Pope John Paul II Put the Catholic Church in a Hole and it Can’t Dig Itself Out.

There was much ado this past weekend when a couple of dead Popes were honored.  The link, written by a Professor of Law at a Catholic university, says there should be a sober evaluation of John Paul II.

It was John Paul II, the Pope before Benedict (who just retired), who put in place the weaknesses we now see in the Catholic Church.   One of his weaknesses was the dislike of vigorous debate.

He preferred, instead, orthodoxy established from the top without dissention.  This has made Catholic dogma on birth control and the sinfulness of homosexuality the trademark stances of the Church and, in turn, made it not relevant to modern society.

This played at least some role in the priest sexual abuse scandals.  Had he set in place a church-wide policy that abuses are not dealt with internally but are instead directly turned over to law enforcement, much of the damage would surely have been avoided.  Instead, he continued to praise, defend and shelter those he should have disowned.

John Paul II is said to be the leader who nurtured the view Catholic clergy are set apart from the rest of society and must circle that wagons against their enemies.  We can see this attitude prevailing among Bishops yet today.

If ever there was an organization which should have recognized the weaknesses of humans and made provisions to reign in peoples’ dark side, it would be the Catholic church.  History has shown us the proper provisions were not made and are not in place today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/unsteady-halo_b_5188642.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Pope John Paul II Put the Catholic Church in a Hole and it Can’t Dig Itself Out.

  1. entech says:

    The attitude that it couldn’t really happen, in spite of all the evidence, and the desire (need?) to protect the church at all costs is what led to the cover ups and and hence the continuance of the problem.

    John Paul II is said to be the leader who nurtured the view Catholic clergy are set apart from the rest of society and must circle that wagons against their enemies. We can see this attitude prevailing among Bishops yet today.
    It is this attitude of being special that contributes to the need to hide it all away.

    These are not the worst or only offenders, but given the “special” nature of the job are certainly the most egregious. Until everyone accepts ownership of their own part in the problem, child abuse will never end.
    An end to child abuse should just be the beginning of an end to all forms of abuse.

  2. Matt Noah says:

    Ironic that a self-proclaimed free-thinker has trouble with the eternal moral teaching of the Catholic Church as established by Jesus Christ. Besides Catholics, there are non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons and other like-minded people who believe that homosexual behavior and contraception are both sins or are morally deficient.

    Jon further would have his readers believe that the Church’s stance on contraception and homosexuality are its trademark stances. Notwithstanding the silly notion that the stances are trademarked (I think he wanted to say hallmark), one has to wonder if Jon has read the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed; the basic proclamations of Faith of the Catholic Church. If he had, he would note that homosexuality and contraception are not mentioned. But concepts like the Holy Trinity, the forgiveness of sins, creation, everlasting life and the communion of saints are more rightly referenced as hallmark of fundamental beliefs of the Church.

    But Jon would not score points with his mostly psuedo-intellectual followers who can’t find the sexiness of fighting the Church on forgiveness and everlasting life. To be sure, it is much more popular to attack the Church on sexual issues; especially if it involves the improper use of one’s sexual faculties. It’s the argument, ‘no one is going to tell me who I can’t have sex with and how’. Well, God has a plan for all of us and it involves morality and sexual discipline, i.e. the proper use of the gift of sexuality.

    • entech says:

      A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity trademarks are also being displayed on company buildings.

      A hallmark is an official mark or series of marks struck on items made of precious metals—platinum, gold, silver and in some nations, palladium. In a more general sense, the term hallmark can also be used to refer to any distinguishing characteristic or trait.

      A couple of thoughts come to the mind of one of Jon’s pseudo-intellectual followers, although I think that fellow-traveller while equally pejorative is probably more accurate:
      As a ‘Hallmark’ is usually something stamped into an object made of some precious metal denoting the purity of material, the verifying body and the manufacturer, the expression “Sterling Silver”, for example, must have a certain high percentage of pure silver as part of the alloy to qualify for the name. In this sense “trademark” is probably a more accurate description.
      In all the belief systems you mention, and any that you didn’t, it is not true that every member believes that homosexual behavior and contraception are both sins or are morally deficient. . It is simply not true that every member accepts and complies with every edict from the governing body.
      But concepts like the Holy Trinity, the forgiveness of sins, creation, everlasting life and the communion of saints are more rightly referenced as hallmark of fundamental beliefs of the Church. These are more accurately describes as dogma, the rejection of the automatic acceptance of dogma is part of the definition of free thought.
      I had to laugh when I read, improper use of one’s sexual faculties, that you have to find some outlandish euphemism for the perfectly decent and descriptive genitals says a lot.
      Your God may have a plan for the way you use your genitals (there I used that obscene and dirty word again) but your god is not my god. In spite of that I do confine myself to a sexual relationship with the woman I married all those decades ago. Your arguments sound like a reflection of Fr. James who says that without the god of Catholicism there can be no moral values.

    • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

      Matt, it’s extraordinarily easy to fight the Catholic Church on the idea of “forgiveness” of imaginary sins. Not only is the idea of original sin pretty nonsensical, but without it the need for the Jesus figure and the Catholic Church “forgiving” sins simply disappears. The idea of everlasting life stems simply from a fear of death, and promising eternal life is a great way to manipulate people. It never ceases to amaze how you folks think your god is absolutely obsessed with how human beings have sex. You turn your god into some kind of cosmic Peeping Tom.

      • entech says:

        Worse than that Bob, he even knows how you think about having sex. As it says in Mathew if you even look you are guilty.
        To paraphrase Luther “You are not only responsible for what you say do, but also for what you do not say do”

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          “with lust”

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Interesting bottle neck with the deceptive “paraphrase” trick of; “but also for what you do not do”.
          Try ;”but also for what you do not do lustfully”. An erection is an erection, in or out of your pants.

      • Matt Noah says:

        If one has no Faith in God, then, of course, it is easy to dismiss the Church and concepts like sin and everlasting life. If one looks at sin as a personal offense against another person instead of an act of disobedience against God, then the concept of forgiveness is still relevant. “I forgive you,” becomes a solely personal act with no divine meaning.

        Mocking God and referring to Him as a “cosmic Peeping Tom” is both dangerous to your soul and childish. When one thinks of how He loves us and wants the best for us, why wouldn’t he establish rules/laws/commandments/teachings on sex. Think about it. Sex is meant for both unitive and procreative means inside marriage. It makes no sense in any other setting or for any other reasons. Permarital sex; NO! Anal sex; NO! Contraception; NO! Recreational sex; NO! Extramarital sex; NO! Without sexual morality as ordained by God, one gets disease, broken homes, failed marriages, abortion, messed up children, guilt, shame and death (AIDS, syphillis, etc.).

        Cosmic Peeping Tom or loving God and Father?

        • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

          Matt, you’ve given us a pretty weak retort. Essentially, your first statement boils down to “It’s easy to dismiss the tenets of Christianity if you start thinking about them a little bit.” Your beliefs get questioned, so you try to threaten me with eternal damnation. So much for the idea of a loving god, but a pretty childish and fear-based response from you. As far as sexual morality goes, you really ought to read the entire Bible and learn just how immoral your god is when it comes to sex and marriage.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            You got it right. “Fear-based” is the operative word. That and “guilt”. Any God is a fantasy that people have constructed out of bits and pieces of ancient writings. I just shake my head when confronted with the idea of rules governing parts of human bodies. Incorrect use of one’s sexual organs? What’s that all about? Is my dog going to hell for humping my leg? :)

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Do you enjoy it? That’s a silly segue.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          I’m glad you shared your definition of sex.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Matt 11:34 “Mocking God and referring to Him as a ‘cosmic Peeping Tom’ is both dangerous to your soul and childish.”

          I referred to the ancients who came up with all these gods as geniuses. And that they were. The system is repeated over and over again. Today it remains in place controlling people and taking their money.

          Start with an invisible god that is never required to show up physically. Figure out what you want people to do in order to control them and take their money. Then, attribute what you want them to do to the invisible god. Make up a reward and punishment system based on the same imaginary principles–don’t allow anyone to ever find out whether the rewards or punishments are ever handed out.

          To seal the deal, tell the gullible if they doubt any of this there will be consequences after they are dead, also secret of course.

          Your reference to being “childish” is curious. It seems to me being childish is believing things that are not verified or worse not even verifiable. That is, have a different standard for religious concepts than one has for concepts out side of religion.

