Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 123

Thread: Self-Composed-Questionaire

  1. #51
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
    The article from the same that you give in the PDF. I have stated before that the Church tolerated slavery due to the secular governments support. I believe Fr. Pantzer does address the problem very clearly. It must be remember from St. Paul's letter to Philemon that the slave's treatment was to be like that of family and not as animal or possessions since we are all "slaves" to Christ. Those that remained neutral more than likely faced hostility by the governments, and I have no doubt that open war was considered a greater evil than a rogue nation that sought to enslave others. There is a real balance to consider when it comes to the politicing of the Vatican and what the Vatican actually teaches. I have already found one problem with your (1441) bull. The Pope at that time was Pope Eugene IV. If he was a pope, he was an antipope. Which makes him not capable of ex cathedra pronouncements. Pope Nicolos V on the other hand is not making a treaty on slavery, but giving King Alfonso whatever means is necessary to preserve the Catholic territories from pagan influence. This is therefore not a doctrinal statement of endorsement of slavery, this is for "perpetual rememberance."
    If you read the above encyclical, you would see the context of King Alfonso's progress.

    Pope Nicolas V states:
    Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.
    I hope I've shown that documents expressing anti-slavery sentiments were not as clear as they might have been had they included some unambiguous language; Don't import or export slaves. Don't buy slaves. Don't sell slaves. Don't own slaves. Don't support the people who do. No exceptions.

  2. #52
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    I hope I've shown that documents expressing anti-slavery sentiments were not as clear as they might have been had they included some unambiguous language; Don't import or export slaves. Don't buy slaves. Don't sell slaves. Don't own slaves. Don't support the people who do. No exceptions.
    I think you haven't read it well enough what you did present. The father who wrote the article shows how the magesterium retained its authority on the matter on morality. This you overlooked trying to pin-point what you think were obvious objections, of which he answers.

  3. #53
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I think you haven't read it well enough what you did present. The father who wrote the article shows how the magesterium retained its authority on the matter on morality. This you overlooked trying to pin-point what you think were obvious objections, of which he answers.
    This ain't rocket science! If the Pope wants to say NO to slavery, just say it. Period. No B.S.

  4. #54
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    This ain't rocket science! If the Pope wants to say NO to slavery, just say it. Period. No B.S.
    The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.

  5. #55
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.
    You say slavery is the fault of secular government, but I haven't attempted to blame anyone. That's beside the point.
    We both know the Pope(s) couldn't make a clear anti-slavery statement, even if he wanted to. So, please stop pretending that he did!

  6. #56
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    You say slavery is the fault of secular government, but I haven't attempted to blame anyone. That's beside the point.
    We both know the Pope(s) couldn't make a clear anti-slavery statement, even if he wanted to. So, please stop pretending that he did!
    You should reread what you cited. What has changed for the secular governments is in some part the Catholic Church's teaching to its laity. You should think that the Catholic Church is not some sort of secular political en***y that can stop evil in the world, it cannot. Evil is something from which is close to every one of us, you and I are not immune; your ideals could be just as high as ours, but regardless it does nothing to the corrupt human nature. You should give up trying to bash the Catholic Church, especially since you still are not good at citing your sources. The Father you quoted demonstrated well enough how it did not affect the teaching on doctrine and morals.

  7. #57
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.
    The problem with the Catholic Church is that it wants to have it both ways. When it wants to influence secular government, it has no problem attempting to put its moral authority to use. See JPII's condemnation of the Iraq war, or the modern church's opposition to condoms.

    But then when it wants to escape responsibility for its failure to use its voice, it falls back on the old "We're just following along with cultural reality!"

  8. #58
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    The problem with the Catholic Church is that it wants to have it both ways. When it wants to influence secular government, it has no problem attempting to put its moral authority to use. See JPII's condemnation of the Iraq war, or the modern church's opposition to condoms.

