Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Chris H on 8 Apr 2010 07:02 In message <825lp6Fcu7U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes >James Nagler <jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: > >> As long as you attend any catholic church for any reason you are supporting >> their policies. Those who refuse to walk through their doors are not in >> support of their doctrine. You are no less of a pedophile than he who >> committed those acts by supporting the foundation that allows it to >> continue. > >I attended a Catholic Church because that was where the funeral of a >Catholic friend was held. So according to you that makes us both >pedophiles. I'm glad I don't live on your planet. I hope that replying >to your post hasn't made me an idiot as well. For some one who goes on about comprehension you are being obtuse. There is attending as in the sense of being a member of a church and supporting it by being on their parish register and associating with them by attending normal services, sending you children there and supporting their functions daily or weekly despite the fact they shielded and supported a pedophile and attended in the sense of being a guest(?) at some one else's funeral/marriage there. That does not imply any support for the Church. Also you would not know if in the last 30 years (as Tony knows) the clergy there shielded a pedophile from the law and sent him on his way to abuse others. I have attended marriages and funerals at a variety of religious temple of many religions. It does not mean I supported or attended/joined any of them. I was there as a guest of one of the participants. Unlike Tony I had no knowledge of any of the clergy at any of the temples. Had I known any of them had been involved in child abuse I would not have attended and probably questioned my friend's choice of venue. Though for a funeral it is a bit difficult. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on 8 Apr 2010 09:45 ? "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> ?????? ??? ?????? news:2010040709172143658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-04-07 08:31:38 -0700, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> said: > >> On 07/04/2010 15:02, James Nagler wrote: >>> This too could be the very reason for the Spanish >>> Inquisition. >> >> The French inquisition was about as bad (ask the Cathars)(read >> "Montaillou: the Promised Land of Error" (or "Montaillou, village >> occitan") for some historical perpective). > > You will notice, when I first brought up the Inquisition, I didn't refer > to the "Spanish Inquisition" but the "Inquisition." That refers to the > different Inquisitional bodies including Roman, Spanish, Portuguese & > Medieval Inquisitions. > Though Torquemada is such an appropriate name for a Grand Inquisitor, and > his is the face most people put on the Inquisition. Thereby leading many > to think all of the Inquisitions were Spanish. > > There wasn't a "French Inquisition" per se, but was part of the "Medieval > and Papal" Inquisitions. > Who was the one that wrote "Maleus maleficorum"? -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: Savageduck on 8 Apr 2010 10:05 On 2010-04-08 06:45:24 -0700, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone(a)nospam.com> said: > > ? "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> ?????? ??? ?????? > news:2010040709172143658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-04-07 08:31:38 -0700, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> said: >> >>> On 07/04/2010 15:02, James Nagler wrote: >>>> This too could be the very reason for the Spanish >>>> Inquisition. >>> >>> The French inquisition was about as bad (ask the Cathars)(read >>> "Montaillou: the Promised Land of Error" (or "Montaillou, village >>> occitan") for some historical perpective). >> >> You will notice, when I first brought up the Inquisition, I didn't refer >> to the "Spanish Inquisition" but the "Inquisition." That refers to the >> different Inquisitional bodies including Roman, Spanish, Portuguese & >> Medieval Inquisitions. >> Though Torquemada is such an appropriate name for a Grand Inquisitor, and >> his is the face most people put on the Inquisition. Thereby leading many >> to think all of the Inquisitions were Spanish. >> >> There wasn't a "French Inquisition" per se, but was part of the "Medieval >> and Papal" Inquisitions. >> > Who was the one that wrote "Maleus maleficorum"? Malleus Maleficarum was the work of Heinrich Kramer as part of the "Medieval Inquisition." It sure made things hot for all those witches running around Europe back in the 15th Century. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Chris H on 8 Apr 2010 10:25 In message <h8irr51qvppq4mtovsguipgk2l65v79jqn(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:27:53 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >I don't have much hope that you will be able to understand much of >what I'm about to say, but I'll try. > >First of all, I've stated previously that I've been lapsed for over 30 >years. I haven't had any conversation with any priest in at least >that amount of time. Even when I went to mass I was one of those slip >out the door immediately after mass types. Most Catholics do. My >wife is the same. As I said most Catholics I know only pay lip service. >I don't live in some quaint Irish village like Ballykissangel where >I'd run into Father Pat on the street, in the post office, or in the >pub. I wouldn't recognize any of the priests from my church if I would >run into them. Yet you signed up for his parish and your wife attends the Church... I know you also smoke dope but don't inhale? >Neither my wife nor I have ever known anyone who has admitted to being >abused. Good excuse. Not Turn a blind eye.. I did not see! > Some of our relatives, friends, or acquaintances may have >been, but they've never revealed it to us. People don't talk about >it. That's one of the reasons this is such a perfidious thing. The >people who have been abused feel shamed and keep it to themselves. And the church (and specifically the one you belong to) cover it up because no one has the balls to talk and say this is wrong. >The problem is in the open now, but as recently as ten years ago no >one really knew about the magnitude of the problem. Yes they did. But few would listen and the RC Church did all it could to cover it up. This is now unravelling. > There were >whispers and rumors, but everyone seemed to think that the problem >involved only a few errant priests. No one wanted to believe that the >problem was larger. No... You mean no Catholics wanted to believe. >Among your other excruciatingly naive statements above, you indicate >you wouldn't go to a wedding where you knew the clergyman involved was >an abuser. That wouldn't happen. Why not? >If one of the priests was known or suspected to be an abuser, the >diocese would have had him transferred out of the parish immediately. Correct. But NOT reported him to the police but sent him to where he could start molesting children again until caught. And this deciet went all the way up to the current Pope. >That's the crime that is so infuriating to most of us. Instead of >dealing with crime of abuse, the church officials took the course of >moving the priest to a different locale where he might continue his >actions. Sometimes the priests were put in diocesan positions where >they had no contact with children, but all too often they were not. Where they were moved to is irrelevant unless it was to a jail cell. Now the rest of the clergy are in the dock for aiding and abetting Pedophiles and shaming victims into keeping quite. >This last is the thing that you are least-likely to understand. You >wonder why someone stays a Catholic when they know about the problems. Yes. >You have no understanding that the Catholic (or a devout member of any >religion) separates the concept of faith from the individuals involved >in the organization that represents the faith. How do you know that? I may have been a Catholic once. > One doesn't abandon >their faith because other people of the same faith are criminals or >perverts. Or in this case because the whole apparatus of the Church is corrupt. >One abandons their faith - as I have - because they no >longer believe in the concepts of the faith. SO it is that YOU no longer believe not because many of the priest are Pedophiles. You can still believe in God without being a Catholic. Belief in God is a faith. Belief in the Church is a religion. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: GMAN on 8 Apr 2010 11:25
In article <1giqr594p2c4c7pvnumq0430sj0oc6nq34(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:27:02 -0500, James Nagler ><jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:13:31 -0400, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>BTW, the word "Catholic", in this context is capitalized as a proper >>>noun. To write "catholic" is a sign of ignorance of the language and >>>not an indication of approval or disapproval of the religion. >>> >>> >> >>When catholics and all other christians learn to respect and honor the >>belief systems, Gods, and Goddesses of all other cultures by also >>capitalizing their Gods and Goddesses, perhaps they'll eventually earn the >>respect to have their title capitalized again some day. They have zero >>respect for anyone else on the planet so they deserve zero respect in >>return. >> >>Perhaps we should cut off one of your wife's breast with a rusty knife >>while she is still alive and play a game of stick-ball with it so we can be >>more "christian". > >Your contribution is appreciated. Whenever I think some of the other >posters here are hopelessly ignorant, along comes someone like you to >make them look like Mensa candidates by comparison. > > And some here think you are an arrogant prick! |