          • Matt Noah says:

            The Church/God has no need for money or wealth. It seeks souls, not cash. If one wants a place to have Mass, baptisms, funerals, then one needs to rent or own a building.

            Jon, you used to work for a university. Did NDSU need money? Of course it did. Does NDSU control people? If you want to boil everything down to control and money, the Church is really poor about both. The IRS is really good about both. Faith is faith. There is no compulsion to give except in rare circumstances.

            God does show up physically unless you are looking for a bearded man that performs miracles for you according to your will or desire.

            God shows up in the Eucharist. God is within each of us and makes us sacred. God was physically with us in the person of Jesus Christ.

            It’s a peculiar God that wants to control people and extract their money. He goes about it by annointing people who then tell us to do things which are difficult. He asks us to take up our cross, follow him and be prepared to suffer. That’s a pretty crummy sales pitch by most standards if you want to extract a bunch of money from the ‘folks’. The devil has a much more lucrative sales pitch. It goes something like this. Sex, money and power are yours if you disobey the guy over there promising you eternal life. Follow me and I’ll make you happy now! The “reward and punishment” system of the devil is all reward and no punishment! But devil knows that when you die, he will have kept you from God.

            99% of the goodness I see in this world comes from people who are cognizant of God and are willing to live out the principles He has given us. The entire medical arts system in the USA was the result of Christianity. When it become something more than healing, i.e. money, the secular world became more interested and now we have a commercial business with doctors amassing small fortunes along with those in hospital and insurance management. It was not that long ago that Sanford was St. Luke’s to say nothing of St. Ansgar’s (Moorhead) and St. John’s (Fargo).

            How about orphanages? How about caring for the poor in India (a little nun named Sister Theresa)? How about Churches United for the Homeless? That comes for a people of Faith serving their Master and their fellow man.

            I have faith in things that are non-religious and so do you. I have faith in my love for my wife and children, my parents and my other relatives. I can’t scientifically prove that I love them. Can you scientifically prove that you love someone or do you want us just to believe that you do without any proof? Should we just have faith in you?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Matt 2:02 “The entire medical arts system in the USA was the result of Christianity.”

            Thanks for sharing your belief system–great to have you commenting here.

            That qualification, “in the USA”, reflects the smart person I know you to be. Other countries, nonChristian, have medical facilities so it is reasonable to assume had there not been well organized and funded denominations something else would have established a medical system.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            I have a Sister In Law who leaves all the lights on every night out of fear of demons. If the Bible is true wouldn’t this be considered rational behavior by those of You that are Religious? You can’t prove She won’t be tortured by Demons can You?

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Matt if You say You love Your Wife I can observe how You actually treat Her and draw conclusions about Your declaration of Love. In the same manner If You say God exists I can look for evidence of that. (I have and have concluded that can’t possibly be true.)

          • Wolfy32 says:

            There’s entire books written on how to prove your love for another person. And yes, it is scientifically provable. It should be else it may be considered abuse or taking advantage of another. There are fairly good principles for showing love to another.

            Some books that explain this are: The Five Love languages.

            Another is His Needs Her needs.

            There are many of them though. Don’t limit yourself to one or two books. There are three key factors for defining what is not love: Fear, Obligation, Guilt. (FOG).

            Let’s do a basic human relationship within Fog. I give my partner flowers, cook, do dishes, laundry, and be the provider. The partner complains tells me that they are too overwhelmed with financial concerns to care about doing more around the house –aka I need to provide more for them to show me they care about “us”. I agree and take another job, as well as doing their chores at home (Obligation), they yell at me for not seeing me enough (a combination of Fear– fear of angering the partner more, and feeling guilty for working two jobs and being gone so long… Feeling obligated to provide for myself and my partner and obligated to meet my partner’s demands.)

            This turns into an endless cycle of abuse in a human relationship. FOG becomes a case of a people pleaser trying to please others to the self destruction of themselves. And the abuser (subconsciously) enjoying the rewards of continuously taking to fill their own bottomlessness.

            The Same “FOG” can be seen in Christianity. “Do anything against me and you go to hell.” Original sin, “Humanity disobeyed me thousands of years ago and so you suck.” (Paraphrasing and artistic expression) = Guilt, one should feel guilty for existing.

            Lastly, Obligation, you have an obligation to serve your God and work to carry my message to everyone capable of understanding it. But, if you do my work, you still suck. (Fear / Obligation/ Guilt cycle.)

            FOG is used to keep people under the control and devotion of other people. Usually it’s out of some insecurities of those given power, but, in the church’s case, I suspect it’s the insecurities of leadership afraid people will leave them and will leave the church. So, various forms and variations of FOG is used to keep people muddled, feeling self doubt, lack of self confidence, and keep them afraid to think for themselves.

            It is a form of emotional manipulation and abuse at a psychological level.

            And as to health care.. Interesting that Christianity is taking credit for this? Heh. It was born out of pre-christian temples and bath houses. Mostly attributed to the Roman Empire building aquaducts and a plumbing system for disposing of sewage and building beautiful public bath houses to allow people to clean themselves and wash themselves.

            http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_in_ancient_rome1.htm

            Many ancient doctors and health care types of professions were the result of rich romans. Not born out of some christian prayer for the sick.

            And if God is real he gave us hygien (an innate need to be physically clean), he gave us science and medicine to treat people for their illnesses the best we can, and he gave us counselors, therapists, pychiatrists, and so much more to treat the mentally ill.

            Churches may have served as some type of counselor in the past, but is the trained people in scientific practices that actually help treat people for short and long term conditions. There is a science behind much of it. That is it’s repeatable, provable, and works.

            Yet despite all the prayer, all the science, all the medicine and therapies on our planet there are still many people that suffer, many without any hope of getting better.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Wolfy I appreciate that as a fair argument

          • entech says:

            Martin Luther had as a good a formula for proving your love as you could want, don’t have the exact quote but the essence seems to be that the wife should make the husband happy to come home and the husband make the wife sad to see him leave.
            Just change that to partner, without too much qualifying and there you have it.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            What ever makes you happy. Aprons not required.

          • entech says:

            Except for Freemasons, of course, they must have their aprons. Equal rites (rights :) ) for all that is what I say.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            The Masonic aprons have nothing to do with connubial bliss. Off topic.

  3. Adam Heckathorn says:

    “The attitude that it couldn’t really happen, in spite of all the evidence” I’ve seen this attitude it seems ridiculous but evidently it’s common and it leads to blaming the victim.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Adam; Back a couple days ago, the matter of demons and the negative reaction to the subject of the JWs was brought up. If I remember right, you seemed to imply it was normal in Christianity. With the possible exception of extreme apocalyptic sects, it isn’t, but that’s not the reason for my post. 3-4 years ago, the same subject was brought up by a former JW who left the “organization” and became an orthodox Christian. I have since lost the article. He reported the JWs are indoctrinated by the Watchtower into fear of demons, and the Organization is the only protection from the demons as long as one stays loyal and active in publishing. He said that just a picture of a supposed demon literally scares a JW as a channel into the demon world. He also reported the easiest way to prevent a JW from continuing to knock on your door even after being told there was no interest, is to put a picture of a demon on the door. They will never enter that door. Can you verify or fill me in on this? This is so alien to the orthodox community it almost seems unbelievable.

      • entech says:

        The more enlightened would simply hang a miniature statue of a man being tortured to death by asphyxiation on a cross above the bed.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Funny, For the enlightened that wouldn’t instill fear, but comfort. The empty cross signifies “It is finished”. Even more comfort.
          I put our marriage license in a frame above the bed in case Phelps broke in in the middle of the night, and asked for license and registration.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Ah- – - I thought you were against judging what people did in the privacy of their bed room. Hmmmmmmm.

          • entech says:

            Not judging at all, just because I find vicarious soda-masochism totally unappealing, repugnant even, does not make we want to prevent other people form doing whatever turns them on.

            Interesting that you have licenses and registrations all I ever had was an embossed certificate from the Church of England :lol:

            PS. In Australia at that time the CofE being the state religion was the only one entitled to do this, everyone else had to get a license and the church part was between them and the church – that would be a pretty good paradigm for so called gay marriage -legally recognized union with a celebration by church or celebrant, whatever was desirable and/or available.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            For your info, I don’t care what people do in their bedroom.
            Here, the license is issued by the state.
            For us, the marriage is valid wherever it is performed. Church, home, back yard, pasture or judge’s parlor. The state licensed officiant provides the certificate of marriage with signatures of all involved including the witnesses. Except for Catholics, which consider marriage a sacrament, and must be performed by a priest.

