Quote:

HER court application might have been doomed to fail, but nobody could fault the enterprising spirit of one internet bride. Except possibly her estranged husband. The Kazakhstani woman applied for a property settlement in the Federal Magistrates Court that would award her 65 per cent of their joint marital assets. He said she should get nothing. They met online in 2005, and their romance culminated in her coming to Australia with her nine-year-old child and getting married in 2006. The wife's oldest child, a former medical student, followed three years later, but he witnessed little marital bliss under the couple's roof. Advertisement Shortly after he arrived, the three were successful in obtaining permanent residency, sponsored by the husband, and a few weeks later the relationship ended. The husband and wife agreed that he contributed $40,000 towards the cost of her visa application and transport to Australia, and he financially supported her children in Australia, though they disagreed over the extent of her contributions as homemaker. She estimated the pool of assets at $91,833. Federal Magistrate Michael Baumann, whose judgment on the case was published on Wednesday, said he could not discount the possibility that when the couple first met, and after she moved to Australia, ''the husband's financial position might have been portrayed by him as stronger than he now claims it is''. By the time he heard the case, the wife's pro bono lawyer had reduced her claim on the estate to 35 per cent, which was calculated about $30,000. But although Mr Baumann praised the efforts of the wife's lawyer - ''who I must say could have said nothing more than she has in this application in support of the wife'' - he dismissed the wife's application, saying it had no reasonable prospect of success. Even if the husband's business was worth something, the wife's claim was well under 35 per cent, and she had already benefited from her relationship with the husband, he said. But he stressed that his order was not made on the basis that the wife and her sons were lucky to be living in Australia at all. ''I am sure [they] will make their contributions as residents in their chosen home,'' he said.

http://www.watoday.com.au/nsw/internet-wifes-claims-for-30000-are-dismissed-20130220-2ernf.html

two words

pre    nup   

either that or just don't get married at all

There should be a law against misandrist gold digging

gold digging is the worlds oldest profession. 

...I thought that was prostitution............ok same difference I suppose  ;)

Swagman wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 10:04am:

There should be a law against misandrist gold digging

I guess there is no law against lying.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 8:23am:

either that or just don't get married at all

This is the correct answer.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 11:31am:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 8:23am: either that or just don't get married at all This is the correct answer.

...except that it can happen when ya ain't married too  :(

F.cked over by a mail order bride. How unusual.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 12:47pm:

F.cked over by a mail order bride. How unusual.

....female order actually  :)

dont get married, dont have kids, the courts will screw you.

....and the tax man

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 12:47pm:

F.cked over by a mail order bride. How unusual.

uhh yes..  doesn't it go both ways tho...  :-?

Women  ...beware..!!


DON'T GET MARRIED..

:) :) :)

well.. that's MY best advice anyway.. :)

I am agree that gold digging is really old profession to have.But there is some sort of athics are there to make it done.And every country has its own rules and regulations to make it possible to dig up the gold.

God condemns infidelity and judges male violence against women...REPENT.... 8-)

I thought this was going to be a thread telling us to beware of men....

one funny post there Frances...
;D

Frances wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

I thought this was going to be a thread telling us to beware of men....

hahahha

Quote:

A HIGH-FLYING businessman has lost his property fight with his ex-wife who will get the kids, the house, and the diamond jewellery despite siphoning more than $200,000 from their joint account to pay her debts. One payment of $100,000 went to her father who had agreed to pay for the couple's wedding eight years earlier on the condition she give the money back if her husband ever "walked out". The bizarre litigation came to a head in the Family Court, which handed the former wife 53 per cent of the property pool, including an $11,500 "prestige watch" bought for her by her ex-husband. She also received $1.7 million property, a $10,000 diamond bracelet and a $37,000 prestige car. Justice Stuart Fowler ruled in her favour after hearing she raised the children, including one child with a severe illness, while her husband was on regular overseas business trips. Disputes had erupted several times before the 2011 split with the husband spending long periods overseas. One clash occurred after the husband shifted a large sum of cash out of an overseas bank to avoid the global financial crisis. With his business on the brink of collapse, he returned to Australia, but found himself locked out of their property. "(The) wife discovered the . . . property was not registered in joint names and lodged a caveat . . . there was an incident at the property involving the husband taking the keys and allegedly being assaulted," Justice Fowler said. He said the wife withdrew almost $240,000 from the mortgage redraw facility and bought a $37,000 motor vehicle, paid $30,000 in legal expenses and "allegedly paid her father $150,000". The husband tried to withdraw $500 from an ATM and discovered there was insufficient funds. "The division of assets would see the wife receive $1,234,370 worth of the net assets and the husband receive $1,094,630 . . . I determine that result to be just and equitable," Justice Fowler wrote in his judgement on the case.

pre-nup is the answer

Does this mean I should abandon my courtship with a half Japanese/half Hawaiian lady that has been around for ages and features as a character in one of my books?  Damn.. gold diggers all around....and I thought she loved me for my mind.....

(Footnote:  The first episode in that book was titled 'Case of the Golden Digger'.....hmmm.. prescience?).

"As I walked into Luigi's - not the Chicago speakeasy run by Armand, the Honolulu franchise run by his cousin Francois - I just knew there was gonna be trouble.... there was my old friend Jimmy.. yeah, Jimmy Kincaid of Chicago's finest.. and all decked out in an Army uniform as if he owned the joint... even though I was the silent partner here same as the rest...

You can just never get rid of the smell of a rat.....and this rat had some brass on his collars that didn't bode well for old Pete here....but then - what ever did?"


;D ::)

Having read the post above mine:-

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/caregiving

:D   Call me chauvinist, call me pig, call me anything, but call me BIG!

Generally, women are nesters and take it for granted that they are to be provided for by men, even though they will rarely admit to this simple fact of life themselves.

If a bloke gets stung, then it's probably his own naive egotiscal fault for believing that he is something special.
A request for a pre-nup may help, if for no other reason than to test her trustworthiness.

I grew up with a bunch of gaggling schemers who thought that I was too young to understand their underhanded ways.
Correct yes, I was too young to understand the schemes at the time, but a kid's memory is like a sponge and there will be a time when the pieces will fit neatly together.
So women - beware of your kids. Their memories are far better than yours.

give over... you might as well say 
So Men - beware of your kids. Their memories are far better than yours.

as for pre-nups?? 

..seems there has been some challenge to the legality of pre-nups.   
watch for more News..!

prenups are a very powerfully binding contract.
have a google.

they have to be drawn up by 2 lawyers to ensure justness.
Once agreed to, same as any legal contract.

wow  2 lawyers..!! to ensure justness.  !!

you must be joking...  ::)

evr had a legal wrangle you lost??   

justness???     f off.!!!

and  BELIEVE IT OR NOT...

not all contracts are legally binding....  it depends ...
altho I agree CONTRACTS are difficult to nullify..to start back at before...   BUT...   it CAN be done...

it is down to the circumstances..... individual  circumstances...  no blanket law applies.  altho admittedly... contract law is particularly intractable. 

God hates infidelity.... 8-)

really???   

you think ??

Hate eh??  I didn't think that was a concept compatible with Christianity..??

oh hang on  ..anyone who doesn't follow God is hated by God??

don't you think that is just a tad ridiculous??
 

perhaps  the challenge concerns  the matter of commercial interest. 

Contracts between individuals,  are  generally in the nature of BUSINESS contracts..

Just off the top of my head   :D
marriages are not business arrangements. are they?? 

So ??  does contract Law have a  concern in personal relationships? arrangements, agreement, between two people in Marriage.?? 

Personally... I don't think it does... and pre-nups aren't worth the paper they're written on......   UNLESS  ... both parties agree to negotiate under that agreement..  and that isn't in the realm of contract law. 

IMO./. ;D ,

God hates an unfaithful heart.... 8-)

i don't theeeeenk so.. 

You ppl are always blaming the women for being gold diggers but i have known women who got ripped off by men and ex husbands. One woman whose husband died leaving her with a house and 2 children married again and the new husband took her house from her. Then theres my sister - left with 4 kids and paying the troll alimony. Its somehow called "joint custody" but he doesnt even take them all - just the money. He sits around @ home all day drinking while she goes out to work. The kids are all @ school. (No not the same house).

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 4:46am:

You ppl are always blaming the women for being gold diggers but i have known women who got ripped off by men and ex husbands. One woman whose husband died leaving her with a house and 2 children married again and the new husband took her house from her. Then theres my sister - left with 4 kids and paying the troll alimony. Its somehow called "joint custody" but he doesnt even take them all - just the money. He sits around @ home all day drinking while she goes out to work. The kids are all @ school. (No not the same house). SOB

you know who does well out of all this... the lawyers...the kids seem to come last..

I know one thing for sure I would not be paying any stay at home dropkick a cent...no matter what..it sounds to me as if those kids would be better off without their father.. just because he was a sperm donor does not make him a father...I trust you are a good uncle to those kids sob..

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 5:27am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:46am: You ppl are always blaming the women for being gold diggers but i have known women who got ripped off by men and ex husbands. One woman whose husband died leaving her with a house and 2 children married again and the new husband took her house from her. Then theres my sister - left with 4 kids and paying the troll alimony. Its somehow called "joint custody" but he doesnt even take them all - just the money. He sits around @ home all day drinking while she goes out to work. The kids are all @ school. (No not the same house). SOB you know who does well out of all this... the lawyers...the kids seem to come last.. I know one thing for sure I would not be paying any stay at home dropkick a cent...no matter what..it sounds to me as if those kids would be better off without their father.. just because he was a sperm donor does not make him a father...I trust you are a good uncle to those kids sob..

I try to be but well - its none of my business really. They know they can come here if anything happens and i have been known to give money to my sister (on the sly). She cant get out of paying him though - it was court ordered somehow. She allowed him to blackmail her into dropping the assault charges when she got out of hospital too - prolly threatened the kids. Interestingly when i was in canberra nobody would tell me where he lived.

My point though - in all of this - is that its not just women who are gold diggers. Especially nowadays.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 5:47am:

cods wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 5:27am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:46am: You ppl are always blaming the women for being gold diggers but i have known women who got ripped off by men and ex husbands. One woman whose husband died leaving her with a house and 2 children married again and the new husband took her house from her. Then theres my sister - left with 4 kids and paying the troll alimony. Its somehow called "joint custody" but he doesnt even take them all - just the money. He sits around @ home all day drinking while she goes out to work. The kids are all @ school. (No not the same house). SOB you know who does well out of all this... the lawyers...the kids seem to come last.. I know one thing for sure I would not be paying any stay at home dropkick a cent...no matter what..it sounds to me as if those kids would be better off without their father.. just because he was a sperm donor does not make him a father...I trust you are a good uncle to those kids sob.. I try to be but well - its none of my business really. They know they can come here if anything happens and i have been known to give money to my sister (on the sly). She cant get out of paying him though - it was court ordered somehow. She allowed him to blackmail her into dropping the assault charges when she got out of hospital too - prolly threatened the kids. Interestingly when i was in canberra nobody would tell me where he lived. My point though - in all of this - is that its not just women who are gold diggers. Especially nowadays. SOB

Looks to me the Borg family has a genetic history of dumbness.

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 5:57am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 5:47am: cods wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 5:27am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:46am: You ppl are always blaming the women for being gold diggers but i have known women who got ripped off by men and ex husbands. One woman whose husband died leaving her with a house and 2 children married again and the new husband took her house from her. Then theres my sister - left with 4 kids and paying the troll alimony. Its somehow called "joint custody" but he doesnt even take them all - just the money. He sits around @ home all day drinking while she goes out to work. The kids are all @ school. (No not the same house). SOB you know who does well out of all this... the lawyers...the kids seem to come last.. I know one thing for sure I would not be paying any stay at home dropkick a cent...no matter what..it sounds to me as if those kids would be better off without their father.. just because he was a sperm donor does not make him a father...I trust you are a good uncle to those kids sob.. I try to be but well - its none of my business really. They know they can come here if anything happens and i have been known to give money to my sister (on the sly). She cant get out of paying him though - it was court ordered somehow. She allowed him to blackmail her into dropping the assault charges when she got out of hospital too - prolly threatened the kids. Interestingly when i was in canberra nobody would tell me where he lived. My point though - in all of this - is that its not just women who are gold diggers. Especially nowadays. SOB Looks to me the Borg family has a genetic history of dumbness.

go away troll

SOB

Emma wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:48pm:

wow  2 lawyers..!! to ensure justness.  !! you must be joking...  ::) evr had a legal wrangle you lost??    justness???     f off.!!!

The law is not always just. It is an adverserial system.
however, it is a good system overall.

