http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-22/catholic-church-writes-off-2017/92...
The Archbishop of Sydney put out a Christmas message calling 2017 an 'annus horribilis'. The Queen used those words in 1992 after one of her daft sons set fire to Windsor Castle. People rightly retorted that that a person in her privileged position didn't have a clue about bad years.
Now this idiot, one of Australia's most senior virgins, makes this statement:
"For people of faith you might say it has been an 'annus horribilis', as our Christian conceptions of life and love have been challenged in the marriage and euthanasia debates, freedom of religion in Australia put in doubt and shameful crimes and cover ups in our church uncovered by the royal commission."
"Freedom of religion" means the freedom to stop gay people getting married and having a life. In the euthanasia debate, these men in dresses claim some kind of ownership over the lives of terminally ill people who just want an end to their pain.
And then the real clincher--The royal commission about church child abuse was a great inconvenience for his criminal organization.
For every victim of priestly abusers, every year is a horrible year. I want the Catholic and other churches to carry on having horrible years until they disappear back up the anus horribilis from which they emanated.
Note: "Annus horribilis" is Latin for horrible year. "Anus horribilis" is an alternative title for the Pope.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Bastard....the nice thing to note that according to anecdotal and observed evidence the attendance at this criminal arseholes money laundering venues has halved since 2015 and slipping further,
Awwww...... Poor babies... They are having an "annus de anus horribilis." I would love to tell all those self-righteous church leaders to go fuck themselves, but they are all waaaaaay too old for their own tastes. (In other words, they all passed puberty several decades ago.)
May each passing year for them be mas horribilis than the year before.
What would be the consequences if there were sex tapes of the past three popes? Would the folk forgive them?
@Dio Re: Pope sex tapes
*grooooan...* Oh, dude! That is an image I never wanted in my head. Anybody got a rusty coat hanger I can borrow to rip my brain out of my skull? You can find me over in the corner curled up in the fetal position sobbing my eyes out.
Tin-man,
Based on historical records some of the popes were real scum so it's likely that still holds true in the modern era. And given that so many of the priests are corrupt it's logical that corruption has tainted all of the bishops, cardinals, and popes.
@Dio. Re: Corruption
Oh, I was not arguing that in the least bit. It was just that the image of three old and wrinkled popes involved in a three-way gave me the hee-bee-jeebies. *shudder* LOL
Sometimes with people like this, all you can do is wait for them to hurry up and die, as their will just never be any changing them. They believe what they want to believe and are just completely shut off to any possible alternative trains of thought.
Sometimes with people like this, all you can do is wait for them to hurry up and die, as their will just never be any changing them. They believe what they want to believe and are just completely shut off to any possible alternative trains of thought.
"..in 1992 after one of her daft sons set fire to Windsor Castle. People rightly retorted that that a person in her privileged position didn't have a clue about bad years."
What's the evidence that one of her sons started the fire? And even a rich person may express opinion.
"What's the evidence that one of her sons started the fire?"
There was a news story at the time that Andrew and Edward were in the chapel where the fire started playing around at sword-fighting or some such, and that they'd knocked a lamp over against a curtain.
The queen is entitled to her opinion. In this case, it was a bad and insensitive opinion. It cost her dearly, because it turned public opinion against her to the extent that the government refused to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle.
hia and merry Christmas I went to Christmas mass on Dec 25th at noon, the church was standing room only. You see once you get into people deciding to take there lives then what is next on the agenda? I guess by your post that you support euthanasia which is a legal form of killing. If all the states legislative incorporate this into the law where will we be. What will be next? You see you have to draw a line here. Murder is murder with an evil intent. just because a person is suffering some doesn`t mean they have to end there life. All kinds of people suffer and if everyone who was unhappy with this life wanted to end it we would have no one standing So I totally disagree with you here .as for the gay marriage thing I sympathize with the gays but I can`t condone there behavior.
@Agnostic believer: "euthanasia which is a legal form of killing."
No. It's form of assisted suicide. So what would you do for people in terrible constant pain with no hope of recovery? Pray for them?
"I sympathize with the gays but I can`t condone there behavior."
How should they behave, then? Perhaps a priest could advise you on that question.
@ agnostic believer
Well, over 61% of Australians supported same sex marriage, and between 66 and 80% support euthanasia- it depends on how the question is asked. Naturally that 61 and 66 - 80% includes a hell of a lot of theists- Christians, mostly. Australians aren't much fussed on the "thou shalt not" stamp of religion invading grown up people's bedrooms or standing over their deathbeds, thankfully. We're not much fussed on it, full stop. That's why Ken Hamm left.
You do realise quoting scripture from a Bronze Age bloke to a bunch of atheists is about as persuasive as telling us we should be against whatever because you are, don't you AB?
( why do theists think scripture is like multiplication tables and if they just say it often enough the class will take it in?)
" You see once you get into people deciding to take there lives then what is next on the agenda? "
>>*Their lives not there lives, and the question makes no sense I'm afraid,what 'agenda' are you referring to? Why should anyone be denied the right to die with dignity rather than forced to live out a life that consists of unbearable and incurable pain?
-----------------------------------------
"I guess by your post that you support euthanasia which is a legal form of killing. If all the states legislative incorporate this into the law where will we be. What will be next? "
>>I don't understand the question, as it is a repetition of what you implied in an earlier sentence, why should anything be 'next' because we enshrine laws that entitle people to die with dignity when they have incurable and unbearable pain? Currently Belgium have some of the most liberal laws to allow people to make end of life decisions, and they still need three separate doctors to concur with the patients choice to end their lives. Could you point out what has happened 'next' in Belgium as a result of these laws?
-----------------------------
" You see you have to draw a line here. Murder is murder with an evil intent."
>>Why must we 'draw a line here' just because it offends the sensibilities of the superstitious beliefs of others? wouldn't a more moral position be to legislate to protect the rights of the individual and to prevent suffering as much as is practical? Allowing someone the right to end their own life is not evil that's absurd, your use of the word evil is just hyperbolic rhetoric sorry. I'd certainly say that forcing someone to suffer unbearable and incurable pain against their wishes, just because it offends your subjective religious beliefs is evil, as it lacks compassion, and denies dignity to others.
----------------------------------
"just because a person is suffering some doesn`t mean they have to end there life.""
>>Who said it did? That's just a straw man argument you've created, as laws already exist in may countries allowing people to make end of life decisions, but it's not compulsory, again the very suggestion is absurd hyperbole.
-------------------------------
"All kinds of people suffer and if everyone who was unhappy with this life wanted to end it we would have no one standing So I totally disagree with you here "
>>You're disagreeing with a claim no one has made, again this is a straw man argument you've created. Again I'll use Belgium as an example, currently Belgium have some of the most liberal laws to allow people to make end of life decisions of any country, and they still need three separate doctors to concur. So could you point out how this would allow or encourage endemic suicides among depressed people? The type of laws we're talking about would not be applicable for depression, I'd have thought that was obvious.
---------------------------------
"as for the gay marriage thing I sympathize with the gays but I can`t condone there behavior."
>>**Their not there.....Behaviour? Sympathise? I'm pretty sure gay people don't need your sympathy and don't care whether you condone their 'behaviour', why would they? Especially since being gay is not what a person does, but is part of who they are. Of course gay people should be allowed to marry, why on earth should they be denied such rights?
".. I sympathize with the gays but I can`t condone [their] behavior."
What behaviour, specifically?
@AB/DC Re: "i sympathize with the gays but I can`t condone there behavior."
Wow... Really, dude? In my mind that seems about the same as saying, "I sympathize with all non-Caucasians, but I just can't condone the color of their skin." Ridiculous. In case you haven't figured it out yet (and you obviously haven't), gays are simply people just like anybody else. What they may do together in their bedroom is not the business of any church or government, and it is most certainly no business of yours. And if two people love each other and want to have a life together, they should have the same rights to marriage as anybody else, regardless of their respective genders. Grow up, dude.
But according to my bible it is wrong here. just read romans chapter 1 and following, The apostle Paul is very explicit on all types of fornication and immorality. When you look at the life expectancy among gay men especially it is drastically short Compared with non gay men. The disease they spread syphilis hepatitis aids this is just a few. So I lovingly disagree with you Tin man on this subject.
@Agnostic Believer: "syphilis hepatitis aids"
Those are diseases of promiscuity, not homosexuality. Have you got a source for your life expectancy claim? The statistics seem to show that married men live longer but not married women, so logically a marriage between two men would yield the biggest benefits in terms of longevity. Of course, stress caused by divorce or hatred from christian bigots probably negates these benefits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/marriage-is-more-beneficia...
usually the gay life style involves promiscuity I remember when I was in the navy stationed in San Francisco I remember the outbreak of hepatitis syphilis and especially Aids in the mission district which was primarily a homo sexual neighborhood so please don`t try to say I don`t know what my sources are. I`m from new York city originally I remember places like the gay east village that were overcome with these diseases. Almost all the recipients were homosexual. As for gay couples that is a complete fabrication you cite in saying that there is longer life among gay spouses then a control group A lot of relationships among gays end in tragedy or. violence.
Agnostic Believer: "usually the gay life style involves promiscuity"
Right. All those gay people should have settled down and gotten married. I wonder what stopped them?
"A lot of relationships among gays end in tragedy or. violence."
Of course, that never happens among heterosexual couples, does it?
usually the gay life style involves promiscuity @Agnostic Believer.
What you call the "gay life style", I would call it "same-sex love" instead.
Promiscuity doesn't equate to homosexuality, but anyways let me give you a fun fact: Male homosexuals are more promiscuous than the average heterosexual couple, you're right, but female homosexuals are far less promiscuous and far more faithful when in a couple than those of female+male... So maybe, just maybe, could it be that men, in general, tend to be more promiscuous and unfaithful probably because men are not affected by the social stigma about sex that we women do, and also because of your testoterone -that some seem unable to control? It seems to me it has nothing to do with love and lust someone who's the same gender. Btw, most of the gay people I know around my age are in long-term relationships.
It's a shame you call yourself an atheist in your profile, when clearly you are not. Your words sound like those of the RCC leaders in my country, btw. Pure and simple bigotry.
@Flame Re: "Gay lifestyle"
Preach it, Sister! YES!
well I am no bigot i1m just stating what I see around me on both coasts. California and new York. I am not a atheist I am agnostic, There is a world of difference here. No matter how you try to window dress the gay life style it is still not the normal behavior in society .so by you cleverly calling it same-sex love I call it by its original name homosexuality .i`m glad you called out and said the truth about gay men.
So, on christmas day you are committed catholic atending mass and eating the flesh and blood of your christ figure, yesterday Jesus was the leader of an obscure cult, today you are agnostic, yesterday you were tolerant today you are a complete arsehole. Fucking trolls make me spew.
@AB:
I can't see any single difference between my current long-term relationship (hetero) or my other hetero friends' with that of my gay friends who are in a relationship in terms of respect, love, trust, and fidelity. The only difference for me would be that some sex positions probably vary a little, but that's not my concern, who cares?, although it seems to be yours (and in general, an obsession in Christian agendas).
cleverly calling it same-sex love I call it by its original name homosexuality.
Why call it "making love" when we can call it "fornication"?
Why call you "agnostic believer" when we can call you just "believer"?
P.S. And a narrow-minded, and yes, a bigot.
Before you cast stones look at yourself. And see what kind of a person you are!!!!. Your new on this website Before you call me a bigot why don`t you get to read my threads And then give an opinion .
You don't believe anything you write. If anyone looks at your previous posts they will see you are a TROLL. A pathetic loser troll.
You may be a bigot as well, an idiot and someone thinking they are clever by TROLLING. But you are not, you are just fucking pathetic.
Ok, @AB, I don't know how you think about other issues, and you have 617 comments... Call me judgemental, but we only get one life, man, too much time to spend on a person whose comments I don't enjoy so far... But why don't you recommend me your top three threads? I promise you'll get an honest opinion. I may be new to this forum (5 months tops), but I've already written 500 posts as Angie and including this, 123 as Flamenca, so at this very moment, I beat you by 6, hehe.
Your comment about gay people has not been fortunate, for saying the least, and you should read @Freeatlast's opinion about your remarks. He's clearly the person to tell you... and, oh boy, he does.
"Before you cast stones look at yourself. And see what kind of a person you are!!!!. Your new on this website Before you call me a bigot why don`t you get to read my threads And then give an opinion ."
That's not the correct use of your. Here let me show you in a sentence.
***Your remarks show quite clearly that you're a bigoted homophobe.
Bigoted
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
Homophobia
NOUN
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
It's hard to argue with the OED's definitions as you clearly have posted repeatedly showing unreasonable beliefs about gay people, and quite clearly are prejudiced against and dislike them. Gay men especially, which always makes me very suspicious of the motives that drive such prejudice.
Pages