Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:53 AM Monday 8/9/04, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Steve Sloan wrote:
Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
contraception, then that
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 03:07 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:
It's rather a non-sequitur, but the notion that a man
'wasting seed'* is a sin, while a woman undergoing
'housecleaning' after non-fertilization of an egg is
merely considered 'unclean' and
On Aug 13, 2004, at 10:05 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 05:40 AM Friday 8/13/04, The Fool wrote:
Please explain how, under any system of morality, that is wrong in any
way?
Humor is indeed wasted on you, Fool . . .
It seems that The Fool is having a bad week.
Dave
At 01:53 PM Friday 8/13/04, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 13, 2004, at 10:05 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 05:40 AM Friday 8/13/04, The Fool wrote:
Please explain how, under any system of morality, that is wrong in any
way?
Humor is indeed wasted on you, Fool . . .
It seems that The Fool is having a
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological
difference between abortion and contraception.
I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms,
made of some
animal
At 03:07 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:
It's rather a non-sequitur, but the notion that a man
'wasting seed'* is a sin, while a woman undergoing
'housecleaning' after non-fertilization of an egg is
merely considered 'unclean' and unfit for company, as
in Muslim and other faiths,
Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
It's rather a non-sequitur, but the notion that a
man
'wasting seed'* is a sin, while a woman undergoing
'housecleaning' after non-fertilization of an egg
is
merely considered 'unclean' and unfit for company,
as
in
At 03:41 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
It's rather a non-sequitur, but the notion that a
man
'wasting seed'* is a sin, while a woman undergoing
'housecleaning' after non-fertilization of an egg
is
merely
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:07 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:
It's rather a non-sequitur, but the notion that a man
'wasting seed'* is a sin, while a woman undergoing
'housecleaning' after non-fertilization of an egg is
merely considered 'unclean' and unfit for company, as
Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
while nasty
cramping and fever and nausea makes one
'unclean'...
No. That's just the natural consequences for being
born as part of the
inferior sex. Or maybe punishment for the first of
your kind listening to
the
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:51 PM 8/9/2004 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote:
JDG wrote:
Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely
believe
that God does not want us to engage in contraception?
Well, yes - if there's no basis for it.
No scriptures, no tablets
JDG wrote:
... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
abortion and contraception.
I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
animal internal body parts. I don't know how effective they were. And
there
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JDG wrote:
... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
abortion and contraception.
I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
animal internal body
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:59 PM 8/8/04, The Fool wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
more
to the point when contraception started
At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
First prove the existence of a deity.
Not necessary to answer that question.
-- Ronn! :)
Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
First prove the existence of a deity.
Not necessary to answer that question.
If their is a deity, it is
At 09:44 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
First prove the existence of a deity.
Not necessary to answer
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:44 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
At 12:44 AM 8/11/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
abortion and contraception.
I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
animal internal body
The Fool wrote:
Whatever popists may believe--or say they believe--It is mathematically
impossible to prove the existence of Dog. Therefor any and all things
attributed to said deit(y|ies) is supposition. Because their no
mathematical way to prove the existence of said deit(y|ies) it is
The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Children are parasites. Some species eat their own 'children'.
and elsewhere:
... Love is merely an illusion created by
various feedback circuits and dopamine receptors in a human brain, the
primary purpose of which is to ensure the survival and
JDG wrote:
Come on, surely if God can regulate the eating of crustaceans and hoofed
animals, surely he can regulate contraception!
Not that I personally believe those parts of the bible were put there
under a genuine divine inspiration, they are at least in the bible.
My question, as it has been
JDG wrote:
I was seriously asking how priests got involved in contraception. You
have proven so knowledgeable about the Catholic religion, and been able
to explain much that seemed a mystery to me in the past - I figured
there was a good chance you knew the answer...
Basically, since the time
At 11:53 AM Monday 8/9/04, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Steve Sloan wrote:
Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
contraception, then that suggests a God with
At 04:51 PM 8/9/2004 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote:
JDG wrote:
Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely believe
that God does not want us to engage in contraception?
Well, yes - if there's no basis for it.
No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high.
Come on, surely
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or more
to the point when contraception started interfering with the power base
of the holy church.
Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I am asking the very specific question: Why it is
inconceivable that if it is the case that God exists, then He has told
Catholics that He does not approve of contraception? Please address
all responses to answering that question. And yes, I'm still serious,
and
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or more
to the point when contraception started interfering with the power base
of the holy church.
Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe -
Russell Chapman wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
more to the point when contraception started interfering with the
power base of the holy church.
