Sodom And Gomorrah

[Chi Zhuzi]

So, in another thread, I apparently offended the sensibilities of some people by my use of a word derived the biblical town of Sodom.

No need for anyone to attack anyone in this thread, they can express their disagreement without acrimony.

I'm going to be a bit provocative by asking my question with sarcasm.

I don't know if this biblical story is fictional or historical, but even if it is fictional, given that the object of desire by the mob are two angelic creatures, and given that Lot attempts to do the "morally good thing" by throwing his daughters into gang rape, was this piece of literature the work of "a twisted mind" or inspired by God?

[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV"]My link[/url]


[quote]
[b]Genesis 19 (New International Version)[/b]

[b]Genesis 19[/b]

[b] Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed [/b]
[sup]1[/sup] The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. [sup]2[/sup] "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." [sup]3[/sup] But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. [sup]4[/sup] Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. [sup]5[/sup] They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

[sup]6[/sup] Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him [sup]7[/sup] and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. [sup]8[/sup] Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

[sup]9[/sup] "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

[/quote]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284886037' post='2174497']
So, in another thread, I apparently offended the sensibilities of some people by my use of a word derived the biblical town of Sodom.[/quote]
Let me set the record straight. Your use of the word "sodomize" did not offend anyone. It was your context, your perceived attitude, and your imagery that offended others.

[quote]No need for anyone to attack anyone in this thread, they can express their disagreement without acrimony.

I'm going to be a bit provocative by asking my question with sarcasm.

I don't know if this biblical story is fictional or historical, but even if it is fictional, given that the object of desire by the mob are two angelic creatures, and given that Lot attempts to do the "morally good thing" by throwing his daughters into gang rape, was this piece of literature the work of "a twisted mind" or inspired by God?

[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV"]My link[/url]
[/quote]

My question: Who claims that what Lot did was morally right?

~Sternhauser

Edited September 19, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Maggyie]

Sternhauser makes a good point. In the Old Testament we also have the example of David, who practiced polygamy. David is overall a very positive figure, but we know he was wrong to have polygamous marriages. Just because it is in the Bible, doesn't mean it is held up as a good thing.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284904605' post='2174528']
Let me set the record straight. Your use of the word "sodomize" did not offend anyone. It was your context, your perceived attitude, and your imagery that offended others.[/quote]

Fair enough, but since you want to "set the record straight," insofar as that carries the connotation of what we in the "hood" call, "Keeping it real," or "Keeping it 100," let me keep it 100 with you.

Would you say my example in that previous thread was describing real life occurrences? Insofar as we may know that kind of thing goes on in matrimony and outside of matrimony, would you say an adult acknowledging its existence - and prevalence mind you - is contingent on having a "twisted mind"?

I don't want to ask you which might be more twisted, the psychologist that is "descriptive" of what a Priest has done to a 10 year old boy, or the culture within Catholicism among clergy and laity that say no bad, see no bad, and no bad exists, and lets move and hide that Priest around while using cute little euphemisms. And yeah, the media treated the Church unfairly, and yes their are those that want to strip the Catholic Church of it's property, and this helped in that quest. But, homie, to keep [i]100[/i], the Church put itself in that position, and it wasn't due to Bishops or even laity, having an overabundance of pure hearts.

There is a purity in the bluntness one can find among the modern barbarians in the "hood" that those better educated, and that view themselves as little saints, will never know.

The irony is, and to keep this 100, that all those little Catholic boys would have been better protected among the barbarian, Protestant ex-convicts, then they were among the Catholic hierarchy of the Church.


[quote]
My question: Who claims that what Lot did was morally right?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

That's not the point. In my post in the other thread - that you found the context and description objectionable - I clearly stated my two married persons in my "sodomy" example were not acting "holy."

What sensitive eyes objected to was that I would actually acknowledge and write such things occur.

Yet this biblical piece of literature parallels mine, in fact it surpasses it in imagination.

Had I given an example of an unholy marriage were an angel of God enters the room of a married couple, and the man attempts to rape and sodomize the angel, and the wife objects, and exclaims, "Take your two step daughters and have your way with them!" Would you view that as writing coming from a "twisted mind" or writing "inspired by God"?

This is the point. And this is what we in the hood call "Keeping it real" or "Keeping it 100." Not "Keeping it 10%."

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284915051' post='2174585']
Fair enough, but since you want to "set the record straight," insofar as that carries the connotation of what we in the "hood" call, "Keeping it real," or "Keeping it 100," let me keep it 100 with you.

Would you say my example in that previous thread was describing real life occurrences? Insofar as we may know that kind of thing goes on in matrimony and outside of matrimony, would you say an adult acknowledging its existence - and prevalence mind you - is contingent on having a "twisted mind"?

I don't want to ask you which might be more twisted, the psychologist that is "descriptive" of what a Priest has done to a 10 year old boy, or the culture within Catholicism among clergy and laity that say no bad, see no bad, and no bad exists, and lets move and hide that Priest around while using cute little euphemisms. And yeah, the media treated the Church unfairly, and yes their are those that want to strip the Catholic Church of it's property, and this helped in that quest. But, homie, to keep [i]100[/i], the Church put itself in that position, and it wasn't due to Bishops or even laity, having an overabundance of pure hearts.

There is a purity in the bluntness one can find among the modern barbarians in the "hood" that those better educated, and that view themselves as little saints, will never know.

The irony is, and to keep this 100, that all those little Catholic boys would have been better protected among the barbarian, Protestant ex-convicts, then they were among the Catholic hierarchy of the Church.




That's not the point. In my post in the other thread - that you found the context and description objectionable - I clearly stated my two married persons in my "sodomy" example were not acting "holy."

What sensitive eyes objected to was that I would actually acknowledge and write such things occur.

Yet this biblical piece of literature parallels mine, in fact it surpasses it in imagination.

Had I given an example of an unholy marriage were an angel of God enters the room of a married couple, and the man attempts to rape and sodomize the angel, and the wife objects, and exclaims, "Take your two step daughters and have your way with them!" Would you view that as writing coming from a "twisted mind" or writing "inspired by God"?

This is the point. And this is what we in the hood call "Keeping it real" or "Keeping it 100." Not "Keeping it 10%."
[/quote]




Dear Chi,

you described a sex act with violent details. In another post, you gave details of Our Lady wearing immodest clothing.
The problem I have is with your expression. It is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others. It is inappropriate. I don't think I am alone in thinking so. In fact I think your post has been censored for "mature content." You are new, so you probably aren't familiar with the "culture" at phatmass. My advice would be to lay low at first and see how things operate around here.

But let me give you an example of why I found your expression upsetting:

I am having an orange. I am peeling it, starting from the top and working my way down.

Now, when you read those two sentences, what goes on in your mind? Do you have a mental image of an orange being peeled?

The same thing happened to me when you talked about the things you did. The images just "popped" into my brain. That is why it is offensive. I make an effort not to read or watch "trash" because I do not want that kind of thing in my head. Not ever. It is nauseating to me, and I am grateful that it is nauseating to me.

I did not mean to call you "twisted." The point was that my imagination would never allow me to concoct a hypothetical situation in the detail that you used. I have not read, or seen, or experienced anything that would lead me to come up with such a thing. Examples do not come from nowhere. I have peeled an orange, therefore I use peeling an orange as an example. I don't know what you have been subjected to that this violent imagery is in your head, so that you can use it as an example. But it is that violent imagery which I mean to call "twisted."

I also really have to object to your implication that I consider myself "a little saint"; that I think I am "some holy person" and that "God can only work through" me and not you. I have never, never said these things.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284904605' post='2174528']
Let me set the record straight. Your use of the word "sodomize" did not offend anyone. It was your context, your perceived attitude, and your imagery that offended others.



My question: Who claims that what Lot did was morally right?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Yep.

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284915051' post='2174585']
Fair enough, but since you want to "set the record straight," insofar as that carries the connotation of what we in the "hood" call, "Keeping it real," or "Keeping it 100," let me keep it 100 with you.

Would you say my example in that previous thread was describing real life occurrences? Insofar as we may know that kind of thing goes on in matrimony and outside of matrimony, would you say an adult acknowledging its existence - and prevalence mind you - is contingent on having a "twisted mind"?