A married couple writing out a prenup over a kitchen table would have dubious worth.
When one lawyer represents one party and another lawyer represents another for the purpose of writing up a prenup, that is a legally binding dopucment.
Each lawyer should see that their client is not disadvantaged by the document, that's the lawyers jobs.

God has an attitude of hatred and fierce anger towards unfaithfulness and infidelity....

Quote:

New International Version (©1984) There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: Proverbs 6:16

8-)

Quote:

Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

8-)

eeekk  .. the New International version  of the Holy Bible. :o :o ;D

Hey el loco  ... just try reading The Holy Bible ,  The King James edition.... 
..if you derive your faith from modern MEDIA....   you got a long way to go bub.. :)


Now I'm getting the idea???   there are several "new'" versions... and truly they are so badly written... and simplified,,, to make it easier for thoughtless people to understand the word of God... what a joke

:D :D :D

GOOD GRIEF.!!  Why am I surprised.. ??? ::)

Emma wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

to make it easier for thoughtless people to understand the word of God... what a joke

Well, religion does attract thoughtless people.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

Emma wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 11:48pm: wow  2 lawyers..!! to ensure justness.  !! you must be joking...  ::) evr had a legal wrangle you lost??    justness???     f off.!!! The law is not always just. It is an adverserial system. however, it is a good system overall. A married couple writing out a prenup over a kitchen table would have dubious worth. When one lawyer represents one party and another lawyer represents another for the purpose of writing up a prenup, that is a legally binding dopucment. Each lawyer should see that their client is not disadvantaged by the document, that's the lawyers jobs.

Oh yes  the lawyers are obliged to look after their clients to the best of their ability.. 

BUT DO THEY???

Lets say I'm biased against setting up anything unnecessary  ...using  a lawyer.
Sometimes, even when you ought to,  you end up better off if you don't use lawyers... 

Dream on Sprint..  one excuse they use...  well... if this was the best of all possible worlds,, then YES  you were right.... and you SHOULD  have won...  but  shrug  hey,  it isn't  !!  bad things happens
.... and  they'll still take your money....  >:( >:(

God does not love faithless men or women...he hates them, thats why they are going to hell, they are vermin with no place in his kingdom now or ever.... >:(

whatever   ::)  el loco  :)

Infidels....all those people telling you God loves you are lying...you are all filth and going to hell, you are nothing, worms, even less noble than maggots in his eyes... :P

See ???

El Loco hates christ  and mocks christians with every word... 

pretty obvious really... 

I couldn't be bothered frankly... his agenda... welll??  ask yourselves...

Newsflash sinners, God does not send people he loves to hell.  We will all be in heaven while the infiudels are being tormented day and night forever for being evil... >:(

whatever.. ::)

Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:(

ones they are still trying to avoid today ...

Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP.

Emma wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:41pm:

whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP.

Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy.

SOB

why  don't want a pile of priests bastards to care for??  :)

actually some Catholic  cleric of some rank.   recently came out and said.... should allow Catholic priests to marry and have a family... said ...nothing in the Bible requires Celibacy...

well he is quite right,,  as I said it was some early power hungry pope who saw profit in it...  and cared not for thr consequences.

IF the Catholic Church  did allow the sanctity of marriage to it's priests,  it'd have a much longer shelf-life as a valid ... ie  GOOD .. faith..

Think about it..

Wonder what will happen to the Cleric smart and bold enough to state this....?? 

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:25pm:

Newsflash sinners, God does not send people he loves to hell.  We will all be in heaven while the infiudels are being tormented day and night forever for being evil... >:(

Whitey - some people mellow with age while
others become more & more eccentric - if not delusional.

Which are you?

Boys - beware

An Indonesian woman has drowned her nine-year-old son in the bath, claiming she was worried that his "small penis" would affect his prospects for the future, police say.

The 38-year-old woman from Jakarta told police her son had had a small penis prior to being circumcised, but that it appeared to shrink further after the operation, police spokesman Rikwanto told AFP.

"She told police investigators that she killed him as he would have a bleak future with his small penis," Rikwanto said.

"She drowned her son in a bathtub filled with water. She then dressed him and laid him on a bed. After that, she went to a nearby police office to report her crime."

Rikwanto said the woman was fully conscious of what she had done, but police ordered a psychological test to assess her mental condition.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/indonesian-mum-kills-son-over-penis-size-20130228-2f94r.html#ixzz2MBzO6znF

Soren wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Boys - beware An Indonesian woman has drowned her nine-year-old son in the bath, claiming she was worried that his "small penis" would affect his prospects for the future, police say. The 38-year-old woman from Jakarta told police her son had had a small penis prior to being circumcised, but that it appeared to shrink further after the operation, police spokesman Rikwanto told AFP. "She told police investigators that she killed him as he would have a bleak future with his small penis," Rikwanto said. "She drowned her son in a bathtub filled with water. She then dressed him and laid him on a bed. After that, she went to a nearby police office to report her crime." Rikwanto said the woman was fully conscious of what she had done, but police ordered a psychological test to assess her mental condition. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/indonesian-mum-kills-son-over-penis-size-20130228-2f94r.html#ixzz2MBzO6znF

It's hard to know what's real news and what's satire just by reading the article anymore. I expected to see "The Onion" down the bottom, but instead I read SMH. The whole world is mad.

seems like it

there ARE lots of crazies .. of all sorts... 

should you be afraid??

very afraid?? 

or not afraid at all ?

Atheism is insanity that filth is diabolically evil and gone to the devil, forget them and flee the comming judgment'''' 8-)

yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn,, :)

Emma wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 7:36pm:

why  don't want a pile of priests bastards to care for??  :) actually some Catholic  cleric of some rank.   recently came out and said.... should allow Catholic priests to marry and have a family... said ...nothing in the Bible requires Celibacy... well he is quite right,,  as I said it was some early power hungry pope who saw profit in it...  and cared not for thr consequences. IF the Catholic Church  did allow the sanctity of marriage to it's priests,  it'd have a much longer shelf-life as a valid ... ie  GOOD .. faith.. Think about it.. Wonder what will happen to the Cleric smart and bold enough to state this....??

They are stuck in the middle ages. Theres that prophecy too so if the next pope actually suggests anything so radical they may accuse him of being an antichrist.

SOB

nothing is impossible..

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 4:59am:

Emma wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:41pm: whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP. Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy. SOB

Can you really??...care to elaborate??

see my post ..up a few...they didn't want to pay... 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 11:12pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 4:59am: Emma wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:41pm: whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP. Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy. SOB Can you really??...care to elaborate??

You dont understand my comment? Truly? Even after emma explained it? You prolly shouldnt be posting in a forum with grown ups.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:32am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 11:12pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 4:59am: Emma wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:41pm: whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP. Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy. SOB Can you really??...care to elaborate?? You dont understand my comment? Truly? Even after emma explained it? You prolly shouldnt be posting in a forum with grown ups. SOB

Since when do you and emma classify as 'grown ups'????
I'm just hoping you'll dig yourself even deeper into the hole....

Simply put, celibacy and the Catholic stance on birth control and contraception are NOT linked....they don't have celibacy in the clergy because of the anti contraception stance..

Condoms weren't even invented till the 1920's, so it's a bit hard to link a vow of celibacy that has existed for hundreds of years to it. 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 5:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 11:12pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 4:59am: Emma wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:41pm: whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP. Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy. SOB Can you really??...care to elaborate?? You dont understand my comment? Truly? Even after emma explained it? You prolly shouldnt be posting in a forum with grown ups. SOB Since when do you and emma classify as 'grown ups'???? I'm just hoping you'll dig yourself even deeper into the hole.... Simply put, celibacy and the Catholic stance on birth control and contraception are NOT linked....they don't have celibacy in the clergy because of the anti contraception stance..

Hey Gizmo, have you seen this gem from Miss Borg.............

Lots of ppl here prolly wouldn't remember her seeing as they werent born yet.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:41am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:33am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 5:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 11:12pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 4:59am: Emma wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:41pm: whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP. Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy. SOB Can you really??...care to elaborate?? You dont understand my comment? Truly? Even after emma explained it? You prolly shouldnt be posting in a forum with grown ups. SOB Since when do you and emma classify as 'grown ups'???? I'm just hoping you'll dig yourself even deeper into the hole.... Simply put, celibacy and the Catholic stance on birth control and contraception are NOT linked....they don't have celibacy in the clergy because of the anti contraception stance.. Hey Gizmo, have you seen this gem from Miss Borg............. Lots of ppl here prolly wouldn't remember her seeing as they werent born yet.

Go away troll

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:45am:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:41am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:33am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 5:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 11:12pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 4:59am: Emma wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:41pm: whatever.. ::) Hell as a concept...  well its just that... a concept... It seems the Hell concept arose  later... in followers...  a bit like CELIBACY.... never a true requirement of God... but one instituted by Popes  centuries later..  Was it Augustine blah  or Justinian bla bla??  anyway one of those criminals  ... what a MARVELLOUS  LEGACY  ... >:( >:( >:( >:( ones they are still trying to avoid today ... Evidence.... Pope Benedict's resignation...  nothing could be more suss....  and  ... still the faithful  SUCK IT UP. Well actually with the catholics stance on birth control and condoms i can see why they require celibacy. SOB Can you really??...care to elaborate?? You dont understand my comment? Truly? Even after emma explained it? You prolly shouldnt be posting in a forum with grown ups. SOB Since when do you and emma classify as 'grown ups'???? I'm just hoping you'll dig yourself even deeper into the hole.... Simply put, celibacy and the Catholic stance on birth control and contraception are NOT linked....they don't have celibacy in the clergy because of the anti contraception stance.. Hey Gizmo, have you seen this gem from Miss Borg............. Lots of ppl here prolly wouldn't remember her seeing as they werent born yet. Go away troll SOB

Quote:

You prolly shouldnt be posting in a forum with grown ups.  SOB

Yep, "Go away troll" (for the 150th time) is really grown up Miss Borg.

...where is it?

it might show...  went somewhere... 

I was trying to copy paste  to enlighten  you dunderheads..  ;D

mayhap it'll appear... if not.... 

as usual.. the usual suspects are trying to digress,, 
OK  I said nothing about condoms...  my comments were about CELIBACY,, and I responded to a post from SOB, who did  bring up birth control. 

RE  THAT...   the celibates... by doctrine not choice...  are being martyrs,  and are saying everyone else should be 'spiritual',   like them. 

Sex only for procreation.... GOOD GRIEF..!!!
::)  AS IF  ????

Emma wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:17pm:

it might show...  went somewhere...  I was trying to copy paste  to enlighten  you dunderheads..  ;D mayhap it'll appear... if not....  as usual.. the usual suspects are trying to digress,,  OK  I said nothing about condoms...  my comments were about CELIBACY,, and I responded to a post from SOB, who did  bring up birth control.  RE  THAT...   the celibates... by doctrine not choice...  are being martyrs,  and are saying everyone else should be 'spiritual',   like them.  Sex only for procreation.... GOOD GRIEF..!!! ::)  AS IF  ????

Celibacy  ( in the church) isn't about being a 'martyr'....it's about total dedication to 'the lord's work', having a wife/husband and family takes up time you should be spending on church work (or something along those lines at any rate)

so they say  ...

what  perverse logic.. 

need I explain it??

To Wit:

why?  don't want a pile of priests bastards to care for??  :)

actually some Catholic  cleric of some rank.   recently came out and said.... should allow Catholic priests to marry and have a family... said ...nothing in the Bible requires Celibacy...

well he is quite right,,  as I said it was some early power hungry pope who saw profit in it...  and cared not for thr consequences.

IF the Catholic Church  did allow the sanctity of marriage to it's priests,  it'd have a much longer shelf-life as a valid ... ie  GOOD .. faith..

Think about it..

Wonder what will happen to the Cleric smart and bold enough to state this....?? 

[/quote]


My response... re-iterated !!

Emma wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:37pm:

To Wit: why?  don't want a pile of priests bastards to care for??  :) actually some Catholic  cleric of some rank.   recently came out and said.... should allow Catholic priests to marry and have a family... said ...nothing in the Bible requires Celibacy... well he is quite right,,  as I said it was some early power hungry pope who saw profit in it...  and cared not for thr consequences. IF the Catholic Church  did allow the sanctity of marriage to it's priests,  it'd have a much longer shelf-life as a valid ... ie  GOOD .. faith.. Think about it.. Wonder what will happen to the Cleric smart and bold enough to state this....??

My response... re-iterated !![/quote]


How did the sanctity of marriage work out for you? Er... spiritually speaking.

Buddhist monks can't touch or even sit next to women. Nobody is calling for that particular Buddhist dogma to be updated. In the same way, the problem isn't in the dogma, it's in the wider malaise of the church. The point is -  vows of chastity are not the problem in themselves, even as clergy should be able to marry. Chastity should be an option, not a compulsion (to fail).i

well I agree  .. perhaps I miss your point?

I wasn't married in a Church,  and the ceremony was not religion-based..    ..I still miss your point. :-?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:31pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:17pm: it might show...  went somewhere...  I was trying to copy paste  to enlighten  you dunderheads..  ;D mayhap it'll appear... if not....  as usual.. the usual suspects are trying to digress,,  OK  I said nothing about condoms...  my comments were about CELIBACY,, and I responded to a post from SOB, who did  bring up birth control.  RE  THAT...   the celibates... by doctrine not choice...  are being martyrs,  and are saying everyone else should be 'spiritual',   like them.  Sex only for procreation.... GOOD GRIEF..!!! ::)  AS IF  ???? Celibacy  ( in the church) isn't about being a 'martyr'....it's about total dedication to 'the lord's work', having a wife/husband and family takes up time you should be spending on church work (or something along those lines at any rate)

funny thing is , my bible the NIV says priests SHOULD be married 

the NIV

..would that be the New Internatinal Version..?  well what can I say? going by the initials I assume you make reference to that...

Seriously... I've read some of the King James edition.... I really am not interested in the new church,,, or the old one for that matter,  in rea\lation to spirituality..

Just That I have an old family Bible .. King James... and have read some of it out of curiosity as to the attraction to Christianity,  and to understand more clearly  the basis of Christianity in our current world... 

Never would I consider recent media representations of the Bible as having any validity... nor have I read in the King James  edition .. about the requirement for chastity and celibacy...  I've gotten that from other sources... 

in passing you might say. I accord the King James Bible more respect,  because it was obviously written, very well in most cases,  by people of faith.. unlike any new media.

Born in an ostensibly C of E  family... religion never really came up...  what I have learned about it,  has happened as an adult, trying to understand the compulsions of others. 

Sprint says........ funny thing is , my bible the NIV says priests SHOULD be married .

Sprint. I'm not sure what to say  except.....   go back to earlier 'versions'....  read the Bible  King James Edition,  if you are religious,,, and consider ...what has changed? After all,  all recent media is derivative of the earlier works.
The simplification of language,  to drag in more believers,,, ??  MUCH is lost in translation   :) ;)?

Oh.. and Good luck with that..!! :)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:31pm: Emma wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:17pm: it might show...  went somewhere...  I was trying to copy paste  to enlighten  you dunderheads..  ;D mayhap it'll appear... if not....  as usual.. the usual suspects are trying to digress,,  OK  I said nothing about condoms...  my comments were about CELIBACY,, and I responded to a post from SOB, who did  bring up birth control.  RE  THAT...   the celibates... by doctrine not choice...  are being martyrs,  and are saying everyone else should be 'spiritual',   like them.  Sex only for procreation.... GOOD GRIEF..!!! ::)  AS IF  ???? Celibacy  ( in the church) isn't about being a 'martyr'....it's about total dedication to 'the lord's work', having a wife/husband and family takes up time you should be spending on church work (or something along those lines at any rate) funny thing is , my bible the NIV says priests SHOULD be married

Yes, but the NIV is published by a Presbyterian church, Christian Reformed Church in North America, and the National Association of Evangelicals.
The only mainstream Christian Church that bans married for it's clergy is the Catholic Church, which is also the one we were discussing.

were we ??  I s'pose the Holy Roman Catholic Church has constant presence in humanity's affairs since  ??  hmm not sure where it came from??  the fish symbol people of the Roman Empire?? 

Life of Brian.. recommended viewing...   :)

life of brian was very good

and I'll repeat it... any new media on the Bible... even purported modern revisions ...  are a waste of time. 

If you do want a real idea of Yahweh,, and  later the Cult of Jesus Christ,,  you really must look at historical documents....

I'll recommend the King James edition of the HOLY BIBLE, as a good start.  Then, I'd go back in time...  if I were interested enough in the Church.. I'm NOT.

However,  re comments by other posters, as to the derivative nature of christian dogma... 

I would RECOMMEND  researching the earlier GILGAMESH 'legends'.. Histories.. as a start... :)    .

Emma wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:41pm:

Sprint. I'm not sure what to say  except.....   go back to earlier 'versions'....  read the Bible  King James Edition,  if you are religious,,, and consider ...what has changed? After all,  all recent media is derivative of the earlier works. The simplification of language,  to drag in more believers,,, ??  MUCH is lost in translation   :) ;)?

Slightly off topic, but for those who may be interested;

*Old Testament written in Hebrew (with the exception of the small amount of Aramaic in the middle section of the book of Daniel)
*New Testament written in Greek.

The King James Bible was a translation into English (but hardly the first to be done) at the start of the 17th century using the English of the time. Modern Bibles (like the NIV) are also translations of the Hebrew and Greek into English, and just like the King James they use the English of the time (in the NIV's case, late 20th century).

Modern Bibles are not rewrites of the King James (yet funny enough a lot of the King James relied on the English Tyndale translation from a century earlier) but are translations that go back to the original Greek and Hebrew. They are not watered down versions but are written to be understood by modern day readers of English. That's not to say that there are not modern day Bibles that are watered down (many being written for people with low English skills; such as children and people with English as a second language), but just because a Bible doesn't sound like Shakespeare does not mean that it is an unreliable copy. In fact much development has been done in the last century or two into Greek and Hebrew. Many ancient manuscripts have been found that have helped make modern translations more accurate than in the past, as our understanding of Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek has improved dramatically in the last 400 years. (although there are some very bad translations out there. The Watchtower Bible used by the JW's being an obvious example). 

Personally  I only have interest in the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.. 
populist info sources suggest ...?? 

Ahh  seems we are not allowed access to them...  only in rarified circumstances...  :-?

why would that be?? do you suppose?? 

but anyways, this is all just a bit of fun for me...   belief in deities didn't come down to me in my genetic inheritance.

I'm just interested in the ON-GOING impacts religious dogmas has ... thousands of yrs later...

some might say that proves  it...  BUT WHAT? 
I say .. its cultural conditioning, 

and that humans would be better off without religiosity in their lives.
MUCH BETTER OFF.. 

   

Emma wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:37pm:

To Wit: why?  don't want a pile of priests bastards to care for??  :) actually some Catholic  cleric of some rank.   recently came out and said.... should allow Catholic priests to marry and have a family... said ...nothing in the Bible requires Celibacy... well he is quite right,,  as I said it was some early power hungry pope who saw profit in it...  and cared not for thr consequences. IF the Catholic Church  did allow the sanctity of marriage to it's priests,  it'd have a much longer shelf-life as a valid ... ie  GOOD .. faith.. Think about it.. Wonder what will happen to the Cleric smart and bold enough to state this....??

My response... re-iterated !![/quote]

The problem is that "celibacy" doesnt mean abstaining from sex - it means not being married apparently. Therefore if they arent allowed to marry they go find other avenues. Allowing them to marry might help stop the paedophiles.

SOB

Emma wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 12:09am:

were we ??  I s'pose the Holy Roman Catholic Church has constant presence in humanity's affairs since  ??  hmm not sure where it came from??  the fish symbol people of the Roman Empire??  Life of Brian.. recommended viewing...   :)

Dogma also recommended viewing :) George carlin plays a cardinal - hilarious.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:09am:

Emma wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:37pm: To Wit: why?  don't want a pile of priests bastards to care for??  :) actually some Catholic  cleric of some rank.   recently came out and said.... should allow Catholic priests to marry and have a family... said ...nothing in the Bible requires Celibacy... well he is quite right,,  as I said it was some early power hungry pope who saw profit in it...  and cared not for thr consequences. IF the Catholic Church  did allow the sanctity of marriage to it's priests,  it'd have a much longer shelf-life as a valid ... ie  GOOD .. faith.. Think about it.. Wonder what will happen to the Cleric smart and bold enough to state this....??  My response... re-iterated !!

The problem is that "celibacy" doesnt mean abstaining from sex - it means not being married apparently. Therefore if they arent allowed to marry they go find other avenues. Allowing them to marry might help stop the paedophiles.

SOB[/quote]

Yes, in the sense of religious vows, 'Celibacy' DOES mean abstaining from sex, that's the whole point.

"celibacy noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)
The deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice. It has existed in some form in most world religions. It may indicate a person's ritual purity (sexual relations being viewed as polluting) or may be adopted to facilitate spiritual advancement (as sexual activity would take place only within the bonds of matrimony, marriage and family were seen as an entangling distraction). In shamanistic religions, shamans are often celibate. In Hinduism, “holy men” (or women) who have left ordinary secular life to seek final liberation are celibate. Buddhism began as a celibate order, though many sects have since given up celibacy. Chinese taoism has monastics and independent celibate adepts. Islam has no institutional celibacy, but individuals may embrace it for personal spiritual advancement. Judaism has prescribed periods of abstinence, but long-term celibacy has not played a large role. The early Christian church tended to regard celibacy as superior to marriage. Since the 12th century it has been the rule for Roman Catholic clergy, though clerical celibacy was never adopted by Protestantism."

And married people still commit paedophilia on a regular basis, so why would allowing Catholic clergy to marry stop paedophillia?? It hasn't worked in any of the Protestant religions..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_%28Catholic_Church%29


Quote:

In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1]

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 6:40am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_%28Catholic_Church%29 Quote: In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1] SOB

What the hell are you actually trying to argue? That sex outside of marriage is fine and only the marriage is prohibited?

Well, it would seem that is the point you're trying to make;


Quote:

The problem is that "celibacy" doesnt mean abstaining from sex - it means not being married apparently.

And as usual you are wrong.

Quantum wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 9:52am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 6:40am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_%28Catholic_Church%29 Quote: In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1] SOB What the hell are you actually trying to argue? That sex outside of marriage is fine and only the marriage is prohibited? Well, it would seem that is the point you're trying to make; [quote] The problem is that "celibacy" doesnt mean abstaining from sex - it means not being married apparently.

And as usual you are wrong.
[/quote]

Well thats what wikipedia says and some catholic site i saw the other day too. Seems you are the one thats wrong unless you can back up what you say somehow?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

Quantum wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 9:52am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 6:40am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_%28Catholic_Church%29 Quote: In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1] SOB What the hell are you actually trying to argue? That sex outside of marriage is fine and only the marriage is prohibited? Well, it would seem that is the point you're trying to make; [quote] The problem is that "celibacy" doesnt mean abstaining from sex - it means not being married apparently. And as usual you are wrong.

Well thats what wikipedia says and some catholic site i saw the other day too. Seems you are the one thats wrong unless you can back up what you say somehow?

SOB[/quote]

FFS.

1) Look at any dictionary difinition. That is proof enough that you are wrong.
2) Wikipedia is never 100% correct, but that is no excuse this time. The problem is not the article, the problem is you and your inability to understand the article. "In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse". It not saying that they can have sex as long as they don't get married. It is saying that they can't have sex at all.
3) "thats what wikipedia says and some catholic site i saw the other day too." BS. Link to the site!

I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt?

SOB

I am forced to practice celibacy as girls can't handle 15 inches. :'(

Mr Conservative wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

I am forced to practice celibacy as girls can't handle 15 inches. :'(

Women can.

Damn that was my only excuse to maintain my pride. :'(

Mr Conservative wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 1:08pm:

Damn that was my only excuse to maintain my pride. :'(

Stay away from girls and feed the 15 inches to women.

;)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB

No, you are misreading what they are saying. No one in the catholic church says it is wrong for a priest to get married but okay to have sex. This is your misunderstanding. The Wiki page you quoted is correct, you just don't know what it actually says.

Since you love wikipedia so much;

"the Church does teach that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is contrary to its purpose."

sorry sob but celibacy does mean ..'.no sexual relations'  ...that is the commonly accepted definition...  'marriage' has nothing to do with celibacy..altho I'd expect ONLY 2 celibate people would choose to marry each and not have sex..   :)

Quantum wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 12:01pm: I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB No, you are misreading what they are saying. No one in the catholic church says it is wrong for a priest to get married but okay to have sex. This is your misunderstanding. The Wiki page you quoted is correct, you just don't know what it actually says. Since you love wikipedia so much; "the Church does teach that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is contrary to its purpose."

Nope. You must be. If you had evidence to the contrary you would have posted it.


Quote:

In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1]

SOB

Emma wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

sorry sob but celibacy does mean ..'.no sexual relations'  ...that is the commonly accepted definition...  'marriage' has nothing to do with celibacy..altho I'd expect ONLY 2 celibate people would choose to marry each and not have sex..   :)

I know what the common meaning that ppl understand it to mean is but im talking about the church.

This from the catholic encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm


Quote:

Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 5:01am:

Quantum wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 1:14pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 12:01pm: I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB No, you are misreading what they are saying. No one in the catholic church says it is wrong for a priest to get married but okay to have sex. This is your misunderstanding. The Wiki page you quoted is correct, you just don't know what it actually says. Since you love wikipedia so much; "the Church does teach that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is contrary to its purpose." Nope. You must be. If you had evidence to the contrary you would have posted it. SOB

Are you for real? I just did give evidence! It is right above in the very post you quoted! Let me repeat it again;


Quote:

Since you love wikipedia so much; "the Church does teach that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is contrary to its purpose."

Have you had a stroke in the last week spot? Is there a reason that you are out doing your usual stupid posts with these recent super stupid ones? Look at this response of yours that you think proves that Catholics allow sex outside of marriage;


Quote:

This from the catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm [quote]Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades.

SOB[/quote]

Look at the part I highlighted. Do you even understand what you are quoting these days? Celibacy in the catholic church in regards to priests is an on top of rule. As in; on top of not having sex before marriage, don't even get married. It does not mean; don't get married, but feel free to screw anyone you wish, type rule that you're arguing for.

This thread, coupled with your recent Abbott committed treason because Howard said so topic, are both proof that either English isn't your first language, or that you have some comprehension disability. When it comes to what people say or write you either see stuff that isn't there, or you doesn't see the things right in front of you. Now having problems with English comprehension is not a crime, but stop telling others that they are wrong when you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Nope. you didnt give evidence of anything. You wrote a sentence and stuck quotations marks on it. Thats not evidence.

Chastity and celibacy arent the same thing to the church obviously. Celibacy is not getting married and chastity is not having sex.

Your crap about my argument is just a strawman since i never said that.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

Nope. you didnt give evidence of anything. You wrote a sentence and stuck quotations marks on it. Thats not evidence. Chastity and celibacy arent the same thing to the church obviously. Celibacy is not getting married and chastity is not having sex. Your crap about my argument is just a strawman since i never said that. SOB

It was a quote from Wikipedia. How is that anything different from what you did?

Quantum wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:14am: Nope. you didnt give evidence of anything. You wrote a sentence and stuck quotations marks on it. Thats not evidence. Chastity and celibacy arent the same thing to the church obviously. Celibacy is not getting married and chastity is not having sex. Your crap about my argument is just a strawman since i never said that. SOB It was a quote from Wikipedia. How is that anything different from what you did?

I didnt type a sentence and put quotations marks on it and say it was from wikipedia. I actually quoted and gave the link. You made it up.

I see you havent addressed any of the actual point now just the strawman about the quoting. Guess you were wrong huh?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

Quantum wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:14am: Nope. you didnt give evidence of anything. You wrote a sentence and stuck quotations marks on it. Thats not evidence. Chastity and celibacy arent the same thing to the church obviously. Celibacy is not getting married and chastity is not having sex. Your crap about my argument is just a strawman since i never said that. SOB It was a quote from Wikipedia. How is that anything different from what you did? I didnt type a sentence and put quotations marks on it and say it was from wikipedia. I actually quoted and gave the link. You made it up.

Got you now you fvckwit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_sexuality

Right there! That's where the quote came from. So are you going to apologize for accusing me of making stuff up? Or can we now forever quote this debate as proof positive that you are a liar?

Amazing that you would make such a stupid accusation. Do you know how I found the quote again a day after copying it from wikipedia? I simply cut and pasted it again, this time into the google search bar. 5 seconds is all it took. That's how much research you would have had to have done before you accused me of making stuff up. You are not only a lying moron, but a bloody lazy one as well.


Quote:

I see you havent addressed any of the actual point now just the strawman about the quoting. Guess you were wrong huh? SOB

I addressed them you dick. In fact I posted "evidence" as you call it showing that you were wrong. You are the one who started the quoting issue by saying I had not given any evidence and then accusing me of making evidence up.

You are a complete retard and have been caught red-handed making baseless accusations.   

Emma wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 1:00am:

Personally  I only have interest in the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls..  populist info sources suggest ...??  Ahh  seems we are not allowed access to them...  only in rarified circumstances...  :-? why would that be?? do you suppose??  but anyways, this is all just a bit of fun for me...   belief in deities didn't come down to me in my genetic inheritance. I'm just interested in the ON-GOING impacts religious dogmas has ... thousands of yrs later... some might say that proves  it...  BUT WHAT?  I say .. its cultural conditioning,  and that humans would be better off without religiosity in their lives. MUCH BETTER OFF..

seriously? you are questioning why papyrus documents of over 2000 years of age are not given to just anyone to handle and play with? scholars have copies of the originals to work with so unless you are going to suggest that they have been altered and the rare occasion where the originals are viewed have been conspiracies...

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB

i can guarantee - as can anyone with 1/10 of a brain - that celibacy means to not have sex, period. Your understanding of the word is , as always' wrong.

Quantum wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 10:14am: Quantum wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:14am: Nope. you didnt give evidence of anything. You wrote a sentence and stuck quotations marks on it. Thats not evidence. Chastity and celibacy arent the same thing to the church obviously. Celibacy is not getting married and chastity is not having sex. Your crap about my argument is just a strawman since i never said that. SOB It was a quote from Wikipedia. How is that anything different from what you did? I didnt type a sentence and put quotations marks on it and say it was from wikipedia. I actually quoted and gave the link. You made it up. Got you now you fvckwit! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_sexuality Right there! That's where the quote came from. So are you going to apologize for accusing me of making stuff up? Or can we now forever quote this debate as proof positive that you are a liar? Amazing that you would make such a stupid accusation. Do you know how I found the quote again a day after copying it from wikipedia? I simply cut and pasted it again, this time into the google search bar. 5 seconds is all it took. That's how much research you would have had to have done before you accused me of making stuff up. You are not only a lying moron, but a bloody lazy one as well. Quote: I see you havent addressed any of the actual point now just the strawman about the quoting. Guess you were wrong huh? SOB I addressed them you dick. In fact I posted "evidence" as you call it showing that you were wrong. You are the one who started the quoting issue by saying I had not given any evidence and then accusing me of making evidence up. You are a complete retard and have been caught red-handed making baseless accusations.

Quantum... do you have that gnawing feeling that SOB doesnt actually know what 'sex' is? The only way anyone could say what he does and breath unaided is that he  pretty much has no idea of what sex is, That he is a virgin goes beyond saying given that his stupid would repel anything female. So perhaps his only understanding of sexuality comes from te school yard as a 10yo and we ALL know how accurate that information turned out to be!

Well I'm sure his cat must have taught him a thing or two... but overall yes, sex does seem to be another subject that he just doesn't get.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 12:01pm: I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB i can guarantee - as can anyone with 1/10 of a brain - that celibacy means to not have sex, period. Your understanding of the word is , as always' wrong.

This is Borg after sex.

---

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 1:00am: Personally  I only have interest in the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls..  populist info sources suggest ...??  Ahh  seems we are not allowed access to them...  only in rarified circumstances...  :-? why would that be?? do you suppose??  but anyways, this is all just a bit of fun for me...   belief in deities didn't come down to me in my genetic inheritance. I'm just interested in the ON-GOING impacts religious dogmas has ... thousands of yrs later... some might say that proves  it...  BUT WHAT?  I say .. its cultural conditioning,  and that humans would be better off without religiosity in their lives. MUCH BETTER OFF..      seriously? you are questioning why papyrus documents of over 2000 years of age are not given to just anyone to handle and play with? scholars have copies of the originals to work with so unless you are going to suggest that they have been altered and the rare occasion where the originals are viewed have been conspiracies...

Now now don't overplay it Longo...    I am saying that only a small fraction of the Scrolls have been released.  to anyone.!  Anyone  does not include, obviously,  just anyone.   :)a  t all..

And in fact  those 'Scholars'  are very few in number.... compared to the numbers of 'serious scholars' who would LOVE to get a chance to cherish them.... :(   
don't ask me why...
::)

You brought the 'conspiracy' word up...  and since you mention it... HOW could it possibly be BAD,  to allow wider access to this treasure of historical record.??   

What could there possibly be to fear??   :-?

Oh don't you just love the adds that bracket the forum body..??

Up TOP ^ ALCOHOL, DRUGS and mental health    .. adin
Down BELOW
ANZ Business Overdraft.. 

:) :)
thats probably only on my page   ;D ;D


But serious here...   I will state here and NOW, that I have  NEVER even looked at Wikipedia,,  let alone used it as a reference... or resource for any information. 

seriously... that is truth..
and IF anyone on this board considers Wikipedia to be a reference ,... with any validity whatsoever,...  they need to think agin.!!

I am past my academic or management yrs... but  ... if anyone used a Wikipedia reference as any sort of support for  anything ,  in say .. a job interview..??? 

they would be crossed of the List.!!  Immediately.

Quantum wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Got you now you fvckwit!

No you havent "got me now" you have just finally decided to do the right thing. Was it THAT hard to do?

Now as i said before "sexuality" isnt what the celibacy article was talking about. Chastity and celibacy are different things to the church according to not only wikipedia but the catholic encyclopaedia i quoted.

Meanwhile the celibacy issues also a strawman - you like them dont you.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 12:01pm: I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB i can guarantee - as can anyone with 1/10 of a brain - that celibacy means to not have sex, period. Your understanding of the word is , as always' wrong.

Obviously another who cant comprehend what he reads. Scroll back and see my links to the catholic encyclopaedia and wikipedia on the catholic churches definition of celibacy since (and this is the 3rd time i have had to say it) we are talking about the churches definition.

SOB

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 12:01pm: I am not talking about the dictionary definition im talking about the catholic and religious definition since thats the topic. So i take it you cant back up what you say since you didnt? SOB i can guarantee - as can anyone with 1/10 of a brain - that celibacy means to not have sex, period. Your understanding of the word is , as always' wrong. This is Borg after sex.

Go away troll

SOB

Quantum wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Well I'm sure his cat must have taught him a thing or two... but overall yes, sex does seem to be another subject that he just doesn't get.

Awwww cant handle losing an argument about your own strawman?

SOB

You are batshit crazy. When there is complete agreement that you are wrong, when you are caught red handed making baseless accusations, and even when people who would normally agree with you say that Wikipedia is a ridiculous resource, you still fight on as if you a correct.

There is no greeting through to you that you are wrong. Your only response is; got no argument ay troll, when people give up explaining to you that water is wet and the Sun is hot because you just don't get it.

Quantum wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 7:41am:

You are batshit crazy. When there is complete agreement that you are wrong, when you are caught red handed making baseless accusations, and even when people who would normally agree with you say that Wikipedia is a ridiculous resource, you still fight on as if you a correct. There is no greeting through to you that you are wrong. Your only response is; got no argument ay troll, when people give up explaining to you that water is wet and the Sun is hot because you just don't get it.

Aww trying to misquote me again? I said you have no argument troll when you decided to engage in blatant ad-hominem.

However - you dont have an argument or you would have made it.

SOB

Myself making an argument, and you being too stupid to understand the argument being made, are two different things.

The argument has been made that celibacy both in and out of the church is in regards to being unmarried and sexually abstinent. I am not denying that the narrow usage of the word is in reference to being unmarried. In fact, the original usage of the word was in reference to being unmarried. But all words can have a narrow and broader meaning, as well as having a shift in meaning over time. Your problem spot is your inability to understand the dynamic range of a word, as well as selectively quoting a use that fits your argument (much like your limited understanding and use of the word atheism). This all started by your claim that;


Quote:

The problem is that "celibacy" doesnt mean abstaining from sex - it means not being married apparently. Therefore if they arent allowed to marry they go find other avenues.

when I replied by asking;


Quote:

What the hell are you actually trying to argue? That sex outside of marriage is fine and only the marriage is prohibited?

your only reply was;


Quote:

Well thats what wikipedia says and some catholic site i saw the other day too.

 

If you only wanted to argue that in the strictest sense of the word celibacy is in reference to remaining unmarried, you would get no argument from me. But when you want to extrapolate that point to conclude that the catholic church only holds to the narrow sense of the word and that it means that sex outside of marriage is not actually prohibited, then you are simply going to get proven wrong time and time again.      

My only reply? What a lying troll you are.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

My only reply? What a lying troll you are. SOB

To the question that was asked... yes, that was your only reply. You didn't go into any more detail than that in that post. It is forever preserved on page 6 of this thread and there is no point in denying it.

The chain of posts that resulted from your answer to the question are irrelevant, as it was the first post that answered the question that started the debate. It is bad enough that you don't understand English, but do you not understand time and sequence as well?

You want celibate?

Here's celibate...Matthew 19:12

"For there are some eunuchs, which were born from their mother's womb; and there were some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Corp, take note...