    But then when it wants to escape responsibility for its failure to use its voice, it falls back on the old "We're just following along with cultural reality!"
    JPII in generally condemns all wars. And the Church still opposes condoms. The question is in regards to the teaching authority on Doctrine and Morals and if the progression of doctrine and moral comp*** has changed significantly enough to contradict itself. Since the Church hasn't bowed to secular opinion on the matter of condoms is actually a sign of its consistency. The fact that JP condemns the Iraq war has nothing to discredit the Church's position on "just war." Was JPII's position on the Iraqi war somehow changed the doctrine? The same goes with ****sexuality, it will not change its moral stance because the stance has been quite clear over the ages.

  9. #59
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    You should reread what you cited. What has changed for the secular governments is in some part the Catholic Church's teaching to its laity. You should think that the Catholic Church is not some sort of secular political en***y that can stop evil in the world, it cannot. Evil is something from which is close to every one of us, you and I are not immune; your ideals could be just as high as ours, but regardless it does nothing to the corrupt human nature. You should give up trying to bash the Catholic Church, especially since you still are not good at citing your sources. The Father you quoted demonstrated well enough how it did not affect the teaching on doctrine and morals.
    You've got it backwards. The fact is, the church is willing to bend for secular government, and society in general, of which its members are a part.

    Did I suggest the church could "stop evil"? I don't think I did! That's nonsense. It refused to stop pedophile preists!!! Just one more difficult situation the church didn't have enough backbone to stand up and face.
    Moral teaching, my foot!

    I wanted to show that the language your leadership employed was vague and ambiguous. It was difficult to interpret then, and is still discussed today, because it wasn't perfectly clear. You have offered excuses and I understand them. Those were tough times.

    On the use of condoms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_175623.html
    Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.
    "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

    Would you care to explain to me how the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS?

    I'm not bashing the church. The Pope is already doing a fine ***.

  10. #60
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    ..... it will not change its moral stance because the stance has been quite clear over the ages.
    Clear as mud.

  11. #61
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    I wanted to show that the language your leadership employed was vague and ambiguous. It was difficult to interpret then, and is still discussed today, because it wasn't perfectly clear. You have offered excuses and I understand them. Those were tough times.

    On the use of condoms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_175623.html
    Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.
    "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

    Would you care to explain to me how the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS?
    The only real stop to the spread of AIDS is firstly, stop drug users from sharing needles; so perhaps abstinance of illegal drug use is better than handing out needles and telling people to go ahead and "shot up." The same goes for the other avenue of spreading AIDS by sexual impurity. Two virgins having a truly monogomous relationship is a sure way of not contacting AIDS, unless a person with AIDS rapes and victimizes one of them. Handing out condoms is the same as handing out needles... it only reinforces the behavior to continue in disrespecting the sanc***y of the body reducing the person's iden***y to a piece of meat or continuing in the enslavement of bad habits.

  12. #62
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The only real stop to the spread of AIDS is firstly, stop drug users from sharing needles; so perhaps abstinance of illegal drug use is better than handing out needles and telling people to go ahead and "shot up." The same goes for the other avenue of spreading AIDS by sexual impurity. Two virgins having a truly monogomous relationship is a sure way of not contacting AIDS, unless a person with AIDS rapes and victimizes one of them. Handing out condoms is the same as handing out needles... it only reinforces the behavior to continue in disrespecting the sanc***y of the body reducing the person's iden***y to a piece of meat or continuing in the enslavement of bad habits.
    Giving clean needles and bleach to addicts is not the same as saying 'shoot up'. The groups that provide these things also provide educational and resourse information. The needles and bleach may help keep some alive while they, and society work on addiction issues.
    Your Pope says the best way to avoid sexually transmitted HIV is to remain abstinent until you marry a partner who is (somehow) guarenteed to be faithful and disease free. Anything less and you die!
    On the one hand, you want us to remember that Popes had to deal with slavery in a world were slavery existed. You want us to understand that they couldn't realistically make definative anti-slavery statements.
    On the other hand, you seem to accept the unwavering (and public) Catholic position against condom use.
    Seems to me, the Church is not as comfortable in the livingroom as it is in the bedroom.
    Last edited by GiGi; 09-25-2010 at 01:34 PM.

  13. #63
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Giving clean needles and bleach to addicts is not the same as saying 'shoot up'.
    It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

    TRiG.

  14. #64
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

    TRiG.
    Yep. And I don't mind saying that the Pope's statement has, and will continue to contribute to countless unnecessary deaths and creates a countless number of orphans.

  15. #65
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

    TRiG.
    In the real world, we are corrupted. AIDS is only a symptom of where the real problems lies. Winning a few battles does not mean you win the war. Christ requires all of us to pick up our cross and follow him. We could list all the ways in which we all die, but it is how we live for God that matters. In this sense the ****sexual, the drug user, the adulterer, the compulsive liar, the gambler, and all grave sinners generate sacrilege... because instead of them allowing God to use them for good, they refuse. God operating within them, they fail to see they are His work.

  16. #66
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    In today's real world we don't need a miracle to prevent or cure leprosy. We have psychiatric medications that treat mental illness instead of prayers to cast out demons. We use drugs to control epilepsy, not exorcism. We use antipyretics for fevers. We understand and cope with a variety of plagues head-on. We don't cower in caves as we await judgement!
    Your Pope(s) seem afraid of the real world. Maybe they should just stay out of it!!!

  17. #67
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    In today's real world we don't need a miracle to prevent or cure leprosy. We have psychiatric medications that treat mental illness instead of prayers to cast out demons. We use drugs to control epilepsy, not exorcism. We use antipyretics for fevers. We understand and cope with a variety of plagues head-on. We don't cower in caves as we await judgement!
    Your Pope(s) seem afraid of the real world. Maybe they should just stay out of it!!!
    There are new leprosies, ones not so easily cured by medication. Even if medications may treat some illnesses, nobody is immortal. The only immortality one can hope for is found in a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness. However, such ideals seem fantasy, and it is in Christ where the checks and balances are maintained. What is your gospel? Is it to create a political utopia? The Pope's role is to guide the sheep of Christ. Hence, he could no more "stay out of it" than to commit suicide just for your idealized new "reality." Is this your ultimate answer? That us Christians would be better off dead and out of your way from gaining your ideal utopia?

  18. #68
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    There are new leprosies, ones not so easily cured by medication. Even if medications may treat some illnesses, nobody is immortal. The only immortality one can hope for is found in a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness. However, such ideals seem fantasy, and it is in Christ where the checks and balances are maintained. What is your gospel? Is it to create a political utopia? The Pope's role is to guide the sheep of Christ. Hence, he could no more "stay out of it" than to commit suicide just for your idealized new "reality." Is this your ultimate answer? That us Christians would be better off dead and out of your way from gaining your ideal utopia?
    I looked and couldn't find a new leprosy. It's the same old leprosy. It's a bacterial infection and it's treated and cured with antibiotics. The disease has ceased to be a public health threat in all but 12 countries.
    Pathogenic bacteria is not divine retribution. It is not the result of "sin". Jesus cured a leper, but modern medicine has cured many thousands of cases, and prevented many thousands more in the last century.
    It is true that the victims are mortal, as are the professionals who research, and develop treatments. Even so, we research, develop, and impliment treatments.
    I never understood the quest for immortality. To get it you have to look to the supernatural. We have to "affect a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness", which, according to the Pope means letting die anyone who doesn't manage his/her sex life the way your god and your church says they should.
    Keep your definition of noble, your sex manual, your checks and balances, and your quest. I don't want it.
    What is my gospel? What on Earth are you going on about?!?
    I didn't say the Pope shold tell people to stay out of it. I said the church's involvement is HARMFUL, and he really should stay out of it!
    Is increased health and wellness on a global scale too idealistic for the church? It might mean re-evaluating its position on the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV, and that won't happen right now. The Pope won't let people live a little longer and maybe find their way to your christ. No way! It's all right now, or nothing!
    You suggest I want you christians dead for some personal agenda? What's the matter with you?!?
    I must say, you're starting to sound like one of those paranoid, extremist, fringe groups. All I can say is, DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!

  19. #69
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    I looked and couldn't find a new leprosy. It's the same old leprosy. It's a bacterial infection and it's treated and cured with antibiotics. The disease has ceased to be a public health threat in all but 12 countries.
    Pathogenic bacteria is not divine retribution. It is not the result of "sin". Jesus cured a leper, but modern medicine has cured many thousands of cases, and prevented many thousands more in the last century.
    It is true that the victims are mortal, as are the professionals who research, and develop treatments. Even so, we research, develop, and impliment treatments.
    I never understood the quest for immortality. To get it you have to look to the supernatural. We have to "affect a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness", which, according to the Pope means letting die anyone who doesn't manage his/her sex life the way your god and your church says they should.
    Keep your definition of noble, your sex manual, your checks and balances, and your quest. I don't want it.
    What is my gospel? What on Earth are you going on about?!?
    I didn't say the Pope shold tell people to stay out of it. I said the church's involvement is HARMFUL, and he really should stay out of it!
    Is increased health and wellness on a global scale too idealistic for the church? It might mean re-evaluating its position on the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV, and that won't happen right now. The Pope won't let people live a little longer and maybe find their way to your christ. No way! It's all right now, or nothing!
    You suggest I want you christians dead for some personal agenda? What's the matter with you?!?
    I must say, you're starting to sound like one of those paranoid, extremist, fringe groups. All I can say is, DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!
    Apparently you missed the whole point of my post. You were looking at the word "leprosy" and not getting beyond the deseases which kill physically. We are all going to die, if not by AIDS, by cancer, by heart attack, by thousands of ways. You want to cure AIDS, you want to cure cancer, you want to cure heart attacks, you want to cure all the things which physically kill a person. This is all well and good, but it is the activities with which people engage in that really matter; are they a good husband and wife, are they a good sibling, a good child, a good friend, a good neighbor? You want to cure AIDS and say that giving out needles is a preventative, it may be... but the drugs can still overdose the addict, the drugs can still ruin families, the drugs of which their addiction puts them at risk to even get AIDS... since they are mind altering drugs and therefore they may share needles even if given clean ones when not under the supervision of those caring folks that hand out needles and talk so highly of education. People are ultimately dumb to engage in illegal drug activity, and no matter of education stops the behavioral damage upon friends and family. This is where Christ's gospel comes in and where you stay silent. You have no real gospel to give, all your solutions are vanities if there is no ultimate purpose to go with it. Your talk so far demonstrates that "health" is your gospel.

    I am not being paranoid, but your private belief that Christians are damaging to society is ultimately annilistic. You desire all people of religions to abandon their "supers***ions" and live in a society free of religion. This is not a realistic ideal. The Christian ethos has existed for two thousand years and has faced the winds of change. Your ideals are going to shift eventually, for the world's philosophies are not progressive.... they are inconsistent. No matter how good a person's health is, it will fail. The ****sexual lifestyle is not consistent with wholesome family values. No matter how much one tries to promote in the media outlets or sway public opinion, the erotic love that exists between the same sex is not efficient.

  20. #70
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Apparently you missed the whole point of my post. You were looking at the word "leprosy" and not getting beyond the deseases which kill physically. We are all going to die, if not by AIDS, by cancer, by heart attack, by thousands of ways. You want to cure AIDS, you want to cure cancer, you want to cure heart attacks, you want to cure all the things which physically kill a person. This is all well and good, but it is the activities with which people engage in that really matter; are they a good husband and wife, are they a good sibling, a good child, a good friend, a good neighbor? You want to cure AIDS and say that giving out needles is a preventative, it may be... but the drugs can still overdose the addict, the drugs can still ruin families, the drugs of which their addiction puts them at risk to even get AIDS... since they are mind altering drugs and therefore they may share needles even if given clean ones when not under the supervision of those caring folks that hand out needles and talk so highly of education. People are ultimately dumb to engage in illegal drug activity, and no matter of education stops the behavioral damage upon friends and family. This is where Christ's gospel comes in and where you stay silent. You have no real gospel to give, all your solutions are vanities if there is no ultimate purpose to go with it. Your talk so far demonstrates that "health" is your gospel.

    I am not being paranoid, but your private belief that Christians are damaging to society is ultimately annilistic. You desire all people of religions to abandon their "supers***ions" and live in a society free of religion. This is not a realistic ideal. The Christian ethos has existed for two thousand years and has faced the winds of change. Your ideals are going to shift eventually, for the world's philosophies are not progressive.... they are inconsistent. No matter how good a person's health is, it will fail. The ****sexual lifestyle is not consistent with wholesome family values. No matter how much one tries to promote in the media outlets or sway public opinion, the erotic love that exists between the same sex is not efficient.
    You will defend a Pope with real-world arguments when he doesn't decisively oppose slavery.
    You will defend a Pope with other-worldly arguements when he does unambiguously oppose the use of condoms to prevent HIV.
    Efforts to keep people alive and as healthy as possible may be why you and I are here today. Modern medicine is the reason infant mortality is relatively low. It's the reason more children survive to adulthood to have children of their own.
    Call it vanity if you think so, but I support the efforts of people who dedicate their lives to helping others live to see another day. I support the efforts of people who use that additional time to improve the lives of at-risk populations.
    OH THE IRONY! The church no longer cuts short the lives of heretics, blasphemers, and enemies of christ overtly. It can't use the death sentence it once imposed to coerce people into servitude. Today, a subtler approach is required.
    You say I have a private belief that christians damage society. Not true! I have not made my beliefs a secret. I'll spell it out for you.
    Religion, all of it, including christianity in all of its guises and disguises, are harmful to individuals and societies. Is that clear enough?
    Do I want everyone to abandon religion? Sure I do. But by now you know I don't resort to wishful thinking as a solution to any problem.
    The fact that people are becoming less religious as each generation is more educated, gives me hope.

  21. #71
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    you hope is meaningless. It does nothing to stop immortality. It does not lift mankind above his mortal circumstances. A created being at birth, whence we are given joy at such innocence and wonder; in death, your hope cannot escape.

  22. #72
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    you hope is meaningless. It does nothing to stop immortality. It does not lift mankind above his mortal circumstances. A created being at birth, whence we are given joy at such innocence and wonder; in death, your hope cannot escape.
    Earth to Columcille. Are you there?
    That "created being at birth" you celebrate might, not long ago, have died before it learned to walk if we left it up to your god. Instead the death my hope cannot escape happens 70, 80 years later.
    You have a misty, magical hope for life after death. My hope lies in tangible solutions to real world problems.
    I wouldn't trade my values, my morality for yours EVER.
    I will try in some small way to love my neighbor right here, right now while the Pope makes ridiculous claims that injure or kill, and if I wake up again after I'm dead to find myself face to face with one of the gods, I may fare better than the Pope and his "sheep" who contributed to suffering and death as a means to "lift mankind above his moral circumstances".

  23. #73
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    you hope is meaningless. It does nothing to stop immortality. It does not lift mankind above his mortal circumstances. A created being at birth, whence we are given joy at such innocence and wonder; in death, your hope cannot escape.
    BTW. Your team hasn't stopped immorality, lifted mankind above blah, blah, blah.......

  24. #74
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Apparently you missed the whole point of my post. You were looking at the word "leprosy" and not getting beyond the deseases which kill physically.
    That's because that's what the word leprosy means. If you want to use the word with some metaphorical meaning, you should make that clear, which you didn't.

    You're spitting out a lot of words with no meaning, as far as I can work out.

    TRiG.

  25. #75
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    That's because that's what the word leprosy means. If you want to use the word with some metaphorical meaning, you should make that clear, which you didn't.

    You're spitting out a lot of words with no meaning, as far as I can work out.

    TRiG.
    Sometimes we can justify our behavior by using literal, reality based examples, and at other times, we must resort to metaphor. It just depends on how desparate we are to avoid responsibility.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •