🚀 go-pugleaf

...instead of trying to justify evil and send souls
to hell, you should be trying to save your own soul, which
is your most important possession, and appears to be in
great peril. If you don't believe in hell, you and Ivan, who
you support, will, when you get there.


Seven of 3 wrote:
> John,
> 
> Actually it is ignorance that causes the spread of STD's
> - not promiscuity! The people who are spreading STD's are
> not using protection, even though such protection is
> available. You can easilty say Ivan wants women to be
> whores, but I think what he is saying is he thinks women
> should be free.
> 
> He makes very good points. The Roman Catholic church has
> shunned women. They are not equals in the Church. I don't
> need to point out how long the Church has been attacking
> and oppressing women. An example, all the witch burning,
> well was witch burning. You don't really hear about
> warlock burning do you? The traditional marriage the
> Church supported was one in which the female was chattel,
> a kind of property. Consenting to marriage meant
> perpetual consent - it was just until recently where a
> husband could actually legally commit rape against his
> wife. Prior to that change in law, a husband could not be
> charged with raping his wife, no matter how brutally, or
> how unwilling she was. It wasn't the church that set that
> wrong right - they opposed it by not championing it.
> 
> We know why women are not allowed into the clergy. Jesus
> was a man, and his disciples were women. A woman of that
> time could not have been a disciple. Do you think her 
> husband would let her off to evangelize with a bunch of
> men? Jesus lived in a sexist society. His disciples were
> composed of only men because of the times. Had Jesus been
> alive today, he'd have co-ed disciples.
> 
> I think the hardest thing to swallow about the church is
> they don't practice what their teacher taught. When they
> do, they don't understand the lesson, and take it
> litterally when it is the meaning not the act that is
> important.
> 
> You know Jesus, who never had a girlfriend, married or
> had kids ( well there is some evidence to suggest Jesus
> didn't die on the cross, escaped the Roman empire by
> fleeing to India, married there and did have kids. And
> his blood line is the Holy Grail. See the word for Grail
> can mean challace, or blood, and blood like in relatives,
> offspring. The quest for the Holy Grail was of course the
> quest for Jesus' family. And I would like to point out
> while there is very little proof for that, there is as
> about as much proof to support that as there is to
> support Jesus actually existed) never really dissed
> women, or subjegated them. So I have no idea where the
> church got it's misogynistic view towards women. But I
> have my suspicion.
> 
> History suports the fact that the clergy has always been
> a safe haven for homosexuals. A safe haven, because out
> in the medevil world, a man that didn't seek the company
> of women was suspect and faced persecution. But in a 
> church, being in the constant company of men, with
> absolutely no suspicion due to the lack of female
> company, the church has always had a much larger 
> percentage of gays in it than exists in the natural
> population. So with such a strong influence by numbers,
> from men who have no use or place for woemn in their
> lives, the church over the centuries developed a very
> satanic view of women. And treated them as such.
> 
> But frankly if you look at history, women have been
> treated like shit since men figured out that they had
> something to do with the miracle of birth. As
> anthropologists have put forth, and with their supporting
> evidence, including archeological evidence, that before
> men knew they had a role in procreation, they assumed
> women were divine and thus worshiped for their ability to
> give life. But once men discovered it was their seed that
> began life, women were torn down from up high, and pushed
> into the gutters of society. And they have been there
> ever since the sufferage movement of the mid 1800's. It's
> only been in the last 150 years that women have gone from
>  slaves to equals, and real equality is still not
> present.
> 
> I think women have a lot further to go. When there is a
> woman Pope then the church might start growing in the
> educated world once again. But when the Church tells more
> than half the people in the world that they are not good
> enough to participate in the ministry of the Church and
> the word, somebody isn't listening to Jesus at all.
> 
> The fact is that men and women together have the
> responsibility to keep the species alive and
> perpetuating. And as long as that is being tended, woman
>  are/should be free as men, and have any vocation they
> choose, like men, and excell or fail, just like men. And
> if the Pope was a woman, a lot more women would become a
> lot more into the church. And men would too, because
> women influence men, but if men could dig the Pope's tits
> and ass too - okay, well I guess not, since cardinals are
> already one step from death on the average, and who wants
> to see tits and ass that old.
> 
> I mean I was looking at the ages of the Cardinals. The
> youngest is 58, one of the very few in their late 50's.
> Most are in their mid 80's, a number are in their mid
> 90's. I recall Pope John Paul, you know the guy who was
> voted in Pope, and died after one month in office. I
> think that is the main reason they voted for John Paul
> II, he was the youngest Cardinal, and youngest Pope in
> recent times. And look he lived another 26 years, which
> is a nice long term in office, but died at about the
> average age of the current Cardinals.
> 
> I think if there was some real christian reason women
> could not be ordained other good christian sects would
> not do it. I think if there was a good christian reason
> why preists can't marry, then other good christian sects
> would not allow their preists to marry.
> 
> 
> But I love it when they interpret the word of God
> differently. It just goes to show these words can't be
> God's words. God can't be dumber than say Albert
> Einstien, can he? I mean more powerful, but dumber? Is
> that actually possible?
> 
> Anyway the only thing I don't agree with Ivan, totally. I
> think the desire for some men to control women is
> definitely behind the forces agaist abortion on demand.
> But let's use logic, how does that work for women who 
> argue against abotion. Obviously it's not in their
> interests to advocate men's control over women. But there
> are women that desire the control of males - so it can't
> be ruled out.
> 
> I have an issue with abortion on demand. Logic and
> science tell me a fetus is human. A human is constantly
> evolving, by either generation or degeneration. A human
> life has a beginning and an end. Life begins at 
> conception, likely prior to conception, but human life
> begins at conception, because a sperm lacks the necessay
> cromozones....but anyone with a microscope can tell you
> sperm is alive....until it dies, both which are evident
> under a microscope. But human life begins at conception
> and ends at death.
> 
> The only arguement that can be made are inconsequential
> things such as "when does a fetus have awareness, feel
> pain, become cognative, etc". My perspective is
> biological. And that shapes my morality. I mean in the 
> scheme of things saying a fetus is not human because it
> doesn't have awareness, is just the same as saying a
> child is not human because it does not have pubic hair. I
> will admit they are major differences, but as far as 
> denying one their humanity, they are equally arbitrary.
> We all know a child will develop pubic hair if allowed to
> grow, and we also know a fetus will develop awareness, if
> allowed to grow.
> 
> So my big issue is that I view the fetus as an equal
> player. I think a fetus is human and should be entitled
> to human rights. My beef is that society is denying a
> fetus its humanity on a purely arbitrary basis, a
> criteria as baseless as saying it is okay to terminate a
>  child because it lacks pubic hair - but as soon as it
> has pubic hair it would be murder. I have seldom heard of
> anything more self-deceptive in my life.
> 
> It's not that I am against women's rights. It think a
> woman requires rights over her own body, because for eons
> she has not had rights over her body. She is due and
> entitled and desrving to have the rights over her own
> body. Not men - not the state. I agree. I want to see a
> fetus' humanity recognized and it be granted human
> rights, if not legal rights.
> 
> Then I would love to see our great legal system work out
> how those rights stack up against each other, and what
> and when will prevail. Then I could have a clean
> conscience about it. Then I could be comfortable that the
> youngest humans had some of that same equality that women
> are now enjoying. And you know if women have to get used
> to a different world, as long as it is in the true spirit
> of fairness and equality, women will adjust the same way
> as men are adjusting.
> 
> If the legal system determines that women's rights will
> prevail, I can live with that and be comfortable society
> has made the right decision. Only the way things are now,
> fetus don't have rights, and without rights, they don't
> actually exist. Nobody can make legal arguments based on
> rights when there are none for one party, and strongly
> established ones for the other party. The challeneges to
> women's rights have come from the state and men, but not
> the human beings with the most versted in the issues -
> because they have no rights whatsoever.
> 
> So many people may not share my views, or agree with my
> analysis. I suppose that is fine. I do see abortion as a
> human tragedy. Pregancy is so easily prevented. And that
> is another issue society has to deal with, because
> prevention is a way to drastically reduce the demand for
> abortion services. So there is this responsibility thing
> that is just not being dealt with at any level, and this
> irresponsibility fuels such high demand for abortion
> services. So there are multiple ways to drastically
> reduce the demand for abortion services, without opening
> up the can of worms that granting rights to fetus' would
>  create in other realms besides the abortion issue.
> 
> Yet on the other hand can people really support women
> using abortion services as a substitute for birth
> control? And men share equally in the responsibility,
> even though a woman has a plethora of aids, while a
> male's is very limited. But a male can be insistant, and
> tie sex to protection and birth control too. We need to
> change attitudes and behaviors.
> 
> But look at John's approach. He condemn's the women. He
> chastises the doctors. He openly hates those supporting
> choice, and he always confuses prochoice with only one
> choice, not understanding the concept of choice, since he
> offers none. Marriage and abstainance is not a choice. 
> Either or is a choice. Pro choice people support both
> sides. Otherwise they are pro abortion - not pro choice.
> And John is against every form of birth control, except
> abstainance, and I guess the only form of birth control
> is the least effective one, the rythme method, or
> abstainance within marriage.
> 
> John wouldn't know an issue if it came up and bit him on
> the arsehole.
> 
> All I can say is that Pope John Paul II lasted about 312
> times longer than Pope John Paul I. Don't expect the next
> one to last anywhere near as long. Why does it have to be
> Cardinals? Why can't some young Bishops be in on it too? 
> Take some Bishop in his 30's and you might get 65 years
> service out of the Pope. Oh, right, Pope means Father, so
> the guy has to be old enough to be most people's father. 
> I see. That is why a woman can't be Pope, a woman can't
> be father. Ah, um, er, hey tell that to all those single
> Mom's, who are both mother and father!
> 
> 


-- 
===================================
($50 million?  Where the hell did you get that figure?
An aborton costs about $600. 100,000 x $600 =
$600,000.  Seems you failed arithmetic as well as
logic, Lauzon.  Why am I not surprised?)
--
-Ivan Gowch, Date: 2004-07-10 13:06:00 PST
===================================
(To destroy evil, is to invite endless apathy.)
--
-SilverStar
===================================