          • entech says:

            What I said! the only thing I did not make clear is that the state allowing that part of its function to the CofE no longer applies, like you there is to be a complete desperation of church and State (as with you still a dream but getting there). The anomaly is that some schools have a religious instruction period, privately provided but financially supported by the state _ unfortunately they do not provide a comparative religion or even a comparative theology, they claim neutrality but have been heard to say (in public) that their job is to make little disciples. But, improvements are on the way:
            It is now a matter of enter the class by request, previously it was a matter of request to be excluded.
            More and more schools are rejecting them all together (a movement coming from PTA)
            A secular humanist alternative is becoming more available and acceptable, this time with an open training course requirement for the instructors.

            Ideally i would like to see a combination, properly accredited, instructors to teach all the possibilities.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            What is “desperation of church and state”? Not being from Australia, this is new to me.

            Here, there is no religious instruction in public schools.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            A few short years ago, there used to be “church night”. On Wednesday nights, most public schools set aside all activities so people of faith could schedule activities such as Catechism classes, church youth club activities, church family nights, etc. Not now. It is almost impossible for churches to find time for such activities, as the public schools have taken that private time away, even most recently, scheduling ball games on Sunday. I ask you now, who is intruding, even on private off school time.

          • entech says:

            Oh dear you do so well at times but just can’t help falling back into your old ways!
            I would have thought that even to one of limited intellect, that “desperation of church and State” was so obvious a typographical error, especially as “separation of church and state” comes up so often.

            I am aware that there is no religious education in your schools and that there are organisations that keep watch to see that it does not creep in. Here it was imposed, the ruling that it was forbidden was interpreted to mean that is required. An interpretation only possible from religious bias, especially given the Evangelical organisation selected to provide the instruction; even the Catholics and Anglicans and practically every church group was part of the protest against it. Even you would not want that situation in America.

            Church nights at public schools, I would have no objection to that at all, who pays to keep the school open for a non school activity?
            The school my wife worked at used to have a couple of different groups hire an area, Hmong people were one, for example, to teach and maintain their language and culture, one of the teachers would stay behind or come in especially if it was a Saturday morning, this was required for security and and safety reasons. The fees charged would go into the general school funds for purchasing extra equipment etc.
            Where did the funds for your Wednesday church nights come from?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 6:47 Wanna was referring to a policy of not scheduling any school activities, in the school or out of the school on Wednesdays. The school building, of course was there but not used.

            Slowly, Wed nights are being claimed back by parents and schools for more productive activities. Now, Sunday is being taken back to its rightful owners as well. It makes more sense to have some athletic games on Sunday mornings or afternoons instead of week nights so students can rest up for the next day.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Re. your “church night at schools”; “Oh dear you do so well at times, but you just can’t help falling into your old ways”…of reading your bias into what was not said. I did NOT say AT SCHOOLS. Church night was simply wed. night with nothing scheduled at public schools, so people of faith could have one evening during the week (reserved for their children mostly) with matters related to church activities. Sometimes not directly related to “church activities”. None of these activities were conducted, consummated, held, or promoted to be anywhere in or near a public school. A couple church youth groups had an occasional hay ride with all youth of the community invited. The Catholic kids went to the Lutheran church, and the Lutheran kids went to the Catholic church, and the others reciprocated as well. No one was trying to convert anyone. with lunch served afterwards.. Hot dogs, sloppy joes, and bonfires at the church, wind permitting. Never once was one heretic or book burned. Sometimes they went bowling, or an evening at the movies if it was youth appropriate.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon @12:46; I think what is “productive” is debatable. If all kids are included for some of these activities, it goes a long way to building community than just for those only interested in sports.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; One learning opportunity for the youth of the community was that THEY came up with ideas of things to do. They planned it, they organized it from start to finish, including who did what, what food was provided, who cleaned up, and concerns for safety, (especially with hay rides). There was adult supervision, but that was limited. Some of these activities continued into the summer after school was out. An evening at the pool, camp outs, etc. In essence, they created their own recreation, and didn’t demand to be entertained.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; @ 12:46; Your ” it makes more sense to have some athletic games on SUNDAY MORNINGS or afternoons instead of weeknights so students can rest up for the next day”; reveals a lot to your true attitude of fair balance of the sacred and secular. A “you can’t but we can” attitude.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 1:23 “A ‘you can but we can’t’ attitude.”

