they believe in Abraham, and Noah? What about Moses? The Ten Commandments? Even Jesus himself stated that he has not come to change anything of the 'old laws'. If you think being a Christian means ignoring the OT I think you are very much mistaken. It is the OT that provides the prophecy for the 'messiah', as well as the justification for the RC church's stance on contraception, homosexuality, and so on.

Your argument doesn't work in this instance. Usually you complain that religins fail to evolve from their original "books". However, the New Testament is the clearest possible evidence of a religion which has actually evolved.

To my mind there is a geat deal of sense within many religions and it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Jinx]

10 Pence Short said:

I don't think there's any doubt that this particular corporation has enabled and suppressed reporting of widespread and systematic paedophilia. Were it to be a multinational who overtly lives for profit we would be welcoling its demise.

True. Everyone involved should be locked up.

10 Pence Short said:

I'm not sure why it promoting the services of an imaginary friend should protect it from the justifiable outrage and destruction it should be 'victim' of?

Sorry you mean you weren't talking about the BBC?

[TheHeretic]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Your argument doesn't work in this instance. Usually you complain that religins fail to evolve from their original "books". However, the New Testament is the clearest possible evidence of a religion which has actually evolved.

To my mind there is a geat deal of sense within many religions and it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Of course it works. By evolve, do you mean 'God got it wrong, and changed his mind'? Are you suggesting that the OT is defunct?

[shakotan]

Ozzie Osmond said:

TheHeretic said:

Do christians believe in the genesis story? Do they believe in Abraham, and Noah? What about Moses? The Ten Commandments? Even Jesus himself stated that he has not come to change anything of the 'old laws'. If you think being a Christian means ignoring the OT I think you are very much mistaken. It is the OT that provides the prophecy for the 'messiah', as well as the justification for the RC church's stance on contraception, homosexuality, and so on.

Your argument doesn't work in this instance. Usually you complain that religins fail to evolve from their original "books". However, the New Testament is the clearest possible evidence of a religion which has actually evolved.

To my mind there is a geat deal of sense within many religions and it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Any degree of sense that can be found within religion can be found existing just as strongly outside of it. It therefore cannot be used as a tool for justification.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

I expect that these blokes, locked up emotionally, would need some form of outlet. For the church I would have thought them going to gay clubs is better than knocking off the wives int he congregation. And there's enough of that going on.

I read once that there was an argument about people who were sterilised, whether they could have sex, with women, without committing a mortal sin. I think it revolved around whether 'seed' could be spilled. If not then it was OK and you could even wear a condom. I mean, you don't know where she's been, do you. That was under the last pope. How silly.

Seems that Cardinal O'Brien has read your post....

Cardinal Keith O'Brien: 'Allow priests to marry'

"It is a free world and I realise that many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy as they lived out their priesthood and felt the need of a companion, of a woman, to whom they could get married and raise a family of their own."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21552628

So they can change the rules when it suits them.


Back on topic(ish)though....

[elster]

AnimalMkIV said:

It might not be a commandment "Thou shalt not stabbeth the chocolate starfish", but it's made quite clear in the Old Testament that the psychotic sand-diety is a touch homophobic when he annihilates the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
You also have "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Seeing as this is the same god of love and understanding that the Pope and his minions are in the thrall of, you could say there is something hypocritical about it, but then again, the whole catholic institution is rotten.

It does depend what language you read it in to what it says.

[Derek Smith]

djstevec said:

Seems that Cardinal O'Brien has read your post....

Cardinal Keith O'Brien: 'Allow priests to marry'

"It is a free world and I realise that many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy as they lived out their priesthood and felt the need of a companion, of a woman, to whom they could get married and raise a family of their own."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21552628

So they can change the rules when it suits them.

Me and cardinal O'Brian are mates. When he comes to Brighton, for whatever reason, we always get together. So to speak.

