[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I dunno, BC. The Catholics may have the numbers and the history, but the Westboro Baptists could give you a run for your money in the enthusiasm department. [/quote]
LOLZ…the Westcrazy’s only have about 40 members, I would say slight advantage to the Catholics.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I dunno, BC. The Catholics may have the numbers and the history, but the Westboro Baptists could give you a run for your money in the enthusiasm department. [/quote]
LOLZ…the Westcrazy’s only have about 40 members, I would say slight advantage to the Catholics.[/quote]
Well the Westcrazy’s are 100% enthused about their anti-gay teaching 100% of the time. Catholics are enthused 100% maybe 1-2 Sundays a year? You know which two.
I am not backing the Westcrazy’s by any stretch of the imagination.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
While all the bible thumpers bemoan what they see as a “gay agenda”, and lie awake at night trembling over what they surely believe will be a super gay apocalypse.[/quote]
We do not loose any sleep about anything other than our Atheist friends who are not going to heaven. We pray for your souls everyday.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This etymology seemed especially appropriate for this thread, especially considering the picture I posted, and the tread this was created to counteract.
faggot
late 13c., “bundle of twigs bound up,” from Old French fagot “bundle of sticks” (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis “bundle of wood” (see fasces).
Especially used for burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to indicate “punishment of a heretic.” Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.
The oft-reprinted assertion that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. [/quote]
I love words and their origins , Thanks 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This etymology seemed especially appropriate for this thread, especially considering the picture I posted, and the tread this was created to counteract.
faggot
late 13c., “bundle of twigs bound up,” from Old French fagot “bundle of sticks” (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis “bundle of wood” (see fasces).
Especially used for burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to indicate “punishment of a heretic.” Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.
The oft-reprinted assertion that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. [/quote]
I love words and their origins , Thanks :)[/quote]
Brits still call a cigarette a fag. “Can I bum a fag.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This etymology seemed especially appropriate for this thread, especially considering the picture I posted, and the tread this was created to counteract.
faggot
late 13c., “bundle of twigs bound up,” from Old French fagot “bundle of sticks” (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis “bundle of wood” (see fasces).
Especially used for burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to indicate “punishment of a heretic.” Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.
The oft-reprinted assertion that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. [/quote]
Reminds me of this:
Yes, Bauber, more than 1 is indeed crazy. Especially since its been stated (maybe proven?) that women tend to get on “cycle” at the same time when in close proximity. I could not imagine the warzone that would exist with multiple wives all hormonally charged, and you/me in the middle to mediate. Grab a flak jacket, helmet, and build a bunker in your spare room/office. The unfortunate likelihood is they’ll turn on you as an Amazonian force as opposed to attacking each other!
In all seriousness, I didn’t know they changed that rule and it was only a small sect - its always interesting to see the smaller, more radical groups making the news to represent the majority (just like the West Baptist folks).
And the first time I went to London and heard someone ask for a fag, I was so taken aback my jaw was on the floor. Silly American. I wonder if people would get mad at the “proper” use of that word.
And I repeat, anti-gay is a lot more than Christian, and I was personally told in Catholic school, “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Other forms of Christianity have varied approaches/perspectives, but none particularly dislike or hate gay people, and some even accept it. However, calling someone a Christian, and someone being a Christian is akin to people claiming to be a “bodybuilder” yet not competing or doing anything that represents being a “bodybuilder” except working out and trying to look good. Right now being Christian is what the bulk of the population was told to be, so that’s what they “are”. It doesn’t mean in reality they are true, practicing, Christians.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Yes, Bauber, more than 1 is indeed crazy. [/quote]
I swear to jeebus…people don’t even read the responses in the thread…lol.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Yes, Bauber, more than 1 is indeed crazy. [/quote]
I swear to jeebus…people don’t even read the responses in the thread…lol.
[/quote]
Actually, I don’t think Bauber was commenting on the old practice of polygyny among the LDS church. I think he was making two discrete statements:
and
And I also read your post, if you were referring to me. That’s why I stated in my thread that its funny only the minority/more radical versions of faith seem to make the news.
And I think Bauber was just playing off my original post.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Liberal Christians were also primarily the ones who politically pushed for what Martin Luther King wanted…[/quote]
This is blatantly false. Liberal Christians were not the primary ones, liberals were the ones going against MLK. They were/are the KKK, they were/are the segregationists, they were the advocates for Jim Crow, they were the defenders of slavery, liberals were the reason it took dozens of attempts by conservative Christians (GOP) to pass a Civil Rights Act.
Liberals are the ones who stood in front of school buildings doors (actually it was the Governor himself) in Arkansas keeping black children from entering after de-segregation and required military action.
Liberals were the ones who always have and still held true blue segregationists, white supremacists, and Klansman in their ranks up until only a few election cycles (actually I have a suspicion there is a local Democrat here in Missouri that is a Klansman (though he obviously is not open as they were 15-20 years ago.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Not all Democrats are Klansman, but all Klansman are Democrats.
Now that I demolished that nonsense.
MLK was a Republican and a “Conservative” Christian.
P.S. I hate that term, Conservative Christian. You can only be Christian, either you’re a heretic or you’re an orthodox Christian. Believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught or you don’t. You don’t get to make up your own morality. But, I don’t believe you’ll find MLK backing you up on gay-rights = black rights.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I dunno, BC. The Catholics may have the numbers and the history, but the Westboro Baptists could give you a run for your money in the enthusiasm department. [/quote]
Pardon me, I’m on a heavy dose pain killers, my ardor is down.
I however don’t believer ardor merits truthiness or benefit to civilization at large. Plus, have you seen how crazy Catholics are in Brazil right now? Even WBC thinks we’re nuts about our religion.[/quote]
You misunderstand me. I wasn’t referring to religious ardor in a general sense, but rather to the very specific and targeted enthusiasm that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church has for their anti-gay agenda. You know, the folks with the colorful “GOD HATES FAGS” signs. The Catholics haven’t had anything quite so overt in a good long time. Best look into it. [/quote]
I wouldn’t want to compete with WBC over that kind of ardor. That’s called hating the sinner, and I’ll protest that all day even coked up on baby aspirin.
Brother Malcolm had some pretty strong opinions about the Democratic Party and its relationship with the Black Community.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t want to compete with WBC over that kind of ardor. That’s called hating the sinner, and I’ll protest that all day even coked up on baby aspirin.[/quote]
And I’ll be protesting right beside you, brother.
[quote]theBeth wrote:
I think maybe Catholicism realizes their papal history of sexual deviancy and corruption precedes any efforts they could make to campaign against that sort of thing. Westboro is just another Jim Jone’s special in the making. Every group is certain they are right and everyone else is wrong. “Those who speak, don’t know. Those who know, don’t speak” - lao tzu[/quote]
I could care less about if every Pope after Peter was a sexual deviant. The fact is that gay marriage is not a thing, the Church teaches that, Bishop preach it.
Catholics are not anti-gay. We’re very pro-gay (but because of equivocation people don’t define and make distinction over their terms let me explain fast).
Catholics love the sinner, hate the sin. I abhor all sexual immorality (even when I do it), this includes homosexual acts.
However, as a Catholic the reason I love those persons who struggle with Same Sex Attractions (I prefer that term to Homosexuals)) is because the Church makes a distinction between persons, inclinations, and actions.
We always declare the basic dignity of the person…meaning we love our neighbor, all of them! Of course with certain proximity comes certain loyalty I love my father above my actual next door neighbor, I love my country man more than I love a foreign neighbor, &c. That being said persons can never inherently “wrong”. They are actually inherently “good” but they are also part of a fallen race (which affects inclinations and actions, but not the inherent dignity of the person) and they are also redeemed with the possibility of being saved.
Inclinations can be ordered or disordered to their proper end. The Church teaches that those with same sex attractions have a “disordered” inclination. Because of the importance of this inclination, it is a gravely disordered inclination. Now, because we are a fallen race all of us at times can misuse our inclinations, this is called “action” different from inclination. You want to eat, that is an ordered inclination (basically the inclination is ordered to the good, in the case of hunger it is ordered to your nutrition). If you want to eat, but you want to eat dirt, that is a disordered inclination (your inclination is not properly directed to its end, dirt is not nutrition). However, you have the free will to eat a steak instead of dirt. So, inclinations are not “wrong” or “right” per se, but ordered or disordered.
“Action” can and is “wrong” or “right”. If you’re hungry, the proper thing to do is eat a healthy meal. That is “right.” Going to the playground and eating dirt is “wrong.” There are two parts of action “means” and “end” both have to be right and just. The Church teaches that there are two ends when it comes to the sphere of the marital embrace. For easy to understand terms we will call these ends “babies” and “bonding”. Their proper terms, respectively, are “creative” and “unitive acts” and their ends are in and of themselves, their means happen to be the same thing…sexual intercourse.
These are acts of “grave matter” meaning they deal directly with the fabric of society. They deal with the integrity of the family unit, the smallest unit of society. If this unit is not healthy, society will fail. Period.
So, looking back, the reason why Catholics don’t look like WBC, is because WBC are heretics and the Church has never taught to hate persons with SSA. We have taught that their inclinations are disordered and if they act on their same sex attractions that their actions are morally evil. Just like we would someone who committed adultery or slept with someone out of wedlock. However, sodomy (that which not only goes against the bonding act but the baby act) is a very grave action.
WBC does not make the tri-fold distinction between persons, inclinations, or actions. So, if you see someone who is Catholic that is being disrespectful of persons with SSA, they are actively in the wrong as they are going against the teaching of their mother Church.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I wouldn’t want to compete with WBC over that kind of ardor. That’s called hating the sinner, and I’ll protest that all day even coked up on baby aspirin.[/quote]
And I’ll be protesting right beside you, brother. [/quote]
I had Mrs. Phelps in my face before. I was down in Tucson for the Chief Judge John Roll funeral as part of a body wall put on by the State Knights of Columbus, we had to keep those loons away from his Mass. I went for a smoke break before heading from the Mass to the burial and went to go check on some of my buddies on the other side of the parish (I was in front of the main doors) and they were right there with their signs. I went over there to ask them to back up (they were closer than their permit allowed) and she started in on me. Said, something about cigarettes giving me cancer or some nonsense and going to Hell for being Catholic. Lovely people.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Brother Malcolm had some pretty strong opinions about the Democratic Party and its relationship with the Black Community.
- YouTube [/quote]
I have a feeling that Malcolm X and Ann Coulter would be on speaking terms. That speech sounds like her book “Mugged.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[I had Mrs. Phelps in my face before. I was down in Tucson for the Chief Judge John Roll funeral as part of a body wall put on by the State Knights of Columbus, we had to keep those loons away from his Mass. I went for a smoke break before heading from the Mass to the burial and went to go check on some of my buddies on the other side of the parish (I was in front of the main doors) and they were right there with their signs. I went over there to ask them to back up (they were closer than their permit allowed) and she started in on me. Said, something about cigarettes giving me cancer or some nonsense and going to Hell for being Catholic. Lovely people.[/quote]
I’ll bet she tried to give you a Chick Tract, didn’t she?
You know that the Catholic Church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and Islam were all invented by Satan, right?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
P.S. I hate that term, Conservative Christian. You can only be Christian, either you’re a heretic or you’re an orthodox Christian. Believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught or you don’t. You don’t get to make up your own morality. But, I don’t believe you’ll find MLK backing you up on gay-rights = black rights.
[/quote]
Could you kindly define Orthodox Christian further, or do you just mean believing in the teachings or not, as you follow-up with in the next sentence. I assume you don’t mean a denomination known as “Orthodox Christian” and the other denominations are heretics, but I could be wrong.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Why is this called the Christian agenda when it should be called the “conservative” agenda? I doubt Jewish folks, Muslim folks, etc. support the “Gay Agenda?”
Why target just one… or call it the “Religious Agenda?”[/quote]
For fun
You’ve got to realize the target audience
You could possibly hear about “the Jewish Agenda” or “Muslim Agenda” or more likely “Liberal Agenda” round these here parts without nothing skipping a beat - it’s somewhat natural for humans to irrationally target a smaller group when they can
So there is a sick sort of comedy to it when he does it to the majority and lo and behold, rationality emerges
That’s my opinion on it anyways
If you notice the OP tries to make conservative Christians sound “unAmerican” or “Anti American”… even “dangerous to America”. I think it was a pretty neat trick