            I just thinking about what is good for the students. Whatever religion parents want their children to follow is their choice and can be taught on their own time.

            We raised our children going to church, getting confirmed and all of that. It never occurred to me the school should accommodate whatever we wanted to do in our religious choices.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            “can be taught on their own time”. It’s not your position or authority as to what or when it is taught, especially on Sunday mornings OR afternoon. You just revealed your true colors.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 1:57 “It’s not your position or authority as to what or when it is taught, especially on Sunday mornings OR afternoon. You just revealed your true colors.”

            I didn’t think I said it was my authority to determine anything. It’s just that different parents have different things they want their children to do or learn about. Some think hunting is a very important thing to learn about. Others want their children to know how to cook. Others want them to learn to enjoy life at their lake place or spend time with relatives. Some, like you, are big on teaching them your religion. Different strokes for different folks. The schools should schedule their activities and parents can fit their particular passions around what the schools do.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Regarding the Sunday blue laws. I have thought they were rather silly. With the exception of some employees who wish to worship on Sundays but can’t, the customers have the CHOICE to or not to. With school sports, kids like sports, and that is good, but when sports activities are scheduled on Sundays, those kids and families really don’t have a CHOICE, other than to quit the sports that force them to play on that day. When the sports directors and school administrators decide to have these activities on Sunday, they have to go along, or not participate. Some choice. More like forced compliance. Most often the plans are made in advance without student or parental consent. It would appear that those who make those decisions are atheists and are imposing their values on those who aren’t. Then there is the matter of the extended families necessitating/ literally forcing them to abandon their Sunday religious attendance to see their grand children play. I can see the rare case during play-offs and tournaments for this to happen due to limited floor time at the facilities where they are held, but this is no more than a couple days when they are held. This would be the exception, but now it has become the norm in several places every week.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            I was forced to go to wednesday night youth group, sunday school morning service, sunday morning service, and sunday night service.

            I was also told I needed to go to the alter because if I didn’t I wasn’t faithful enough. I was also told if I didn’t feel guilty about my existence I wasn’t being sufficiently convicted by the holy spirit.

            Who’s forcing what on who?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Sounds like the Assembly of the Gods and your parents. Not the Church at large.

          • entech says:

            Jon @ 12:46. Thank you for the explanation.
            Wanna12:53 Thank you for confirming that you do sometimes go into an attack anything possible, reminds me of a cocker spaniel.
            You talk so much about comprehension on occasion and then deliberately misconstrue, or as you put it yourself the bias shows through.

            my @ 6:47
            First paragraph, the jibe about falling back into your own ways, which was actually enhanced by the way you continued “as if” your continuation was part of what I said. My “Oh dear” referred to your attempted out down over the typo, probably caused by an over speedy use of the spell checker without checking what I had actually corrected.
            Next paragraph was about the enforced evangelism that is imposed on schools and thankfully being forced out by popular opinion.

            Your entire post ignored these points and went straight into attack mode. Your first remark about what you did not say, would have been better directed to educating this poor ignorant foreigner as to how your practices differ from those I described – this would have saved time, energy and bandwidth as the rest would have been unnecessary, and I really do not need to know about consummation practises.

          • entech says:

            Wolfy32 @ 2:38 pm. Such a pity you wern’t exposed to the Perfect thought of Luther as Wanna was, you could have been as perfect as he (thinks he) is.
            :roll:

          • entech says:

            Jon @ 2:55 pm I thought what you said was just your opinion that it was interpreted as not having the authority etc. reflects the (shallowly sublimated) authoritarian streak that is part of our friend Wanna. The problem is that it does not agree with Wanna’s opinion and so it must be wrong.

            I wonder what brings on these mood swings for the poor guy, he can be nice and friendly and even humorous and then suddenly turn like that. As he had intimated about you and I do you think it could indicate some kind of mental problem, incipient but not totally actualised yet.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; You clearly are offended by my comments. You ignore the content, and the obvious double standard presented by Jon in the matter of Sunday sports imposed on students and family. Get over it.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Re. “mood swings” trash. It was Jon that brought up the subject of Sunday MORNING sports. I simply explained the negative situation on those you and yours would like to impose. Your definition of a good mood appears to be a mood that agrees with yours. There is also a clinical term for that.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna We must be talking past one another. What you are saying does not seem in character with what you have posted here several times before. You have consistently maintained religion should be apart from government.

