Kirsten Vs the Birdman

Correspondence With a Catholic Woman

 

John,

I have really enjoyed your site for the last few weeks - especially your daily reads. Thanks for doing all that culling for us.

However ( you knew that was coming, no?) why must you exploit the very women that you expect will carry on the white race? I'm sure that you agree that one reason our race is diminishing is because women are having either zero, one or two children max. Why is this? Well, partly because we are portrayed as sexual objects by the (Jewish) media. from this follows mega birth control and abortion which is a huge part of the white genoicide problem.

If you want white women to realize that their place is with their husbands, in their homes and raising good, white, moral children, you might show them a bit more respect on your site. The Jews imported pornography as yet another way to destroy the family, and thus, our race. Aren't you playing right into their hands by encouraging this?

Dear Kirsten:

Thanks for your letter and kind words. You are not the first to complain about the porn on my site. So I have decided to post a few of my thoughts. The following will probably be (approximately) what I post, but in any event will give you an idea of my feelings on this matter.

From Mortal Words v 10:

In attempting to tapdance around the absolute protection of speech and the press given by the First Amendment, conservatives have claimed that it does not protect pornography, because porn does not communicate ideas which function in reasoned discussion, ie, the purpose of porn is to create sexual arousal, not to convey the substance of rational thought. This, however, is a fallacious argument, for one man's pornography is another man's biology, criminology or sociology. That is, an image of the human anatomy may be used for medical study, or it may be used for sexual arousal; a 'pornographic' description of a sex act may be a datum of human behavior, or it may be used as masturbation material. And because it is impossible to separate what arouses from what instructs, it is impossible to ban porn without cutting large chunks out of human knowledge. And what is more, if tits and ass are banned, men will merely revert to the pornographic oogling of calves, bodices, waistlines and the only sexual organ allowed to be openly exposed, the female mouth.

Is Porn 'Degrading'?

The critics of pornography -- ie, erotica -- invariably claim that porn is 'degrading'. This, however, is a highly questionable assertion. To explain, first consider the man who holds a job: Isn't doing what his boss tells him degrading? I think we could easily claim that it is; and yet the people who tell us that porn is 'degrading' are the same ones who are always telling other people to 'get a job'. But we can go further than this and say that, if the boss is forced to pay his employees, then this degrades him; so we might even claim that jobs are a sort of equal- opportunity degradation for both employer and employee.

But let's get back to porn. If you force a woman to take off her clothes and pose, one could argue that this is degrading. But what if she does it willingly, as for love or money? Is this degrading? Is your wife being degraded when she does a strip-tease for you? Is a Playboy cutie being degraded when she walks off with thousands of dollars, plus furs, cars and movie offers, for strutting her stuff? To me, any claim of degradation under these circumstances is highly dubious, to say the least.

But let's carry it one step further. What about the guy who has to whack off because he looks at porn? What about the husband who watches his wife do that strip? Isn't the woman who uses the power of her body to get men hot and bothered degrading those men? I think the argument is a strong one; so the question about porn is, Who exactly is degrading whom?

But the question we really need to answer is, What is degradation? The answer, I think, is force: When someone is forced, they are degraded. But what most people don't take into account is that force comes in different flavors. You can have brute force, as when a man makes a woman take off her clothes under threat of beating her; but you also have the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) force of a woman's beauty, which can and has driven men nuts, bananas, to distraction, up the wall, and onto the psychiatrist's couch.

If that isn't force -- and degradation -- then there ain't no such animal.