Is it so inconceivable that maybe -
Russell Chapman wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I am asking the very specific question: Why it is inconceivable
that if it is the case that God exists, then He has told Catholics
that He does not approve of contraception? Please address all
responses to answering that question. And yes, I'm
From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russell Chapman wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
more to the point when contraception started interfering with the
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 05:20:12 -0500, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russell Chapman wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock
From: Julia Randolph [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 05:20:12 -0500, The Fool wrote:
From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russell Chapman wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to
Steve Sloan wrote:
Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
contraception, then that suggests a God with very little
understanding, compassion, or empathy for
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or more
to the point when contraception started interfering with the power base
of the holy church.
Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely
Russell Chapman wrote:
When did contraception become a topic for priests?
When did priests become a topic for Russell Chapman?
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 8 Aug 2004, at 6:24 pm, JDG wrote:
Russell Chapman wrote:
When did contraception become a topic for priests?
When did priests become a topic for Russell Chapman?
When did Russell Chapman become a topic for JDG?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
On 8 Aug 2004, at 6:23 pm, JDG wrote:
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
more
to the point when contraception started interfering with the power
base
of the holy church.
Is it so inconceivable that maybe
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Aug 2004, at 6:24 pm, JDG wrote:
Russell Chapman wrote:
When did contraception become a topic for priests?
When did priests become a topic for Russell Chapman?
When did Russell Chapman become a topic for JDG?
When did JDG become a topic for WTG?
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:33:25PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Aug 2004, at 6:24 pm, JDG wrote:
Russell Chapman wrote:
When did contraception become a topic for priests?
When did priests become a topic for Russell Chapman?
When did
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Every Single Sperm
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:33:25PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Aug 2004
Erik said:
Some time ago.
Fairly recently.
Quite recently.
Just now.
All too easy.
It might be more interesting to consider the questions with when
replaced with why.
Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
more
to the point when contraception started interfering with the power
base
of the holy church.
Is it so inconceivable that maybe
At 02:59 PM 8/8/04, The Fool wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
more
to the point when contraception started interfering with the power
base
of the holy church.
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:33:25PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Aug 2004, at 6:24 pm, JDG wrote:
Russell Chapman wrote:
When did contraception become a topic for priests?
When did priests become a topic for
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
(I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Catholic
position on contraception. I am asking the very specific
question: Why it is inconceivable that if it is the case
that God exists, then He has told Catholics that He
At 10:17 PM 8/8/04, Steve Sloan wrote:
If God opposes all contraception, [...] then we're all thoroughly screwed.
So to speak . . .
-- Ronn! :)
Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
iaamoac wrote:
There are two reasons for this:
1) The Catholic Church officially teaches that contraception is an
objective moral evil for reasons completely unrelated to abortion.
Is there any basis for this other than the Catholic church's historical
need in early times (and now, of
On 6 Aug 2004, at 4:02 am, iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't try and impose your
weird
ideas on me.
You mean like requiring Catholic pharmacists to participate in
actions they believe to be the moral
JDG said:
War is not an objective moral evil.
So God has rescinded Thou shalt not kill?
Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
So God has rescinded Thou shalt not kill?
IIRC isn't it Thou shalt not murder? I believe the
kill part was an artifact from the translation of the
King James version, which attempted to be more
literary than accurate...
War can be, in some ways, classified the same as
justified murder. We could
- Original Message -
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Every Single Sperm
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) The Catholic Church officially teaches
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Every Single Sperm
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:32:11 +0100
JDG said:
War is not an objective moral evil.
So God has rescinded Thou shalt not kill?
Naw. He
Damon said:
IIRC isn't it Thou shalt not murder? I believe the
kill part was an artifact from the translation of the
King James version, which attempted to be more
literary than accurate...
You may well be correct.
War can be, in some ways, classified the same as
justified murder.
I
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the key point is that in any war with current technology
there
will be some non-combatant casualties. (This might not
necessarily have
been the case in ancient times in some situations, for example,
conflicts between Hellenistic armies fighting formal
There battles might have taken place somewhere out
on a plain where
there weren't a whole lot of civilians but there was
still alot of
rape and pillage going on, wasn't there? Wasn't
that viewed as a
right of the conquering army? A lot of civilians
would die on the
losing side, maybe
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Amanda Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's something I would really like to understand, but I truly
don't:
How come people who would like to prevent abortion will not
support methods
that would prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore, non-
health/crisis
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't try and impose your
weird
ideas on me.
You mean like requiring Catholic pharmacists to participate in
actions they believe to be the moral equivalent of murder?
JDG - The 1st
- Original Message -
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Every Single Sperm
1) The Catholic Church officially teaches that contraception is an
objective moral evil for reasons completely
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Phone home? (was: Every Single Sperm)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL
60 matches
Mail list logo