            Then, in this exchange, I interpret what you write as that government, public schools, should not have functions on Sunday morning when most Christian churches hold services. It seems like that is religion pushing itself into government–driving when publically supported events are held. Or, am I not understanding your position?

            A further complication is that some religions see Saturday as their religious day.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            What in the world are you saying? Are you saying people of faith are imposing their wishes when they argue against school sports/activities on Sunday morning?

          • Wolfy32 says:

            Well, it is said that men take on the cycles of their female partner… Maybe he’s manstrating… or having man flashes… Which equates to moodiness.

            I’m feeling a bit snarky today, (if you can’t tell) so, I apologize in advance for my snarkiness.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech @ 2:57 – - Wolfy @ 2:38; Luther or I have nothing to do with it. Wolfy’s complaint is with the church of his youth. That he knew nothing else is not on my conscience. Simply pointing out where the root of his problem starts. There are many other denominations that don’t generate the problems Wolfy experienced. Those problems of pietism Wolfy saw are common in the fundamentalist pasture.

          • entech says:

            Wanna B Sure @ 10:37 pm
            I do not agree, everything you write always has everything to do with you.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech @ 11:27 I disagree. Everything you write always has something to do with your inability for honest discussion.

          • entech says:

            That sounds about right. My inability to agree with you means I am dishonest :lol:

            What you refer to as discussion is difficult a lot of the time, with you it seems so often to be one part of

          • entech says:

            :oops: pressed enter instead of delete.
            was going to continue with being more a monologue on your part, with you just pausing for breath while the other parson is writing only to be ignored.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You just proved my point. Defending yourself, yet not part of the discussion.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna I don’t think you have ever explained this to us, though I have pointed to it a couple of time in blogs. In the book of John 19 : 16 etc it says Pilate turned Jesus over to the Jews to be executed. I least that is how I read it.

            Why, then, does the Apostle’s Creed say he was killed by Pilate?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon @ 12:32: Not part of this thread, and off topic. I won’t respond.

          • entech says:

            Wanna @ 12:18 am Don’t know quite where you get the interpretation of defending myselsf, but if that is what you think, go for it.
            Sometimes, when you start on about honest discussion I remember the long and honest conversation between you and Fr, James, Just looked up one part that seems particularly relevant, the part where you told him about his ‘personal behaviour and total lack of humility’, I thought what a perfect piece of self analysis. It is all the better because in this case it does also apply to the person to whom it is be projected.

            Jon @ 12:32 am Just another one of the mysteries. Anti-Semitism was not started by the Christians but certainly perfected by them. Even the protesters could not reject that part, The Jews and their Lies.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            PS; I do have an answer. Just not going to tell you.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 12:52 “PS; I do have an answer. Just not going to tell you.”

            Good. Then I can just go on thinking as I do that the Apostle’s Creed and the anonymous writer of John just made up different stuff to suit there own purposes. Probably if you provide a different explanation it won’t be convincing and I’ll come to the same conclusion, so not to bother.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; Self reflection on your own posts should give you pause, but I don’t think it will objectively happen.

          • entech says:

            Wanna, the therapy seems to be working, you are getting in touch with, and developing a rapport with, your inner child.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            And again you prove my point. Advanced playground activity.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon @ 1:29 You would be wrong. Interestingly, the answer is totally obvious and simple, but since your tangent is designed to be a distraction,- – - – - – -your insincerity is noted. If this was a moderated debate, you would be laughed off the stage. Since you are the moderator of this blog, insincerity is the order of the day, and your cheerleader supports you.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 1:42 “…you would be laughed off the stage.”

            I’m not so sure of that. Ehrman pointed out in his book, and, I’ve seen videos of the debates where he points out that the further from the time of Jesus the writing was done, the better Pilate was treated in the Bible and the worse the Jews were treated, and he does fine against opponents.

            There is no way one can refute this treatment of Pilate versus the Jews as time passed. I just wondered how/why who ever it was the came up with the Creed ignored John 19:16? Maybe they just never read John.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I told you I wasn’t going to answer your question. It is a distraction and off topic, as is the introduction of Ehrman. It’s your bait and I’m not biting .

