Gemma Therese

B. Shack -- Here is a rebuttal to that awful link you posted:

<a href="http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/catholiccommunity/message/24437" target="_blank">http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/catholiccommunity/message/24437</a>

Gemma Therese

Vorkosigan

It's really quite funny -- disorganized vague meaningless rambling, faulty logic and misunderstandings of atheism, although given that it is an internet post, that is not surprising.

But what do you expect from an organization that tolerates child abusers and attacks their victims?

Gemma Therese

Could you explain how it is disorganized, meaningless, and vague? Exactly what part are you referring to? Please, correct the faulty logic. Or is this the repsonse you give when unable to dispute something?

Gemma Therese

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Vorkosigan

No, it is the response I give when something is garbage not worth attending to. Basically, the author argues that atheists are unaware that there are more important things than sex. This does not address the first writer's attacks on celibacy at all, except to say that they are nonsense.

In order to defend his position, the Catholic would have had to show that celibacy is actually a higher or better form of life -- but he does not show that, he simply claims that is so. The original attacker argued that celibacy is a form of sexual abuse, unnatural, and criminal to its participants. I do not agree with this position (I believe celibates to be silly rather than abused) but the author did marshal a few arguments in favor of his position. The responder simply said that atheists were deluded, attack us for having positions we do not hold, did not address the issues, and then left.

Vorkosigan

Proxima Centauri

Here's the 'awfuf' link again, just incase anyone missed it. Its well worth reading.

<a href="http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/celibacy.htm" target="_blank">http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/celibacy.htm</a>

Don't suppose Saint Therese will pay that much attention.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Gemma Therese

St. Therese of Lisieux is in heaven, and praying for the author of that site I'm sure, as well as for you.

Gemma Therese

beoba

Apparently you both have too much free time.

Proxima Centauri

A whole lot of us are fed up of "saintly"Therese on a whole lot of different discussions.
Anunnaki had the following suggestion.
Hey. You just can`t tell Gemma to "Get out" or "shut the hell up" because you don`t like the crap she says.JUST IGNORE HER and and stop responding to her if you don`t like her or the junk she spouts. Ignoring people is easy to do and half of you have already put ME on full ignore and I`m not even religious! Surely you can easily ignore Gemma as well. You people wouldn`t want to be branded as intolerant would you?

I was less tolerant. I suggested the following.
I think we need to consider changing the way the Sec Web is organized. Lets have just one discussion thread for Christian (moronic) preachers. You're not polite Gemma Therese so I won't be.Lets ban proseletizing from other discussions. That way we can discuss secular things when we want to without being preached at. I can't see any other way to deal with the git.
Lets see if either of these suggestions work.

Here's the link which will help you see how fed up everyone is. .
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000926&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000926&p=2</a>

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: B.Shack ]</p>

Bree

Sounds good to me.

RRP.