Why the Rich Are Reproductively Poor

Statisticians have noted that people of the upper economic classes tend to have fewer children than those of the lower classes. This fact has never been satisfactorily explained, and in fact seems paradoxical, since those of the lower classes cannot afford children as easily as those of the upper. There is, however, a credible explanation for this behavior which transcends such cliches as greed, better access to (or awareness of) birth control, and concern for an overcrowded planet. This explanation is rooted in the different ways in which upper and lower classes view their personal future. In particular, an upperclassman -- by being wealthier and usually more intelligent -- sees his future as largely self-determined because he knows that has the capacity to control the essential variables of his existence. The poor man, however -- by being both poorer and less intelligent -- sees his future as determined much more by chance, and for this reason he is more inclined to play the genetic lottery just as he is more inclined to play the government-sponsored one. In fact, for the very poorest, children may be the only hope, or at least the best one; and for this reason we may say that hope springs eternal from the human womb as well as the human breast.

There is, however, another consideration which is complementary to the above explanation. This involves the fact that all of us, whether rich or poor, nourish in our hearts the idea expressed by the famous lines from Longfellow:

*****************************************************************

Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And departing leave behind us

Footprints in the sands of time.

******************************************************************

For the lower classes, of course, the best bet is the genetic one; but with the upper classes, whose intelligence allows their creativity to extend beyond breeding, there is a natural inclination to invest their lives in their creative efforts -- art, writing, building a company, contributing to a political movement, or any other of the myriad ways in which human beings can make their creative mark.

In contemplating the above observations, we recognize that Nature, in her wisdom, has placed an upper limit on human intelligence by creating a system in which the creative element forms an elite which reproduces poorly. While it is only speculation, this limit may well be evolutionarily adaptive, since the members of an elite compete among themselves for positions of leadership, and competition tends to interfere with the process of leadership. It is much like the stories of history in which princes kill off their brothers, or the fact that the first queen bee to emerge from her cell will kill her nascent rivals: to be effective, leadership cannot be divided. Aldous Huxley made the same observation in Brave New World: While the society of his utopian/dystopian novel began by breeding high intelligence, the rivalry among the 'alpha pluses' soon made it clear that uniformly high intelligence was unadaptive.

Or, as I have observed in other of my writings, society needs a range of intelligence, because it needs people who are happy taking out the garbage. Which is -- come to think of it -- one kind of diversity I can support.

Letter excerpts:

Now let me tell you a little about porn and Western culture. Porn has been a part of Western culture -- and indeed a CELEBRATED part -- as long has there has BEEN Western culture. Greek pottery is covered with it; Pompeii was full of it, Ovid and other classical authors -- just now being 'retranslated' to be more true to original intent -- were masters of it, Jefferson collected it, 'artistic nudity' -- from the Greeks to Goya and Renoir -- was just a pre-photographic form of it, and so on. The prudery of the Victorian period was an aberration, but is still, unfortunately, with us. It's not actually that simple -- Victorianism may have been a reaction to the spread of VD brought back by Columbus, for example -- but the point is that not only is Western culture from the historic standpoint porn-friendly, but that it is largely irrelevant to 'morality', so called. Pornography is not behavior; it is fantasy. Morality is only relevant to behavior, and just because someone likes porn does not mean they cheat on their spouse or engage in other immoral acts, any more than someone who looks at violent movies becomes a killer.

Let us begin with an important observation: Fucking is a family value. Given that, we can observe that porn is actually a supporter of family values, because porn is fantasy, and thus offers an alternative to 'reality'. And what is that reality? I'll tell you: Men like to see nekked women. Especially nekked women in erotic poses. And maybe with a man or two thrown in. And if they don't see them, then they fantasize about them. That's how men get off. And if they don't see, or fantasize, then they don't get off. And, if I might be so bold as to say, if they don't get off, then their women aren't very happy either -- not only don't the women 'get any', but Hell hath no fury like a horny man.

Actually, porn is not so much a Western value as it is a MALE value. Men like it and need it; women don't. Or rather, women need a different kind of porn. Romance novels, for example. In fact, a lot of women don't like porn of any kind because they don't have the sex drive that males do, and just don't need to get off. So that's one reason why women are often hostile to porn. Another is jealousy. But whatever their non- attraction or dislike of (male) porn, it doesn't keep women from trying to bring men to a fever-pitch in the same way that porn is supposed to. Pouty lips and seductive smiles -- to say nothing of tight clothes and wiggle- walks -- are just pornography in a slightly different form.

