Author Topic: A thread at FE you all will love to chat about  (Read 20273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Reputation: +66/-0
  • Gender: Male
A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
« on: November 14, 2012, 10:03:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sup CathInfo,
    I thought I'd let you all know about FE's latest thread.

    It's kinda absurd.

    http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3454922.0.html

    Christianity and homosexuality


    Apparently, two homosexual men can morally cuddle on the couch watching a movie.

    Enjoy.

    Offline Pheo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 52
    • Reputation: +64/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #1 on: November 14, 2012, 10:12:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Honestly, I'm surprised the idea isn't receiving more resistance.  Let's not pretend the entire forum is OK with it over there, but it's obviously sinful behaviour.  Three or four people arguing for it is far, far too many (of course even one person would be!).

    I don't really care what motivated you to post it here, but why not join in and offer a little fraternal correction?  Spiritual works of mercy and all...
    Confortare et esto vir.


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #2 on: November 14, 2012, 10:17:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It was difficult to read that thread. Disgusting.

    People like Melkite shouldn't be tolerated there, bot Vox seems a bit soft on gays herself.

    Offline guitarplucker

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 296
    • Reputation: +207/-0
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #3 on: November 14, 2012, 10:43:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Sup"

    "Kinda"

    Offline guitarplucker

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 296
    • Reputation: +207/-0
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #4 on: November 14, 2012, 10:45:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #5 on: November 14, 2012, 10:52:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.

    Don't doubt it.

    In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-homosexual - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?

    What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?

    Absolutely nothing.

    The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #6 on: November 15, 2012, 06:34:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Kaesekopf
    Sup CathInfo,

    Apparently, two homosexual men can morally cuddle on the couch watching a movie.

    Enjoy.


    Sup, Kaesekopf --

    Hey................. not in my house!!

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Aragon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +20/-0
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #7 on: November 15, 2012, 06:37:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: guitarplucker
    Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.


    Do you think that's an acceptable way for a Christian to talk about someone else? Love thy neighbour and all that...


    Offline Tiffany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3111
    • Reputation: +1639/-27
    • Gender: Female
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #8 on: November 15, 2012, 07:16:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.

    Don't doubt it.

    In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-homosexual - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?

    What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?

    Absolutely nothing.

    The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.


    I've met two trad priests who were extremelyvery feminine.

    I think the NO is already accepting of it. Didn't the Pope issue a statement that c*nd*ms were OK for male prostitutes?  

    edit: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/


    I can't believe he did not speak out against prostitution, sodomy, the exploitation of sex workers, underage sex slaves, instead he says they can use a condom, it's so perverse.

    Offline alaric

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1762
    • Reputation: +1521/-85
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #9 on: November 15, 2012, 07:41:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Kaesekopf
    Sup CathInfo,
    I thought I'd let you all know about FE's latest thread.

    It's kinda absurd.

    http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3454922.0.html

    Christianity and homosexuality


    Apparently, two homosexual men can morally cuddle on the couch watching a movie.

    Enjoy.
    FE has morphed into a "catholic" version of America.

    Complete with censoring all critical thought, enforcing political correctness, homosexual worship with a bunch of Marxists-leaning, hipster-doofus liberals and old lesbian harpies running the show.

    Have you turned on the televitz lately and seen all these "gay" and lipstick/mascara smothered wymyn politicians out there pontificating on morality and "fairness" these days? It's truly nauseating.

    Somtimes I believe we need nothing short of an Islamic-style revolution to chase these queers back in the closet where they belong and cover these wretches faces and force them to shut the hell up.

    Lord what a monstrocity america has become.

    Offline alaric

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1762
    • Reputation: +1521/-85
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #10 on: November 15, 2012, 07:44:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.

    Don't doubt it.

    In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-homosexual - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?

    What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?

    Absolutely nothing.

    The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.
    I'll go further than that. I can see the day when they will seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus and many of the discipiles were actually gay. :rolleyes:


    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #11 on: November 15, 2012, 10:27:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Aragon
    Quote from: guitarplucker
    Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.


    Do you think that's an acceptable way for a Christian to talk about someone else? Love thy neighbour and all that...


    Oh, please, this woman is an unrepentant public mortal sinner who proudly identifies herself with some of the worst scandalous revolutionary women (Simone Weil).  She is no friend of Tradition, despite some of the materials on her website.  She has been actively pursuing the destruction of the Faith for several years now and is too proud to restrain herself.  She's a disgusting person with evil fruits.  When somebody is publicly harming the Faith, Christians are obliged to combat that person's errors, even by attacking that person's credibility through assaults on her person.  It is false charity to suggest that we are obliged to assume she has good motives for publicly defending her sin and her insane ideological attacks on the purity of the Faith and of Catholic morals and culture.  We are only obliged to assume good motives until we have a probable reason to conclude otherwise.  We are well past that point with her.  Like most ferocious old damaged feminist shrews, she deals in self-righteous psychological manipulation and self-centered indulgence in observations that are mere products of her own twisted desires.  That evil forum needs to be shut down and she needs to make public reparation for her public crimes.

    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #12 on: November 15, 2012, 11:14:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As a corollary, shouldn't this sick FE thread be seen as evidence that the entire Indultarian neo-Trad hipster/dork culture that is invading Anglophone Catholic circles is from the devil ?  You shall know them by their fruits.  Here we have a public mortal sinner who was living in sin with a married man (committing the sin of double adultery, at least that is what we can conclude with moral confidence given cohabitation) running a forum that has come to defending the practice of perverts who identify themselves by their perversion subjecting themselves to unnecessary occasions of one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for Divine vengeance.  I may need to read more about moral theology, but it seems to me that the consensus of the theologians would be that she is participating in this sin by cooperation.  Thus, would her forum not also be subject to Divine vengeance, since it is the vehicle for said cooperation ?  

    I know that some who post there are fighting the good fight against the evil spirit that has possessed that forum, but I wonder how prudent it is to admonish the erring brother a third, fourth, or twentieth time.  There is no moral obligation to correct those who are evil company.  Here the effect of the evil company seems to be more subtle, namely through the inculcation of theological and philosophical error by camaraderie with the mentally and morally deranged (liberals, romantics, sentimentalists, syncretists, &c.), familiarising with them as if they are not harming the Faith and spreading poison.  Dear fellow Catholics who post on that forum, I worry about you.  Do not allow yourselves to be polluted by the diabolical webs of deceit and hypocritical invective that comes from this work of that forum owner.  The fruits of Fisheaters are rotten -- heresy, error, public sin.  Wipe the dust off your feet and move on, lest you, too, one day find yourself morally confused and heterodox in belief.

    Perhaps what is being demonstrated by Divine Providence is that a woman should not run a traditional Catholic forum, especially not one that presumes to teach others about the Catholic Faith.  I look at most of Vox Clamantis's speculations and I believe I see the typical thoughts of a shameless woman poking her head into the affairs of the men and the public world, things she could never adequately engage and fully understand since she is an outsider to them by her sex.  "A strong man would be okay with [being manipulated and/or humiliated by his woman]."  "A strong man is fine being around 'homosexuals' and even enjoys their company."  "Those gender roles are so outdated/puerile/prudish/Puritanical/hypocritical/warped/etc..   Reality is so much bigger, Catholicism is about balance, maybe you should be more charitable towards me and assume against all evidence that I am of good will."  Yep, systematic theology and philosophy were all just systems of control created by insecure men.  

    If we were to believe the general consensus that seems to inform the comments of the neo-Trad women's knitting circle, we would conclude the following :  Real men (who didn't exist before we discovered the modern type) were leaders, that is why they wanted women to boss them around and manipulate them.  Real men were so straight that they loved spending time around sodomites; the straighter they are, the more they enjoy the company of perverts.  Real men hate ancient laws and moral philosophy and instead love an aesthetic approach to life, one of balance and spontaneity, the sort of environment that can be found on Oprah or at a woman's book club over martinis.  Fighting, organising, exploring, commanding, disciplining, hunting, conquering -- these are just the product of boyish insecurity.  Real men have no time for these puerile pursuits, which are worthy of being smirked at.  Women have seen them in their boys at the playground.  They understand the pathetic and animalistic silliness of what drives the world of men.  Real men, who know what these women have intuited, want to be liberated from these arcane pressures on the mind, so that they can spend time with "homosexual" fetishists, talk about the meaning of their romantic affairs and how they make them feel over a cocktail, or allow themselves to be led by the level-headed vision of their wives.  

    This is the sort of insanity that seems to have captured Fisheaters; it's almost like watching a spell take people over when you watch them go along with it.  People pretend that there is some substance to that whole line of thinking, but it is nothing more than rebellion against God and nature.  There is no need to mysticise or poeticise it, much less encourage it.  Ultimately it is the same line of thought that ends in lesbianism and witchcraft, as Bishop Williamson once said.  He couldn't be more right.  Ultimately, feminism and socialism and democracy and political correctness and the entire modern world are based in hatred of nature and of God the Father, as well as the image of His paternal authority which exists in men.  The rebellion of the modern world -- especially feminism -- is an attempt to defeat nature, to subvert it and usurp the throne of paternal authority through artifice, to rob the world of its goods and to find security in the resulting evil peace.

    Offline guitarplucker

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 296
    • Reputation: +207/-0
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #13 on: November 15, 2012, 11:20:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great posts, PereJoseph! You really get to the core of it.

    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A thread at FE you all will love to chat about
    « Reply #14 on: November 15, 2012, 11:27:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PereJoseph
    There is no moral obligation to correct those who are evil company.


    I should have written this differently.  I meant to say that there is no moral obligation to subject oneself to evil company in the hope of correcting them.  We are taught to flee from bad companions since they are an occasion of sin for us.  Bad companions are not merely older boys drinking liquor and spending time with girls; bad companions are also those who subtly undermine our Faith or who subtly introduce perversions into our homes and our minds.  Evil writings, evil associations, evil companions -- all are occasions of sin that should be fled as much as possible (according to one's duty of state).  Hopefully those who read my post understood what I meant originally.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16