The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 279

A devestating verdict on the Polish church


aphrodisiac 11 | 2,444
21 Dec 2010 #61
Poland's most popular newspaper. Educated Poles evidently prefer Gazeta Wyborcza's point of view to yours.

yes they do, even the ones who are wondering at the moment what happened to the CC in Poland and stopped going there for that reason alone.
Ziemowit 13 | 4,182
21 Dec 2010 #62
... and other things like having sex w. your own children (two daughters get their father drunk to have sex with him). THAT you call the moral source and guidance for life?

I'm not an expert on the Bible, but as far as I remember, the context for it was the need to keep the continuity of the human race. As for an extreme case when the very existence of mankind is ultimately threatened, this guidance should be viewed in a different light than in the usual circumstances for which the Bible has different prescriptions indeed. It may even be called a "guidance for life", as you call it, the human life, that is to say. For that matter, your "accusations" of the Bible are very unfair and show that you do not know what it really is about.
Olaf 6 | 956
21 Dec 2010 #63
continuity of the human race

It is good you draw conclusions but this one isn't right: It was not about continuity of human race but just Lot's family blodlines, or at least that is what the elder sister thought. And please, even if it was so, would you do it for the mankind with your sister??

Both sisters were young and virgin so there was no point in thinking they would not be married. They were not last people on Earth. It was incest, that's all. You think there is some justificatioon to incest? What if (which was normal and common at that times) the daughters were let's say 10 and 13? Then you have to add pedophilia to incest, child abuse etc. Since the mischief sisters made Lot so drunk he couldn't be aware (but still could perform...) then there must've been sthg wrong with them. But Lot was not without fault too, earlier in Sodom he offered his two daughters to a crowd of men in order to satisfy their needs any way they pleased with his two daughters. This was an offer in exchange of two angels that Lot took home as guests.

Do you still think this is a great universal guideline or a it resembles more of a sick, complicated plot of a pervert novelist? This is just one example, we could analyse all of them but we got off-topic here.
Ziemowit 13 | 4,182
21 Dec 2010 #64
and other things like having sex w. your own children (two daughters get their father drunk to have sex with him). THAT you call the moral source and guidance for life? Good luck then - but first do read the rest, I won't spoil you the ending.

It is good you draw conclusions but this one isn't right: It was not about continuity of human race but just Lot's family blodlines, or at least that is what the elder sister thought.

As I said, I'm not an expert on the Bible, so you are probably right. But you cannot view the Bible only as a moral source or guidance for life. I think it depicts many types of human behaviour which should not be followed. Apart from being a guidance, it is also a historic document of its times.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
21 Dec 2010 #65
Just because you blow couple priests doesn't mean whole institution is evil.

That might be a bit hard to swallow.

Lot was not without fault too

Didn't he get punished for his daughter's bedtime story?

I think that's where the moral bit comes in... (mind you, I always felt the Big Guy was a bit hit and miss with his holy judgement at times)
Olaf 6 | 956
21 Dec 2010 #66
True. I can agree with what you wrote except this

it is also a historic document of its times

- the Bible rather treats notion of time as flexible (description of creation of the universe can be treated metaphorically however there are other problems with this interpretation), the timing, age of Earth is completly untrue there, there is nothing true about the creation of man, evolution... Adam and Eve were first and only people on Earth, they had two sons, and Kain killed Abel - so again Kain must've either competed with his father Adam to fornicate with his mother Eve (incest again) or he shagged some monkey and this would explain our evolution theory;) - only this happened in different time span.

Also most of the things described there are borrowed from older religions and cultures. For example Moses put by Jechebed in a wicker basket to river and saved by pharoah's family - this is borrowed from the story of Sargon of Akkad who lived around 23rd century BC.

I would say the Bible has some other qualities than historical, factual. The safest would be treating it as a great cultural source. However, often it is low culture I'd say, as for example you can find this fascination with feaces and defecation:

"that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own **** with you" (II Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12)
"Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith" (Ez 4:15).

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."(Malachi 2:3).
What is this?!
"And thou shalt eat it [as] barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight" (Ezechiel 4:12).

And this is just a part of it. Very often in the Bible stealing, murder, disrespect for parents goes unpunished. You can try to interpret those situations somehow, but this won't change the fact that there is only little logic and it contradicts itself.

Just because you blow couple priests doesn't mean whole institution is evil.

- No. This means the person is totally f@g, and that the Church should maybe recruit it's personnel more carefully. I'd like to see that: a recruitment company working for the Church:D

Didn't he get punished for his daughter's bedtime story?

Not at all! He was still considered a "righteous man" (Gen 19:33) even though before he offered his own daughters to violent sex assaulters and rapists in Sodom.
cheehaw 2 | 263
21 Dec 2010 #67
Not at all! He was still considered a "righteous man" (Gen 19:33) even though before he offered his own daughters to violent sex assaulters and rapists in Sodom.

Been a couple years since I read Genesis.. but, and correct me if I am wrong, didn;t Abraham say finally.. if there is one righteous man.. and The Lord said no, but go get your cousin Lot out of sodom if you care..

something like that anyway.

Must be Lot and his daughters and the incest thing that gave the jews so many birth defects. not a joke, my family is not jewish but there must have been one somewhere in the past because my lil sister carries one of those jewish specific birth defects..
OP sobieski 107 | 2,128
21 Dec 2010 #68
The religionists still have not answered to the accusations made by Father Wiśniewski.
They rant about GW, very poor argument.

Painful isn't it, that you cannot discredit this guy?

By the way, how it is possible that the Lunar Twins were living in PRL times in Żolibórz in a spacious flat? Maybe their family did something special?

How is it possible that giving their family background could live there? Did the PRL authorities turn a blind eye? For which reason?
ender 5 | 398
21 Dec 2010 #69
Painful isn't it, that you cannot discredit this guy?

first can I have link to FULL letter? Gazeta Wyborcza (tzw. szmatawiec) is like Harry twists facts.
second you don't answer idiot you agree with him in hope he lives you alone.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
21 Dec 2010 #70
The religionists still have not answered to the accusations made by Father Wiśniewski.
They rant about GW, very poor argument.

Of course they haven't - did you really expect them to rationally talk about what he has to say? Nope, they bring up Michnik and GW yet again - which is exactly the kind of behaviour that Wisniewski is warning about. Funny, no?

By the way, how it is possible that the Lunar Twins were living in PRL times in Żolibórz in a spacious flat? Maybe their family did something special?

I think we all know that daddy Kaczynski sold himself to the Communist authorities - it may explain in part Kaczynski's hatred towards Communists - he's still trying to convince himself that his father wasn't a traitor.
Ironside 50 | 10,810
21 Dec 2010 #71
I think

could you answer my previous post addressed to you ?

The religionists still have not answered to the accusations made by Father Wiśniewski.

Who? Accusation ? This is his point of view, so what? Is that disturbing your one tracked mind ?
stop jerking off about the letter !
OP sobieski 107 | 2,128
21 Dec 2010 #72
second you don't answer idiot you agree with him in hope he lives you alone.

Why had the Lunar Twins had a spacious flat in an elite Warsaw neighbourhood when 90% of the people were starving in ruins?
Commie connections?
ender 5 | 398
21 Dec 2010 #73
From yesterday sobieski and delphiadomine were unable deliver FULL open letter :-). Because of that I have to say article from GW (szmatławiec) is scam (typical for that newspaper) and sobieski and delphiandomine are liers.
OP sobieski 107 | 2,128
21 Dec 2010 #74
forum.wiara.pl/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=27016

My questions now:
1. Why did the duck twins live in Żolibórz in a spacious flat in PRL times?
2. What is the resemblance between Poland and France?
ender 5 | 398
21 Dec 2010 #75
I'm sorry I find Little Britain Abroad far more interesting. I want to apologize Harry/sobieski and delphiandomine for calling them lairs on the ground this very thread ONLY.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
21 Dec 2010 #76
even though before he offered his own daughters to violent sex assaulters and rapists in Sodom.

But perhaps that was considered noble because of the social rule of safeguarding guests (especially ones who are angels).
Olaf 6 | 956
22 Dec 2010 #77
Well, put yourself in Lot's shoes and think if you'd do the same nowadays. Is that a universal guideline? Would this help to preserve Lot's bloodline and maintain his family if he gave away his daughters to the vicious crowd? I guess not.

It was a sacred custom to host your guests the best way possible, but isn't this - and some other things and rules described - a bit outdated? Would anyone serious consider doing as Lot did, today? No, I think not. You would rather choose a different option.

Also, I think the mighty angels who had powers to destroy two major cities with rain of fire and sulphur just a few hours later could protect their own arses? They came to do the wet work and were not able to help Lot out in this? Or maybe that was yet another test for Lot? Did he pass it? These kind of tests, like Abraham with his son and Lot with his daughters had, are not made by any merciful god. Kill your son to pay me respects? Let the angry mob rape your only children?

No thanks.
yehudi 1 | 433
22 Dec 2010 #78
Must be Lot and his daughters and the incest thing that gave the jews so many birth defects.

Point of information:
Lot was not the ancestor of the Jews. He was the ancestor of the nations of Moab and Ammon. His uncle Abraham was the ancestor of the Jews and several other nations.

And by the way, as far as the discussion of biblical morality, the Bible gives no indication that Lot was a role model for anything. He was just Abraham's nephew who was always getting into trouble.
Olaf 6 | 956
22 Dec 2010 #79
That's true, both tribes were not Israelites. One of them actually fought Israelites...

the Bible gives no indication that Lot was a role model for anything

- Yes, I think it does call Lot a just and righteous man:
2 Peter 2:7-8
7:
" and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men"
and
"But God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him."

or
"And [God] delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)"
yehudi 1 | 433
22 Dec 2010 #80
All your quotes are from the New testament. Not my bible. You'd have to ask a christian about that. In the Jewish Bible Lot isn't referred to as righteous.

By the way, while we're on this topic, notice that Noah got drunk and was molested by his son Ham after the flood, and Lot was made drunk by his daughters and then molested (for lack of a better word) after the destruction of Sodom. Apparently the trauma of seeing the world destroyed led to screwed up behavior in some people.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
22 Dec 2010 #81
Ham był chamem ;) ;)

Lot was deemed to be righteous, yehudi.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
22 Dec 2010 #82
No thanks.

Yep, my thoughts too.

Always got me when the big G zapped a guy for trying to steady the ark of the covenant when it was about to fall.

I wonder what he'd have done to the Israelites if it HAD fallen... mega zapping all round, I guess.

All your quotes are from the New testament.

They're Old Testament.

I always thought the reason the Moabites (I think) were considered killable by the Israelites was because of their stained bloodline (the bedtime story bit). I just noticed that all the quotes about Lot being righteous are about the pre-beddy-byes bit.
Olaf 6 | 956
22 Dec 2010 #83
In the Jewish Bible Lot isn't referred to as righteous.

As far as I know, Jewish versions are much "closer to the original". Just look at the commandaments - how the heck the Christians made com. 1, 2 and 3 out of only one initially? And two last ones are also one originally. Simple assumption: some have been removed and replaced by making two out of one in order to keep the same number - 10.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
22 Dec 2010 #84
Mega zapping all round, LOL. A nice way of putting it. No wonder clemency emerged as a concept after that.
bimber94 7 | 254
22 Dec 2010 #85
Trevek:
I wonder what he'd have done to the Israelites if it HAD fallen... mega zapping all round I guess

With ray guns maybe. And those two 'angels' in Lot's house? It's much more logical to see it in the light of von Daniken's works.
Olaf 6 | 956
22 Dec 2010 #86
Ohhhh please;) Aliens? Anyway, this actually can be more probable than visit of arch-potent, mighty angels, black-ops specialist in mission from God to destroy two cities (one angel wasn't enough? was there one for each city, or one was responsible for sulphur and the other was good with matches?).

And the sex-urge driven crowd wanted to screw... two aliens?? How did they even know that aliens were well... effable:D? Wow, that would be their life achievement! :D
z_darius 14 | 3,968
22 Dec 2010 #87
Verdicts that were supposed to be devastating on the Polish (and other churches) have been happening for centuries. And yet the churches survived.

What is much more devastating on the Polish church is the culture of spiritual emptiness that came along the influences of the West.
cheehaw 2 | 263
22 Dec 2010 #88
notice that Noah got drunk and was molested by his son Ham after the flood,

First of all, Noah was not molested by Ham.

Torah Genesis 9:22

Ham the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.


Seeing and molesting are 2 very different things. Yet, Ham was punished simply for seeing, and telling his brothers.. something for y'all to mull over..

I reserve opinion on Lot's righteousness. There's no mention of Lot being truly righteous in the Torah, or OT. Yet there's no mention of him being truly unrighteous either. It would seem that Lot's big sin here is not so much the sin he committed, but the sin he permitted by those around him. His heart was vexed we're told, but we're never told he said a word about it, except to offer up his daughters to it, in his time of need, which obviously had it's consequences.

just my 2 cents on that. But either way, Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister too, so the incest things in that culture remain. I don't see how a person can condemn Lot and his daughters and then not condemn Abraham and Sarah for virtually the same thing. What we are left with, is a people who on both sides of their cousin fences, accept incest as a way of life.

Personally, I don't see the Torah, or OT if you wish, as ever upholding the ancestors of the jews, moabs, whomever, as a righteous people. rather, I see it as the written testimony and history of their error after seeking God, and presenting themselves to him as righteous when time and again, He said, no, you are not. It tells us more about how not act, not vice versa, using the jewish people as it's example.

that's what I see, sorry..
frd 7 | 1,399
22 Dec 2010 #89
Nothing new really, Catholic church in Poland has been going backward for some time already. It's nice to see actual members of the church snapping and speaking out the truth. Despite that, nothing is really going to change about how church works, which can be seen by a recent interview with Archbishop Michalik in "of course" xenophobic "Nasz Dziennik" criticising the mentioned "verdict".

As for now I hope that constitutional tribunal can somehow affect the resolutions of the "financial/wealth commision" and allow retaking of some of the lands seized by the church.
noreenb 7 | 557
22 Dec 2010 #90
Church itself as an institution. Don't treat believers like poor sheeps who follow priests' calling in every case. People have brains. They think. They have always a choice. Being a part of a Christian society is demanding. For many being a part of it is just too difficult. They can't stand Church's rules. Because they choose easy life.

And unfortunately I share opinions with people who don't like GW. I agree with a term "not a gentle" paper.
:)


Home / News / A devestating verdict on the Polish church
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.