As noted above, your feeling about porn was that it was a sign of degeneracy in the culture; and while I grant that there is much moral degeneracy in America, it has little or nothing to do with porn, because porn has always been a part of Western culture; and in fact -- as explained above -- porn actually SUPPORTS Western culture in the sense of providing fantasy in place of reality, and sexual excitement in place of dull prudery.

[Kirsten responds:]

John,

Since my husband and I are Catholics, I obviously disagree with much that you say on this subject. However, I would like to point out that while porn was common in Greek/Roman times, it was looked down upon and rightly abhorred by white Europeans throughout almost 2000 years after Christ. I suppose it's difficult to explain why pornography is so degrading unless one can understand the absolute honor and respect that is due to a woman as a bearer of life. Separating sex from child bearing is a little like separating nutrition from eating - leading to the vomitoriums of Roman times as wealthy patricians vomitted up the food that did not want the results from. Pornography effectively = separates a woman from her life-giving role and views her as an object of pleasure. And, I agree with you that a man does need that kind of pleasure, but only insofar as he is willing to support the results of that - ie. children!

Dont' you think it is a little short-sighted to complain about the large families and populations of the 3rd world countries while you support limiting the size of white families so that the parents can have an intellectual effect on society? One of the main reasons the white race is disappearing is because we are not reproducing at even close the replacement rate. Porn (even soft porn as on your site) contributes to this as it emphasizes sexual pleasure as removed from its purpose.

Why do you think that having many children somehow precludes having an intellect? Why couldn't white families have 8 children each AND be the leaders and shapers of society? Wouldn't we have 3X the impact? Our race is dwindling and most of it is our own selfish fault for contracepting ourselves out of existence.

[Birdman replies]

Kirsten:

I can see that my lengthy explanations leave you unmoved, so I'll just ask you a couple of questions.

* Most people who value Western civilization recognize that its roots are in Greco-Roman civilization. Since porn was widespread in both, don't you think it is inconsistent to laud the civilization while rejecting a current which ran very deep in that civilizaiton?

* What exactly is it that you object to in porn? Do you think it is immoral for a man to hold pornographic images in his mind, and if not, then what is the objection to commiting them to paper or other medium?

* What do you think about during sex that makes you come to orgasm, and if these are not pornographic images, then why are they morally superior to the pornographic images that every man holds in his mind and allows = HIM to come to orgasm?

I shall be most interested in your reply. -j

[Kirsten responds:]

John,

Somehow I lost the latest e-mail you sent, so I'll have to answer your questions from memory the best I can.

As far as my thoughts during the most private times between myself and my husband: I could not even think of sharing them with you. But I will tell you that other men do not enter my mind and do not excite me. Even if they did, it would be an insult to my husband who has forsaken all others for me.

I do grant you that for men, images of other women are exciting and are difficult to control. This does not make it right. Why? In a nutshell: "Whosoever looks at a women with lust in his heart has committed adultery" - can't remember where it is in the Bible offhand. It's very instructive, I believe, that Jesus did not repeat this command to women, knowing as He did that is would not be so much of a temptation.

And I will tell you that my husband does not indulge in extra- marital fantasies either. You are probably saying, "Yeah, right". Well, he probably does fall sometimes, but he considers it a very serious matter when it occurrs and confesses it - as it is a mortal sin. Happily, he rates his sexual satisfaction "off the chart" compared to his expectations. This is really no surprise (or great complement to me) since married couples in a monogamous relationship have always reported much higher sexual satisfaction than singles who "live it up" according to studies on this. Not using pornography is just an extension of this fact.

