Why? It is simply because people are forever lost, possibly voluntarily, always looking for someone else to relinquish their souls to. Wherever there be a leader there will sure be a multitude of followers regardless of the truth value. Many a Dynasty and Empire had been forged from the lemmings of the world under the guidance of Rule. Look around and see that it hasn't changed.
On Mar 24, 8:26 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Ratsinger is obviously a comedian - only a clown could utter such > guff. Why are there still people in this world who will listen to > such verbal donkey droppings? > > On 24 Mar, 21:18, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Self restraint and discipline are key to a healthy lifestyle. I see > > the Church(or any religious entity) as a parent figure. A parent must > > be firm and consistent. I believe it would be more harmful if the > > Church backed down from it's stance on sex. It is better to ask > > forgiveness later then ask for permission now. The answer will and > > always will be; "No, you can't smoke." and "No, you can't sleep with > > your boy/girlfriend." Even though we as parents will break the rules > > we'd prefer our children didn't. Religion was created for those who > > need and/or desire parental guidance into adulthood. How many adults > > do you know that have never grown up? I was slow to accept > > responsibility. Some never do. It's a comfort to put one's self in > > the hands of a more powerful being. I actually sometimes resent the > > fact I can't believe. I think I might be happier. I certainly don't > > begrudge others their chosen path to security and happiness. Just so > > long as it doesn't interfere with mine. > > > dj > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:46 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "I never understood the restraint placed on physical pleasures, > > > especially religious condemnation of it...." - SD > > > > While I don't know for sure, it is my understanding that much of this > > > is based on a gross misunderstanding of ancient gnostic views of the > > > two main realms, physical and divine. Some one some where...and most > > > likely even more, decided that to reach the divine, one must reject > > > the physical....a clear misunderstanding. > > > > On Mar 24, 6:05 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I never understood the restraint placed on physical pleasures, > > >> especially religious condemnation of it. There are other concerns > > >> regarding good health, emotional and physical, that sexuality and the > > >> pleasure of it provides. Maybe the Pope should milk his prostate on a > > >> daily basis. The abstinence policy of catholicism has only succeeded > > >> in creating a pedophile factory. I don't see the connection of condom > > >> use and fidelity but more so see promiscuity amongst the non marital > > >> sector as the issue. > > >> We need to do something about AIDS and religion is not going to > > >> accomplish much at all. If anything the church is actually a failure > > >> without any accomplishment, thousands of years gone by and they are as > > >> weak as ever and losing out on abuse settlements. > > > >> On Mar 23, 2:07 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > On the face of it, Pope's command barring use of condoms for Aids > > >> > prevention is unacceptable. There are multiple reasons why, the > > >> > primary of which is the well - known effect : condoms are an > > >> > effective means to prevents Aids. > > > >> > But, I recently discovered Pope's reasons for his commandment : that, > > >> > the practice of condoms absolves individuals of their responsibility > > >> > towards their spouse, of Fidelity towards them. It's a moral most of > > >> > us live by, barring exceptional circumstances when we fail to uphold > > >> > the fidelity value. > > > >> > The Abstinence part, as I understand, is fundamental to Roman Catholic > > >> > precepts. It, perhaps, calls upon individuals not to indulge in sex > > >> > for the pleasure of it, but only if one desires to procreate. That is, > > >> > if procreation is not purpose, then one should abstain. > > > >> > I understand abstinence as a matter of practice laid down for > > >> > practitioners of Roman Catholic faith, for realisation of whatever it > > >> > is for which the Church was set up. People who disagree are free to > > >> > quit the faith. There is therefore little to be critical of the > > >> > practice, it being a part of the Roman Catholic path, unless one is > > >> > not free to quit the faith, in which case the forceful adherence would > > >> > be in contravention of Fundamental Rights guaranteed in all modern - > > >> > day democracies I know of. > > > >> > It is the Fidelity vs Condoms stance that we might find interesting > > >> > enough to discuss. The Pope would have us see cheaply available > > >> > Condoms as both an inducing cause for licentious ( read, > > >> > irresponsible ) behaviour and as a an easy crutch on which we can rest > > >> > and carry on with our infidelities ! > > > >> > I see merit both ways : that of the Church and of Condoms. Clearly, I > > >> > stand confused. Rescuuuue meee ... ! ! !- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