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 2:07 “It’s you bait and I’m not biting.”

            What made me think of it was a few days ago we were all discussing here the crucifixion and whether the Jews or Romans did it. You posted the Creed clearly states Pilate did it and thus there should be no argument on who was guilty.

            That reminded me of this question I’ve had for a while, how can it be a large segment of the faith believes is was Pilate and another it was the Jews? Both have scripture to support them.

            It leads me to one probability no one knows. Another is Pilate did it but was forgiven by Christian management due to political expediency. Another the Jews did is and they have not been forgiven by Christian management because they are too small in number to matter.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Give me the day date and time you claim I made the post.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“You posted the Creed clearly states Pilate did it and thus there should be no argument on who was guilty.”

            The alleged reference is out of context and did not say all of that. I’ll let Jon stumble around trying to find it.

      • Adam Heckathorn says:

        Wanna I think My Sister in law was one of the most extreme but certainly many have what seemed to Me as superstitious views. When this subject came up You’d hear a variety of views. What does One say? People would assume someone is having Demon problems and They would start trying to figure out if They had bought something at a garage sale that May have brought Demons into Their home. I’ve always suspected These problems were a sort of Mass hysteria or perhaps some sort of Mental Health issues . Honestly this is one area that I’ve always struggled with it just seems silly. Jesus was constantly casting out Demons reading the Bible You’d think the Country was overrun with Them which begs the question where are They now because We don’t hear reports of The Latest Demon attack on the morning news. When My Wife ended up in The Hospital My Sister in law went to Our Home and through away a bunch of Our CD’s especially all My Wife,s They Might Be Giants CDs. My Sister in Law threw away all Her own They Might be Giant CDs Then later She repurchased Them. I have no Idea what the thought process was.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          My sister and a friend of hers freaked out when they were teans. They were playing on the bed I guess and something pulled the covers down, they’d pull them back up and then the covers would get pulled off again…

          She said they were experimenting with satanist music (worship music of satan supposedly…. Not sure who the “artist” was.) Anyways, she was freaked out that she had somehow summoned a demon. She went to the youth pastor requested special prayer and Her and her friend stopped being friends and so on.

          My sister had tried a lot of different drugs and alcohol in high school so there’s that.

          If you change the perspective on it? A bed cover thief? No you evil bad demon!!! stop moving the covers!!! I mean if it was so sinister, why would an invisible demonic force care about moving the covers?

          I get there could be unexplainable and unseen forces in our world but, the sinister cover thief seems a bit ridiculous.

          You don’t hear of many people being eaten, or being dismembered by demons on a daily basis. If they were so powerful, one would think this would be a common occurance. Maybe the watch tower actually is a mystical place of energy that keeps the demon hordes back for the time being. ;)

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Wolfy It’s interesting how Your experience is so similar to mine. I think both say more about how the human mind perceives things rather than anything about Demons.

  4. Fr. James says:

    In fact there was plenty of debate, but in the end the Catholic side won. How odd you think that it is unusual that the Catholic Church would decide to uphold Catholicism. St. John Paul the Great will be celebrated a thousand years from now when the Fargo Freethinkers are dust and long forgotten. He was brilliant, but you wouldn’t know that since you have never read a word he wrote.

    • Wolfy32 says:

      There you go contradicting the bible again…. I’m assuming St. John Paul the Great is a catholic saint of some type… Well, the bible prophesies that Christianity will be defeated. It’s right there in Revelations. You’ll get the persecution you so desperately seek and It’ll all be over!

      Ever read the “Left Behind” books by Tim Lahaye (can’t remember the second author). They explain in fictional detail how Christianity will be eliminated…. There will be nothing left to remember of Catholocism. Christians will then be hunted down and killed just like you want.

      So, I doubt that St. John would be remembered at all, if he’s associated with Christianity he’ll be long forgotten just like Christians. The bible says so. Should read the bible more…

      • Fr. James says:

        The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church, so we don’t contradict it. In fact Revelation says that in the end we win. Read the last chapter. Certainly they will try to eliminate us, but in the end they will fail.

        I read the Bible all the time. Perhaps you should try reading it without your blinders on?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>