As for your question about Greek/Roman times, I would answer that there are MANY things about that culture - not just pornography - that we would not want to reproduce and imitate. For example, infanticide was a huge problem. If the patriarche of the family didn't want the latest addition to the family, the baby was left to die. This was accepted behavior. Also, the entertainment of the day was watching people get ripped to shreds by lions - not just Christians either. Gluttony to the point of throwing up was common among the upper classes. Divorce was very easy and tended to leave women destitute. Relgion - homage to the Greek or Roman gods - was obligatory and negligence in this regard was punishable by death. If we need to accept ALL things about Greek/Roman culture in order to realize that much of Western Civilization derives from it, I fear we are in a sorry state. Christianity took much of what was good and noble in ancient times and then built upon it and contributed the loving commandments of Our Lord. This is what gave us Christendom - another name for Western Civilization - the highest expression of culture the world has ever seen.

Again, I realize that much of what I say (especially the words of Jesus regarding adultery) do not convince an unbeliever. However, the effects of your opinion - that pornography and birth control (and perhaps abortion?) are OK should be immediately apparent to you. Our race - no matter how much intellectual prowess we have - will lose to the Hispanics,blacks and Arabs because they at least have enough racial pride to want to reproduce. They realize that sex (while certainly enjoyable) should lead to children. Those children grow up and have a HUGE influence on the world to come - especially if one raises them right. I have six children (so far) who will grow up and have far more influence than I could ever have alone. Then, they will reproduce and so on.

Well, gotta tend to the youngins'. Sorry if I forgot one of your questions - ask me again if you want.

[Birdman replies:]

Kirsten:

I have thought out some questions for you -- more elaborate than the ones I originally asked. Since I have given a lot of thought to these, I would appreciate your answering them. I do not believe doing so will = involve invading your privacy, since the questions are basically about your philosophy.

Before I start, let me point out one very large difference between us: You believe that certain thoughts are evil, while I believe that NO thoughts are. In this respect you are playing right into the Orwellian nightmare ('thoughtcrime' was severaly punished in Orwell's 1984), and right into the hands of the Left ('hate crimes' are really thought crimes because determination of guilt requires examination of a person's thoughts). Your position is also reminiscent of the argument of leftist feminist Katherine MacKinnon, who argues that words are the same as = deeds (your position might be described as saying that THOUGHTS are the same as deeds). To my mind this represents severe confusion and dangerous nonsense. In fact, this matter is relevant to what you find so attractive about my site -- you like my being unconstrained by political correctness, yet you see no problem in having your mind constrained by = what can only be described as SEXUAL correctness. Just as the lemmings refuse to think that the Jews and blacks can be criticized, so you think that your thoughts must be limited in the sexual department. It is part and parcel of the same dangerous attitude.

OK, so here are the questions I would like you to answer.

* First, Biblical religion is invariably cherry-picking: For example, people will say they believe in the 10 Commandments, but then have no trouble shooting enemy soldiers or burglars and thereby violating the commandment that states 'Thou shalt not kill'. Likewise, Jesus said, Let the man who has two coats give one away, but I don't see ANYBODY following that one, whether Christian or not. Again, I don's see anybody, whether Christian or not, obeying 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'. So here are three different ways in which you almost certainly violate your own religion, so what's the hangup about sex?

* You seem to be saying that porn is bad because it constitutes 'adultery'. I think that's a mistake, because I think there is a difference between thinking and doing. Do you agree or not?

* Suppose you have a porn picture, but suppose it is not of any particular individual, but instead is just a fantasy, like a drawing. In this case, a sexual fantasy about this 'individual' couldn't be = considered adulterous, since the picture is not OF anyone. Do you agree? Would you then find it objectionable?

* Suppose someone has a sexual fantasy -- not about a particular individual, but about an imaginary person. This then cannot be 'adulterous', as explained above, am I right? Would you then find it objectionable?

* Suppose that someone fantasizes about, not a person, or even a non-existent person, but rather, say, the kitchen sink. Is this immoral by your standards? What about dirty sox? (Krafft-Ebing reports such a case)

* Is there any kind of sexual fantasy of which you approve, and if so, what?

