FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-14-2002, 11:56 AM   #91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 737
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>I see the history of the Catholic Church as one of power, wealth and beauty.</strong>
Kinda like Dynasty, but with more backstabbling.
daemon is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 12:05 PM   #92
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The priests, while in capacity as a priest, never represents Jesus because Jesus was a sinner. The capactity to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ indicated that the priest represents Christ on earth.

Notice how Jesus and Christ are just opposite and it is not until after ascention that Christ becomes Christ Jesus and later Jesus Christ.
 
Old 08-14-2002, 12:09 PM   #93
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NW Florida, USA
Posts: 1,279
Post

Nevermind

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>
ManM is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 12:15 PM   #94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 737
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ManM:
<strong>daemon,
You are right. The Church accepts sin, but does not endorse it. Just like a hospital accepts the sick, but does not endorse sickness...</strong>
The two aren't remotely analogous. People become sick through no fault of their own. People don't accidentally molest children.

The acceptance by the Church of the abuse of children is just as vile as if they endorsed it. Oh well--priests will be priests, I guess... ?
Quote:
It's just that people have been writing as though the Church endorses child molestation by accepting it. I was keying off of that equivocation.
Considering I hadn't seen anyone claim the Church endorses the molestation of children until you brought it up, it appears you are the one confusing the issue.
daemon is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 12:16 PM   #95
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by daemon:
<strong>I only hope that the thrashing of the RCC's corpse and the ensuing schisms do no harm to the rest of the world. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see an American Catholic Church--composed of most of the dioceses in the US--within the next 20 years.

The women have my sympathy, but also my thanks for allowing the Church a wonderful opportunity to shoot itself in the foot.</strong>
That won't change anything and is the problem already to the extent that it is typically American Catholic. The ability of the RCC to be regional caused the Church to be a possible hide-out for future pedophiles. After this is all over the loophole will be plugged and sexual deviants will probably appear elsewhere in American society.
 
Old 08-14-2002, 12:17 PM   #96
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 1,924
Post

OOH, Amos gave me an idea for an experiment to determine if women can or can't become priests:

Ordain a man as a priest after appropriate training. Have him perform mass. Take a communion sample. Measure it for "degree of Jesification" (DOJ), on a decimal basis. Now, it is very unlikely the DOJ will reach 1.0 on the first try, but there will be some DOJ (perhaps 0.00, but that is a measure).

Ordain a woman as a priest after appropriate training. Have her perform mass. Take a communion sample. Measure it for DOJ. Compare to the male subject's results.

Now, ideally, there should be a large sample of both men and women priests, and the communion samples should be submitted in a blind manner for DOJ measurement. This would allow comparison between groups fairly well, as well as giving a standard deviation so there is evidence if the distributions between men and women overlap.

Now, if only I could figure out some way to implement this test....

Simian
simian is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 12:18 PM   #97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 737
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>The priests, while in capacity as a priest, never represents Jesus because Jesus was a sinner. The capactity to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ indicated that the priest represents Christ on earth.

Notice how Jesus and Christ are just opposite and it is not until after ascention that Christ becomes Christ Jesus and later Jesus Christ.</strong>
Amos... I can't even begin to understand you, but you're one of the most amiably insane heretics I've ever seen, and I must admit a twisted admiration for that.
daemon is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 12:22 PM   #98
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by daemon:
<strong>Kinda like Dynasty, but with more backstabbling. </strong>
Mega-dynasty and more corruption. I think backstabbing is the wrong word because they can just tell you to fuck off and go to hell.
 
Old 08-14-2002, 12:26 PM   #99
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by simian:
<strong>OOH, Amos gave me an idea for an experiment to determine if women can or can't become priests:

</strong>
Won't work simian because the tranformation takes place in the mind of the worthy believer and obviously you are not one of them.
 
Old 08-14-2002, 12:33 PM   #100
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast?
Posts: 10,762
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>A woman will never be a priest becuase the Pope does not have the authority to make this decision.
</strong>
Why not? Men made the rule. Why can't other men change it?
Godless Dave is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.