simian

Ah, I now see thanks to the brilliance of your wisdom. I understand the use of my phallus shall never be for my pleasure (for how could I ever find that pleasurable), but only for the pleasure of the Goddess and the priestesses.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
Ordained (?) Simian

PS-Would it be within your power to conjure me another phallus? To double the pleasure of the Goddess and priestesses, of course, not for my own, personal pleasure....

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: simian ]</p>

brighid

No, no, no … it must be for your pleasure as well as you will no doubt find in service of the Goddess and her priestesses, or any woman you choose to engage in pleasure with (and for those men and women who are find members of the same gender attractive the same goes for them.) She would have it no other way! The best pleasures are mutual

You are hereby ordained!

B

simian

I shall do my best to find pleasure in it from this time forward.

Active member Simian

Ab_Normal

Bonduca:
Yes, even though I can't understand a thing that's being said, I find myself coming back again and again to check on it.

brighid, I'd ask to join, but I don't believe in wonderous pee pee removing powers. Darn it.

simian

Let me tell you about something called "Pisscal's Wager". It is a brilliant deduction by somebody who did not used to believe in the pee-pee removing powers:

If you live your life believing in the pee-pee removing powers and you are wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.

If you live your life not believing in the pee-pee removing powers and you are wrong, what have you lost? YOUR PEE-PEE. See, thanks to game theory, you have no choice but to live your life believing in pee-pee removing powers, if you wish to keep your pee-pee.

Evangelical Simian

Bible Humper

Muahaha! You guys are making it tough to continue this discussion with a straight face!

Pisscal's wager! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

&lt;cough&gt; Ahem, hello Amos

Amos, this is exactly the kind of thing I was complaining about earlier, your excessive metaphysicalising has robbed this answer of all coherent content.

The way you made Macbeth appear to contain divine wisdom, and my Sesame Street equivalent, is exactly what I'm talking about here when I say that this excessive metaphysicalising makes most of your answers completely meaningless.

I can't believe this, the Catholic church has a long and bloody history of paranoia and fanaticism, today's church is angelic in comparison for the simple reason that they can no longer get away with mass atrocities like the good old days. This fact is much to their chagrin indeed, but we still have to acknowledge that religious paranoia and fanaticism is much less widespread than at any point in history.



I suppose that since you didn't even address my question regarding "goodness before death" with so much as some metaphysical abra-cadabra that you concede this point?

Amos, do you really think that the church is sufficiently subtle and sophisticated that it would actually want catholics to lose their faith for the sake of their own eventual personal spiritual benefit and subsequent return to the flock?

Do you feel that you have discovered the secret transcendant meanings of the mysteries of Catholicism which they hide from less worthy eyes?

Have you ever discussed your theology with one of your priests? I think that you should...

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper/ SCoW ]</p>

Amos

</strong>

Well let me tell you, dear bible humper, also from Macbeth "we've scorched the snake, not killed it. Now she'll close and be herself whilst our poor malice remains in danger of her former tooth."

What happened here is that the serpent, the good old serpent that must be killed by Michael and later raised at the crucifixion, was not killed but aggravated to be many times worse than she ever was before. Typical of Senecan tragedies.

You must have been reading protestant theology to think that there ever was any fanaticism in the Catholic Church. If anything the opposite is true.

We have the divine comedies and "incorruptables" while the protestants have the tragedies and "spontaneous combustions" at the foot of the cross. We have the saints and they have the witches. We have confessionals to prove our sinfulness and they have the self proclaimed "saved sinner" complex. We don't have to read scriptures or study the bible while they have to burn daily scriptures to stay afloat. Do you really think that Catholicism was ever different than it is now? It can't be, in fact it always was much freer, especially before the Reformation.

It appears to me that goodness before death is for cowards and never in the history of mankind have people been so afraid to die as they are today. People today make large investment towards their afterlife and so the stakes at the time of death are big.

The Church is very clever and understands human nature very well and does have communion with the saints in heaven which, according to them, is a state of mind and the end of religion while here upon earth.

I really don't want to become part of the argument but just write in defence of the philosophy behind Catholicism.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Cipher Girl

Amos, what happens when a Catholic priest is in a horrible accident? Say like with a speeding locomotive and loses his penis? Can he still be a priest? Or must he give it all up because he has no penis?

Amos

Of course they are because they invented the Church for the betterment of mankind.

Many will return to the Church and others will just be great outside of the Church. None will return to the flock where they would be under the conviction of religion and religious laws. They are Christians now, and it is impossible to be both Catholic and Christian or Jesus could have been Jew and Christian.

Catholicism and Judaism are much the same in this sense and it is therefore that Catholics were/are never called Christians and are not Christians as such but at best Christians-in-becoming. When they become Christians they must leave Catholicism behind as if it had been a vehicle needed to get from A to B.

The flock is only needed to make sinners known because it is the norm that must be violated for liberation to be found (Brighid even knows this). The concept sin is man made for the sole purpose of self realization and for the concept sin to be effective a stream of consciousness must be estabilished against which conflict must be found and to create this conflict the flock is needed.

Piety in children was one of Seneca's
favorite because it imprinted the brightness of Eden in the childs' mind and this is the starting point from where children venture into the jungle of life with its associated darkness and moments of despair (to create the feeling of being lost).

The sacrament of confession is a courage builder for sinners to continue and sin some more because if three hail Mary's can clear you conscience it was cheap and may well be worth another visit.

Every sacrament has such a secret side wherein the sacret power of the sacrament is found.

Catholics must lose their faith because only knowledge frees. Faith finds it opposite in doubt and since a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other the removal of faith is equal to the removal of doubt. Since doubt is the other side of faith it is faith that must create doubt, and to create doubt religion must be true (but not quite true so it will provoke doubt) and while seeking to understand this faith the believer must be able to find a close proximity of the truth he/she once was told. This is how mellow Catholics are led astray to the point of unconscious surrender (as opposed to "Damned be him who first cries "Hold enough," as did Macbeth), and subsequently die their first death like Roman fool instead of an iron fool, (as did Macbeth).

The Church is inspired and very clever.

Amos

Well Cipher Girl, I hope that I did not leave you with the impression that priests need penis power to be priest. I think your imagination allowed you to read too much into this and I really don't want you to become another rectory tramp (rectory was your idea wasn't it)?

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>