* Is it OK to look at your partner during sex. or do you have to have sex in the dark? Can you have sex during the day? Do you have to shut your eyes? Does he?

* If it is OK to look at your partner, is it OK to use mirrors to look at yourself and your partner?

* Would it be OK to look at porn if you pasted a picture of the head of your partner or yourself onto the heads of the participants who are depicted, as appropriate?

* If it is OK to look at your partner during sex (ie, if it is OK to = hold pornographic images in your mind of your partner), is it then OK to take pictures of your partner during sex and then look at them?

* If it is not OK to take pictures of your partner and look at them, then why is it OK to fantasize about your partner, that is, why is it ok = to hold pornographic images in your mind (I assume that you approve of fantasizing about your partner)?

* If it is OK to take pictures of your partner during sex and look at them, then how can you get this close to porn yet not approve of it? Or rather, how can you approve of porn that you make yourself, but not approve of porn that other people make?

* If, as Lenny Bruce so famously observed, God made tits and ass, then why do religious people so often behave as if they are ashamed of them?

[Kirsten responds with interlineated comments:]

Before I start, let me point out one very large difference between us: You believe that certain thoughts are evil, while I believe that NO thoughts are. In this respect you are playing right into the Orwellian nightmare ('thoughtcrime' was severaly punished in Orwell's 1984), and right into the hands of the Left ('hate crimes' are really thought crimes because determination of guilt requires examination of a person's thoughts). Your position is also reminiscent of the argument of leftist feminist Katherine MacKinnon, who argues that words are the same as deeds (your position might be described as saying that THOUGHTS are the same as deeds).

John,

The reason that thoughts can be evil is because God revealed to us that certain thoughts do offend Him. God is the only one who can read hearts and minds and thus is the only one who can punish or reward our thoughts - hidden as they are from the public eye. I would never approve of a society which punished according to thoughts.

A reason why some thoughts are wrong is partly (not completely) because many thoughts tend to turn into actions. A man viewing pornography is going to treat his wife less like a person, and more like an object of pleasure - or he's going to start wondering why she's NOT such an object of pleasure as those pictures he's been looking at. Adulterous thoughts can also lead to affairs and other sins. Actions don't just happen but are thought about and built up in the mind. Not that this always happens, but it can.

To my mind this represents severe confusion and dangerous nonsense. In fact, this matter is relevant to what you find so attractive about my site -- you like my being unconstrained by political correctness, yet you see no problem in having your mind constrained by what can only be described as SEXUAL correctness.

OK - here's why. Political correctness originates from the ideas of the Jews and freemasons. All of their "sins" are not what God thinks are sins - as He has revealed Himself through the Catholic Church. Therefore, I find a great deal of pleasure in seeing you blow them all to pieces. Pornography does break God's rules, so I don't like that. To be honest, it seems to me that your approval of pornography is rather falling into the hands of the Jews who gave us this foul cuture.

Just as the lemmings refuse to think that the Jews and blacks can be criticized, so you think that your thoughts must be limited in the sexual department. It is part and parcel of the same dangerous attitude.

"The truth will set you free...." God's rules have a liberating effect upon us. As opposed the Jews' rules which are meant to enslave us. Just because the Jews deem certain things as "thought crimes" doesn't mean thought crimes don't exist - just not the ones they believe. Again, "thought crimes" are judged by God and God alone.

OK, so here are the questions I would like you to answer.