The history of celibacy, at least for the underlings, is a fascinating subject, much confused by dogma and myth. At one time it was a cardinal (see what I did there) sin to live with a woman, any women, including your mother, regardless of sexual relations.

There have always been various, well sects isn't the right word, perhaps factions, that taught different basics. Different countries had different ideas, even those in the holy roman empire (I was given a book on that for, suitably enough, Christmas. Haven't opened it yet - just moved in and we've got books everywhere, but soon.

The church has not been centralised for many centuries of course, there being an eastern and a western pope since, since whenever. Henry 8 set up a catholic religion of course and not, as some say, protestant. Indeed, he - supported by a pope - saw himself as defender of the faith, this being catholicism. Further, over the years some popes came under 'influences' of various power blocks or countries and changed dogma to suit.

It is a tangled web that has been woven.

Oddly enough, the current catholic church is about the most religious we've (they've I suppose) ever had imposed on us (them), yet look at the scandals. Buggering one another, sexually assaulting children, embezzlement and killing off a few million Africans. Sucking up to Savile and Blair.

Thanks for the image. Big tick for that one.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Derek Smith said:

Me and cardinal O'Brian are mates. When he comes to Brighton, for whatever reason, we always get together. So to speak.

We know it's wild down there, so be careful you don't confuse him with the former Bishop of Lewes, recently arrested (again) in connection with Operation Yewtree...

[Derek Smith]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Derek Smith said:

Me and cardinal O'Brian are mates. When he comes to Brighton, for whatever reason, we always get together. So to speak.

We know it's wild down there, so be careful you don't confuse him with the former Bishop of Lewes, recently arrested (again) in connection with Operation Yewtree...

It's a hobby.

It's all in the way you look at it.

I had an elderly Jewish friend in Petticoat Towers who, despite being an Anglicised German, could put on a fearsome American/Jewish accent. She believed in the family, as long as that family was centred around her. She was tremendous. A lovely old girl.

She was something big in the art world and on her wall in the hall there was a quality copy of one of the Oedipus paintings, him who killed his father and slept with his mother.

I said to her that, given the bloke's criminal history, I wondered why she gave it houseroom.

She put on her best Jewish accent, shrugged her shoulders and said: "He loved his mother."

Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 22 February 18:54

[TheFive]

Ozzie Osmond said:

TheHeretic said:

Do christians believe in the genesis story? Do they believe in Abraham, and Noah? What about Moses? The Ten Commandments? Even Jesus himself stated that he has not come to change anything of the 'old laws'. If you think being a Christian means ignoring the OT I think you are very much mistaken. It is the OT that provides the prophecy for the 'messiah', as well as the justification for the RC church's stance on contraception, homosexuality, and so on.

Your argument doesn't work in this instance. Usually you complain that religins fail to evolve from their original "books". However, the New Testament is the clearest possible evidence of a religion which has actually evolved.

To my mind there is a geat deal of sense within many religions and it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Sorry, but no. Check out the Roman Catholic catechism - The official guide to the Roman Catholic belief system and not open to negotiation or any kind of 'interpretation' - It's all clear as day:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Or, here for the abridged version:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/docum...

Old testament is a completely valid text I'm afraid. Genesis, the great flood, original sin, all of it. OT hasn't been superseded by NT at all, you've just made that bit up for yourself.

As you probably know, Catholicism doesn't work like that - You're either in or you're out. And if you're out, then be damned to a fiery hell for all eternity. Sorry if I've messed up anybody's plans for after they die.

Edited by TheFive on Friday 22 February 20:21

[Pothole]

Derek Smith said:

Pothole said:

Simple question required simple answer. I'm fully aware of the post of Vicar (General, usually) in the Catholic Church. You're clearly not. Not the first time you've shown yourself to be ignorant about subjects you post negatively on. A simple correction and admission of ignorance would have been sufficient.

Now tell me where exactly you encountered this Catholic vicar, or did you actually mean priest?

No.

I left the location out because I respect the chap and don't want him identified.

Let's ignore one-anothers' posts. I feel certain that it will be best for all concerned. My definition of ignorant includes calling other people ignorant.

Whereas mine includes talking st and wriggling when called on it.

[Derek Smith]

Pothole said:

Derek Smith said:

Pothole said:

Simple question required simple answer. I'm fully aware of the post of Vicar (General, usually) in the Catholic Church. You're clearly not. Not the first time you've shown yourself to be ignorant about subjects you post negatively on. A simple correction and admission of ignorance would have been sufficient.

Now tell me where exactly you encountered this Catholic vicar, or did you actually mean priest?

No.

I left the location out because I respect the chap and don't want him identified.

Let's ignore one-anothers' posts. I feel certain that it will be best for all concerned. My definition of ignorant includes calling other people ignorant.

Whereas mine includes talking st and wriggling when called on it.

As I say, let's ignore one-another's posts. I can assure you that I will pay yours no attention if you promise to do the same to mine.

[Pothole]

Derek Smith said:

Pothole said:

Derek Smith said:

Pothole said:

Simple question required simple answer. I'm fully aware of the post of Vicar (General, usually) in the Catholic Church. You're clearly not. Not the first time you've shown yourself to be ignorant about subjects you post negatively on. A simple correction and admission of ignorance would have been sufficient.

Now tell me where exactly you encountered this Catholic vicar, or did you actually mean priest?

No.

I left the location out because I respect the chap and don't want him identified.

Let's ignore one-anothers' posts. I feel certain that it will be best for all concerned. My definition of ignorant includes calling other people ignorant.

Whereas mine includes talking st and wriggling when called on it.

As I say, let's ignore one-another's posts. I can assure you that I will pay yours no attention if you promise to do the same to mine.

As a Catholic it's probably some kind of duty to call you on bullst, but I'm not sure I can be arsed.

[thehawk]

AnimalMkIV said:

It might not be a commandment "Thou shalt not stabbeth the chocolate starfish", but it's made quite clear in the Old Testament that the psychotic sand-diety is a touch homophobic when he annihilates the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
You also have "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

And he tried to re-inforce this message by sending AIDS, but the message is still not getting through.

[stackmonkey]

thehawk said:

AnimalMkIV said:

It might not be a commandment "Thou shalt not stabbeth the chocolate starfish", but it's made quite clear in the Old Testament that the psychotic sand-diety is a touch homophobic when he annihilates the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
You also have "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

And he tried to re-inforce this message by sending AIDS, but the message is still not getting through.

Oh dear, another pathetic attempt to portray AIDS as being "gay".
The vast majority of people worldwide with HIV are straight. In some countries a startling percentage of the population (25%) are infected.

[thehawk]

stackmonkey said:

Oh dear, another pathetic attempt to portray AIDS as being "gay".
The vast majority of people worldwide with HIV are straight. In some countries a startling percentage of the population (25%) are infected.

Yet more proof that every day is a school day and that we humans never stop learning, thanks for that valuable titbit.

The straight ones have what is known as good AIDS, the gay ones have something called bad AIDS.

[TheHeretic]

thehawk said:

Yet more proof that every day is a school day and that we humans never stop learning, thanks for that valuable titbit.

The straight ones have what is known as good AIDS, the gay ones have something called bad AIDS.

This is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc

[drivin_me_nuts]

CAPP0 said:

Derek Smith said:

I read once that there was an argument about people who were sterilised, whether they could have sex, with women, without committing a mortal sin. I think it revolved around whether 'seed' could be spilled. If not then it was OK and you could even wear a condom. I mean, you don't know where she's been, do you. That was under the last pope. How silly.

In my long, but relatively limited, experience of the catholic church, it really does seem that they simply justify one hypocrisy with another rule/commandment, and vice-versa. I guess like any plutocratic dictatorship, one rule for them, one for another suits those at the top just fine.

Or to put it into the common prose...

... One ring to bind them all.

An expression that seems so much more appropriate.