I don't want to ask you which might be more twisted, the psychologist that is "descriptive" of what a Priest has done to a 10 year old boy, or the culture within Catholicism among clergy and laity that say no bad, see no bad, and no bad exists, and lets move and hide that Priest around while using cute little euphemisms. And yeah, the media treated the Church unfairly, and yes their are those that want to strip the Catholic Church of it's property, and this helped in that quest. But, homie, to keep [i]100[/i], the Church put itself in that position, and it wasn't due to Bishops or even laity, having an overabundance of pure hearts.

[/quote]

No, the Church did not put herself in that position. Human error put the Church in that position. I haven't run into ANY Catholics who deny that bad happened. I've run into plenty who are sick and tired of the rest of the world making our whole Church sound like a pack of vicious brutes because of the error of less than 2% of our priests--which, to be sure, in the scheme of things, is a very small number. Pedophilia is not a Catholic problem. It's a social problem, affecting all races, creeds, and jobs. People who set that aside simply to attack our Church are at the very least being intellectually dishonest.


[quote]

That's not the point. In my post in the other thread - that you found the context and description objectionable - I clearly stated my two married persons in my "sodomy" example were not acting "holy."

What sensitive eyes objected to was that I would actually acknowledge and write such things occur. [/quote]

Had you stated your thought in these terms in the other thread no one would have objected. It was not the reference to sodomy, but the description you gave.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284915051' post='2174585']
Fair enough, but since you want to "set the record straight," insofar as that carries the connotation of what we in the "hood" call, "Keeping it real," or "Keeping it 100," let me keep it 100 with you.

Would you say my example in that previous thread was describing real life occurrences? Insofar as we may know that kind of thing goes on in matrimony and outside of matrimony, would you say an adult acknowledging its existence - and prevalence mind you - is contingent on having a "twisted mind"?[/quote]
Chi, I've already responded to you about most of these points in the private message I sent, before I even read this message. Lillabett did a good job with her "orange" description, and a repudiation of your accusations that she thought she was a "saint." It's not the fact that things happen in "real life" that is the problem with your re-presentation of those things. We object because we don't come here for pornographic imagery, which is all over the internet for the finding. We come here for fellowship in the Catholic faith, and for mutual support in living that faith out.

When you hear a song on the radio, don't you ever find yourself humming it or singing it a few minutes after the song is done, and aren't you surprised that you had been singing it unconsciously? That is why we don't want to see such things. Because it becomes a part of you, and affects you, whether you know it or not. We don't want to read about such acts not because we deny the existence of such acts, but because we don't want to fill our lives with such garbage.


[quote]I don't want to ask you which might be more twisted, the psychologist that is "descriptive" of what a Priest has done to a 10 year old boy, or the culture within Catholicism among clergy and laity that say no bad, see no bad, and no bad exists, and lets move and hide that Priest around while using cute little euphemisms. And yeah, the media treated the Church unfairly, and yes their are those that want to strip the Catholic Church of it's property, and this helped in that quest. But, homie, to keep [i]100[/i], the Church put itself in that position, and it wasn't due to Bishops or even laity, having an overabundance of pure hearts.

The irony is, and to keep this 100, that all those little Catholic boys would have been better protected among the barbarian, Protestant ex-convicts, then they were among the Catholic hierarchy of the Church. [/quote]
The pedophile priests, and especially the Bishops who hid them, probably should have been strung up from a tree, if that is what would have been necessary to protect society from those wolves in sheeps' clothing. Is that what you want to hear? It is the truth. I won't deny that.

And hanging is precisely what happened to Judas, by his own hand. It's interesting to note that he hung himself with a halter. He would not brook the possibility of wearing Christ's gentle burden, but "repenting to himself," put his own halter on himself. As the "theme song of Hell" goes, he did it "his way."

Apparently, you were especially taken by surprise by the pedophile scandals. Why? You shouldn't have been. Jesus explicitly warned His disciples, and the world, about those who would scandalize the little ones. He told of the consequences of those scandals. He spoke of millstones, and necks, and drowning. Jesus warned of the hirelings, who didn't care for the sheep. He said, "it must needs be that scandals come, but woe to him by whom they come!" His own chosen disciple betrayed him. He didn't promise all the Bishops and Priests would be holy. Quite the opposite! He promised us strife, the Cross, suffering, betrayal. But he promised to reward those who remained strong until He came. So after all that Jesus said, after how he tried to warn us, [i]why [/i]are you so surprised? The Church is supposed to be the bastion of holiness in the world. The salt of the earth, which, if [i]it[/i] loses its savor, won't be able to give flavor to anything else. As Fulton Sheen said, "The fact that the world is a thousand times more scandalized when a Catholic does something evil is only a proof that the world expected so much more."


[quote]
There is a purity in the bluntness one can find among the modern barbarians in the "hood" that those better educated, and that view themselves as little saints, will never know.[/quote]
There is nothing pure about sodomy, and nothing pure about your unnecessary, graphic depiction of it. There is a time and a place and a reason for discussing those barbaric acts. But not to spice up a conversation. Not for pleasure. But only [i]when it is necessary.[/i] It's not necessary now, and this family board is not the place.

Don't project your own moral failings onto other people with your snide remarks. There are a lot of people here who do strive to stay pure in heart and mind, and by the grace of God, succeed. You can be one of them, if you want to. You say you're Catholic. In street terms, that means you roll with the Catholic crew, wear our colors, and represent. [i]That's[/i] keeping it 100. To say you're Catholic, then to not strive to live out your faith, and worse yet, to make snide remarks about your fellow crew members, is the epitome of "frontin'."


[quote]Yet this biblical piece of literature parallels mine, in fact it surpasses it in imagination.

Had I given an example of an unholy marriage were an angel of God enters the room of a married couple, and the man attempts to rape and sodomize the angel, and the wife objects, and exclaims, "Take your two step daughters and have your way with them!" Would you view that as writing coming from a "twisted mind" or writing "inspired by God"?

This is the point. And this is what we in the hood call "Keeping it real" or "Keeping it 100." Not "Keeping it 10%."
[/quote]
Why is the fact that people do evil things which are documented in the Bible so offensive to you? Either God inspired Scripture or he didn't. Choose one. Catholics, among whom you number yourself, believe that He did, and that there was a reason for every word in the Bible. You can't have it both ways.

Your treatment of immoral sexual practices did not edify, enlighten, or better anyone for having read it. I would not describe some of the Hungarian AVO's torture methods on this board, because there is a time, a place, and a legitimate purpose for doing so. Those events are written down in books. Those books have their purposes, as does the Biblical documentation of certain acts. When I read about what the AVO did, or what Lot did, or what the Sodomites did? It makes me justly angry. It fills me with a resolve never to perform such actions. It fills me with the resolve to stop anyone who does perform such actions. It gives me a platform from which I can launch moral arguments. Your use of such imagery did none of those things, any more than dropping the de-sacralizing f-bomb in a casual conversation edifies the one who says the f-bomb, edifies the listener, or benefits the children who may be around.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 19, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

I really have nothing to add to this thread, I beleive that Stern handled it well. The one thing that struck me though was the gang talk like the "hood" and "keeping it 100", this seems to me to be very appropriate in a thread titled Sodom and Gomorrah. Those towns had their own version of the "hood" with the pack mentality of wanting to molest two innocents. The term pack mentality comes from the example of animals, in my experience it describes cowardice and a bully mentality, the weak of mind and morals when grouped in a "pack" tend to get out of hand and become abusive and violent as together they have the power they could not summon on their own to over power and run rampant with whatever desire they adapt on the whim of the moment fueled by the power of numbers, this clearly classes such miscreants as a pack of animals.

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284915051' post='2174585']
I don't want to ask you which might be more twisted, the psychologist that is "descriptive" of what a Priest has done to a 10 year old boy, or the culture within Catholicism among clergy and laity that say no bad, see no bad, and no bad exists, and lets move and hide that Priest around while using cute little euphemisms. And yeah, the media treated the Church unfairly, and yes their are those that want to strip the Catholic Church of it's property, and this helped in that quest. But, homie, to keep [i]100[/i], the Church put itself in that position, and it wasn't due to Bishops or even laity, having an overabundance of pure hearts.
[/quote]
It's not a culture within the Church. It's typical of all human groups, especially the 20 or more years ago that most of the allegations are coming from. Today, the [i]government [/i]releases known predators and uses a magical tracking system to keep the public safe.

So saying it's some Catholic Church culture is idiotic the essence of cow.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1284918254' post='2174606']
No, the Church did not put herself in that position. Human error put the Church in that position. I haven't run into ANY Catholics who deny that bad happened. I've run into plenty who are sick and tired of the rest of the world making our whole Church sound like a pack of vicious brutes because of the error of less than 2% of our priests--which, to be sure, in the scheme of things, is a very small number. Pedophilia is not a Catholic problem. It's a social problem, affecting all races, creeds, and jobs. People who set that aside simply to attack our Church are at the very least being intellectually dishonest.[/quote]

I'm not a practicing Catholic. I do pray to two particular saints within the Church, and I continue to pray from time to time to Jesus and Mary. Before you find yourself convinced I'm the enemy of Jesus I'd offer the advice to pray to him first.

Once a upon a time a fork was enough to beaver dam a Catholic to hell eternally. Or so the best of Catholics thought. We had Galileo. And we have currently a a wide gap between "logic" and "science" from that of subjective view points of "pornographic language." From the stand point of American Calvinistic Catholic Americans... Italian Catholics excel in artistic pornography. The Conquistadors leave letters being wowed over the bare naked bodies of Tupi women.

Jesus said many things. One of which was to grab swords at the conclusion of his final meal, another gem was that those that will say "Lord, lord..." will find themselves beneath - presumably - people like me.

My real focus or desire is on Brazil. I'm overjoyed hearing the great news about Brazil's rise. Hopefully I can be a part of this emerging greatness, and tell my kids I was there to see those great days.

You misunderstand me. I'd ask you to go before Jesus. He understands me better. No Republican cares for a crackhead like me... yet I would fall on "my sword for the Church" and vote for Republicans over Dem's. Jesus and his mother knows me. You do not.

Statistics are a game. I played that game Osbert summer taking a statistics course. It is true - so far as I know - that 2% roughly, of Catholic clergy molested minors and children. What I find interesting is that you overlooked the other statistical reality. And the statistical reality being, how many victims a [u][b]single[/b][/u] Priest could compile by being moved from one parish to the next. I'll save you the time. [u][b]It is embarrassing.[/b][/u][b] [/b]When a lay Catholic lawyer, defending the Church, forewarned a Bishop, and I paraphrase, "Father... something has to be done, or one day a major lawsuit will be brought against the Church," And the Bishops response was, "I don't think anyone will ever sue the Catholic Church." I'd ask you to go before Jesus before you dam either him or I as in league with Satan to destroy the Church.

I've did minor, personal, reading up on the Catholic sexual abuse scandal, before I ever joined this website. Unlike the recent poll revealing Catholic Americans as some of the least knowledgeable people about their own religion and religion in general, I do know a fair amount. I know enough that Protestant do not cross me lightly. I'd go to Jesus before I'd join force to initiate Inquisition. After all... a sinner like me helped bring [u]two Catholic American women [/u]back to the Catholic Church. I know from the emails (many years ago) they sent me. Currently I have a young Brit who was anti-Catholic become less anti-Catholic toward the Church and the Virgin Mary.

Contrary to what you think, the Bishops of the Church harmed the image and reputation of the Church more than I or the Catholic lay lawyer did.

Do not view silence as the best way - always - to protect the Church.

[quote]
Had you stated your thought in these terms in the other thread no one would have objected. It was not the reference to sodomy, but the description you gave.
[/quote]

I let that be known pretty clearly.

Understand... I am not brilliant. What I know are some meager things related to natural science and logic.

From a literary standpoint, what I stated was not that far out, and not that "pornographic

I stated "hair pulling" and used a certain word. That hardly qualifies as the worlds greatest "very descriptive" literature.

I'm tired.................. I can't say much more at the moment.



Peace.


(I'm not here to troll... I'll move on before I get caught up into one of the United States .....)

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285607896' post='2176245']
It's not a culture within the Church. It's typical of all human groups, especially the 20 or more years ago that most of the allegations are coming from. Today, the [i]government [/i]releases known predators and uses a magical tracking system to keep the public safe.
[b]
So saying it's some Catholic Church culture is idiotic the essence of cow.[/b]
[/quote]

You know little.

Go before Jesus before you insinuate I cause the Church its problems with Priests breaking their vows with children.

Protestant have a higher rate of *authentic* pedophilia, best as the statistical methods can assume, however, a single Catholic Priest can literally victimize 100's of children, because [u]the institutional church[/u] kept moving a Priest from parish to parish. That's not keeping it "100" with lay Catholic parents.

I've helped (God brings) bring [u][b]2[/b][/u] fallen away Catholic women back to the Church. How many 100's of children become men left the Church because of the Bishops asinine and worldly, "I don't think anyone will ever sue the Catholic Church"?

As for Luther... what a member of the Reformation. He led more people to Protestantism than you or I have to Catholicism. I doubt you know the character of that man either. Supposedly he would bend over, pull up his robe, expose his bare butt, and tell Satan to jump up his............

In fact he was worse than that. He's regarded as one of the greatest spiritual leaders on earth. Most Latin Catholics would side with him against me.




But be sure! there is hope. My Mexican female friend I talk to on mic, over the internet, loves to tell me things like, "Baby! I no say nothing!" about person X and Y. LOL She's awesome! I love that girl as an online friend .

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1285216409' post='2175422']
I really have nothing to add to this thread, I beleive that Stern handled it well. [u][b]The one thing that struck me though was the gang talk like the "hood" and "keeping it 100", this seems to me to be very appropriate in a thread titled Sodom and Gomorrah.[/b][/u] Those towns had their own version of the "hood" with the pack mentality of wanting to molest two innocents. The term pack mentality comes from the example of animals, in my experience it describes cowardice and a bully mentality, the weak of mind and morals when grouped in a "pack" tend to get out of hand and become abusive and violent as together they have the power they could not summon on their own to over power and run rampant with whatever desire they adapt on the whim of the moment fueled by the power of numbers, this clearly classes such miscreants as a pack of animals.

ed
[/quote]

Ed... check the name and theme of this site, it is not without some influence from Hip Hop.

Unlike you, I'm from the "hood," the real hood. Not the pretend-to-be-hood. Nothing I said was "gang talk." What it was was was common speak in the "hood."

Sodom and Gomorrah can be summed up as this for a kids tale:


Once upon a time, a gang of men saw two male angles, the men decided to try and gang rape the two male angles, but a hero arrived. This hero offered his daughters up for gang rape to spare the two male angelic creatures!

Hence my point was that one ought be cautious about making subjective judgments, by insinuating (as was done in a different thread) that another person has a "twisted mind" simply because that person acknowledges realities and complexities of life.

Now! It's perfectly Okay! to say... "Hey... people don't fell comfortable with that kind of language and imagery" That's 100 and cool. I can dig that.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284922603' post='2174628']
Chi, I've already responded to you about most of these points in the private message I sent, before I even read this message. Lillabett did a good job with her "orange" description, and a repudiation of your accusations that she thought she was a "saint." It's not the fact that things happen in "real life" that is the problem with your re-presentation of those things. We object because we don't come here for pornographic imagery, which is all over the internet for the finding. We come here for fellowship in the Catholic faith, and for mutual support in living that faith out.

When you hear a song on the radio, don't you ever find yourself humming it or singing it a few minutes after the song is done, and aren't you surprised that you had been singing it unconsciously? That is why we don't want to see such things. Because it becomes a part of you, and affects you, whether you know it or not. [b]We don't want to read about such acts not because we deny the existence of such acts, but because we don't want to fill our lives with such garbage[/b].[/quote]

That "garbage" is the bible. Period. Story closed.


[quote]
The pedophile priests, and especially the Bishops who hid them, probably should have been strung up from a tree, if that is what would have been necessary to protect society from those wolves in sheeps' clothing. Is that what you want to hear? It is the truth. I won't deny that. [/quote]

No. You misunderstand me completely.


[quote]
And hanging is precisely what happened to Judas, by his own hand. It's interesting to note that he hung himself with a halter. He would not brook the possibility of wearing Christ's gentle burden, but "repenting to himself," put his own halter on himself. As the "theme song of Hell" goes, he did it "his way."

Apparently, you were especially taken by surprise by the pedophile scandals. Why? You shouldn't have been.[/quote]

Again, you misunderstand me. I'll let Jesus be my judge as I'm sure he knows me better.

It is an absolute disgrace to Priest and laity that Bishops would move Priests from one parish to the next to [u]live out, what you claim where my unholy words, physically and psychologically upon 1, 5, 100, or more children.[/u] A disgrace it was and is. Period.


[quote]
Jesus explicitly warned His disciples, and the world, about those who would scandalize the little ones. He told of the consequences of those scandals. He spoke of millstones, and necks, and drowning. Jesus warned of the hirelings, who didn't care for the sheep. He said, "it must needs be that scandals come, but woe to him by whom they come!" His own chosen disciple betrayed him. He didn't promise all the Bishops and Priests would be holy. Quite the opposite! He promised us strife, the Cross, suffering, betrayal. But he promised to reward those who remained strong until He came. So after all that Jesus said, after how he tried to warn us, [i]why [/i]are you so surprised? The Church is supposed to be the bastion of holiness in the world. The salt of the earth, which, if [i]it[/i] loses its savor, won't be able to give flavor to anything else. As Fulton Sheen said, "The fact that the world is a thousand times more scandalized when a Catholic does something evil is only a proof that the world expected so much more." [/quote]

*Ywan* Your words are empty.

[quote]
There is nothing pure about sodomy, and nothing pure about your unnecessary, graphic depiction of it. There is a time and a place and a reason for discussing those barbaric acts. But not to spice up a conversation. Not for pleasure. But only [i]when it is necessary.[/i] It's not necessary now, and this family board is not the place. [/quote]

You read literature a lot?

I'd love to see you critique my few words as epitomizing "graphic depiction." I sated pulled hair, and used a word rooted from biblical Sodom, that hardly qualifies as drawing a detailed picture with words. Where did I describe temperature, muscle tone etc?


[quote]
[b]Don't project your own moral failings onto other people with your snide remarks.[/b] There are a lot of people here who do strive to stay pure in heart and mind, and by the grace of God, succeed. You can be one of them, if you want to. You say you're Catholic. In street terms, that means you roll with the Catholic crew, wear our colors, and represent. [i]That's[/i] keeping it 100. To say you're Catholic, then to not strive to live out your faith, and worse yet, to make snide remarks about your fellow crew members, is the epitome of "frontin'."[/quote]

Sounds like an off-handed personal attack.

Not to mention what is regarded as "pornographic" is subjective. I actually wrote a 1 page paper on U.S. Constitutional Law about pornography, and number of years ago.

In fact I have a Catholic female Mexican friend who frequently refers to me as "Baby" and has no problem with the way I talk - at least not usually. What one or a few people are offended by does not mean every person on earth is, nor every Catholic.

And no, I do not regard you as a saint.


[quote]
[b]Why is the fact that people do evil things which are documented in the Bible so offensive to you? Either God inspired Scripture or he didn't. Choose one. Catholics, among whom you number yourself, believe that He did, and that there was a reason for every word in the Bible. You can't have it both ways. [/b]

Your treatment of immoral sexual practices did not edify, enlighten, or better anyone for having read it. I would not describe some of the Hungarian AVO's torture methods on this board, because there is a time, a place, and a legitimate purpose for doing so. Those events are written down in books. Those books have their purposes, as does the Biblical documentation of certain acts. When I read about what the AVO did, or what Lot did, or what the Sodomites did? It makes me justly angry. It fills me with a resolve never to perform such actions. It fills me with the resolve to stop anyone who does perform such actions. It gives me a platform from which I can launch moral arguments. Your use of such imagery did none of those things, any more than dropping the de-sacralizing f-bomb in a casual conversation edifies the one who says the f-bomb, edifies the listener, or benefits the children who may be around.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Strawman.

And I'm not a practicing Catholic. I was not an enemy of the Church either. You have failed to convert me.

Bye.

(My greatest concern is Brazil... a land, people, and women I love, which is marked to overtake the U.S. in 20 years or so, I'd prefer to be a part of those winners, even if Brazil eventually become mostly Evangelic Protestants. You can can have your internal Catholic bickering over things that don't amount to a cup of rice)

[Winchester]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1285833235' post='2176892']
You know little. [/quote]
Depends on the subject. For instance, I would defer to you in tracksuit lore.

[quote]Go before Jesus before you insinuate I cause the Church its problems with Priests breaking their vows with children.[/quote]
I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean.


[quote]a single Catholic Priest can literally victimize 100's of children, because [u]the institutional church[/u] kept moving a Priest from parish to parish. That's not keeping it "100" with lay Catholic parents. [/quote]
This is not unique to Catholicism. It's a common human reaction.


[quote]I've helped (God brings) bring [u][b]2[/b][/u] fallen away Catholic women back to the Church.[/quote]
That's wonderful. You're a saint among men.


[quote]As for Luther... what a member of the Reformation. He led more people to Protestantism than you or I have to Catholicism. I doubt you know the character of that man either. Supposedly he would bend over, pull up his robe, expose his bare butt, and tell Satan to jump up his............


In fact he was worse than that. He's regarded as one of the greatest spiritual leaders on earth. Most Latin Catholics would side with him against me.




But be sure! there is hope. My Mexican female friend I talk to on mic, over the internet, loves to tell me things like, "Baby! I no say nothing!" about person X and Y. LOL She's awesome! I love that girl as an online friend .
[/quote]
srsly
[img]http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/dr_phil-fake.jpg[/img]

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1285835639' post='2176895']
That "garbage" is the bible. Period. Story closed.




No. You misunderstand me completely.




Again, you misunderstand me. I'll let Jesus be my judge as I'm sure he knows me better.

It is an absolute disgrace to Priest and laity that Bishops would move Priests from one parish to the next to [u]live out, what you claim where my unholy words, physically and psychologically upon 1, 5, 100, or more children.[/u] A disgrace it was and is. Period.




*Ywan* Your words are empty.



You read literature a lot?

I'd love to see you critique my few words as epitomizing "graphic depiction." I sated pulled hair, and used a word rooted from biblical Sodom, that hardly qualifies as drawing a detailed picture with words. Where did I describe temperature, muscle tone etc?




Sounds like an off-handed personal attack.

Not to mention what is regarded as "pornographic" is subjective. I actually wrote a 1 page paper on U.S. Constitutional Law about pornography, and number of years ago.

In fact I have a Catholic female Mexican friend who frequently refers to me as "Baby" and has no problem with the way I talk - at least not usually. What one or a few people are offended by does not mean every person on earth is, nor every Catholic.

And no, I do not regard you as a saint.




Strawman.

And I'm not a practicing Catholic. I was not an enemy of the Church either. You have failed to convert me.

Bye.

(My greatest concern is Brazil... a land, people, and women I love, which is marked to overtake the U.S. in 20 years or so, I'd prefer to be a part of those winners, even if Brazil eventually become mostly Evangelic Protestants. You can can have your internal Catholic bickering over things that don't amount to a cup of rice)
[/quote]

'Chi Zhuzi' - I have no doubt that God can use you to evangelize in a certain type of environment, as witness your claims for making converts, and your friends who do not object to the way you express yourself. But perhaps you need to consider that not all venues may be suitable for your particular form of expression. You say that what you write is not pornographic because this is subjective, so maybe you should consider that at phatmass, the subjective opinion is that discussing such topics as sodomy in any detail are pornographic in nature. What might be acceptable 'on the streets' is just not acceptable in the family home. We are a phamily here and while we want to be welcoming and charitable, your posts border on offensive almost all of the time. Please take a look at whether or not you have wiped the dog poo off your shoes before you enter the house and keep it clean here. Thank you.