* First, Biblical religion is invariably cherry-picking: For example, people will say they believe in the 10 Commandments, but then have no trouble shooting enemy soldiers or burglars and thereby violating the commandment that states 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Catholicism is not exactly a "Biblical religion". I mean, it is - because the Catholic Church put the Bible together and declared it infallible, but we are not dependent on the Bible alone and on erroneous interpretations which lead us in a circle. (I've never understood why "Bible Christians" think it's infallible anyway since they don't believe in the very Church which put the Bible together!). Therefore, I do believe in the Bible, but as interpreted by the Church. For instance, the Church teaches that "Thou Shalt not kill" is in reference to innocent life only. And, in fact, the word in Hebrew translates better to "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

Likewise, Jesus said, Let the man who has two coats give one away, but I don't see ANYBODY following that one, whether Christian or not. Again, I don's see anybody, whether Christian or not, obeying 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'. So here are three different ways in which you almost certainly violate your own religion, so what's the hangup about sex?

Well, you should see people do it. This is just plain charity and giving to those in need. How about all that money donated to the WTC victims' families. . And as far as loving thy neighbor as thyself, well, all we can do is try. We are fallen creatures after all. Jesus is teaching what we should strive for

* You seem to be saying that porn is bad because it constitutes 'adultery'. I think that's a mistake, because I think there is a difference between thinking and doing. Do you agree or not?

As far as human relations are concerned, yes, there is a difference. A man who actually does cheat on his wife will be more likely to lose his family and hurt her than a man who just thinks about it. As far as offending God, no, there is not any difference. Thought (intent) and action are the same in His eyes.

* Suppose you have a porn picture, but suppose it is not of any particular individual, but instead is just a fantasy, like a drawing. In this case, a sexual fantasy about this 'individual' couldn't be considered adulterous, since the picture is not OF anyone. Do you agree? Would you then find it objectionable? .

Yes it would be objectionable because sex and sexual fantasies are only between one man and one woman not between a man and an object. All of the man's sexual thoughts and actions are to centered upon his wife only. If the drawing resembled a woman, not his wife, then it's the same problem as before. If it resembled an object or some abstract picture, then it's a perversion.

* Suppose someone has a sexual fantasy -- not about a particular individual, but about an imaginary person. This then cannot be 'adulterous', as explained above, am I right? Would you then find it objectionable?

It can be adulterous because in the man's mind he is thinking about someone else but his wife in a sexual way. It doesn't matter if the person really exists or not. What matters is that it is not his wife.

* Suppose that someone fantasizes about, not a person, or even a non-existent person, but rather, say, the kitchen sink. Is this immoral by your standards? What about dirty sox? (Krafft-Ebing reports such a case)

Perversion. Sex is between man and woman only. Ditto for fantasies.

* Is there any kind of sexual fantasy of which you approve, and if so, what?

Any sexual fantasy which is about one's spouse is fine. And it must culminate in coitus which is open to life.

* Is it OK to look at your partner during sex. or do you have to have sex in the dark? Can you have sex during the day? Do you have to shut your eyes? Does he?

First of all, let me answer a lot of these questions at once by saying that any activity between a husband and wife (not partners) which culminates in coitus and is open to life is totally AOK. Basically, the world is your oyster with these guidelines.

* If it is OK to look at your partner, is it OK to use mirrors to look at yourself and your partner?

Fine

* Would it be OK to look at porn if you pasted a picture of the head of your partner or yourself onto the heads of the participants who are depicted, as appropriate?

No, because someone's else's body is being subsituted. In marriage, the spouses forsake all others - faces or bodies or whatever.

* If it is OK to look at your partner during sex (ie, if it is OK to hold pornographic images in your mind of your partner), is it then OK to take pictures of your partner during sex and then look at them?

Fine

* If it is not OK to take pictures of your partner and look at them, then why is it OK to fantasize about your partner, that is, why is it ok to hold pornographic images in your mind (I assume that you approve of fantasizing about your partner)?

* If it is OK to take pictures of your partner during sex and look at them, then how can you get this close to porn yet not approve of it? Or rather, how can you approve of porn that you make yourself, but not approve of porn that other people make?

Because the pictures would be for my spouse's eyes only. They would not be exciting other men and because they would be used, presumably, in the act of intercourse or leading up to it, which could engender new life, which is the purpose of marriage.

* If, as Lenny Bruce so famously observed, God made tits and ass, then why do religious people so often behave as if they are ashamed of them?

Oh, we Catholics are not such prudes as you might think. It's just that we think of sex as something sacred. It is not something to be bandied about in the public square. It is something terribly special and private and to be enjoyed with your spouse alone. Sort of like when you are looking forward to that great Thanksgiving dinner, you fast all day so you can really enjoy it when it comes. Makes it more special that way than if you do what I do and taste all your cooking so many times that you're full before you sit down! We Catholics just delay our gratification for our spouse alone and we ARE rewarded!

Now, a few questions for you.

How will our white race perpetuate itself and not be swallowed up by the other races if the white women refuse to have more than one or two babies?

Would you approve of your mother or sister being in a Playboy centerfold? If not, why not?

[Birdman responds:]

Thanks for your candid reply. I want to post it -- anonymously, of course -- on my site, so I hope you won't object.

My answers to your questions: I am all in favor of white women having as many brats as they can manage, as long as their IQ is on the elevated side, and I have no objection to any family members or friends posing for skin mags (tho I probably wouldn't be looking at my mother - can't say about my sis, as I don't have one).

One more question for you: What, in your doctrine, happens after death to those people (such as myself) who regard themselves as morally pure and who regard religion as false and the source of much foolishness and misery? -j

[Kirsten repleis:]

John,

That's fine to post it - anonymously! LOL.

As far as what happens after death, the news is not good. Jesus said, "Whoever does not believe will be condemned". Thus, it doesn't much matter whether one believes one is morally pure or not. The objective reality is that we are not pure. Sort of like if I think that 2+2=5 is does not make it so no matter how sure I am or how sincere I am in that belief.

So, all I can say is that it would be my hope that you would check out the claims of the Catholic Church. There's no point in bothering about any other one since the Catholic Church is the only true Church. You are obviously a very intelligent person - you owe it to yourself to at least find out why the Church makes the claims it does - or at least why it used to before Jews and freemasons obscured its official teachings to some extent. You should be able to refute them if they are false. I would be happy to answer any questions or challenges you may have but only if you truly have an open mind and would follow through on the truth if you were convinced of it. On your website, you claim that you are interesting only in the truth and fearlessly print it. I am a convert to the Faith so I went through the whole process myself.

Brats?? Brats??? With this attitude, I fear our race is doomed. Mexicans and blacks do not call their children brats and have many of them. We whites have forgotten the art and science of bringing up children so that they are wonderful treasures in the home and not bratty whiny things. Sadly, I supose I must agree that most children raised today in the spoiled American way, are pretty bratty.

Thanks for an interesting discussion!

[Birdman responds:]

Kirsten:

As a parting shot (I originally wrote 'shit', so you can maybe find a yuck in that), if you believe that the Romish Church is the One True Church, you have some explaining to do, like how do you explain how "The Bad Popes" (title of a book on the subject) were so bad -- murderers, rapists, robbers, adulterers, etc. You also have to explain my arguments against religion, which you will find on my site, and which I rather think would upset you (but maybe not -- you seem fairly self-possessed, even if confused).

Another point: Do you know why the Church invented the concept of Purgatory? It was to keep from consigning to Hell the pre-Christian souls that they damn well knew could not be so assigned -- like Aristotle, whom the Church now reveres.

Another point Do you know why the Church uses the fish symbol for Jesus? Answer: To 'christianize' a widely-used fertility symbol -- the one used to symbolize the female sex organ (see 'cartoon article' in Articles of Others under Religion). Also, do you know why Dec 25 is the 'birthday' of the 'Son'? Answer: To 'christianize' the winter solstice, also known as the (re)birth day of the SUN. (Same for the Easter Sunrise/Son-rise service -- just an ancient fertility rite).

A final point: If your god assigns me -- a person who is good according to his own lights -- to Hell, then he is not Good, but rather Evil Incarnate, and it is the obligation of every good person to fight the SOB.

Chow & cold beer (and hot women). -j

 

[Kirsten responds with interlineated comments]

if you believe that the Romish Church is the One True Church, you have some explaining to do, like how do you explain how "The Bad Popes" (title of a book on the subject) were so bad -- murderers, rapists, robbers, adulterers, etc.

John,

Bad popes pose no problem at all for the Catholic Church. Popes are protected against one thing: making a mistake in faith or morals when they teach something to the Church. They are infallible only in this way. You are thinking of impeccability - which is, more or less, being sinless or not making any mistakes in life. Popes can and have been miserable sinners - as was, of course, St. Peter, the first pope who denied even knowing Our Lord when He was being strung up by the Jews. Our present pope certainly has his faults too.

You also have to explain my arguments against religion, which you will find on my site, and which I rather think would upset you (but maybe not -- you seem fairly self-possessed, even if confused).

Hmmm, well that sounds time consuming. I'd rather answer one point at a time. But if I get the time, I'll read through it. Again, only if you are truly interested however. I don't want to waste my time giving proofs and answers to someone who will just blow it off at the end. If you truly care about the truth, I'd be glad to put the time in. Many people make a great show out of claiming that the Church is all wet or this or that reason, when the truth is that they do not want to live up to its strict moral standards and no amount of truth can change their minds.

Another point: Do you know why the Church invented the concept of Purgatory? It was to keep from consigning to Hell the pre-Christian souls that they damn well knew could not be so assigned -- like Aristotle, whom the Church now reveres.

I think you have Purgatory mixed up with Limbo. No one before Christ went to Purgatory. That is Catholic teaching, regardless of what you have been told. Limbo, on the other hand, is the place where the just of the Old Testament went until Christ redeemed them - an anteroom basically. And it only makes sense that those faithful people who were awaiting the Messiah should not be consigned to Hell, but at the same time, could not enter Heaven until the price for our salvation had been paid.

Another point Do you know why the Church uses the fish symbol for Jesus? Answer: To 'christianize' a widely-used fertility symbol -- the one used to symbolize the female sex organ (see 'cartoon article' in Articles of Others under Religion). Also, do you know why Dec 25 is the 'birthday' of the 'Son'? Answer: To 'christianize' the winter solstice, also known as the (re)birth day of the SUN. (Same for the Easter Sunrise/Son-rise service -- just an ancient fertility rite).

I fail to see why this would render the claims of the Church null and void. God wisely used the practices and festivals of the pagan world in Christianity. Yes, He did Christianize them. What's so wrong about that? The people were used to celebrations at various times of the year - which God might very well have inspired them to do in order to prepare them for the Church Calendar in due time. We are creatures of habit, after all, and God knew that we would be easier acclimated into the Church celebrations if we were already celebrating something like it. The pagan festivities were in no way evil before the coming of Christ as the Word of God hadn't come yet to tell us what was required.

As far as the symbol of the fish: It comes from what the Romans put on the cross "Jesus Christ, King of the Jews". In Greek, the first letters of each word produce: INRI which means "fish" in Greek. I am pretty sure about this, but not 100%. I'll try to look it up.

A final point: If your god assigns me -- a person who is good according to his own lights -- to Hell, then he is not Good, but rather Evil Incarnate, and it is the obligation of every good person to fight the SOB.

If you go to Hell than it is your own choice, having ignored the many graces (helps from God to see the truth) that God has given you. As far as your own lights go: be careful. They can deceive you. Any kind of serious habitual sin, such as sexual sin, tends to blunt the conscience and make it almost impossible to feel shame or guilt even though it is warrented. Besides this, since we are fallen creatures, we perceive spritual things very badly unless helped by God's grace.

Kirsten

 

[Birdman did not respond - he knows when he's licked.]

 

 

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *