Pope’s “I Am A Sinner” Is Not A Money Maker.

The Pope’s statement about his own “sinfulness” falls under an old Christian facade.  We know those who wrote the Bible wanted us to think we are born sinners.

The notion babies are born sinful is an absurd idea.  Those who wrote this were either control nuts or never expected readers to take it literally.

That is why I think it is pointless for the Pope to reenforce people’s notion this is true, even if he is sincere in referring to himself.  It’s hard to imagine the average person buying the notion babies are born sinners.

The money for the faith is not in members admitting they are sinners. The profit is in  pointing at others as the sinners.

The human being seems to be a creature that needs self affirmation.  The Christian faith feeds this need skillfully by looking at others and passing judgement.

Listening to Catholic radio in the car today, I heard a review of Catholic rules on sex.  The only purpose for sex to make sinful babies.  When birth control is used, it allows sex for some reason other than making the woman pregnant.  To use birth control is to sin.

For some reason, learning how to use “natural” birth control, circumventing the female fertility cycle, in to have sex for pleasure but not sin.  It’s possible to cleverly outsmart our trait of being born sinners.

The sooner we come to understand sin arrived on the scene for purpose of control people in ancient times, the happier we can all be.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/31/year_of_the_sinner.html

50 Responses

  1. Just think of how many Catholics have had sex knowing full well they aren’t doing it for a baby. Of course, if you have sex without the intent to procreate, just admit it the next time you have confession and take the licks. What a system!

    1. Henry

      unreal:“Just think of how many Catholics have had sex….”

      What is your fixation on thinking of Catholics having sex?

        1. entech

          Realist, You ask how many Catholics have sex knowing that it is not solely for reproduction. Henry takes a snippet, totally out of context.

          I know it is difficult not to respond, not to react, but we really should. Don’t encourage him, he is like a bad tempered puppy just waiting for a chance to snap at you and bite you fingers off.

          I almost stopped corresponding here at one time, but then I realised he is like the circus clown, quite humorous if not taken seriously.

          1. noblindersonme

            ditto ditto entech !
            You took the words right out of my keypad!
            I too have a difficult time not responding to Henrys of this blogworld. They do need responses , what they do not seem to understand that ,they ,as snapping dogs ,are always kenneled , snarling angry trapped , while those of us , living in a brighter world , see more light.
            notice on a previous topic , the question of whether 2013 was a good year, I just could not get him to budge from his dark vision of the future.
            My Christainity is not rooted in such dark places.

        2. Henry

          entech:“Realist, You ask how many Catholics have sex knowing that it is not solely for reproduction.”

          entech, you are cleaning her words up for her. That is not what she said.

          The reproductive-rights liberals are supposedly all about privacy and the bedroom. Now, we are listening to them crossing the privacy threshold, publicly wondering/thinking about Catholics having sex and their motives.

          1. entech

            Not the exact words but the intent was obvious:
            Just think of how many Catholics have had sex knowing full well they aren’t doing it for a baby.
            This is not some kind of contemplating the sex act qua sex act. This is a statement contemplating how much hypocracy is involved. That some one, you for example, can distort something so much is an indication of the depravity simmering just below the surface of their consciousness. That they can take their own dirty little thoughts and project them onto others is typical.
            The last paragraph is sheer nonsense and distortion, again projecting your own failings onto others.

          2. Henry

            Why does it have to come down to “dirty little thoughts”? Why can’t it simply be about giving the Catholics a little privacy, please?

          3. entech

            Not sure about why it comes down to “dirty little thoughts” but you do seem to have lots and lots of them and project them with gay abandon.

            Although realist was specific when she spoke of Catholics, it really applies to all people who have this narrow and normative view point, sex is the means of creating children, sex should not be used for anything else outside of this normal function. Doesn’t have to be Catholic or even Christian, just don’t tell other people what they should and should not do.

          4. Once more, it is YOU who are thinking about catholics having sex. I was focused on the numbers of people acting as hypocrites, but then we have seen this aspect of your personality before, Henry, and it’s not pretty.

          5. entech

            Not interested, you are totally absorbed by it. It is fascinating to you, it is sinful which makes it doubly fascinating.
            Whenever possible you turn anything to the physical and then blame others.

            Never mind you win, life it too short to worry about your little problems. Weather has improved, the sun is shining so out with the bicycle and on with the motley.

      1. H.P.Drifter

        Do you know how to get a Catholic Girl to having sex? Marry her and have a few children, works every time.

    2. H.P.Drifter

      Yes I agree “What a System” Thinking of starting my own system “Money for nonbelievers so they can buy radios to to listen to Catholic radio”

    1. entech

      Candy man, do you really think a child is born sinful? If sin is going against the law of God, or straying from the path of righteousness, how can a new born or young child, with no real knowledge of such things be a sinner.
      Surely a benevolent and all loving God would not impose such on an innocent? Original sin? as Jon says it is all an invention of the self appointed representatives of their God to impose fear and gain control. Yet even the books they love deny this!

      Question: “Are children punished for the sins of their parents?”

      Answer: Children are not punished for the sins committed by their parents; neither are parents punished for the sins of their children. Each of us is responsible for our own sins. Ezekiel 18:20 tells us, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.” This verse clearly shows that punishment for one’s sins is borne by that person.

      Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html#ixzz2pCSC8C2Q

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Entech: You seem to conflate original sin, and actual sin. I know you do know the difference, as you have indicated you do in the past.

        1. entech

          … About People
          Lutherans believe people have free will and that it is a gift of God. They also believe that people live in “sin” as a result of the first humans, Adam and Eve, misusing that gift. Because of this “original sin”, Lutherans believe that all people are born into sin and cannot get out of this state on our own merits. The word “Sin” is used as a noun to describe the fractured relationship between the people of creation and God. Lutherans believe that individual “sins” or acts of wrongdoing are a direct result of the state of “Sin” all people are born into.
          Our every attempt to please God falls short of the mark. By the standard of the Law, of which the Ten Commandments are a classic summary, God expresses his just and loving expectations for creation, and our failure to live up to those expectations reveals only our need for God’s mercy and forgiveness.
          source: http://www.trinitypleasanton.org/lutheransbelieve.php

          You seem to conflate original sin, and actual sin. The above seems to say that actual sin is something that you fall into because of original sin.

          I have heard most of the arguments, from the gift of freewill being used and being punished for using it, to whatever. The various reasons given for sin and evil in the world, natural evil and personal evil, all adds up to too many explanations ending up to be no explanation at all.

          To me, and I can only speak for me, the whole story of all loving and the rest does not add up one of the creators creations, a new born child can be condemned for eternity simply for being born, born with the burden of overcoming all that has been heaped on to it.

          What is the purpose of a gift if its usage is curtailed, to call that gift “freewill” and then dictate how it can be used leaves a little “itch in my ears”, not to mention a huge gap in the logic of my philosophical views. This is not “freewill” but “determinism”, my own view is “compatabilist” and I have enough problems defended that in my philosophy group. Putting restrictions on freewill is a contradiction, if not only are you told that you cannot use it in some ways, but, also told that you must use it in certain ways the contradiction becomes massive, insurmountable

  2. Catholic Dad

    Entech,
    All children are born with the stain of original sin – “baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that we to might walk in the newness of life” Catechism of C.C. – paragraph 977 I would also suggest reading 978 to 980.

    Jon – I am delighted to hear you were listening to Catholic radio – (shameful plug 1280 A.M & 1370 A.M in Fargo/Grand Forks area) http://www.yourcatholicradiostation.com for others in ND to find it on the radio dial.
    From 5 to 7 local time, they have a show called Catholic Answers. This Friday they will have a open forum for non-catholics. I have heard a lot of great debates with Atheists during those shows. I would suggest you check it out.

    Also on 1-13-2014 – at six they will have a show called “St. Paul on Homosexuality, Abortion, and Contraception” You can find all the upcoming show on http://www.Catholic.com

    Entech – know you can stream it on-line – as I have heard live callers from Australia on show as well.

    Hope to seeing you in heaven

    1. entech

      CD, I can appreciate where you are coming from with this, I was brought up and educated saying something like:
      I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost,
      The holy catholic church,
      The communion of saints,
      The resurrection of the body,
      Life without end
      and so on, everyday in morning assembly before classes and twice on Sunday, and that was independent of the Religious Instruction which was a part of the school curriculum.

      For me the whole thing does not work, to me “love” is unconditional.

      1. H.P.Drifter

        Yes Entec

        Love is unconditional, it has to be up here other wise you would have one arm bigger than the other from chopping off heads of the religious fanatics in the area.

      2. Wolfy32

        “love” is unconditional. You said it…. I agree with it..

        It’s what I seek, not this, if you perform these rituals and jump through these hoops then and only then can God love your or even look at you. My parents never had me baptised as a baby ( I know shame shame on them.) They wanted me to choose to be baptised, not be forced into it. They felt if a baby is forced into baptism that the ritual becomes meaningless. Because what’s the point if the person is unable to make the choice.

        I feel it’s a big thing my parents got right. The contradictions become even more convoluted if you believe in the Rapture. (My upbringing was very centered on the end times. As children we were forced to watch these movies about how the whole world would turn against anyone believing in God and decapitate them and torture the people until they stopped believing or died for their beliefs… That society would eventually hunt down every Christian and kill them… Then there’s the judgements from God that would you know, destroy what’s left of human civilization…. And all in the next 5-10 years, before I’d even reach age 18. ). If you believe in the Rapture, then, it says that all children are innocent and would be included automatically in the rapture. They get a free rapture ticket. The entire world would be void of children. No crying babies, or rebellious teenagers (depending on your definition of child). I don’t know if the mentally challenged and / or mentally ill elderly, and brain damaged adults get free tickets, or if it’s only kids. The bible says only kids.. So everyone else may be screwed.

        Adults have to be at the very high end of the belief meter to be included… It says the luke warm Christians will be spit out of his mouth, only the hot for Christ will be included. So, the mediocre crowds of people throughout the world, will be excluded.

        It gives a couple examples of how many may be included, it indicated as many as between 1 in 4 or 1 in two will be in the rapture.

        Granted, if it’s in a time of disbelief, I find it hard to believe that 25% or 50% of the world would be “hot” enough for Christ unless there’s a massive shift in positive belief of Christianity.

        I’m really confused though. If kids are born into original sin, but the original sin doesn’t take effect until the kids are adults… It becomes contradictory and confusing.

        1. H.P.Drifter

          According to CD you just have the “stain” of original sin at birth, but like any disease its spreads

    2. H.P.Drifter

      I see you back, from Heaven? Or have you been busy manufacturing blessing and absolutions? (do you need a license to do that?) Now I need your help, I need an endorsement from you for my fund (raising money for non believers to buy radios to listen to Catholic Radio) of course I am chief beneficiary and administrator, and I will hand out radios, I need some blind faith here.

      1. Catholic Dad

        HPD

        Lucky for you I have extra radio’s – I would be more than happy to send you some. Heck, I will even have a collection of radio’s taken for you. But wait their is more – even preset the dials for you. Just let me know where you would like them sent! You can get my e-mail from Jon.

        In the greater St. Cloud area you have KYES (way funny) 1180 A.M. & KKJM 92.9.

    1. entech

      “out damned spot, out I say”, I just love these pieces of allegory – this could be Lady MacB or Pontious P trying to assuage their guilt, to wash the metaphorical stains from their hands. Lady Macbeth had cause for guilt, murder for the sake of ambition. Pilate had no reason for guilt, simply defending the empire and the status of his leader.

      But a new born child being stained simply by the act of being born, not the metaphorical blood of the others but guilty by default. This is something I cannot equate with a benevolent and all loving creator.

      Perhaps there is no real cause for guilt, guilt is imposed by the hierarchy as a means of control. It could be that another quote from the man would be appropriate:
      for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Perhaps if those who don’t think even little children have guilty behavior, apart from specific parental control, they may not have had children. Just recently there was a nini series entitled “Evil Twin”. (Ones raised in same family (environment), yet manifesting total lack of guilt/ remorse.) In every case, prison resulted. It may not be a bad thing to recognize a “spot”. Religious or not.

        1. entech

          Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes—accurately or not—that he or she has compromised his or her own standards of conduct or has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation. It is closely related to the concept of remorse.
          Wikipedia.

          According to this definition of guilt some kind of awareness is required for something to be called guilty behavior. Remorse, this begins when the child is punished without knowing why it is punished, bit like the beginning of the whole sad and sorry story which begins in the alleged garden in Eden and has been used to impose vicarious guilt on all the generations since, requiring vicarious redemption.

          So do you contend that a young child not having any notion of its bowel function is exhibiting “guilty behavior” when it lets go and messes its nappy?

        2. Wanna B Sure

          Did I say that? No. Did you have children to relate to? Temper tantrums? Anger and wringing the cat’s neck when scratched at age two? If it’s valid at two, why not one? If one, why not earlier. Ever see an infant with a dirty diaper, knowingly throwing a temper and getting so worked up it can’t stop? Probably not.

  3. Wolfy32

    I also wonder why the original sin seems tied to shame. Almost like there’s some universal guilt around sex being wrong. It is certainly a big sin that Christianity focuses on. — Around sex. Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed for sexual perversion of the entire town, the entire towns wanting to have sex with anyone they could, children, raping strangers, etc.

    I do find it strange that a drive we’re born with and can do nothing about, is something that Christianity chooses to demonize. To the point of saying there is no sex in heaven. which, could be true since we’re “given new bodies that are without sin.” so, since sin seems to be a universal reference to sex, I assume that the new bodies we’re given will be sexless. without the need to procreate or the pleasure sensors we were created with originally.

    Very strange!

    1. No sex in heaven! Horrors! Actually, I’ve never been big on even the concept of heaven. It requires delusional thinking. I’d rather nourish the aquatic plants in my favorite lake. But in regard to sex, it appears that Christianity considers it a necessary, albeit, repugnant act that serves it’s purpose of procreation, but that’s it. Easy for the celibate to decide that sex is bad. There’s more than a touch of Schadenfreude there.

      1. Wolfy32

        Agreed. Much of pentecostelism could be renamed “Escapism”…. “Life sucks here, take me to the next life.”

        My uncle is a pastor for a pentecostal church and they constantly talk about how much they wish Christ would come soon..

        It kinda replaces “I wish I were dead” line of thinking. I think both are toxic, it’s just that by religious standards, talk of suicide is wrong, talk of Christ coming to escape your own problems is o.k. because it includes the word Christ.

        I’d rather be at peace and happy with the life I’ve been given and am aware of, and if there’s another life to live; great, if not, oh well at least I contributed with the life I was given!!

      2. H.P.Drifter

        Realist answer to your 3:01

        Yes there is, there is a whole world of religious judgmental people, whose pass time is passing judgment on others. Describes the Christian faith to a tee.

        1. Wolfy32

          Yet, there’s the judge not lest ye be judged.

          Beware of the plank in one’s own eye before pointing out the sliver in another’s.

          Yet, to their own detriment many are judgemental of others. Not all, but many. There’s always the undertones, we’ll help you out, if you believe… Kinda like, we’ll pay you initially to get you to believe and then ask you for your money once you do believe.

          1. H.P.Drifter

            Wolfy 3:40
            The plank is just one of their skillful manipulations to keep you in one piece and in line so you can donate time, money whatever

      3. Catholic Dad

        But in regard to sex, it appears that Christianity considers it a necessary, albeit, repugnant act that serves it’s purpose of procreation, but that’s it. –

        Catholic church does not see the act of sex as repugnent – actually just the opposite. It see’s it as a one of the most beautiful experience for a married couple. When a person is open to life and coppulates – I think it is as close as a person can get to heaven while still on this earth. Think about it for just a moment – you and your spouse have within your power the ability to create human life! To bring another person into this world.

        Question – what is the design for sex?

        1. entech

          CD. The design for sex? Elementary biology classes will teach you that, and I am sure you are well aware of the details, if I may be forgiven a pun, of all the ins and outs.

          Surely the question should be – What is the purpose of sex?
          Reproduction occurs without sex, parthenogenesis occurs in nature.
          Mutual pleasure, you wax lyrical about the joys, but place limitations. Sex is for the propagation of the species. Contraception goes against the purpose of producing offspring, to many contraception ultimately breaks down to being equivalent to abortion.
          Or, perhaps, when the church hierarchy (no particular church, a generic intent, could be synagogue or temple) find that such a powerful impulse can be used to effectively control the people by controlling sex what else would you expect an aspiring ruler to do.

  4. H.P.Drifter

    Okay CD Celibate I’ll Bite
    What is the design for sex, now that I still have five people still bugging me after all these years?

  5. Catholic Dad

    HPD

    Entech – hit it right on the head “Sex is for the propagation of the species”

    Good for you for having “five people still bugging you”. May they continue to bug you, and bring smiles to their faces.

    Peace

    1. entech

      Actually I didn’t express that too well, when I said for the propagation of the species I meant to say that it was wrong to suggest that that was all it was for and anything else is considered as sin. What is wrong with simple pleasure, with bonding and so on.

    2. Wolfy32

      Monty Python’s Song “Every Sperm is Sacred” is coming to mind along with the skit of a poor couple having nothing but spam for food and like 20 children and then finding out there’s a such thing as a condom.

      please tell me you actually don’t believe that sex is just for procreation… Go and spread your seed!! Without limitation! ha! Well, I have issues with that and I’m surprised H.P. D. you didn’t come up with a good natural reason!

      A woman generally has 2 eggs, a month… Some divergence from that, but for the most part…. that’s relatively accurate. A man can produce and ejaculate, what, millions of sperm a day… Well, o.k. somewhere in the thousands… If “God” ordained sex for procreation, then…. every sperm lost is considered an abortion… It could have impregnated someone!! And usually only 1 egg is fertilized, meaning the other(s) are aborted, and sometimes the eggs aren’t fertelized at all!! And what about during the pregnancy? No more eggs are fertilized…

      Nature sure has a funny way of sex is only for procreation!!! And it’s natural for a man that doesn’t have his needs met, to ejaculate in his sleep as the body’s natural way of coping with the lack of having it’s needs met… More babies aborted just as we sleep!!!!!

      Please, the sex is for procreation in humans is BS… An age old line to get people of the church to procreate to increase the church members. Not to mention in ancient times, the more kids one had, the more a family could produce increasing the family’s wealth over all. Nowadays, the opposite is true, the more kids one has the generally the poorer the family will be because we did away with child labor…

      We have to think for ourselves instead of drinking the koolaid…..

      1. entech

        Not quite the full picture on Monty Python Wolfy. The family that had all the children knew all about condoms, especially that they were not to be used. The other family in the sketch had the husband expounding on how they weren’t limited by this stuff, that they could even have condoms designed to increase pleasure if they wanted to, judging by the wife’s response and excitement at the thought of the “ticklers” we get the extremes: one pair bonking away indiscriminately producing litter after litter; the other family with the husband talking about all the exciting things they could do, with the wife willing but the man just reading his paper and talking. I think it could be seen as a call for commonsense and balance.

        About the rest there does seem to a huge amount of over production of the means for propagating the species. Nature is always profligate, you would expect the result of design to be a little more streamlined, so much time and effort and energy goes into sex, talking about it, feeling guilty about it, chasing after it, avoiding it, frustration from lack of it, the jealousy and anger when someone thinks their partner might be doing it with someone else; not to mention the energy required when you actually get round to doing it. It really could have been designed better.

Comments are closed.