Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Posted February 26, 2004 Report Posted February 26, 2004 Lord Jesus. FrigidSoul, you know nothing of Catholicism. You scare me. I think he was making broad generalizations of 21st century society - and erroneously thought that that would apply 2000 years ago. It just shows his ignorance of human nature and even history that occured 50 years ago; as many hyper-conservative men in the 50's rarely drank, smoked, had sex, or anything like that.
Guest FrigidSoul Posted February 26, 2004 Report Posted February 26, 2004 Lord Jesus. FrigidSoul, you know nothing of Catholicism. You scare me. I think he was making broad generalizations of 21st century society - and erroneously thought that that would apply 2000 years ago. It just shows his ignorance of human nature and even history that occured 50 years ago; as many hyper-conservative men in the 50's rarely drank, smoked, had sex, or anything like that. I don't believe I am ignorant of human nature. During the Renaissance people fucked like crazy. If you follow the history of human nature people are either fucking like no tommorow for a long period of time or they are being like your 50s TV Family. It goes back and forth, and by the time we're old something will most likely occur to cause people to go back to waiting for marriage before having sex. Thus its not difficult to think he was sexually active Also if you think people didn't smoke or drink in the 50s you need to look into it more, tobacco and alcohol were widly used. Always have been as its an easy way for people with certain problems to self-medicate.
Zorin Industries Posted February 26, 2004 Report Posted February 26, 2004 The most disturbing aspect is he got some nun to escape and marry him. Way to respect god fucknut That's one of the things I've never understould about Catholocism with the whole celebacy of priests, nuns, etc. How can they give family/marriage advice/counseling if they never really have had their own? I believe Priests were allowed to marry up till about 1100, I don't know the reason why this was changed though.
Steviekick Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 I think it was an unenforced rule.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 As a confirmed Lutheran I find this all offensive. Or not...
Steviekick Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 This went downhill fast Maybe...but for a while it went pretty well.
Guest FrigidSoul Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 This went downhill fast Why do you say that? I think it went from Lutherism and its downfalls into why we should hold faith in something when the only real proof is a 2000 year old book and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nevermortal Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 How the fuck did I miss this thread? Anyway, Martin Luther is Part one in my "Enemies of the Catholic Church" signature/avatar series I shall be running during Lent.
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 How the fuck did I miss this thread? Anyway, Martin Luther is Part one in my "Enemies of the Catholic Church" signature/avatar series I shall be running during Lent. Brilliance. Whatta concept. Seriously, I wish I woulda thought of it first.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now