We interrupt this blog for a message from Westboro Baptist
Thank you, Westboro Baptist! (This sign is the creation of blog regular Justin True.)
February 7, 2013 - 1:30 PM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Don't Miss
Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
February 7, 2013 - 1:30 PM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
402 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
That’s what you get for hating on Blue Moon, Dan.
Funny.
Justin would like to pretend this is a real church and not just some publicity hound’s extended family. The CPUSA/MSM has used it extensively to further their aims without revealing that it barely has 50 members.
Pretty clever on the sign, however.
God does not hate anyone. He hates to see Christians put up signs like this.
Their “church” looks like some shotgun shack.
Oh so now the legitimacy of a church is decided by the number of members and they cannot be a family church? Wow, that is some cold Christianity you are both serving up. Don’t blame others when Christian hate and hypocrisy are publicized. It is not as if right wing zealots don’t trot out every lunatic they can find from the left, now is it?
Christian hate and hypocrisy
For someone who claims to be Christian, you sure hold a lot animosity for that group.
As for the Westboro, group, like you, they are not affiliated with any denomination. They’re just out there hijacking the name then doing whatever they want. Just like you.
hahahahaha
Susie, I have no doubt that Westboro Baptist believe the insane things they say. People like yourself actually believe as they do. They blame every little thing on the gay and Jewish populations. Everything from earthquakes to your washing machine stealing your quarters. That’s what is really sad… you cant make the connection between the two. You think your rhetoric is ok because you have ladies appearing on toast or people claiming to see the Sun dance or because your faction is older. But its exactly the same.
“Justin would like to pretend this is a real church”
Catholicism – hating on every other religious denomination for 2000 years.
They are the most horrible sub-species on the earth. But at least they show their hate in person instead of “hijacking” Dan Casey’s blog.
OK Dan, I just spit my Blue Moon beer all over my computer monitor. Very Funny!
LMAO!
Westboro hearts them some Frankensuzie.
“God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.” ~ Francis Bacon 1561 – 1626
“Christian hate and hypocrisy
For someone who claims to be Christian, you sure hold a lot animosity for that group.”
just more typical libbiecom hypocrisy. what is the difference between sandi and westboro, NOTHING. BOTH ARE HYPOCRITES
Just thought I would pop in and tell pammala, Suzie and Frank that your new dating website looks like it is being rather successful…
Susie, I have no doubt that Westboro Baptist believe the insane things they say. People like yourself actually believe as they do. They blame every little thing on the gay and Jewish populations. Everything from earthquakes to your washing machine stealing your quarters. That’s what is really sad… you cant make the connection between the two. You think your rhetoric is ok because you have ladies appearing on toast or people claiming to see the Sun dance or because your faction is older. But its exactly the same.
Justin,
You have a whole trunkload of exaggerated caricatures saved up for your imaginary enemies in the Christian movement. And this Westboro “Chruch”, which isn’ really a church, gives you the perfect strawman. You’ve got all your Old Testament literal translations, you’ve got blanket condemnations, and you have a spirit of hatred rather than charity. The problem is, Catholicism is nothing like that.
I also note your hypocrisy on gays. Here you rant against fundamentalist condemnation of gays, yet you have nothing but scorn for Catholic bishops who gave gay molesters numerous chances at God’s forgiveness and redemption. Or perhaps you’re just looking for any ol’ reason to hate religion.
pammalala, just for fun, please explain how Westboro is guilty of “hypocrisy”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XbqiiY_Pam8
Suzie and pammala, even to the casual visitor to this blog, the people who most resemble Westboro are the two of you. I am proud NOT to “belong” to your brand of Christian. God willing, be it ever so.
pammalala, just for fun, please explain how Westboro is guilty of “hypocrisy”.
Comment by Kristen — February 8, 2013 @ 10:32 am
(After pammala reads the thoughtful question by, Kristen) pammala begins to tear up as she slowly walks to her mirror, kicking empty soup cans –cans she stole from Soup for Seniors program– and as she stares into the mirror she realizes she is staring at the hypocrisy that plagues this nation and a key ingredient to the hypocrisy of insane churches like Westboro. She then begins to sob and curl up in the fetal position asking, Yeshua, why! Why hast thou forsaken her/him. Then shim<–pammala, realizes that her WIC checks are late and rushes to the Post Office. But to shim's dismay, they have yet to arrive. "Alas", shim exclaims! "Another reason to hate Obama"!
*NO cans for Soup for Seniors was harmed during this parody of Frank's alter ego.
I am proud NOT to “belong” to your brand of Christian
You don’t belong to any brand of Christianity. You have admitted to that. All you have is criticism and scorn for Christianity. You’re like Justin, Hillary, Warlock, Kristen, and all the other admitted atheists on here.
Sandi’s License Plate:
“XTIAN H8R”
Get off the cross Jesus, “Suzie” needs it…
Ooops. Also left off the admitted atheist list: Gdad, Mike Scott, and Scott Whittaker. My bad.
Suzie, that is patently untrue and demonstrably false. No one died and appointed you Jesus. You have no right or cause to claim I am not a Christian. Not YOUR KIND of Christian, you are very, very correct on that and I praise God for it, but you only defame God with your blasphemy in declaring what ANYONE else “is” or “is not”. What “brand” of Christianity did Jesus Christ “belong to”? Prove it.
As we already established, you are much closer to a Hitler Christian than a Jesus Christian and your own posts have proven it.
“…. yet you have nothing but scorn for Catholic bishops who gave gay molesters numerous chances at God’s forgiveness and redemption.”
What did the Catholic Church do for the child victims of those pedophiles, suzie? Not a damn thing. The church was more concerned about its reputation and potential financial liability. If, as you say, it was all about forgiveness and redemption for the pedophiles, then obviously the Church cared more for the guilty pedophile priests and bishops than it cared for its most vulnerable, innocent members.
Combine the Church’s cover-up of the monstrous acts against the victimized children with the actions of St. Thomas More Catholic Church against Jeremy Stodghill, and you have nothing but a Catholic Church that cares only about its pocketbook, not its members.
You’re going to have to sell that redemption and forgiveness for wayward priests and bishops crap somewhere else, suz.
Add me to the proud atheist list.
BTW suz, the ‘T’ is incorrect in your spelling of ‘XTIAN’. The ‘X’ already stands for ‘Christ’. It’s also why you see ‘Xmas’, not XTmas. But you probably don’t even know why ‘X’ became an acceptable abbreviation for ‘Christ’ anyway.
If anyone on this blog were to be able to ‘lead me to Christ’, it would be Sandi Saunders and Ron May. It would NOT be someone who compared Rush Limpballs to Jesus Christ on Easter weekend.
Get off the cross Jesus, “Suzie” needs it…
Comment by Hillary — February 8, 2013 @ 11:29 am
LLLLLMMMMMAAAAAOOOOO! Hillary, I am stealing that one!
Suzie, I have no idea why you feel as if you have the right to judge and tell folks what they are or what they are not?
You say, Ms. Sandi, isn’t a Christian, but she shows all of the signs and symptoms of a good Christian. Suzie, shows all the signs and symptoms of being a Christian Fascist dictator, a delusional one at that!
I’m a non-Christian, but I can’t call myself an atheist because I cannot deny the possibility that something ethereal may exist. The fact that no real scientific proof can be found to either confirm nor deny it doesn’t give me carte blanche to dismiss the potential. I keep an open mind, but I don’t subscribe to any particular religion. I am friends with folks of numerous religious paths and I respect what they believe to be true, whether or not I believe it. I just try to focus on my own life, to do the most good as I can, and to do my part to leave this rock a little better than I found it 32 years ago. In my opinion, too much time and energy is wasted on arguing about who’s right and who’s not, when that could be spent helping others who could stand to benefit from that same passion.
Suzie, I have no idea why you feel as if you have the right to judge and tell folks what they are or what they are not? You say, Ms. Sandi, isn’t a Christian, but she shows all of the signs and symptoms of a good Christian.
Just going by Sandi’s own words, Justin. . She says she can’t find a Christian church whose tenets she does not despise. Then in post 6, she talked of “Christian hate and hypocrisy”. A Christian wouldn;t find that possible. Earlier she agreed with one of your atheist rants.
So I’m just taking her at her word.
Add me to the proud atheist list.
I included you, “Contra”. I added you along with Mike Scott and Scott Whittaker.
OK, so Justin and “Contra” are both atheists, both like Sandi’s religious philosophy. So I guess that reaffirms what Sandi is.
The ol’ transitive property, you know.
Jesus’ dead body was taken down from the cross and sealed in a borrowed tomb. But praise God He did not stay there. On resurrection morning He arose from the dead giving the assurance of everlasting life to all who will believe and trust in Him.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
I actually would classify myself more as an animist or pagan – although the definition of an atheist – someone not believing in the existence of deities – is also fitting.
This is the definition I prefer for my beliefs:
The belief that all in nature “is conscious” The term has been further extended to refer to a belief that the natural world is a community of living “spirits”, Trees, birds, fish, plants, and all living things have a purpose, and each has a certain spirit that humans are interrelated with – much like the old Irish druids who believed trees were sacred. However, Animism does not denote any particular religious creed or doctrine.
I have found more peace in the quiet of nature than could ever be found in the religiosity of ‘the – collection – basket – preaching -”holy men – residing – in – cathedrals” who believe in hell, and a world that is 4500 years old . Animism, what some may call “Mother Nature”, neither preaches, promises, nor panders to individuals – Animism provides me with spirituality without the odious trappings of “organized” man-made religion.
“Also left off the admitted atheist list: Gdad,…”
Boy, you really can’t make up your mind, can you, suzie? A couple of weeks ago you criticized a comment of mine by saying that you thought I talked about going to church. Now you say I’m an admitted atheist. Which is it, toots?
Then in post 6, she talked of “Christian hate and hypocrisy”. A Christian wouldn’t find that possible.
Comment by Suzie — February 8, 2013 @ 12:55 pm
I’d like you to open your New Testament and study the story of “The Cleansing of the Temple”, Suzie. You shouldn’t have any trouble finding it; it’s in all four canonical gospels.
Now, if there was no hypocrisy, hate or corruption within the church, why would this story even be in the Bible? What exactly are you babbling about? Are you trying to say that Christians are incapable of hypocrisy and hate? That there are no evil people who call themselves Christians and form churches?
How fitting that someone as completely clueless about their own religion as you are would bellow the loudest about who is and isn’t a Christian! That is why your religion must evolve or perish. That is why, when you are faced with your own Judgement, you will be asked why you pushed so many people away from God instead of bringing them to Him. That is why you, ma’am, are not nor have you ever been a good ambassador for your faith.
I choose to be a heathen. You hide your heathen ways behind a veil of dubious piety. When it all washes out, maybe we can sit down together during our eternal damnation and figure out where you went wrong. After all, according to your religion, I can expect to go to hell. You, however, expect to go to heaven, but I don’t think your selective listening, editing and parsing skills will impress Him very much. I’ll keep a seat for you.
BTW, notice how suzie’s list of supposedly admitted atheists doesn’t include any of the right wingers or more right leaning folks who say they are atheists? Strange.
Oh wow! Suzie, pammala, Frank, and now Will R, are expert copy/paste of Greek mythology! Thanks, Will R! Next week can we hear a story about Mithra? Oh wait… Mithra and Jesus’ stories are essentially the same myth. Never mind.
How is that grape juice and cracker thingy working out for you?
No Suzie, you are not telling the truth (shocker)! You are not taking me at my word, you are making “my” words up and pretending I said them. Not once have I ever said or implied that I “can’t find a Christian church whose tenets she does not despise”. I am a Christian and attend church and Sunday School because I love God and I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, not dogma. I am in very, very good company when I speak of “Christian hate and hypocrisy”, as J.M. White already pointed out to you.
Actually, “A Christian” WOULD “find that possible” and like me, say something about it, every time. Oddly enough, guess who wouldn’t?
““Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5 RSV)
“Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)
“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you transgress the Commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matthew 15:1-9 RSV)
Suzie, you are calling people out for being an Atheist like its a bad thing. Its great having morals and living a great life without feeling as if someone ghost is watching get dressed… or reading your mind while you watch the movie Magic Mike. (Matthew 5:27-30)
suzie’s done her damnedest to avoid the topic of St. Thomas More Catholic Hospital and their use of the legal argument that fetuses aren’t persons in order to not take responsibility for the death of Jeremy Stodghill’s pre-natal twins, so let me pose the question to the second best Christian on the blog, Will R.
What do you think about that lawsuit, Will R.? What do you think about that Catholic Hospital going against one of the Church’s most basic tenants (life begins at conception) by using secular law to avoid taking any responsibility in the deaths of Stodghill’s wife and unborn twins, and further countersuing Stodghill to recover their legal expenses?
“And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:40
Justin, it’s like the way they use “liberal” as an insult.
It’s likely pammalala doesn’t know what “hypocrisy” actually is. Like “commie”, its a useful but always incorrectly used perceived insult.
No wonder my ears were a’burn’n. People been mentioning my name on this thread all day long and I haven’t even contributed a lick to the conversation.
But as I’ve said before, there’s not better way to make people consider their religious beliefs than fundamental raving. Hate to break it to you literal folks, but the times are a changing and your fundamental theology of the past is not gonna be as popular in the future. You can pat yourselves on the back for making that happen.
That’s just the licks of hell fire you feel, Mike Scott. Wait until you’re burning in the lake of eternal damnation.
Hmmm
I’m a little disturbed about the revelation of a at least one list Suzie keeps. Aside from some entertaining banter and an opportunity to express my points of view, I wouldn’t bother to make a list of people with whom I disagreed. That’s a little creepy.
I hope folks do start posting some mythology. Damn those Greek and Roman myths. Reading Bullfinch’s Mythology in the ninth grade was a revelation. First, they were very cool and imaginative stories. Second, they persisted for thousands of years in two cultures that are venerated for the philosophical foundations of western thought. It also occurred to me at the wise old age of 15 that if people believed that kind of nonsense for thousands of years, then it could be possible that my own beliefs might contain similar nonsense. Later own, Mark Twain confirmed it.
Comment by Contrasuzie — February 8, 2013 @ 12:29 pm
I’m honored to be included in that duo Contra. Thanks.
A couple of weeks ago you criticized a comment of mine by saying that you thought I talked about going to church. Now you say I’m an admitted atheist.
Exactly you used to say you went to church, then a couple of weeks ago you ridiculed religion by saying you saw a unicorn on the Greenway. So I guess you’re attending Justin True’s meetings now.
How fitting that someone as completely clueless about their own religion as you are would bellow the loudest about who is and isn’t a Christian!
Just going by Sandi’s own words, friend.
Church’s most basic tenants
I guess that would be God, although I don’t believe He has to pay rent.
lol
I am a Christian and attend church and Sunday School because I love God and I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, not dogma.
But you said you would not be a member of said church because you disagreed with it’s teachings. Now you brag about attending the church and its Sunday school. How is that not hypocrital?
@ Contrasuzie — February 8, 2013 @ 12:29 pm #31, thank you for such kind words in an often cruel place, but I am much too flawed and disruptive to lead anyone to Christ. I believe in Him enough not to use Him as a weapon.
Myth or not, it is a beautiful story. Do I need it to be a good person? No, I have a mind that works and a strong sense of morality. I like it and I choose to believe.
Suzie:
“I included you, “Contra”. I added you along with Mike Scott and Scott Whittaker.”
Yes, when she put gdad on the list. Contra, you and gdad are the same person remember? LOL. Do I not make the cut for the non-theist list, Suz? Does the fact that I am much closer to position on Obama give me immunity or something?
Sandie, I think sometimes as an Atheist or non-believer, I or my cohorts may come off abrasive towards believers like you or Brother Ron. I hope you and he will realize that you guys aren’t the ones that we speak against or in a rather dramatic sense, rise against.
The way that you approach your belief, the way you LIVE YOUR belief is a very respectable and human way. I love your humility but I love your tenacity and passionate thoughts that so vividly paint your world view.
I guess what I am trying yo say here is that I hope you don’t get offended by my opinion on faiths. But if you ever do… its Suzie’s fault! Lol!
John Wilburn! You deserve to be on the list definitely!!! You are a meanie Atheist! Lol
Justin, if I croak before you do, I’ll save you a seat in the Lake of Fire ampitheater.
“VT Hokie”, I hope you save the above line if you outlive me.
.
hey dano,
leave it to the ol’ leader of the “religion of libbers” to use the westboro church to get folks attention. you exploit the sensational much like andres serrano.
i rank westboro church right up there with andres serrano’s “art work”. …they both cover the extremes. and, in my opinion, ol’ dano, you are just as smart and creative as is mr. serrano. which evidently explains why you are unable to see the two extremes i speak of, and are limited by your singular, pointy-headed lib, perspective …that being the radical lib view of things religion. christ in piss is ok. westboro church is not.
within the context of related posts from others, i have acknowledged my personal faith, and have so stated less than complete faith in the organized religions we have today. I have not proselytized, or criticized others, for their beliefs. But, ol’ dano never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
in dano’s radical lib pin-headed view, that qualifies me to be associated with westboro church.
ok, dano…along that line, i suggest you are qualified to place a figurine of yourself, named of course, swimming in a full jar of the liguid which is the controversy of andres serrano’s “art work”.
i invite you to dive right on in, dano. just be careful where you dive, dano, ’cause justin true likes to hog the whole jar for himself, and doesn’t share very well.
enjoy.
Suzie, you remain clueless and your flailing is embarrassing. What I have actually said was that I would not be a member of the church I attend because I believe the denomination uses scripture to discriminate (much as you do) against homosexuals, the church I attend, does not. I believe with all of my being that such discrimination is wrong and I will not ever join the church until that is changed. I also believe they will. I have not said I disagreed with any other of “it’s teachings” (whatever a person like you can mean by that). Not at all sure how I “brag about attending the church and its Sunday school” in a blog of so many atheists and agnostics but in no way does it make me “hypocrital”. I have been open and honest with everyone here and at the church and they are well aware of my feelings.
Justin, I assure you that I admire your courage and tenacity. I am far, far more offended by the remarks and behavior of those who claim to be Christians than I have ever been of any Atheist. Thanks to the intelligence of VVArlock, I accepted long ago that there are very, very legitimate reasons that religious dogma, greed, self-righteous and judgmental people and discriminating practices could lead people away from God. It grieves me, but it is a self-inflicted wound.
He, and you and other Atheists have proven that you are also moral, decent, honorable people and I am proud to know you.
What is it you think you just confirmed Frank? Geez, see what I mean Justin?
Justin, I assure you that I admire your courage and tenacity. I am far, far more offended by the remarks and behavior of those who claim to be Christians than I have ever been of any Atheist. Thanks to the intelligence of VVArlock, I accepted long ago that there are very, very legitimate reasons that religious dogma, greed, self-righteous and judgmental people and discriminating practices could lead people away from God. It grieves me, but it is a self-inflicted wound.
He, and you and other Atheists have proven that you are also moral, decent, honorable people and I am proud to know you.
See? She did it again. Gracious words for atheism. Nothing but scorn for Christianity.
“Ye will be known not by thy words, but by thy deeds”
Frank, thank you for walking around thinking about me. It’s quite flattering, no matter what you think.
I would return the favor, but you’re simply not that intetesting!
#52 Thank you, suzie, for confirming again to all that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I have said never said on this blog that attend church and I’ve also never said that I’m an atheist. Wow, a twofer.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:41 pm
…, I accepted long ago that there are very, very legitimate reasons that religious dogma, greed, self-righteous and judgmental people and discriminating practices could lead people away from God. It grieves me, but it is a self-inflicted wound.
… Atheists have proven that you are also moral, decent, honorable people and I am proud to know you.
………………
Well said, Sandi.
I came to similar conclusions back in the ’60s — albeit I added folk of other religions as well as atheists to the list of folk that were (or could easily be) moral, decent, honorable people and whom I was/am am proud to have known / to know.
It is tempting to quote some of Matt 6 & 7 — but I won’t.
Yes, John W, it was indeed good of suzie to acknowledge that Contra and I aren’t the same person. Of course she always knew that.
Mike Scott, suzie also stores away comments from people and at least used to archive her own comments. Ultra creepy.
What I have actually said was that I would not be a member of the church I attend because I believe the denomination uses scripture to discriminate (much as you do) against homosexuals, the church I attend, does not. I believe with all of my being that such discrimination is wrong and I will not ever join the church until that is changed.
Yep. That’s what I said. You attend a Christian church of which you don’t believe in their teachings. Unfortunately, we don’t get to pick and choose which rules we like and which we don’t. Blacksburg Suz does the same thing.
John Wilburn you know that we will have a cannonball contest to see who sits next to John Lennon! And We All Shine On!
“OK, so Justin and “Contra” are both atheists, both like Sandi’s religious philosophy. So I guess that reaffirms what Sandi is.”
No hon, I don’t like Sandi’s, nor anyone else’s, religious philosophy. I like Sandi’s and Ron May’s spirituality. There’s a big difference in living a spiritual life and just going through the checklist of religion because of what you’ll get out of it, either on this Earth or in Heaven. They strike me as folks who are at peace with themselves and their God.
You, not so much.
I am proud to know you as well, Sister Sandi! I think its weird that some folks are so intolerant and hateful towards ours and others on this blogs tolerance and acceptance of each other’s journey. We should somehow turn this into a positive stance and use it to build the Diversity Center here in Roanoke stronger!
gdad, atheist or not you are always welcome to share a table with me anytime! First pint is on me! Our next meeting is sure to be a great time! It is set at a destination that celebrates diversity in us and our love for beer and food! Great friends and conversation will always be plentiful!
Get off the cross Jesus, “Suzie” needs it…
Comment by Hillary — February 8, 2013 @ 11:29 am
LMAO!
I actually would classify myself more as an animist or pagan – although the definition of an atheist – someone not believing in the existence of deities – is also fitting.
This is the definition I prefer for my beliefs:
The belief that all in nature “is conscious” The term has been further extended to refer to a belief that the natural world is a community of living “spirits”, Trees, birds, fish, plants, and all living things have a purpose, and each has a certain spirit that humans are interrelated with – much like the old Irish druids who believed trees were sacred. However, Animism does not denote any particular religious creed or doctrine.
I have found more peace in the quiet of nature than could ever be found in the religiosity of ‘the – collection – basket – preaching -”holy men – residing – in – cathedrals” who believe in hell, and a world that is 4500 years old . Animism, what some may call “Mother Nature”, neither preaches, promises, nor panders to individuals – Animism provides me with spirituality without the odious trappings of “organized” man-made religion.
Comment by Hillary — February 8, 2013 @ 2:09 pm
Very well said, Hillary. I fall squarely into this spiritual camp. I am never so uplifted than when Imtake a simple walk in the woods.
They strike me as folks who are at peace with themselves and their God.
You, not so much.
The thread that is common to all atheists is self. They simply want to do what they want to do, ignoring God’s laws or natural laws or whatever you want to call them. They deny that certain actions lead to certain negative results. It explains why most atheists are profoundly unhappy and their lives are a wreck. And whenever their error is pointed out to them, they tend to get angry.
Ron and Sandi are enablers and encouragers of your fantasy. They tell you what you want to hear. I won’t do that. Ergo your lashing out.
The belief that all in nature “is conscious” The term has been further extended to refer to a belief that the natural world is a community of living “spirits”, Trees, birds, fish, plants, and all living things have a purpose, and each has a certain spirit that humans are interrelated with – much like the old Irish druids who believed trees were sacred. However, Animism does not denote any particular religious creed or doctrine.
I have found more peace in the quiet of nature than could ever be found in the religiosity of ‘the – collection – basket – preaching -”holy men – residing – in – cathedrals” who believe in hell, and a world that is 4500 years old . Animism, what some may call “Mother Nature”, neither preaches, promises, nor panders to individuals – Animism provides me with spirituality without the odious trappings of “organized” man-made religion.
I am sorry. Man is on a much higher plane than the deer, birds, and arachnids. As a result, our duty is much higher. It is not enough for us to sit and watch the bird feeder all day. We are called upon to follow the sometimes difficult laws of God/nature in order to lift up our fellow man so that we may all be united forever in heavenly bliss. Thinking it all ends at death is not only selfish and short-sighted (the live for today-tomorrow be damned mentality), it’s also depressing and incorrect.
I think its weird that some folks are so intolerant and hateful towards ours and others on this blog
There’s that straw dog again. Nobody has been hateful of you on this blog, Justin. Some of us are simply disagreeing with your beliefs.
I have said never said on this blog that attend church and I’ve also never said that I’m an atheist. Wow, a twofer.
Yeah, but then you go and compare widely-held Christian beliefs to seeing a unicorn on the Greenway. That sort of exposes your hand.
You must really have a problem with the idea of someone rising from the dead.
Unfortunately, we don’t get to pick and choose which rules we like and which we don’t.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2013 @ 12:04 am
Didn’t you and I have a debate just a short time ago where you argued that the rules of the Bible were subject to common sense?
Thanks, Justin! Has the next get together been set up yet? If so, I didn’t see an email.
“Didn’t you and I have a debate just a short time ago where you argued that the rules of the Bible were subject to common sense?”
But that doesn’t fit with her current argument so she’s changing it. Common sense, you know.
Jason Perdue – I actually feel sorry for those who are constrained by the dogma of organized religion – the primary reason to exist seeming to be only to perpetuate their singular beliefs, build additions to their churches, blacktop their parking areas, put up digital signs… not necessarily to emulate the man called Jesus’ message – a man who was able to get his gentle message across without special garb, without the stained windows, without the oak pews, without central air, without the half million dollar real estate – without all the current fashionable trappings of “religion”..
For me, there is nothing closer to “heaven” than the natural world.
+1 on the organized religion Hillary. Many local church facilities passed the half million dollar mark long ago, BTW. Most of those people don’t realize just how hollow their ideas are.
“Yep. That’s what I said. You attend a Christian church of which you don’t believe in their teachings. Unfortunately, we don’t get to pick and choose which rules we like and which we don’t. Blacksburg Suz does the same thing.”
Suzie, you and I may have different ideas of “rules”. I truly believe in the core tenets of the Christian faith outlined by the Catholic Church. I pray, fast, say the Rosary, donate to the church, actively participate in my parish. I don’t agree with the Church’s “rules” on things that are not core tenets of the faith – such as a ban on contraception, women’s ordination, etc… Tell me how those issues relate to the birth, life and death of my Lord. Call me a “Cafeteria Catholic” if you want….I don’t care. The leaders of the Catholic Church have lost much credibility for me and I don’t blindly parrot the party line. Sorry.
Didn’t you and I have a debate just a short time ago where you argued that the rules of the Bible were subject to common sense?
Yep. There are some like that in the Old Testament. Then there are the immutable ones that appear in the New Testament as well as the Old. And again, a little exercise of common sense will guide you as to the difference. But atheists invariably don’t like the one about sex outside of marriage, yet this is apretty hard and fast rule. The OT one about burning rams at the altar? That’s not a rule anymore. It’s been replaced. See the difference?
I actually feel sorry for those who are constrained by the dogma of organized religion
All religion is voluntary. However, consequences of not following natural law are not.
build additions to their churches, blacktop their parking areas, put up digital signs… not necessarily to emulate the man called Jesus’ message – a man who was able to get his gentle message across without special garb, without the stained windows, without the oak pews, without central air, without the half million dollar real estate – without all the current fashionable trappings of “religion”.
Jesus also got his message out from a very nice temple.
There is nothing wrong with average people volunteering their talents to create a pleasant environment from which to worship God. Irish and Italian artisans from 1800s built St. Andrews as a gift to God and to their fellow Roanoke Catholics. Walk inside there during the day and it is a wonderful sanctuary.
But for every St. Andrews’, there are a ten cinder block buildings like the Church of the Transfiguration in Fincastle or former storefronts like the Syriac Orthdox Church in Hollins. And for everyone of those, worldwide, there are 100 congregations meeting in someone’s home or hut or lean-to or shanty.
Blacksburg Suz,
Women’s ordination isnt a huge issue, but contraception is. Most contraception is tantamount to abortion. Didn’t you also say you disagree with the church’s abortion position? Those are core teachings.
The belief that all in nature “is conscious” The term has been further extended to refer to a belief that the natural world is a community of living “spirits”, Trees, birds, fish, plants, and all living things have a purpose, and each has a certain spirit that humans are interrelated with – much like the old Irish druids who believed trees were sacred. However, Animism does not denote any particular religious creed or doctrine.
Considering plants and animals on the same plane as man is just ludicrous. Plants and animals are here for our benefit and at our service. Unless you’r eating only butter, cheese, and honey, you agree with me.
‘suzie’, I guess I’ll have to say this again:
You, who compared Rush Limbaugh to Jesus Christ on the absolute Holiest weekend of Christianity, Easter weekend, have lost ALL credibility to discuss Christianity. I don’t know why this is so hard for you understand.
Suzie:
“But atheists invariably don’t like the one about sex outside of marriage, yet this is apretty hard and fast rule.”
The creed of bitter old bible belt people who got married as teenagers so they could get laid without the guilt of their overbearing parents who did the same thing. Geez, time to grow up and break the mold.
By the way, it’s not atheists who disrespected your rule of sex only within heterosexual marriage, it’s the vast and overwhelming majority of YOUR OWN who did that and set the reasonable expectations of respectability. Why would anyone else buy into what you’re selling when 95%+ of those who are selling it don’t or didn’t adhere themselves.
Can’t sell Glocks when you a carry a Kimber…. just syain’.
grad, it sure is! I have our meetups planned out for the next three months. If you are a member of our meetup check it out there. If not email me and I will be glad to forward you the info. I am planning so trips this summer to some breweries and one to the Smithsonian for all the kids. The Natural History Museum is one of my families favorites! See you soon!
Re: Suzie @ 12:04 am
Unfortunately, we don’t get to pick and choose which rules we like and which we don’t.
—————–
Then explain the wide diversion of denominations and theology differences within Christianity and the existence of so many other religions / faiths / beliefs / etc.
You picked what you liked.
Others pick what they like.
“Didn’t you also say you disagree with the church’s abortion position? Those are core teachings.”
St. Thomas More Catholic Hospital disagrees with the church’s abortion position.
Re: Suzie @ 11:45 am
Women’s ordination isnt a huge issue….
—————-
Look who is picking and choosing now!
Who’a thunk!!!
Re: Contrasuzie @ 11:50 am
Bingo!
We have a winner!!!!
Then explain the wide diversion of denominations and theology differences within Christianity and the existence of so many other religions / faiths / beliefs / etc.
You picked what you liked.
Others pick what they like.
Prior to 1500 or so, there was only one Christian denomination, Roman Cathollicism. Our popes are from an unbroken line starting with St. Peter who was Jesus’ right hand man. What others have done and why, you’ll have to ask them.
Women’s ordination isnt a huge issue….
—————-
Look who is picking and choosing now!
Who’a thunk!!!
Actually, I am mistaken. Ordination of women is against canon law.
Suzie’s knowledge of church history is as deep as her knowledge of politics (completely consisting of sound bites).
Sandi – I would echo the other sentiments here. If most christians were like you or Ron (there were others, but my brain is full – nice guy maybe Paul was a preacher or missionary?), my ‘war on religion’ would not be needed.
If there were an actual sense from christians that religion is personal and not something to be forced upon others, I could find something else to rant about – or just focus on the reading I am supposed to be doing right now.
Instead Christianity in America is trying to insert itself into our shared government, steal our institutions, has already stolen our motto and pledge, is willfully ignorant of science and logic, abuses minorities when it can, cries about the intolerance of others, and generally is a force for evil and discrimination.
The Suzies and Westboro’s of the world make it easy to be me. You make it much harder and keep me honest. I know that I rail against just a portion, and an ever shrinking portion of christianity, because of people like you.
Ordination of women is against canon law… where does the descrimination end with your peoples Suzie? It seems like if you aren’t born perfect (in your gods eyes) you cant do anything within your church.
VVarlock, welcome back!
Prior to 1500 or so, there was only one Christian denomination, Roman Cathollicism. Our popes are from an unbroken line starting with St. Peter who was Jesus’ right hand man. What others have done and why, you’ll have to ask them.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2013 @ 1:35 pm
Suzie seems to forget the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church was founded on the Day of Holy Pentecost in Jerusalem in 33 AD, fifty days after the Holy Resurrection of Jesus Christ our true God. It has preserved the original teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles form that time until the present. The first major Bishops of the Church (known as Patriarchs) have remained Orthodox up to the present. They are the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Later onwards other Patriarchs also began to develop within the Orthodox Church: Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albanian.
The Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, believing and teaching the same doctrines and Sacred Tradition, until 1054. It was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church. In that year the Patriarch of Rome, or the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope of Rome broke away from the original Church by making unacceptable claims of authority over the entire Christian Church. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has added new teachings, which the ancient Christian Church above rejects. One of these is the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Not only this doctrine but also other matters of the faith have developed within the Roman Catholic Church which has since has separated both these Churches.
Prior to 1500 or so, there was only one Christian denomination, Roman Cathollicism.
Right, because the church of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire was really just a chess club, and the Great Schism of 1054 was a minor kerfluffle.
I reject the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. The pope is a servant of God, but he is a mortal man and as such, is not infallible.
“I reject the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. The pope is a servant of God, but he is a mortal man and as such, is not infallible.”
–Comment by Debbie
Debbie, believe it or not, Suzie agrees with you, finally!
“There have been some immoral popes in past centuries. The Church endures because it is of God and not men.”
–Comment by Suzie
Re: Ron May @ 2:10 pm
BTW don’t forget the Celtic Christianity or Insular Christianity, also.
In any case, even if she were right (which as you point out she is not), that does not explain the existence of so many other religions / faiths / beliefs / etc.
In addition, what evidence is there of an apostolic secession outside of the RC self-serving claims.
I repeat that she picked what she liked — being locked in a pre-enlightenment, 1500′s version of but one of a very wide variety of options, world-wide.
Others pick what they like.
Ain’t free choice / free will great!
Suzie really expects us to take her posts as authority on whatever it is she chooses to expound on. She is our own Ted Nugent and she has that level of credibility and arrogance too. She does for the Catholic Church what he does for gun owners. Proudly.
I believe that she defames God instead of serving God and I believe her comments prove it, over and over. It is not your judgement we reject Suzie, it is your belief that you have the right or ability to make it. That you speak for any authority.
Who knew only Atheists have sex outside of marriage, or that it was even such an important issue in the world? Who knew that defending the indefensible was in service to God?
Some people cannot see the forest for the trees and Suzie obviously falls into this camp. If she has read the Bible, studied religious doctrine and attends worship and STILL comes out with the posts she makes, she obviously has never seen God. Jesus was not big on temples and dogma, Suzie is. That alone explains a lot.
Some people go to a place like Zimbabwe and see first hand the suffering she spoke of and it changes their lives, gives them a mission and opens their eyes. Some people come home from such a profound event and stay the same…
In a very concrete way, she is in the boat she believes she is condemning the rest of us to and has no awareness of it. In that, she is far more lost than any of us.
I reject the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. The pope is a servant of God, but he is a mortal man and as such, is not infallible.
A pope has made only two such ex cathedra pronouncements, both dealing with the Virgin Mary, and neither with the topics we are talking about. Catholics believe these pronouncements are divinely inspired.
#100 Oops, sez suzie. I didn’t google that one very well before commenting.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2013 @ 7:27 am
“I am sorry. Man is on a much higher plane than the deer, birds, and arachnids. As a result, our duty is much higher. It is not enough for us to sit and watch the bird feeder all day. We are called upon to follow the sometimes difficult laws of God/nature in order to lift up our fellow man so that we may all be united forever in heavenly bliss. Thinking it all ends at death is not only selfish and short-sighted (the live for today-tomorrow be damned mentality), it’s also depressing and incorrect”.
First, I actually know of birds smarter than some of those who post on this blog…[wink, wink, nudge, nudge]…
I believe we should follow the laws of nature – which BTW predate the man-made tenets [and I mean man made tenets] of Christianity.
There are many individuals with whom sharing any “heavenly bliss” is repugnant – bad enough sharing the planet.
Please give me concrete fact based links to the evidence that “it” doesn’t end at death.
I should think you WOULD be depressed with your posts over the past years, which reflected the most un-christian like sentiments. Better get to that do gooder list, “time’s a wasting”.
LOL, Suzie rejects the Doctrine of Infallibility of the Pope, and she did it in her own words right here on this blog!
That’s Roman Catholic DOCTRINE.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2013 @ 11:48 am
Considering plants and animals on the same plane as man is just ludicrous. Plants and animals are here for our benefit and at our service. Unless you’r eating only butter, cheese, and honey, you agree with me.
What a sad reflection on your life…I suppose your “religion” doesn’t include “all god’s creatures”
The book of Proverbs:
Four things on earth are small,
but exceedingly wise.
The ants are a people not strong,
yet they provide their food in summer.
The badgers are a people not mighty,
yet they make their homes in the rocks.
The locusts have no king,
yet all of them march in rank.
The lizard you can pick up in your hands,
yet it finds a home in the palaces of
kings.
BTW in Genesis:
[29] Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. [30] And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. [31] God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
Speaking of religion and authoritarians, check out:
http://tinyurl.com/b3rtqjo
**
North Great Neck Principal Says He Was Mistaken, Apologizes
Eugene Volokh • February 9, 2013 11:39 am
SNIP
Now The Jewish Week reports:
[I]n a second letter to parents mailed Friday, Kaplan wrote that “upon reflection, my letter of Jan. 31 … was an unintended infringement on students’ rights. The principal of a public school cannot cannot interview with religious practice conducted outside of the school’s purview.”
Kaplan apologize[d] to those who “were affronted by my letter” and urged parents to discuss lunchtime activities with their kids.
Sounds right to me, and I’m glad the principal admitted his mistake and apologized for it — just the thing we try to teach our children to do, as it happens.
**
Suzie:
“Thinking it all ends at death is not only selfish and short-sighted (the live for today-tomorrow be damned mentality), it’s also depressing and incorrect.”
No, what is selfish and short-sighted is treating people badly and depriving them becuase of the afterlife that you choose to believe in and think they should be making sacrifices for in this life. I find the live for tomorrow-squander today without enlightenment menatality to be depressing and incorrect.
So who is right, you or I? If your first instinct and only answer is to answer me with scripture, that should tell you right there.
This may have been posted earlier, but if so I missed it.
http://tinyurl.com/bf92tx9
Damsel, Arise: A Westboro Scion Leaves Her Church
SNIP
It is Megan Phelps-Roper’s first time not only at Old First but also at any church not called Westboro Baptist. Yes, that Westboro Baptist, the Topeka, Kansas, congregation that has become famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint) for its strident views on sin (and the abundance of it in modern America), salvation (and the prospective lack of it), and sexuality (we’re bad, in far more colorful terms).
For nearly all of her twenty-seven years, Megan believed it: believed what her grandfather Fred Phelps preached from the pulpit; believed what her dad Brent and her mom Shirley taught during the family’s daily Bible studies; believed (mostly) what it said on those signs that have made Westboro disproportionately influential in American life—“God hates fags”; “God hates your idols”; “God hates America.”
Megan was the one who pioneered the use of social media at Westboro, becoming the first in her family to go on Twitter. Effervescent and effusive, she gave hundreds of interviews, charming journalists from all over the world. Organized and proactive, she, for a time, even had responsibility for keeping track of the congregation’s protest schedule. She was such a Westboro fixture that the Kansas City Star touted her—improbably, as it turns out, because a woman could never have such a role at the church—as a future leader of the congregation.
Then, in November, she left.
SNIP
**
. If she has read the Bible, studied religious doctrine and attends worship and STILL comes out with the posts she makes, she obviously has never seen God..
Sounds like I am in agreement with most other Christians and with the church you attend. Have none of us seen God but you?
No, what is selfish and short-sighted is treating people badly
Would you say speaking out against promiscuous sex is “treating people badly”? I wouldn’t. I would say warning them against disastrous consequences is the height of compassion.
LOL, Suzie rejects the Doctrine of Infallibility of the Pope, and she did it in her own words right here on this blog!
I addressed that in #110, Dan. a pope has only made two such pronouncements invoking the Doctrine of Infallibility. Both had to do with the Virgin Mary. One was the Immaculate Conception; the other was her Assumption. I obviously never rejected either.
Dan, perhaps it’s time for you return to the Catholic faith of your childhood. St. Andrews might be a good fit for you. It’s never too late to come back.
“I addressed that in #110, Dan. a pope has only made two such pronouncements invoking the Doctrine of Infallibility. Both had to do with the Virgin Mary. One was the Immaculate Conception; the other was her Assumption. I obviously never rejected either.”
–Suzie
Now, she’s placing limits on the Doctrine of Infallibility of a Pope. That’s rich, coming from someone unqualified to be a pope.
How do you spell heretic?
Suzie,
Re: the number of pronouncements invoking the Doctrine of Infallibility you might want to check http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Suzie,
Re: your pronouncements of only “ex cathedra pronouncements, you might want to also read: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
**
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING
CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: Affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
**
So something that you declared as not a “huge issue” has been declared as “infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
Suzie:
“Would you say speaking out against promiscuous sex is “treating people badly”? I wouldn’t.”
Neither would I, but that’s not what you said. You said “atheists invariably don’t like the one about sex outside of marriage, yet this is apretty hard and fast rule.”
Being an atheist does not at all make one promiscuous or promote promiscuity. Not all sex outside of marriage is promiscuous either. There are lots of stable heterosexual and homosexual relationships that are not promiscuous. You’re painting those who choose or are not able to have their union blessed by the government with a broad brush. What I can say is that the “hard and fast rule” you refer to is a man made control device and creation of your religion and others.
“I would say warning them against disastrous consequences is the height of compassion.”
Sure, IF we’re talking about risky promiscuous behavior. You were not necessarily specifying this before.
Suzie seems to forget the Orthodox Church.
Nope. I was careful with that. Ergo the notation of St. Peter as the first pope.
“Would you say speaking out against promiscuous sex is “treating people badly”? I wouldn’t.”
Neither would I, but that’s not what you said. You said “atheists invariably don’t like the one about sex outside of marriage, yet this is apretty hard and fast rule.”
My question was not related to the atheist comment. i didn’t say atheists were promiscuous; I said they were invariably, as far as I know, against the notion of sex only within marriage.
Now, she’s placing limits on the Doctrine of Infallibility of a Pope. That’s rich, coming from someone unqualified to be a pope.
I keep referring you to post #110, Dan. I stand by that. Although in post #120, I mistakenly used “papal infallibility” interchangeably with it.
But I do realize you aren’t looking for real discussion on the topic. You’re looking for some technical ‘gotcha’.
I believe we should follow the laws of nature – which BTW predate the man-made tenets [and I mean man made tenets] of Christianity.
To me, they are indistinguishable from the Laws of God. But I’m curious to know what YOU mean by “follow the laws of nature”. What are those laws? Who made them?
If there were an actual sense from christians that religion is personal and not something to be forced upon others
I can’t imagine who is forcing Christianity on you Warlock, or how that’s possible. I imagine it’s like the notion of forcing freedom on a country. Or forcing self-determination on the American people.
——–
The Suzies and Westboro’s of the world make it easy to be me
Right. As I said, the contrived Westboro is a useful and easy strawman for the undiscerning who are predisposed to hating religion anyway.
A message for Ron,
Ron, you have proven yourself an excellent administrator; now I am going to exhort you to become the great leader you can be for your college as well. You should become that shining beacon of Catholic faith for your school to follow. Start fully embracing your Catholic religion. Love all its tenets. Starting tomorrow, attend every daily 7:00 a.m. mass in your school’s chapel. Do it not just as an example for your faculty and students, but also as a way to reaffirm that the primary purpose of your institution is to help students find God. And from there they will be the civic-minded movers and shakers of society.
“Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be given you besides”.
You are in a position to do great things. Put God and your Catholic faith first and foremost in your college. Encourage devotion to Mary. Have a daily campus-wide Rosary. Make it unmistakably known on your website and in your literature, that you are a Catholic whose number one mission is to produce devout educated contributors to society. Start tomorrow. Make Lent 2013 a big deal.
Every day, I will pray for you and your mission, specifically Ron. I will be watching, and I know you will succeed.
Suzie -
Ever said the Pledge of Allegiance? Ever look at American money? How about all the instances of christians trying to legislate their christian morality or trying to silence science or denigrate it by trying to claim creationism as an equal ‘theory’.
The WBC and people like you (you missed that second part) – evil bigoted hate-filled people – you are why it is easy to be me, to see American Christianity as a force of evil.
People who stand in the way of equal rights in the name of their god (slavery, women’s rights, jim crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, marriage equality – all issues where the losing side has used the christian religion to prop up their evil).
Good god, suzie’s pitched her street corner soapbox and is in full preachin’ mode. Joy.
“You are in a position to do great things. Put God and your Catholic faith first and foremost in your college. Encourage devotion to Mary. Have a daily campus-wide Rosary.”
That’ll change the world.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2013 @ 6:51 am
Let’s first begin with a definition of “natural law” which is not man-made laws, therefore they naturally evolved throughout time, and prior to codifying laws.
Natural Law can be seen as universal ideas about basic fairness, and morality – reflecting basic tenets of equality and a desire to do good – those of which cross geographical, cultural and religious divides. Natural Law is a “moral” law unchangeable and absolute – not based on religious “guidelines”. For example the murder of another human. Man made laws and religious tenets propose the penalty for such an act [prison or hell]. However, even without these “laws”, individuals in societies throughout time have condemned the behavior and knew it was wrong. As humans across the millennium have understood “murder” is a fundamental principle of negative behavior – whatever the nationality, whatever the political system, no matter the religious affiliation.
Greek philosophers, predating christian tenets, believed that the law of nature was binding upon all humans just as surely as gravity affects all of nature, is nothing more than the voice of reason.That to live in one’s society, there are inherent moral obligations. The Greeks also could not conceive of “rights” which were “god-given”.
There is no better example of the idea of “natural law” in a public document or one which refers to natural law as a premise, than the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress in 1774 had introduced its enumeration of rights as follows: “That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS”…
Please note, the FF’s in this document began with the “laws of nature” – and not with the laws of a “god”. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the US Constitution, Jefferson used the phrase “law of nature and of nature’s God” in the Declaration – reflecting these “laws” as distinctly different, and in order of importance.
Many behaviors are more “natural law” than codified law. Giving to those in need without reward – think of those who stop to help another motorist who is broken down, or, one who witnesses a motor vehicle accident, and runs over to check on the injured – this is, for most, a natural act.
Giving or doing “good deeds” because some authority – church, an organization, etc – demands individuals do “good”, is the more unnatural act, desiring either recognition or reprieve from such dire consequences as “rotting in hell”. A good example is a religious organization planning for its congregation a trip to Zimbabwe to “help”. Would not an individual coming to their own conclusion that there are many in need, that as an individual they could “help” starving and needy populations [monetarily or with sweat equity] and therefore be a more genuine and “natural’ human response like comforting a child, or helping the infirm…?
The WBC and people like you (you missed that second part) – evil bigoted hate-filled people – you are why it is easy to be me
That is incorrect, Warlock. Your contrived WBC condemns people to hell for their actions. I point out actions that are sinful, but do not suggest anyone is doomed to hell. As a Catholic, I always allow for the possibility of forgiveness, even for something as heinous as child molesting.
——
How about all the instances of christians trying to legislate their christian morality or trying to silence science or denigrate it by trying to claim creationism as an equal ‘theory’.
Oh, sorry. Like Justin, you are well-girded for a debate against fundamentalists. However as a Catholic, I have no problem at all in fitting evolution in with God’s creation. Now perhaps you can explain why atheist leftwing governments want to force their anti-science man-made global-warming fairly tale on the rest of us.
Perhaps you can answer why they want to force their godlessness on the Catholic church by forcing us to pay for others’ contraception and abortion.
On rights –
Rights can not be given. Not by a government, not by a god, not by society. Rights must be inherent in our being. Natural Rights or Human Rights belong to us as part of our ‘humanness’.
If something is given – the same giver also has the power to take and thus these are gifts or privileges, not rights.
Rights are unalienable if they are innate in our being.
Re: Suzie @ 6:32 am
Ergo the notation of St. Peter as the first pope.
———-
The word “pope” is derives from Greek πάππας meaning simply “Father”.
In early of Christianity, “pope” was applied (especially in the east) to all bishops and other senior clergy, it wasn’t until three centuries later that RC’s lay exclusive claim to the title for the “Bishop of Rome”, and that reservation wasn’t made official until the 11th century.
To the best of my knowledge no authority (save the RCs) claim that St. Peter as the first pope — albeit quite a few claim apostolic succession. See: http://tinyurl.com/app6xfa and http://tinyurl.com/jsaoj
As the title “pope” was so widely and freely used through out the early church your “notation” is a meaningless word play, IMHO.
Suzie –
of course you have to allow for forgiveness for child molestation, otherwise how could you worship Pope-Nazi Defiler of Children, Protector of PeePee touchers?
Climate Change is well respected science. There is consensus amongst the involved sciences that GlobalWarming is real.
” A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% agree that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent believing in human involvement.
Doran and Zimmerman conclude:
Debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists. ”
” Anderegg et al. (2010) in their PNAS paper, Expert credibility in climate change, used an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Furthermore, the authors note:
“A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims…This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy.”
“Despite media tendencies to present ‘both sides’ in ACC debates [anthropogenic climate change], which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding regarding ACC, not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.” ”
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_scientific_consensus.html
Your idiocy aside, scientists have no real doubts that there is global warming and most believe there has been some human impact.
_________________
As for forcing the church to pay for contraception this is more of your misinformation and spreading of lies-
This is not about churches. They do have an exception. This is about the church’s business entities. Non-church things the church owns. If you don’t wanna pay for contraception coverage for Hospital Employees. Sell your hospitals. If you do not want to pay for birth control coverage for your school employees – Sell your schools.
The Church has no business in either anymore anyway.
No matter how much you want corporations to be people so they can continue buying elections for your side, the church’s businesses do not have rights and do not get to discriminate. If an individual does not want birth control they do not have to use it. However, if they do (lie 90% of Catholic women) they have a right to it that can not be interfered with by their non-rights having employer.
Also, the church doesn’t pay for birth control. It pays insurance premiums. Insurance companies WANT to provide birth control because it is cheaper than paying for births. 5 years on Birth Control costs the company less than $2000 (and is predictable) but one unintended birth in that 5 years costs the insurance company $3000-$10,000 (an unpredictable cost).
And if we get to opt out of crap, what about an employer who disagrees with war? Do they get to not pay for a National Guard member who gets called up? Do they get to fire him for getting called up? Do they get to terminate him for failing to show up for his two weeks every summer?
No. Because we don’t allow it. And we don’t care about your religious owned businesses either.
Get out of business, be a religion or a business and FFS stop whining the evil perpetrated by the CC while it held power for the past 2000 years can not be forgotten by your idiotic cries of oppression now that you are on the wane.
Natural Law can be seen as universal ideas about basic fairness, and morality
Whose ideas of fairness? Whose morality? Yours? You talk about man-made religions, but by your own definition, isn’t your interpretation of “natural law” is purely man-made? Unless a squirrel told you.
The fact is, Natural Laws and God’s laws are one and the same.
The current birth control /contraceptive debate is illustrative of the religious right’s insistence that public policy should reflect their idea of Christianity.
Birth control is not a matter of their “religious liberty.” No one is FORCED to use it. It’s the individual’s CHOICE, and the one choice that the church does not want individuals to have the LIBERTY to make. Health care companies are providing the contraceptives – no religious organizations are forced to hand out birth control pills.
No enterprise should get to declare that their private religious beliefs trumps laws in the public marketplace. Schools, hospitals and social services run by religious organizations are engaging in commercial transactions for monetary gain, often supplemented with government funds, and thus, should not decide which laws they will or will not follow.
In the ACA/Obamacares, the newly agreed to compromise allows religiously affiliated employers to decline to pay for the coverage, but requires insurers to provide it at no cost. Any challenge by religious organizations of this component of the Affordable Care Act will result in their losing that court case…
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2013 @ 5:31 pm
“Whose ideas of fairness? Whose morality? Yours? You talk about man-made religions, but by your own definition, isn’t your interpretation of “natural law” is purely man-made? Unless a squirrel told you.
The fact is, Natural Laws and God’s laws are one and the same.”
Of course you would not understand natural law – ideas about basic fairness, and morality -[I could add empathy, a conscience, compassion] – all things you appear to be lacking
You understand only christian dogma.which you parrot incessantly…what a small and pitiful life you must lead trying to fit into the role the Catholic church relegated for you. I feel very sorry for you and your religion. A grown woman/man with the avatar of Saint Mariia Goretti…sad.
Re: Hillary @ 8:06 pm
You understand only christian dogma.which you parrot incessantly….
——————-
IMHO, that should be that she understand only one very narrow slice of christian dogma which she parrot incessantly….
Please don’t assume that her apparent lack of basic fairness, humility, morality, empathy, compassion, love, wisdom, justice, courage, moderation, integrity, etc reflect all there is to Christianity.
Hillary, did you ever work for Grant’s? Just curious.
“A grown woman/man with the avatar of Saint Mariia Goretti…sad.”
Honey Boo Boo is next.
Health care companies are providing the contraceptives – no religious organizations are forced to hand out birth control pills.
Catholic hospitals are required to pay for health insurance that includes contraceptives whether they receive federal funding or not. That’s the government FORCING their godlessness down the throats of Catholics. That’s grievously wrong.
As the title “pope” was so widely and freely used through out the early church your “notation” is a meaningless word play, IMHO.
It’s an unbroken line of popes running back to St. Peter. Trying to claim otherwise is meaningless wordplay.
Of course you would not understand natural law – ideas about basic fairness, and morality -[I could add empathy, a conscience, compassion] – all things you appear to be lacking
You understand only christian dogma.which you parrot incessantly…what a small and pitiful life you must lead trying to fit into the role the Catholic church relegated for you. I feel very sorry for you and your religion. A grown woman/man with the avatar of Saint Mariia Goretti…sad.
Okay….so let’s return to the question. You said religion law is man made, but natural law isn’t. I want to know who gets to determine things that constitute and/or violate natural law.
“You are in a position to do great things. Put God and your Catholic faith first and foremost in your college. Encourage devotion to Mary. Have a daily campus-wide Rosary.”
That’ll change the world.
You say prayer doesn’t have the power to change the world? I say it does.
If you don’t wanna pay for contraception coverage for Hospital Employees. Sell your hospitals. If you do not want to pay for birth control coverage for your school employees – Sell your schools.
And that’s where the government is forcing it’s godlessness on Catholics. It’s wrong, and in a sane world, the courts won’t allow it.
Also, the church doesn’t pay for birth control. It pays insurance premiums.
Semantic games.
of course you have to allow for forgiveness for child molestation….PeePee touchers
My, atheists have some pretty ugly things to say about some gay men.
So these guys, merely acting upon their natural tendencies, are unworthy of your forgiveness, eh Warlock? That seems a tad on the “evil bigoted hate-filled” side to me. I’ll bet they are glad God is their judge and not you.
“Catholic hospitals are required to pay for health insurance that includes contraceptives whether they receive federal funding or not. That’s the government FORCING their godlessness down the throats of Catholics. That’s grievously wrong.”
Suzie, can you name a Catholic hospital that DOESN’T receive federal funds? There’s not one.
Besides that, it doesn’t cost Catholic hospital an extra dime to offer employees health insurance that covers birth control. Why? Health insurance policies that cover birth control is no more expensive to employers than policies that don’t. In some case, the policies that cover birth control are cheaper.
Besides that, it doesn’t cost Catholic hospital an extra dime to offer employees health insurance that covers birth control.
It’s not a cost issue. It’s a moral issue.
SUZIE (10:36 p.m.): “Catholic hospitals are required to pay for health insurance that includes contraceptives whether they receive federal funding or not. . .”
DAN: “. . .it doesn’t cost Catholic hospital an extra dime to offer employees health insurance that covers birth control.”
SUZIE (11:26 p.m.): “It’s not a cost issue. It’s a moral issue.”
At 10:36 p.m., it was a cost issue for Suzie. At 11:26 p.m., suddenly it’s NOT a cost issue.
My, she can change her mind on a dime.
Suzie:
“It’s an unbroken line of popes running back to St. Peter. Trying to claim otherwise is meaningless wordplay.”
No, an unbroken line of popes running back to St. Peter IS meaningless wordplay.
How is Birth control a moral issue? You got the Pope walking around looking more and more like a pimped out 90′s rapper, but affording people who should not have children, or simply just don’t want children birth control and that is an issue? With whom?
Its no wonder that abortions are highest among Catholics and Evangelical Christians.
My institution is listed in the Catholic Directory and is a sponsored ministry of an order of Catholic women religious. Prior case law and practice has afforded such institutions certain exceptions to governmental interventions. The Catholic church, on theological grounds, opposes birth control, sterilization, abortion, etc. You may agree or disagree with that stand. Nonetheless, it is official church doctrine.
Many Catholic organizations, hospitals and universities among them, already include such services in the health insurance plans provided to all employees. Each organization does so for its own reasons. However, my conversations with the presidents of some of the larger catholic universities who do provide such health insurance indicate that they do so for two major reasons. First, most of their employees are not of the Catholic faith. Second, to compete for employees in the areas where they exist, they must offer competetive salary and benefit plans to get the best employees.
My institution’s health insurance plan does not include coverage for birth control, sterilization, abortion or other such services. While I realize many on here will disagree with me, I believe that the long standing exemption to institutions like mine, for whom such services are in opposition to church doctrinal stands, should be allowed to stay in place. For the government to force such institutions to provide coverage for such services is breaking through the wall of separation that Thomas Jefferson said had been built in the First Amendment. It crosses the line of separation that James Madison said was created by the First Amendment. Breaking through that wall or stepping across that line puts us on a very slippery slope in the relationship between the government and the people.
she can change her mind on a dime.
Huh? I changed my mind?
Oh I see. Dan was posting after midnight again. Sometimes he gets tired and his posts reflect that.
156
Glad to hear it, Ron. Good for you for doing the right thing, and shame on those other universities for their shortsightedness. Eschewing their moral duty in favor of apparent earthly benefits is fool’s gold.
Pope-Nazi Defiler of Children, Protector of PeePee touchers
Speak of the devil and he resigns?
So… the Pope is infallible, and then gives the infallibility back?
Ron, under the current provisions, there is no effect to the Catholic Institutions for contracceptives. No Catholic has tto use any of the free benefits, but as you have stated, many of the employees are non-Catholic because you need them. When other religions disagree about medical treatment in Catholic Hospitals, do the doctors seek to override the religious doctrine in life or death situations? Do they attempt to treat with modern medicine eventhough the patient believes in witchcraft?
Obama has developed a plan that allows the best for all, if you want the treatment it is there, if you do not, you are paying nothing and not a part of it.
More stunning to me than the pope resigning is that this is the first one in more than 600 years. That means some REALLY bad popes have stayed on to the bitter end. Something tremendously wrong with an organization like that.
Suzie, you changed your mind in 50 minutes “on a moral issue.”
I think perhaps the Pope has been reading this blog, has seen all the things Suzie has written about the Catholic Church, and concluded that if the followers are like her, then he didn’t want to lead.
Interesting to see what direction the church goes in for their next Pope.
RonMay, your rationale is the best one there is for universal goverment-administered health insurance. It would take the burden off each small organization from having to reinvent their own individual wheel, and everyone would be guaranteed access to the full range of health services available to them.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2013 @ 11:26 pm
“It’s not a cost issue. It’s a moral issue”.
Morality and the Catholic church is an oxymoron. Decades of hiding pedophile priests because it was easier to ignore the abuse of children, ignore the immorality of such behavior, and ignore the laws that mandate child abuse reporting – always protecting a wealth gorged “church’s’ assets, afraid that any legal actions might cost them a gold chalice or the offerings of moral Catholics.
The duplicity of priests sitting in the confessional listening to a litany of parishioners’ “sins” while being complicit in the overt act of pedophilia or the cover- up is only one of the steps in my long journey to repudiate the hypocrisy of the Catholic faith. The cover-up by so many, in so many countries, leaving so many traumatized children – from the parish priest to the Pope – is sickening and they all were co-conspirators in their silence.
Morality and Catholicism? I have not witnessed it in my lifetime.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2013 @ 10:39 pm
“It’s an unbroken line of popes running back to St. Peter. Trying to claim otherwise is meaningless wordplay.”
And much like the “unbroken” reign of kings and queens in England, popes are more and more irrelevant to the majority of people. The “unbroken” line comment is immaterial to the discussion. Iniquitous practices can spread over decades…
Kristen –
I predict the next pope will be MUCH more liberal than this one. Maybe not as progressive as JPII but Imight be surprised.
The CC does not want to become the relic that its policies are.
““It’s an unbroken line of popes running back to St. Peter. Trying to claim otherwise is meaningless wordplay.”
Don’t look now, but I think it just got broken.
Suzie… hello! Suzie…
VVarlock, I wonder if they’ll go outside Europe this time.
How do Suzie and other Catholics reconcile the outgoing Pope’s statements regarding climate change, unions, wealth redistribution, universal healthcare, and other topics with their own positions?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/11/1568171/what-did-pope-benedict-do-anyway/
Morality and Catholicism? I have not witnessed it in my lifetime.
Comment by Hillary — February 11, 2013 @ 9:47 am
Hillary,
I think I know where you coming from with this comment. However, I have witnessed morality and Catholicism blended together each day by the women religious of the sponsoring order of my college.
Ron, does your “institution” not employ people of other faiths or no faith at all? Is being a Catholic a provision of employment with your “institution”? If the answer to either question is “no”, then no sir, I do not agree with you. IMO, the long standing exemption to institutions is should remain ONLY for those institutions only involving adherents to your faith. By making that decision for any employee not a practicing Catholic, you have overstepped your bounds IMO.
The Catholic church is the one who is ignoring the separation because a job is not worship or faith for many of the people affected.
Many nations have had an “unbroken line” of leaders since their inception. Including the United States, as have many denominations. The Pope is voted on, he is not enshrined by acclamation of his followers. I am really not clear on why that is even a point.
This thread drives me completely crazy.
** Everyone who has posted on this thread is a hypocrite.
** Being a Christian, Catholic, Athiest, or Agnostic means you STRIVE to live a certain way as if a sign was around your neck.
** However, Nobody lives those standards to perfection. But we strive to. Even Justin isn’t a perfect Athiest and he knows it, but he works hard at it.
** This makes us all hypocrites because we all stumble, fall, make mistakes and don’t live up to the standards set before us. For some that example is Christ, for others a more humanistic example.. but either way none of us are perfect.
** This continuous bashing of each other is why our nation is so divided.
** Justin and Hillary have opposite beliefs than me, but we do have a common thread….LOVE
** Doesn’t matter where we think love comes from. I bet if either Justin or I came across an old lady with a flat tire, we would both stop to help change it. I bet Justin and I would both give money to a neighbor whose house burnt down.
Point is, this country is heading down the tubes because of our divisiveness. Severe Religious and Political division will ultimately lead to our downfall just like all other “Great” empires of the past. Our founding fathers, even with their stark differences about states rights, slavery, and individual rights.. found ways to work together to create the greatest system of government our world had ever seen.
We need to get back to a love for our country, and also love one another despite our differences. Political and Religious issues are emotional topics for both sides. But we are going to eventually wonder where America disappeared to, mainly because we forgot that loving our neighbor no matter who they are, is more important than anything else.
Sandi,
My institution does employ persons of a variety of faiths. In the hiring process, all other things being equal, a candidate who is of the Catholic faith is given preference. The exemption has been in place for many years in full knowledge of the fact that religious institutions hire employees not of their faith. The fact is that until the ACA employers were not required to offer any health insurance plan, retirement plans or other benefits which typically are offered in compensation plans. The reality is that I would prefer including the amount we pay for health insurance in the salary and allowing each employee to obtain the appropriate health insurance to fit their needs.
IMO, you should go with that reality Ron, it is far less controlling, exclusive and wrong. I do not understand why anyone’s job has them making sacrifices to a faith they do not hold or how you can justify it.
popes are more and more irrelevant to the majority of people.
The papacy is hugely important to the world’s Catholics.
Pope Benedict has been a very good strict pope in the mold of St. Pius X, the only canonized pope of the last 300 years. The cardinals would be wise to pick another of that type. It’s what the world needs right now.
IMO, you should go with that reality Ron, it is far less controlling, exclusive and wrong. I do not understand why anyone’s job has them making sacrifices to a faith they do not hold or how you can justify it.
Catholics believe contraception is wrong for everybody; not just Catholics.
Many nations have had an “unbroken line” of leaders since their inception. Including the United States, as have many denominations. The Pope is voted on, he is not enshrined by acclamation of his followers. I am really not clear on why that is even a point.
2000 unbroken years and counting. And that’s by far the most turbulent 2000 years in history.
I predict the next pope will be MUCH more liberal than this one. Maybe not as progressive as JPII but Imight be surprised.
The CC does not want to become the relic that its policies are.
JP2 progressive. Right.
Warlock thinks the Catholic Church is like political parties, bending with the whims of people who don’t want to follow the rules. Not so, thank God.
Re: Dan Casey @ 9:07 am
LOL.
.
.
But, shhhhh. Dan, don’t go feeding her distorted ego by suggesting, even in humorous sarcasm, that she actually has any influence on anyone.
——
Don’t believe a word of it Suzie.
Ron, Kristen, et al
As some of you may remember, I have long supported a single-payer (not governmental provider) system of health care.
Think of a fully governmental funded Medicare model for everyone (or an FEP model, if you want to keep insurance companies in the loop) — i.e., with free market variety of private / for profit / non-profit / charitable / religious / etc providers of actual health services
v.
the Veterans Hospital model (where the goverment actually funds and runs the hospitals / clinic / providers) for everyone.
Oh, look. Benedict is resigning.
Heck, everyone’s family has an unbroken line back to prehistorical times. I don’t know of any human having been patched together from non-human parts.
We all are born of parents and they of parents, on back. Would not even a clone still be from an unbroken line?
We don’t know for sure if Peter had kids. So, who knows who might have an unbroken line back to Peter.
OTOH, last I heard popes didn’t conceive popes. So,….
.
.
———-
Joking aside, Suzie still has not explained why the apostolic succession claimed by Rome trumps all other well established apostolic successions.
Or why apostolic succession is paramount for validity.
This country formed as thirteen colonies became thirteen States. Over time the original States split and the country expanded. Would Suzie claim that WV is less a valid State than Virginia or somehow not part of the USofA. How about Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and portions of Ohio that split off of “The Old Dominion.”
Or, for that matter, nor has she explained why apostolic succession, trumps the corruption of the roman church, at various points in history.
Wonder if ‘suzie’ isn’t posting today because she’s at the Vatican filling out a job application and interviewing for that job that just opened up?
While I agree that Peter’s denial of Jesus would make him a perfect Pope, I think that the Catholic Church has usurped to gain their place in the history of the church rather than earned it.
Or why apostolic succession is paramount for validity.
It is an answer to those who say the Church will fade away or has become outdated, irrelevant, etc. Jesus said He will be with us unto the end of time. The Catholic Church will always persevere.
I think that the Catholic Church has usurped to gain their place in the history of the church
Huh?
“How do Suzie and other Catholics reconcile the outgoing Pope’s statements regarding climate change, unions, wealth redistribution, universal healthcare, and other topics with their own positions?”
By BELIEVING HIM, because of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility!
“Catholics believe contraception is wrong for everybody; not just Catholics.”
So, because somebody believes something is wrong for everybody, they reserve the right to force that belief on everybody? That is the road you’re driving down, and it’s called “Anti-Freedom Avenue.”
Orthodox Jews don’t believe in eating shellfish. So, no more crab cakes! Not just for them, but for everybody!
You get more ludicrous with every post Suzie. You are obviously in over your head. You do for Catholics what you do for conservatives however, so I am all for it.
By what authority do Catholics get to decide anything for “everyone”? You want freedom from the rules of others but no one should have freedom from the rules you want enforced. Hypocrite.
Comment by pistol pete — February 11, 2013 @ 12:44 pm
Well said.
Re: Suzie @ 3:42 pm
It is an answer to those who say the Church will fade away or has become outdated, irrelevant, etc.
—————
Hum?
Did Suzie just agree that all the Orthodox denomination that are still around and are older than the Roman church and from whom the Roman church, itself, split actually trump the Roman church in validity?
Oh good, more Catholic talk.
pistol Pete, well said, Brother. Finding a common thread among us all is hard to find at times, but I think when the chips are down we can and will pull together.
Suzie — February 11, 2013 @ 3:44 pm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usurped
Your post at 12:44 was indeed well said, pistol pete. I’m sorry that the majority seem to have ignored it.
Comment by Ron May — February 11, 2013 @ 12:28 pm
Hillary,
“I think I know where you coming from with this comment. However, I have witnessed morality and Catholicism blended together each day by the women religious of the sponsoring order of my college.”
Ron, I too have found morality within individuals of the Catholic faith, and many nuns have been wonderful educators and stewards of the faith.
However, the hypocrisy and immorality of the Catholic church as an institution has a long history, and, it is the institution itself that I have no faith in.
Without a diatribe, the suffering of the aged nuns in retirement is unconscionable and immoral. After many years of service, they are basically abandoned in their last years to live in poverty. Again the wealth of the Catholic church does not trickle down to these good “servants” of the Catholic faith – instead the church relies on “passing the basket” to support them. I find this shameful.
Additionally the treatment of nuns – treated and chastised like children if they speak out – is deplorable.
“The Vatican’s enforcement office, known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recently said this about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), a mainstream organization that represents approximately 80 percent of the 57,000 nuns in the United States: “Occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose.” The LCWR was found to have “certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” This was after a multi-year investigation of the nuns by a panel of American bishops.”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/05/11/the-catholic-churchs-treatment-of-nuns-is-polarizing-and-alienating
That bishops believe they are the “authentic teachers of faith and morals” almost gags me.
As stated in my last post, Catholicism holds no sway in my life, but I am still a decent person, a spiritual person and a kind person – all done without the constraints of a man made and man driven religion., A religion never seeming to get the sentiment, “practice what you preach”.
By what authority do Catholics get to decide anything for “everyone”? You want freedom from the rules of others but no one should have freedom from the rules you want enforced. Hypocrite.
The Catholic institution gets to decide because they are the ones paying for the insurance.
Comment by pistol pete — February 11, 2013 @ 12:44 pm
On a regular basis, I do not see “love” reflected in many posts. The hate-filled comments are sprayed like buckshot, always hoping to hit a target, any target. There is often minimum compassion or empathy shown when discussing the so called “47%” or “takers” They are not another species, they are fellow Americans. Whether one is relegated to poverty by a lack of education, life circumstances, or poor choices, no one I have ever known aspired to be “poor”. Yet they too are the target of the “less compassionate”.
When I was growing up, I learned not to discuss religion. Yet, on Dan’s blog, we have been preached at [not to], told we were worth less than those who do the preaching, called “murderers” if we believe woman make their own life choices regarding their reproduction – I just don’t feel the “love”. Anyone who is defined as “libs” are called commies, Nazis, socialists…and yes, murderers.
The hate thrown around and targeted at the President and our government does not take into consideration the FF who, according to your post, “found ways to work together to create the greatest system of government our world had ever seen.” According to many there is nothing good about the US and its laws or policies and often this sentiment is reflected by “representatives” in Washington.
I may see holes in your argument, but it was a refreshing change to read your point of view.
“How do Suzie and other Catholics reconcile the outgoing Pope’s statements regarding climate change, unions, wealth redistribution, universal healthcare, and other topics with their own positions?”
By BELIEVING HIM, because of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility!
Sorry, those topics do not fall under the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
Did Suzie just agree that all the Orthodox denomination that are still around and are older than the Roman church and from whom the Roman church, itself, split actually trump the Roman church in validity?
Not sure what you’re trying to ask, but the Orthodox Churches are not united with Rome. They split, so that streak is broken.
It will be interesting to see what the guy posting as “Suzie” morphs into next. This religious persona is a hoot.
Hum?
I certainly do not claim that I have never stumbled, fallen, made mistakes. Nor claim that I have live up to the standards set before me. Nor do I claim that I am in anyway perfect. Not do I demand that others be perfect as judged by any standard — organized of not.
So, where is the hypocrisy in call to task someone who claims that she/he has never made a mistake or who claims that her one very narrow slice of dogma trumps all others or that she and other true believers should be able to impose their version of dogma on all others?
I absolutely defend every one’s right to believe or not believe as that wish — as long as they don’t demand others live by their dogma.
Dave Hicks – this one’s for you…
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_208
I absolutely defend every one’s right to believe or not believe as that wish — as long as they don’t demand others live by their dogma.
Right now, the only one forcing others to live by their own dogma is the atheist obama administration forcing Catholics to do something Catholics consider gravely wrong or else go out of business. Religion isn’t and can’t force anybody to do anything.
Pistol Pete, your post @12:44 was well said.
Suzie, are you telling us that the “Catholic institution” (all of them) pays 100% the health insurance coverage of every employee and their spouse/family? Is that REALLY what you are trying to say? Can you back that up with proof?
Another fine example of the Catholic church, morality and money
“Cardinal Mahony used cemetery money to pay sex abuse settlement
The Archdiocese of L.A. took $115 million from its cemeteries’ maintenance fund in 2007, nearly depleting it. The move seems legal, but it was not announced, and relatives of the dead were not told.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-church-cemetery-fund-20130210,0,6589390,full.story
Soooo, Cardinal Mahony took 88% of funds that have existed since the 1890s, to be used specifically to maintain the church-owned cemeteries.
Nice, very nice. And moral too!
Re: Hillary @ 9:04 pm
Not sure of your point.
“Exigent circumstances” has been the law of the land for a long time — albeit sometimes the devil is in the details as to what constitutes a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy or that contraband / evidence might be destroyed. Hence, a mixed question of fact and law reviewed regularly by the courts.
The case you cited looks like a slam-dunk for the LEOs from the get go.
Re: Suzie @ 8:24 pm
Yeah. Right.
You need to read unbiased factual history.
And maybe read: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx
Re: Suzie @ 9:11 pm
Religion isn’t and can’t force anybody to do anything.
—————
So, they can’t demand right to life laws or support forcing women to give up right to choice. Who knew?
So, they can’t demand right to life laws or support forcing women to give up right to choice. Who knew?
There’s that couched roundabout way of describing horrible abortions again. The correct way to say it is we believe the right of every human being to live should be protected.
In any case, are you saying there should never be overlap between laws and religious principles?
Hillary,
I cannot speak for other orders of women religious. My college’s sponsoring order takes very good care of its retired members. On the grounds of the Ministry Center where my college is located, retired members are provided housing, healthcare and when they are unable to care for themselves the order provides care in a fully certified nursing home. The nursing home is the highest rated such facility in the state of Indiana. My college has many programs which promote and encourage interaction between our students, staff and women religious who are resident on the campus. Many of the retired members of the order spent their careers as nurses in Poor Handmaid hospitals and care facilities. Nearly every one who is physically able serves as a mentor to one of our nursing students. We have computer science students who volunteer to teach retired nuns computer skills. Many of the retired sisters are regular attendees of and avid supporters of our athletic teams. In short, we encourage engagement between our students and members of the order so that we can take advantage of the life skills each offers to the other. Is it perfect? No. But the lives of our students are enriched and the retired nuns remain engaged and active which they tell us enriches their lives as well.
Another fine example of the Catholic church, morality and money
“Cardinal Mahony used cemetery money to pay sex abuse settlement
The Archdiocese of L.A. took $115 million from its cemeteries’ maintenance fund in 2007, nearly depleting it. The move seems legal, but it was not announced, and relatives of the dead were not told.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-church-cemetery-fund-20130210,0,6589390,full.story
Soooo, Cardinal Mahony took 88% of funds that have existed since the 1890s, to be used specifically to maintain the church-owned cemeteries.
Nice, very nice. And moral too!
Hillary seems to be demanding that every human being in Catholic Church should be free of flaws. That’s a pretty impossible demand.
I guess she expects people to say “What? You mean someone did THAT? Well, that invalidates everything Jesus ever said or did and renders His church invalid.”
As a side note, I think it’s horrible if these trial lawyers who net up to half these judgments are forcing a cash-strapped diocese to rob cemetery funds.
Suzie, grab a slice of reality, if birth control was truly something “Catholics consider gravely wrong”, 10-12 child families would still be the norm. They aren’t because Catholics do not consider birth control “gravely wrong”. This is about church control and has no bearing in reality. Unless the employees are ALL Catholic, this is only about control.
Finally you admit it! “Religion isn’t and can’t force anybody to do anything.” No, that is why the church wants to be left alone to continue to do so, for Catholic and non-Catholics too.
There is often minimum compassion or empathy shown when discussing the so called “47%” or “takers” They are not another species, they are fellow Americans. Whether one is relegated to poverty by a lack of education, life circumstances, or poor choices, no one I have ever known aspired to be “poor”. Yet they too are the target of the “less compassionate”.
This is one of the worst side results of liberalism: It creates a situation in which the people who contribute the most in taxes AND in charitable giving are blamed for not doing enough by those who do the least.
Liberalism robs both groups. By confiscating money from those of means, it creates resentment and stunts much of the opportunity for willing genuine charitable giving. On the other side, liberalism stunts the attitude of gratefulness and appreciation of the recipients and instead gives them a sense of entitlement and constant anger that they aren’t getting enough.
Suzie, grab a slice of reality, if birth control was truly something “Catholics consider gravely wrong”, 10-12 child families would still be the norm. They aren’t because Catholics do not consider birth control “gravely wrong”. This is about church control and has no bearing in reality. Unless the employees are ALL Catholic, this is only about control.
The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is gravely wrong. it is an artificial frustration of the creation of life, and is using sex purely for selfish reasons. That is the church’s rationale. The fact that some or even many are not at the stage of spiritual development to accept this law is irrelevant to its teaching.
Unfortunately, our society has been conditioned to believe children are an unwanted burden instead of a blessing.
Unfortunately, our society has been conditioned to believe children are an unwanted burden instead of a blessing.
Oh… so empowering women by giving them decisions over their own bodies and reproductive system, and trying to help the poverty level by PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies… was Bill Clinton’s plan to point out that children are a burden to a society that refuses to take care of them because their parents should have done something to prevent it… AND round n’ round we go Paw!
Obviously the answer here is no sex education, no sexual protection for the people you leave unwillingly ignorant to reproduce more than they should and leave them with horrible sexually transmitted diseases. And when someone with half a brain asked Suzie, why… because some malnourished sheep herders passed a story down about a snake in a tree and a burning bush, and every story these MEN passed down these stories that blames everything on women and cultures that precariously have what the Alpha males of this sociopathic tribe wanted… seems legit. Put your burka back on Suzie.
“The fact that some or even many are not at the stage of spiritual development to accept this law…”
Snicker, snicker. Guffaw, guffaw.
“Unfortunately, our society has been conditioned to believe children are an unwanted burden…”
This from the person who has complained bitterly in the past about people who don’t have enough resources having more children.
“The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is gravely wrong. it is an artificial frustration of the creation of life, and is using sex purely for selfish reasons. That is the church’s rationale. The fact that some or even many are not at the stage of spiritual development to accept this law is irrelevant to its teaching.
Unfortunately, our society has been conditioned to believe children are an unwanted burden instead of a blessing.
Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2013 @ 11:08 pm”
Would it be okay then, if someone used birth control until they were too old to bear children, and then they reached that level of spiritual development?
If a couple cannot create children due to medical reasons, but they keep having sex anyway, are they using sex for purely selfish reasons or can they justify having sex by saying they’re praying God will grant them a miracle baby?
Is it okay for Catholics to use artificial means such as Viagra to conceive children?
If a Catholic couple is using the rhythm method of birth control, doesn’t that really go against the spirit of the ‘law’, if sex is for procreating only? If they have sex during the times of the month when they know the woman more than likely cannot get pregnant, are they using sex for selfish purposes?
Seems like there’s a lot of loopholes to that ‘no birth control’ rule.
Read post Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2013 @ 10:55 pm
and I rest my case…
Comment by Ron May — February 11, 2013 @ 10:19 pm
Ron, sounds like your school does the right thing. How much does Rome contribute to the support of “retired” or aged nuns?
I guess she expects people to say “What? You mean someone did THAT? Well, that invalidates everything Jesus ever said or did and renders His church invalid.” Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2013 @ 10:29 pm
Sadly no one will say “What? You mean someone did THAT? ” – bad behavior is now expected of the Catholic hierarchy. Evidently even when doing wrong, the Catholic leaders of the faith never think to ask themselves, “WWJD”….
Comment by Dave Hicks — February 11, 2013 @ 9:52 pm
“The case you cited looks like a slam-dunk for the LEOs from the get go.”
What no outrage at the infringement of a 4th Amendment right?
Wow…
Seems like there’s a lot of loopholes to that ‘no birth control’ rule.
Comment by Contrasuzie — February 12, 2013 @ 9:28 am
God of the gaps…
@227
Would it be okay then, if someone used birth control until they were too old to bear children?
No, of course not.
———
If a couple cannot create children due to medical reasons, but they keep having sex anyway, are they using sex for purely selfish reasons
No, because they are not actively impeding procreation
—————
Is it okay for Catholics to use artificial means such as Viagra to conceive children?
If the Viagra is used to correct a condition and thereby is a facilitator of normal sexual ability, then I would think it is permissible.
———–
If a Catholic couple is using the rhythm method of birth control, doesn’t that really go against the spirit of the ‘law’, if sex is for procreating only? If they have sex during the times of the month when they know the woman more than likely cannot get pregnant, are they using sex for selfish purposes?
Again, the issue is placing an artificial impediment to pregnancy. The rhythm method does not do that. The unitive love aspect is important here. Sex is meant as a sharing to deepen the bonds of love. Birth control places an impediment, a barrier to that unitive aspect.
——-
Contra, I answered your questions respectfully, so hopefully your future inquiries, if any, will also be serious and respectful.
and I rest my case…
What case is it you’re resting?
As always Hillary, give her enough rope…
This from the person who has complained bitterly in the past about people who don’t have enough resources having more children.
I’ve never complained about married people having children. Unmarried? That’s another story.
Obviously the answer here is no sex education, no sexual protection for the people you leave unwillingly ignorant to reproduce more than they should and leave them with horrible sexually transmitted diseases.
Justin,
Leaving the moral component out of “sex education” is doomed to fail. The UN distributed millions of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa and it didn’t work to stem the tide of HIV/AIDS.
I love hearing from non-parents what “blessings” children are.
The fact is, in a nation where access to health care is sketchy, higher education expensive, and resources already stretched, limiting family size (if desired) is the personally responsible thing to do. The US is not a “family friendly” environment, with the needs of parents in the workforce taking a distant 27th(optimistically) place to every other concern an employer might have.
To add onto my earlier post, here’s why complete elimination of social spending would be better for everyone, and why taxation should ONLY go for its original stated purpose; protection of the citizenry and maintenance of infrastructure.
1. It would increase the opportunity for charity exponentially.
2. Only the truly needy would get help, and only helpful things would be provided No more exploding SSI nonsense. No more billions extorted for horrid abortion and birth control. no more rewarding of cronies.
3. It would foster a sense of appreciation in those getting helped, and by putting a face on everyone, it would reduce abuse and playing of the system.
4. It would be an EXTRAORDINARY savings for the taxpayer.
5. It would prevent politicians from buying votes and would eliminate the massive voter fraud we saw in the hundreds of battleground state precincts.
6. The poor would get even BETTER service, because they are receiving it from enthusiastic donors and volunteers working from a glad heart instead of from unmotivated uninterested government workers.
7. It would discourage casual relationships and single parenthood if people knew government dollars wouldn’t come to the rescue.
I’m telling you, if we had a law banning social spending, millions of folks, thousands of churches would be rushing in to fill the void. People would ENTHUSIASTICALLY follow Jesus’ exhortation towards charity if it were all voluntary, instead of the current government practice of wasteful extortion of billions which don’t even go for what was promised is the practice.
I invite anyone in here to tell me why the voluntary charity no government social spending law wouldn’t far superior to our current socialist state.
Just for kicks and giggles, let’s see if those who respond to my invitation can stick to the points made instead of going with blanket personal attacks. Let’s have a REAL discussion.
So, you’re supposed to wait until you’re married to have sex, and then when you do, if you have it strictly for pleasure you’re selfish and not spiritually developed. Somehow I don’t think that kind of thinking will have people rushing to Catholic churches.
“… if you have it strictly for pleasure you’re selfish and not spiritually developed”
Explains some of the crankiness around here.
227.“The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is gravely wrong. it is an artificial frustration of the creation of life, and is using sex purely for selfish reasons. That is the church’s rationale. The fact that some or even many are not at the stage of spiritual development to accept this law is irrelevant to its teaching.
Unfortunately, our society has been conditioned to believe children are an unwanted burden instead of a blessing.
Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2013 @ 11:08 pm”
At least the priests chasing little boys don’t have to worry about any but the “selfish” part of your statement.
Actually Suzie’s twisted ideas on sex help explain why children were so often molested in the Catholic Church. That kind of repression of your own sexuality, even in the prime of your life can only lead to such situations. Which is why the massive failure of such an ideology and the reason they seek to control or punish their adherents buy refusing insurance coverage for birth control. You wanna play, you gotta pay. Sick on every level.
Actually Suzie’s twisted ideas on sex
So I take it you also disagree that sex outside marriage is wrong?
So, you’re supposed to wait until you’re married to have sex? Somehow I don’t think that kind of thinking will have people rushing to Catholic churches
I disagree. Many people are thirsting for hard and fast uncompromising values. They don’t get them from society or from their families, so that leaves the Church. But for those who don’t choose to live that way, the Church doesn’t change to accommodate them. Again, it’s not a political party.
At least the priests chasing little boys don’t have to worry about any but the “selfish” part of your statement.
The gay-bashing really gets tiresome, Richard. Yes, we know a few men did some really bad things. They are allowed forgivenes if they seek it, though.
The US is not a “family friendly” environment
True enough. And getting less so every day.
I love hearing from non-parents what “blessings” children are.
I am sorry if you found my statement untrue, Kristen.
Justin,
Leaving the moral component out of “sex education” is doomed to fail. The UN distributed millions of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa and it didn’t work to stem the tide of HIV/AIDS.
Comment by Suzie — February 12, 2013 @ 10:25 am
Are you sure about that? Do you have anything to back that up?
I am sure that condoms is something that has to accompany sex education and then sustain the influx of condoms. Passing out a few thousand condoms and saying good luck isn’t going to solve anything at all.
To my knowledge, your religion has not done any good either. Your people have been over there stealing cultures, raping and robbing the land for hundreds of years now, all the while blaming the HIV epidemic on the devil and giving praise to a god for rice and dirty water…
Is it okay for Catholics to use artificial means such as Viagra to conceive children?
If the Viagra is used to correct a condition and thereby is a facilitator of normal sexual ability, then I would think it is permissible. -Suzie
Suzie, all kinds of birth control are used not only for population control but for the health of the woman. To regulate he “monthly” cycles and things such as that… why can’t the Catholic Church not approve BC for these methods? If they are willing to cover Viagra across the board… why not? Is the Doctor to ask, “Are you Catholic, and are you using this Viagra to make babies?”
Here again just proves that religion is for the men, and no one else.
Comment by Suzie — February 12, 2013 @ 1:43 pm
At least the priests chasing little boys don’t have to worry about any but the “selfish” part of your statement.
The gay-bashing really gets tiresome, Richard. Yes, we know a few men did some really bad things. They are allowed forgivenes if they seek it, though.”
Dumber than a box of rocks…still can’t face the pedophilia within the Catholic church…that explains everything.
Hahahahahahahahah – boy to think I almost missed this one….great humor in that post!
“Just for kicks and giggles, let’s see if those who respond to my invitation can stick to the points made instead of going with blanket personal attacks. Let’s have a REAL discussion.”
Comment by Suzie — February 12, 2013 @ 11:04 am
I’m so sick of hearing about the Church’s “scandal” regarding the child abuse. “Scandal” would be catching the Pope with a strapless bra on under his robes. The decades-long, systematic, widespread, and institutionally tolerated – and covered for – molestation of children is old-fashioned RICO criminal behavior. Not “scandal”.
No back-tracking Suzie, your statement of judgment was a lot more comprehensive than just “sex outside marriage is wrong” and you know it. You said quite emphatically: “The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is gravely wrong. it is an artificial frustration of the creation of life, and is using sex purely for selfish reasons“. Their twisted judgment on sex, even for married couples, is just as wrong as their lack of allowing family planning which could stop so much of the disease and suffering in the third world nations they supposedly “help”.
Maybe God made Eve for a brood mammal and maybe God made sex only for procreation, but that is not how billions of people, including millions of Catholics see it.
I was raised to believe sex outside of marriage was “wrong”. I would not wish either of my children to find out they are not sexually compatible with their mate until after they were married and I told them so. That intimacy and all the love, trust and comfort it provides is essential to a good marriage which is essential for a good stable home in which to raise children.
Suzie, in your post at 1:41 you conveniently omitted a few words from my previous comment, here they are. “and then when you do, if you have it strictly for pleasure you’re selfish and not spiritually developed. Somehow I don’t think that kind of thinking will have people rushing to Catholic churches.”
247 – Suzie – Many priests did a bad thing and its called pedophilia not gay. it has been talked about for years and just never prosecuted until recently. Go back to the novels like “Catcher in the Rye” or “Harlot’s Ghost”, or even “The Canterbury Tales”. The authors understood the truth about the priesthood.
“I’ve never complained about married people having children.”
I do believe you have. However, you are now saying that you have no problem with married people with little or no income and on welfare or begging on the street having more children?
They were serious questions, ‘suzie’. However, you didn’t address my question of the rhythm method going against the spirit of the rule of no birth control. Granted, the rhythm method is not artificial, but if a couple purposefully abstains from sex during the time of the month when the woman is most likely to get pregnant, aren’t they going against the Church’s law? If Viagra is allowable as a facilitator to achieve pregnancy, and if having sex when there’s no chance of pregnancy is selfish and wrong, why aren’t couples commanded to ONLY have sex during the times the woman is most likely to get pregnant?
However, you are now saying that you have no problem with married people with little or no income and on welfare or begging on the street having more children?
The problem isn’t married people having the kids; it’s the welfare.
I would not wish either of my children to find out they are not sexually compatible with their mate until after they were married and I told them so.
That’s just flat out ridiculous. You’ve read too many issues of Cosmo, Sandi. If they love each other enough to get married, then the sex will flow naturally. The ‘sexually compatible’ stuff is hogwash.
Granted, the rhythm method is not artificial, but if a couple purposefully abstains from sex during the time of the month when the woman is most likely to get pregnant, aren’t they going against the Church’s law?
No, because they are not placing artificial barriers in the sex act which would frustrate the unitive aspect. Now, that said, even couples who practice the rhythm method should have a good reason for not wanting more kids.
The decades-long, systematic, widespread, and institutionally tolerated – and covered for – molestation of children is old-fashioned RICO criminal behavior. Not “scandal”.
Sure. Let’s have the unblemished virtuous federal government investigate.
The case you people are trying desperately to make by your incessant repitition of the gay molestation issue is that the teachings of the Catholic faith are somehow invalidated as the result of what imperfect, even bad men do. It’s as silly as saying the law of gravity is invalid because a dozen people who believe in it once committed crimes.
Yes, I am about to take advice from the most exceptionally hate-filled person I have ever encountered? NOT!
Comment by Suzie — February 12, 2013 @ 7:38 pm
“The case you people are trying desperately to make by your incessant repitition of the gay molestation issue is that the teachings of the Catholic faith are somehow invalidated as the result of what imperfect, even bad men do. It’s as silly as saying the law of gravity is invalid because a dozen people who believe in it once committed crimes.”
What an asinine (non)analogy….rape of children and gravity.
Re: Hillary @ 10:01 am
Nope!
As I said, “exigent circumstances” has been the law of the land for a long time; and I’d add have a very valid place in law enforcement. However, again as I said, sometimes the devil is in the details and I’d add the theory is abused by LEO, from time to time, whether intentionally or because of the complexity of the “theory.”
The courts are full of appeals of abuse of “exigent circumstances” and the decisions are all over the place — typically because of slight variations in the details about who knew what when and who participated the “emergency.”
Some cases can get very tricky — especially when combined with newer technology, drug-sniffing dogs, etc.
Sometime back, I tried to get a discussion going on this blog about a very important “police-created exigent circumstances” case that was before SCOTUS — Kentucky v. King. At that time, there were five different tests being used by the US Courts of Appeals to determine whether the police unlawfully create the exigent circumstances. So, SCOTUS needed to step in.
For more info on the case I was talking about, see: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/investigation/exigent-circumstances This, article provides a very good discussion of the issues.
Re: Suzie @ 11:04 am
What points?
All I see is unsupported opinion and a slice of very narrow dogma.
Re: Kristen @ 2:48 pm
BINGO!
“Yes, I am about to take advice from the most exceptionally hate-filled person I have ever encountered? NOT!”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 12, 2013 @ 7:53 pm
Sandi, you left out the part about also being the blogs foremost authority on reproductive health.
Oh Suzie, what you do not seem to grasp, and as it happens, that you often do not grasp, is that YOU are the one making a “case”. And very badly at that.
YOU are making our case by proving the intransigence, lack of self-awareness, brutal disregard for others, dishonesty and hubris that is the Catholic Church. We could never indict the church so well as when aided by your posts about your faith, your beliefs, and your dogma. For that, we owe you our thanks. February 12, 2013 @ 7:38 pm #263 is an especial jewel.
Horrible analogy aside, Suzie, the law of gravity is considerably more flexible and a lot more logical than the dogmatic teachings and sexual hangups of the Catholic faith.
When Christ said, Suffer little children, he did not mean at the hands of the priests and the higher ups who covered up for them. Kristen’s comment at 2:48 was spot on.
I have no doubts that there are priests that are truly caring, devoted, wonderful men out there. It’s a shame that the higher ups tainted the church by covering up for the ones who are scum.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 8:45 pm
Bingo.
And FWIIW, I have known RC Priest who would agree with you.
Y’all know you’re giving this guy a trollgasm…
Yes, I am about to take advice from the most exceptionally hate-filled person I have ever encountered?
I don’t feel it is hateful to disagree, Sandi. You obviously do.
YOU are making our case by proving the intransigence, lack of self-awareness, brutal disregard for others, dishonesty and hubris that is the Catholic Church. We could never indict the church so well as when aided by your posts about your faith, your beliefs, and your dogma. For that, we owe you our thanks. February 12, 2013 @ 7:38 pm #263 is an especial jewel.
Sounds like it’s not just the Catholic Church you disagree with, Sandi. It’s all Christian churches. You can’t seem to find one that fits your unique interpretation of the bible.
Horrible analogy aside, Suzie, the law of gravity is considerably more flexible and a lot more logical than the dogmatic teachings and sexual hangups of the Catholic faith.
J.M. White,
Some laws are straightforward, and some require a bit more discernment. That latter consists of those laws whose violation lead to the similar negative results, but the mechanism is not apparent.
Oh Suzie, I was not speaking of any “disagreement” and you know that too. Just stop, you are fooling no one.
I have no doubts that there are priests that are truly caring, devoted, wonderful men out there. It’s a shame that the higher ups tainted the church by covering up for the ones who are scum.
The occurrences of sexual abuse in the public schools is 100 times that of the Catholic Church, yet the left is totally silent about that. No calls for that system to come tumbling down.
#260 IOW, you have no answer, suzie.
“…lead to the similar negative results”
I’m fairly sure that premarital sex for pleasure has never imploded someone to the point of singularity before.
Orgasms tend to be EXplosive. You should try one sometime. It might change your whole outlook on this sex thing.
As per usual, the brilliance of Suzie analysis shines. Of course “It’s all Christian churches” AND the Holy Catholic Church I “disagree with”. Why else would I go to church and Sunday School, attempt to serve God and follow Jesus? Why is it you feel compelled to stand up for what you believe but think I should not? Who made you the authority on Christianity? No one.
I do not have remotely a “unique interpretation of the bible”. Maybe if you did a little less preaching and judging you’d realize that your approach to Christians, other religions and non-believers might be part of the reason “None” is the fastest growing belief system. But then again, that would require an awareness I do not believe you capable of.
247. “Yes, we know a few men did some really bad things (pedophile Catholic priests)”
Despicable attempt at minimization by the stupid poster @1:43pm
A few men?
Dozens of pedophile priests, currently, worldwide, and down through history, many more.
Plus hundreds of Church officials who systematically covered it up and protected the abusers from criminal prosecution while allowing the pedophiles’ careers (and opportunities to abuse) to continue. What was their motivation? Does God’s money matter more than raped children?
What Would Jesus Hide?
I wonder if the new pope will kick criminal Cardinal Law’s butt out of Vatican City to face the music.
Dozens of pedophile priests, currently, worldwide, and down through history, many more.
A very small number relative to the church’s vastness. A smaller rate than the population at large and far less than in the public schools.
Looking for your outrage over the sex abuse in the public schools, Warren.
I’m fairly sure that premarital sex for pleasure has never imploded someone to the point of singularity before.
Chances are great the relationship won’t survive. There’s your implosion.
As per usual, the brilliance of Suzie analysis shines. Of course “It’s all Christian churches” AND the Holy Catholic Church I “disagree with”
OK, well, those were your own words, that you refused to join even the church you attend because you disagree with its positions. So all you have to do now is find a Christian church that allows premarital sex, gay relations, abortion, and birth control. Sounds like a tall order.
This thread is the most action Suzie has seen since Dirty Dancing.
In other words all of them! Good one Suzie.
Suzie a Church that supports birth control limits abortion. A church that supports
Gay rihhts suppotts humanity and the equalty ofmankind in the eyes of God. A church that recognizes the reality of sex in mankind and does not pretend to that it does not exist promotes truth and honesty to our chilfren.
This thread is the most action Suzie has seen since Dirty Dancing.
This is like the third such comment. I don’t know where people would get the idea observant Catholic couples wouldn’t have frequent great sex. I suspect those on the natural method make the most of those three weeks a month.
You middle aged folks probably top off at once a week, max.
“Chances are great the relationship won’t survive…”
Pretty much every married couple I know well had premarital sex (I’m betting you did, as well, suzie, but we know you won’t acknowledge it. Pretty icky thought anyway). And the majority of those folks remain married. My wife and I will be having our 34th anniversary this summer. Nothing has imploded.
“This thread is the most action Suzie has seen since Dirty Dancing.”
About 28 percent of the posts. Trollgasm indeed.
Suzie a Church that supports birth control limits abortion.
Actually, the pill causes abortions.
Speaking of which— 40 Days of Life is coming up again starting tomorrow. We will be praying for the end of abortion every hour from 9 to 5 daily until Easter in front of Planned Parenthood. We will specifically pray for the doctor who performs the abortions there. It’s actually a woman.
It’s a great idea someone had. I am thinking love can overcome any evil.
Sorry. 40 Days FOR Life. If anybody wants to come out with us, they’re welcome.
Why is it so important to become a member of a church, Suzie? If you devote any amount of time to church, you are in many ways a member of that church. A church is a dynamic, living organization. Without the congregation and the people who keep it going, it dies.
I volunteer at least 100 hours (and often, many, many more) to various churches, synagogues and temples each year. Many of the people I’ve met within consider me a (perhaps lost) member of both their faith and their establishments.
What does it matter? If she lives a good, Christian life, she is destined for paradise, no matter what you think. That and everything else that Sandi does or believes is none of your business. It’s just more thinly-veiled, arrogant judgement by you on things that are EXCLUSIVELY between her and her God.
Interesting that St. Peter’s Basilica was struck by lightning a couple of hours after the Papal abdication announcement. Maybe God was trying to tell them something.
Sarah Palin, role model.
Who says women have no influence with the Vatican?
When someone in a public school molests or has sex with a child, they are prosecuted. They aren’t shipped off to a different school to continue abusing children.
Pretty much every married couple I know well had premarital sex (I’m betting you did, as well, suzie, but we know you won’t acknowledge it. Pretty icky thought anyway). And the majority of those folks remain married. My wife and I will be having our 34th anniversary this summer. Nothing has imploded.
Nice classy personal attack thrown in there, Gdad. But I am glad for you that you decided to stop sinning and get married. Perhaps that is why your relationship has survived. Ditto for other couples who have done what you did. But you ignore the majority of relationships involving sex before marriage that did not work out. Study after study has shown cohabitating couples don’t last for the most part.
When someone in a public school molests or has sex with a child, they are prosecuted. They aren’t shipped off to a different school to continue abusing children.
Really? Then how do you explain long-time offenders doing stuff to kids for decades like that ex-VT kicker who taught school in Blacksburg? This guy was in the heart of a liberal environment. The fact is, molestation was treated differently in former decades.
The leftwing media targets the Catholic Church because they disagree with its tenets, plain and simple. 70% of the priests prosecuted for child molestation were ordained before 1970. Molestation and recidivism rates weren’t understood in those days. The thought by bishops then was of forgiveness, repentance and second-chances. That’s what the Catholic Church has always been about.
There are very few molestation cases involving younger priests, but you’d never know that by the media’s hyperfocusing on every single one. Whereas every year we read of a local teacher or two or three in the public schools are around here arrested for sexual misconduct with kids. Does any of that make national news? No, because there would be too many cases to report on.
What does it matter? If she lives a good, Christian life, she is destined for paradise, no matter what you think. That and everything else that Sandi does or believes is none of your business. It’s just more thinly-veiled, arrogant judgement by you on things that are EXCLUSIVELY between her and her God.
Not necessarily talking about Sandi here, but one who violates numerous critical Christian tenets on a regular basis without remorse is probably not living a good Christian life. And again, I don’t judge people because the bible forbids it, and also I have no way of knowing their inward thoughts or their relationship with God anyway, but I am free, even required to point out actions that are gravely sinful. And no, gravely sinful actions are not just between a person and God; they affect many people.
We will be praying for the end of abortion every hour from 9 to 5 daily until Easter in front of Planned Parenthood.
This is saying a few things:
1. Prayer has an expiration.
2. No one can hear these prayers from your church or house.
3. Prayer works better than proactive actual actions like speaking to political leaders, writing letters, voting, speaking to a real person, minding your own business.
4. Religious people have the highest abortion rate because they think if they say they are sorry afterwards they are forgiven, when the person they need to apologize to is in a HazMat bag.
Secular Abortion Statistics: http://www.secularthinker.com/2009/11/some-abortion-statistics.html
Religious Abortion Statistics: http://www.antiochian.org/node/16950
I volunteer at least 100 hours (and often, many, many more) to various churches, synagogues and temples each year. Many of the people I’ve met within consider me a (perhaps lost) member of both their faith and their establishments.
That’s very commendable, J.M. White. What kind of work do you do at these churches?
Debbie, schools are mandatory reporters. Churches and clergy are not….maybe that needs to be changed.
Gosh, suzie, once we all raise an outcry about molestation in school, and the scouts, and youth sports, and the McDonald’s playground, can we then point out the incredibly awful record he Catholic church has for hiding child molestation and refusing to punish the perpetrators?
Looks like you’ve learned a lot from the gun fondlers.
But you are not anybody, except for a blog ghost named Suzie. Does the Bible say you should “point out actions that are gravely sinful” anonymously?
Suzie proves over and over that she has no idea what the Bible says or means. She does not understand Christ beyond the most rudimentary regimented dogma. I repeat, she is more lost than any people she claims are. And yes, that is a judgment.
“I’m fairly sure that premarital sex for pleasure has never imploded someone to the point of singularity before.
Chances are great the relationship won’t survive.”
……
“Study after study has shown cohabitating couples don’t last for the most part.”
Wait, suzie, are you talking about cohabitating couples or couples who have sex outside of marriage? My reply was to your comment about premarital sex, not cohabitating. You do realize they’re not the same thing don’t you? Or are you just up to your usual trolling tricks?
Anyway, suzie, I’m sure we’re all glad that you also apparently decided to stop “sinning.”
#301 Suzie, please provide your evidence that the Blacksburg guy was caught or suspected of molesting and then moved around to different schools to hide what he did — a la the Catholic church.
Crickets.
Notice that as was true last year, suzie gives no indication when she will be out there at PP. She might want you to come by, but she doesn’t want you to come by when she’s there.
I seem to remember that last year somebody from the blog did drive by on the day suzie sort of kind of maybe said she might there, and there was absolutely nobody out front who even remotely resembled suzie’s blog description of herself.
What were they going to do if she had been there ?
Suzie, I was married during a secular ceremony by a woman! *Gasp*
The fact that you think that you need to be married to have sex is just weird.
The fact that people are having sex outside of marriage, and divorces has nothing to do with being a liberal or your moral compass. Sex has everything to do with it is a animalistic instinct to be sexually attracted to someone and want to act out those attractions. Your people seem to be the only ones interested in what others are doing with their privates. Personally I do not care what you do in your bedroom, and if I thought some supernatural entity was watching me do my “thing”, I would think he was a perverted madman! Which… is what the Bible insinuates. So I have no other conclusion other than your interpretation of god is a pervert, and needs to be medicated.
About 28 percent of the posts. Trollgasm indeed
Thanks for taking the time to go through 300 posts just to find mine, Gdad. I’m flattered.
Suzie proves over and over that she has no idea what the Bible says or means.
I’m pretty sure fornication and homosexuality are condemned. You didn’t read it that way?
Washington DC leads the nation in sign-ups for Ashley-Madison, the website for those wanting an extra marital affair. And of course the godless liberal elitists dominate Washington. Great family values there, but it all fits. Liberals, as a rule, don’t believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, as are witnessing in here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/ashley-madison-names-wash_n_2663858.html
And these are the folks Kristen believes should be casting judgment on the Vatican.
What were they going to do if she had been there ?
I was there on the day I said I’d be for my hour-long shift, Applewood. Some lib claimed to have driven by at on that day and didn’t see me. Like I’d be there 24 hours a day.”
#305 It should be changed, Kristen, but due to the separation of church and state, I doubt it ever will be. How church leaders could be told that priests were abusing children and not do anything but send the priests to another parish is beyond me. I don’t buy the “forgiveness”, “second chance” thing. It was a keep quiet to save our butts from scandal thing. They ignored Numbers 32:23 “But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the Lord: and be sure your sin will find you out.”
People deserve forgiveness, and they deserve second chances. What they do not deserve is a second, third, fourth… chance to harm more chidren and have it covered up. That is unforgiveable IMO.
The fact that you think that you need to be married to have sex is just weird
Yeah I know. We should all follow the example of the ghettos where most of the kids are born out of wedlock. It works out very well for society.
What they do not deserve is a second, third, fourth… chance to harm more chidren and have it covered up. That is unforgiveable IMO.M.
Yeah, I know. And the hundreds of public school administrators who covered up for their teachers’ far more frequent sex crimes is unforgivable as well.
Debbie, schools are mandatory reporters.
Of course they are. Every principal and public school administrator is absolutely above the fear of losing their jobs and getting their socks sued off.
Notice that as was true last year, suzie gives no indication when she will be out there at PP.
Gdad must be hallucinating.
“What were they going to do if she had been there ?”
Well, awood, suzie had invited everybody on the blog to come by there and meet her, so I guess that’s what this person would have done — met her. Was there something else you had in mind?
Problem is, she was purposely vague about when she would supposedly be there, and then when nobody showed up (if she was even there at all), she claimed that she had offered to meet anybody who wanted to meet her and everybody had refused. This is the kind of troll suzie is.
Suzie: I do whatever needs to be done at any church where I volunteer my time, from helping with food banks to performing gratis repair work. I’ve washed dishes, helped with planning events, cleaned out gutters and built new sanctuaries.
See, regardless of how I feel about their religion, they are still my fellow humans. They still have needs as a community that must be met. I would just as easily and eagerly fix the roof at a mosque as I would rake the grounds at a Catholic Church. I don’t care who or what they worship; I’ve found that I can find common ground with any of them. And if you don’t go at them with holier-than-thou arrogance and pretension, I’ve found that many will consider you their friend, even in spite of your heathen ways.
It’s not about your God; it’s about people. We help because community efforts are what established and help further civilization. Religious consternation and condemnation hinder that progress. We help each other because it’s the right thing to do. Morality and sympathy existed long before religion. In fact, and I know this probably doesn’t fit well with your religious and world views, morality is an assimilated feature of religion, not something born of it.
It’s much more likely that our inherent morality gave birth to religion, instead. We’re reward-based learners and some desperately want to believe that all of our unrewarded good efforts here will be rewarded after we’re gone. That’s fine if it drives you to be a better person. However, using your self-perceived good to place yourself above others and constantly point out others’ faults while refusing to point out your own is not being a morally just being. Being moral includes apologizing and admitting when you’re wrong, too.
The fact of the matter is that making a repeated point of highlighting and questioning Sandi’s church membership (or lack thereof) IS a judgement from you and places the emphasis and focus on the church instead of God, where it belongs. You steal glory from your own God and for what? To minimize her validity? You’re certainly not encouraging her to evaluate things more carefully. Instead, you often use her non-membership status to dismiss her. Does not “belonging” to her church make her any less of a Christian than you? No. The really sad thing is that you just can’t see how much less of a Christian it makes YOU appear.
You and so many others out there fail to see the truth that is hindering you in this life and may ultimately damn you: you are no longer a ward of God; you have made yourself a ward of the church. When you do this, you are placing the church above God. That doesn’t make you a Christian; it makes you a Churchian. I wonder how many of them there are in heaven. I’ll bet not very many.
Well said, J.M.
Well Suzie, if indeed you’re “pretty sure fornication and homosexuality are condemned”, that certainly indicts your own Catholic Church before it touches any of us. “You didn’t read it that way?” Odd.
If indeed the Bible is so clear on “fornication and homosexuality are condemned” how can you then attempt to justify “Catholic bishops who gave gay molesters numerous chances at God’s forgiveness and redemption” (the Catholic CYA) while condemning people herein? Or is it perhaps that as usual, you hold others to a standard you do not hold your own church or yourself?
Excellent points J.M. White!
Re: Debbie @ 5:17 am
BINGO!
JM White,
You works are admirable if they are indeed true. But there is a large area of conduct required of a Christian; more than just the quick-hitting good deed. Love is the overriding factor, but not all manifestations of love are as simple and clean as helping a church set up tables for an hour. Some manifestations aren’t readily apparent, and take thought and examination.
I know I frequently return to the topic of sex, but it is of eminent importance. Sex is a perfect example of something that appears simple, but is fraught with complexity and wide-ranging but often unseen ramifications. And that is why Christian laws concerning sex are so prominent and so often repeated in the Bible.
The undiscerning see sex as a mechanical self-serving feel-good activity. God knows it is far more complex and far-reaching than that. It is the most powerful tool man has, for in its ideal godly form, sex harnesses the height of physical, intellectual, and emotional power.
So for the thirtieth time, I don’t judge people, but when somebody tells me that MY sexual beliefs and interpretations of the bible are messed up, while THEY claim their belief in permissive sexual behavior is biblical and representative of Christian views, I see it as my responsibility to point it out.
how can you then attempt to justify “Catholic bishops who gave gay molesters numerous chances at God’s forgiveness and redemption” (the Catholic CYA) while condemning people herein?
I guess I should ask you why you judge Catholic bishops without knowing their intentions. Sure, if the bishops’ intention was to escape blame and responsibility, then sure, I would see that action as sinful. But if they honestly weren’t aware of the grave harm done to boys, and thought the priests would be forgiven and mend their ways, then I am not nearly as hard on them as you are. Of course, I suspect political considerations fuel most of your alleged outrage, but that’s another matter.
As for the people herein, for the 31st time, I don’t condemn them, but I can judge if beliefs and practices are consistent with those of Christianity.
Problem is, she was purposely vague about when she would supposedly be there, and then when nobody showed up (if she was even there at all), she claimed that she had offered to meet anybody who wanted to meet her and everybody had refused. This is the kind of troll suzie is.
I remember inviting the blog to the CSHS track a day ahead of time and provided the exact time I’d be there. Nobody showed.
I can’t imagine a better, cheaper form of birth control than reading Suzie’s meanderings on sex. It’s enough to put anyone off their game.
Suzie:
“And again, I don’t judge people because the bible forbids it…”
Wow, did she really just say that? Suzie, do you laugh at the Darling family’s marriage and superstitious rituals from the Andy Griffith Show? Most people do, but in reality, they don’t believe anything sillier than you do.
Justin, I would say that Briscoe Darling would not approve of your marriage since it wasn’t performed by his idea of a “preacher.” Better turn before you burn, bud. LOL.
“I remember inviting the blog to the CSHS track a day ahead of time and provided the exact time I’d be there. Nobody showed.”
Riiiiiight, suzie. You “invited” folks at something like 10:30 p.m. (when virtually nobody would see the message) to be there at something like 5:30 the next morning. In fact, at the time you wrote the “invite,” you had no idea at all whether it would even be approved before the appointed time. NTL, one person said he or she did show up and saw absolutely nobody at the track.
IOW, twice you have issued BS “invitations” for people to come meet you. Fine examples of your “sincerity.”
To be clear, suzie “invited” people to the track about 7 hours before (technically the day before but hardly “a day ahead of time”) and did so in a post unlikely to be seen by most readers of Dan’s blog. And at a time the vast majority of sane folks are still asleep.
I can’t imagine a better, cheaper form of birth control than reading Suzie’s meanderings on sex. It’s enough to put anyone off their game.
Understanding the nuance perhaps exceeds your average Ellen! viewer.
Yeah I know. We should all follow the example of the ghettos where most of the kids are born out of wedlock. It works out very well for society.
Comment by Suzie — February 13, 2013 @ 12:03 pm
Here we go with this circular crap again… one way to help the poor from having so many unwanted children is to teach and help them attain birth control right? Obviously telling them some pervert is watching them isn’t working. It must help you a lot though.
I remember inviting the blog to the CSHS track a day ahead of time and provided the exact time I’d be there. Nobody showed.
Comment by Suzie — February 13, 2013 @ 1:05 pm
Actually, someone did show and you spent the next week denying it and questioning why she was around at that time of the morning, even going so far as to questioning why she would be in that part of town at that time of morning (ironic, considering your invitation). There was also another poster that saw no one at the track that day from the nearby trail. Considering your aversion to letting anyone from this blog meet you in real life (you know, for all the self-important, paranoid reasons you usually state), I believe the burden of proof falls on you to show that you were actually there that day.
It’s an old troll-bait routine that’s been done a million times, and usually much better. Troll states that they’ll be somewhere at some certain time, with no intention of showing. Then, they ridicule and attack anyone who actually showed up, claiming that they’re lying and weren’t there, all while offering ZERO proof that the troll actually did as they said they would.
It’s an easy remedy, really. Just meet someone from the blog and prove that you’re more real than the Easter Bunny. No BS, no games, no obscure times, no hoops through which to jump. You know, be honest and sincere, if you’re capable. “I’ll be at X location at Y time on Z date,” and then do it. Or is being exposed that frightening for you?
Why is it that the most arrogant of people also seem to be the most paranoid?
“I’ll be at X location at Y time on Z date,” and then do it.
As I said, I did that. Nobody showed.
Here we go with this circular crap again… one way to help the poor from having so many unwanted children is to teach and help them attain birth control right?
Apparently not.
Gdad. We are discussing important issues here. This isn’t the thread silly ankle-biting stuff. Let’s take a break from it, OK?
“Just meet someone from the blog and prove that you’re more real than the Easter Bunny. ”
We nominate you, JM White.
Re: J.M. White @ 1:57 pm
LOL
I was just catching up. Started to comment on Suzie’s lie. Them, paused and read the rest of the comments. J.M. White had beat me to it.
Yup. You are right J.M. Suzie was caught in a lie and spent a week or so denying it.
“Notice that as was true last year, suzie gives no indication when she will be out there at PP.
Gdad must be hallucinating.”
So tell us, suzie, what exact time did you say you’d be there last year? What time this year? Please link to the proof.
Crickets.
“I was there on the day I said I’d be for my hour-long shift, Applewood. Some lib claimed to have driven by at on that day and didn’t see me. Like I’d be there 24 hours a day.”
As I’ve said, awood, she gave no time (notice she hasn’t denied that), and even the day mention was vague enough that it could have been one of four days.
And then she whined that nobody showed up. Like one of us would be there 24 hours day.
“I was there on the day I said I’d be for my hour-long shift,…”
WOW!!!!!! ONE HOUR!!!!! Really dedicated to that anti-abortion thing, aren’t we, suzie?
Dave H, here’s the return of the true trolling suzie. She’s back to lying about old trolling efforts.
I live 5 minutes from the PP… I might just show up and see what all the hoopla is about…
What’s a Brother gotta do to get 40 days of rational thought around here?
Yup. You are right J.M. Suzie was caught in a lie and spent a week or so denying it.
One more reply, then we put the ankle-biting to bed. I was trying to be kind not to bring it up, but a certainly elderly poster was apparently out of her home across town at 4 a.m., perhaps even in her nightgown unbeknownst to her kids. I am hopeful she has since gotten the help and supervision she needs.
WOW!!!!!! ONE HOUR!!!!! Really dedicated to that anti-abortion thing, aren’t we, suzie?
Yes. One hour that day and one hour several others. I am sure people from your church participated, Gdad, if it is a mainstream church. Providing, of course you are a member and not just an attendee. Why don’t you come out as well.
I am sorry the serious thoughtful discussion has ebbed a bit. It was doing OK for awhile, actually longer than usual before it descended into the mindless peripheral junk that one particular poster always brings.
I get it that you want to pretend you are “discussing important issues here” but in reality we are playing with you like a cat does a mouse. Please do not pretend anyone is swayed by your patently silly posts on this (or any other) subject. That too would be a lie, kinda like your “love”.
Now I am not sure who told you “their belief in permissive sexual behavior is biblical and representative of Christian views” but if you have indeed read the Bible you know that even Holy men had sexual relations outside of marriage and the offspring to prove it. Priests messing with children is not a new one either. Which again, proves your faux piety on “fornication and homosexuality are condemned” being such a stalwart tenet of the Bible as false. That is YOUR interpretation when it suits you. What you “see” as your “responsibility” is to judge decent people and you remain wrong while condemning others for judging pedophiles and the people who covered for them.
Unless your Bishops and Cardinals also did not study the Bible and know all about your certainty that “fornication and homosexuality are condemned”, they KNEW what the priests were doing was sinful, harmful, immoral, criminal and wrong. There is no spin you can put on it to justify either action. Not the pedophiles who used God and the church to hide in nor the “servants” of God who knew their sin (some repeatedly for decades) and protected ONLY the sinner/criminal. Don’t even get me started on your orphanages because I will blow a gasket and likely get kicked off this blog. Your defense is an atrocity.
My “knowing their intentions” has no bearing as neither do you and nothing can justify their actions regardless.
I have no doubt you are shallow enough to “suspect political considerations fuel most of your alleged outrage”, and being wrong never bothers you, we all know that. Since Catholics are pretty reliable Democrats and progressive on so many issues, it is just another lie, but we know you never let that stop you. I have no problem with Catholics, just a huge problem with the Catholic Church and it’s defenders like you. Big difference.
Since you were not alive to hear and communicate with Jesus, no, you cannot “judge if beliefs and practices are consistent with those of Christianity”. You can judge and condemn as you do because you ignore the teachings of Christ not because of them. Your version of Christianity exists in dogma not in practice. There are virtually no churches where birth control is not practiced. There are virtually no churches where adulterers are not welcome, where homosexuals are turned away, where unmarried mothers and children are shunned. There was no time Jesus refused or condemned a sinner, even the supposed worst of them. People like you he rebuked and condemned openly. You are flat wrong, and too lost to measure.
J.M. White, you were not on the blog for the worst of Suzie’s bile but trust me when I say, she would sooner surrender to Al-Qaeda than allow anyone on this blog to know she is a real human being or let her identity be known. It is never going to happen and she will twist any such effort just as she did when 13 Suns called her bluff that day.
We will be praying for the end of abortion every hour from 9 to 5 daily until Easter in front of Planned Parenthood.
This is saying a few things:
1. Prayer has an expiration.
2. No one can hear these prayers from your church or house.
3. Prayer works better than proactive actual actions like speaking to political leaders, writing letters, voting, speaking to a real person, minding your own business.
4. Religious people have the highest abortion rate because they think if they say they are sorry afterwards they are forgiven, when the person they need to apologize to is in a HazMat bag.
Secular Abortion Statistics: http://www.secularthinker.com/2009/11/some-abortion-statistics.html
Religious Abortion Statistics: http://www.antiochian.org/node/16950
1. Prayer has an expiration
Huh?
2.2. No one can hear these prayers from your church or house.
You can say them from anywhere, but there is a unity of purpose in praying together and witnessing for others to bring public attention to an evil.
3 3. Prayer works better than proactive actual actions like speaking to political leaders, writing letters, voting, speaking to a real person.
Prayer accomplishes more than anything. Without a doubt. And some of these other things you mentioned are already done as well.
4. Religious people have the highest abortion rate because they think if they say they are sorry afterwards they are forgiven
People who get abortions aren’t faithful Christians, and likely don’t attend services. Anybody can call themselves anything. I am sure most people who don’t believe in many Christian tenets still call themselves Christian.
“Thanks for taking the time to go through 300 posts just to find mine, Gdad. ”
A full 90 seconds I’ll never get back.
Which again, proves your faux piety on “fornication and homosexuality are condemned” being such a stalwart tenet of the Bible as false. That is YOUR interpretation when it suits you.
It’s preposterous to suggest biblical teaching doesn’t condemn fornication. That’s wrong.
“I was trying to be kind not to bring it up, but a certainly elderly poster was apparently out of her home across town at 4 a.m., perhaps even in her nightgown unbeknownst to her kids.”
It’s so much fun baiting suzie back into her true “personality.”
And now she’s up to about 31 percent of the thread.
Unless your Bishops and Cardinals also did not study the Bible and know all about your certainty that “fornication and homosexuality are condemned”, they KNEW what the priests were doing was sinful, harmful, immoral, criminal and wrong. There is no spin you can put on it to justify either action. Not the pedophiles who used God and the church to hide in nor the “servants” of God who knew their sin (some repeatedly for decades) and protected ONLY the sinner/criminal.
The action is a sin. As I have mentioned dozens of times, the attitude of the Catholic Church is that all sin can be forgiven, and people can start anew. I’ll bet these priests who are genuinely remorseful are glad God will be their judge and not you. You don’t think they should EVER be forgiven.
We nominate you, JM White.
Comment by Kristen — February 13, 2013 @ 2:17 pm
I gladly accept that nomination, though I must admit that I’d be very protective of certain aspects of her real life identity. I wouldn’t reveal gender, race, exact age or even the full details of what was discussed, but I would certainly confirm that she showed up and was real. So, I probably wouldn’t be the best choice if digging up info on her is the sole interest.
JMWhite, I can flat guarantee you that’s not my interest. I can’t speak to anyone else. She’s all yours.
Re: Hillary — February 11, 2013 @ 9:04 pm
Here is a new (to me) case that you might enjoy:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/PR0UI4IB.pdf
**
SNIP
In this interlocutory appeal, we must determine whether one lawful act in isolation — driving a car of one color with a registration number attached to a car of a different color — gives rise to reasonable suspicion that a driver is engaged in criminal activity.
SNIP
**
gdad: Suzie is trying to push a post with her name in the picture to the Most Popular list. Hence her addressing multiple individuals with multiple posts. This has been one giant ego-trip for her from the beginning, nothing more.
Her own delusional self-importance is why she just can’t leave the blog, even after repeated threats to do so.
Tell you what. If the blog’s leftwingers all reveal their names, addresses, and telephone numbers, then I’ll agree (once again) to meet any and all of you. If you won’t meet this challenge, then you have no standing to talk about it again.
OK? So let that be the last post on the subject, and let’s get back to the important issues at hand.
“One more reply, then we put the ankle-biting to bed. I was trying to be kind not to bring it up, but a certainly elderly poster was apparently out of her home across town at 4 a.m., perhaps even in her nightgown unbeknownst to her kids. I am hopeful she has since gotten the help and supervision she needs.
Comment by Suzie”
Thank you, Miss Suzie, for finally admitting that I was at the CSHS track that morning and you were not.
So if people who call themselves Christians have an abortion, but in your opinion they are not Christians, what are they Suzie?
gdad: Suzie is trying to push a post with her name in the picture to the Most Popular list. Hence her addressing multiple individuals with multiple posts. This has been one giant ego-trip for her from the beginning, nothing more.
Right. I twisted Gdad’s arm to come in with his flealike behavior and focus on some silly trivial thing. And you all have been happy to help him do it, J.M White. Meanwhile, I have done by best to put it to a stop.
And you’re accusing ME of driving up the post count?
Always with the changing parameters. Why do some things never change even when they claim to have?
Honestly, I wish I could think of one biblical or Christian principle Sandi embraces. Let’s see, she’s for fornication, abortion, and homosexuality. She doesn’t believe in forgiveness of sins or transgressions, she’s not terribly kind or charitable in her words. And now she’s even borrowing atheists’ tack of taking OT stuff out of context to make the case for molesting children. Heck, she’s sounding just like Justin True.
The church I might recommend for you, Sandi, is the Unitarian Universalist Church. I read there are even some atheist sects of that church, if you can believe that. So that might work for you. Shoot, they don’t believe in anything there. Not even shoveling their sidewalks.
So if people who call themselves Christians have an abortion, but in your opinion they are not Christians, what are they Suzie?
They are either atheists, or once-believers who have seriously lost their way.
Re: Suzie @ 3:49 pm
You show me yours first.
.
.
Nah. Come to think of it, never mind.
I don’t care if you are a 80 y.o. man or a teenage girl or a receptionist at an engineering office that hooked the boss/owner and ….
So if people who call themselves Christians have an abortion, but in your opinion they are not Christians, what are they Suzie?
They are either atheists, or once-believers who have seriously lost their way.
Or, they may be young kids who have been so rooted in our society’s far-left Communist influence, that the abject immorality of abortion has never occurred to them.
Thank you, Miss Suzie, for finally admitting that I was at the CSHS track that morning and you were not.
As iff the 4 am across town thing wasn’t enough, “13 Suns”, where you blew it was when you didn’t account for the deluge that occurred shortly after dawn that morning. Ouch.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 4:19 pm
That’s all Suzie can do — she constantly loses then she moves the goal post, ignores that she has been well & truly had/beaten, or goes into cricket mode.
Remember her repeated and unqualified assurances about the election?
Damn, Suzie — you’ve posted 40 comments since 6:23 a.m.
Bored today? Is the private jet in the shop?
Suzie, define “fornication”, in the Biblical sense? Also explain why it was OK for some and not others if it has only one meaning and connotation? What did Jesus do when he met those “fornicators”?
The disgusting “attitude of the Catholic Church” that “forgave” and protected is about as relevant to the discussion of criminal pedophiles as is your identity and particulars. What part of covering up a crime and ignoring the true victims is alright with you?
J.M. White I am not sure what you meant but no one here has ever given even a Tinker’s damn what Suzie is and while it would fit, no one has claimed she is not a human being. Her identity guarding idiocy while prodding others and threatening to call bosses was what started the discussion not any freaking desire to meet or know the anonymous entity known as Suzie. SHE tried to regale us with her jetting to NYC and her local top 25 business and her charity to “Obama voters” and her sway with the local movers and shakers and her mission to Zimbabwe, NONE of us asked for her credentials. We are quite comfortable that she is a sociopath and nothing more.
Remember her repeated and unqualified assurances about the election?
Oh, I’ve already addressed that, Dave Hicks. obama stole the election by “winning” 100% of the vote in over 100 battleground precincts. In Philadelphia alone, he ‘won” 59 precincts by a vote total of 19,620 to 0. Meanwhile in an election that was only decided by 4%, Romney was the unanimous choice in only three Utah precincts by a total of 45 votes. Statistically impossible.
I apologize for my last post. I didn’t mean to play into the hands of those trying to divert the topic.
Damn, Suzie — you’ve posted 40 comments since 6:23 a.m.
Bored today? Is the private jet in the shop?
Just trying to answer all the posts directed my way, Dan. Would you want me to be impolite and not reply?
PA was never a battleground, except in Romney’s mind.
And nothing was stolen anywhere.
And we haven’t even gotten to the HUNDREDS more precincts where obama “won” 99% of the vote, including our own infamous Melrose precinct. 880 to 13.
“If the blog’s leftwingers all reveal their names, addresses, and telephone numbers,…”
After you, troll suzie.
349.What’s a Brother gotta do to get 40 days of rational thought around here?
Comment by Justin True — February 13, 2013 @ 2:52 pm
Create an alter ego and talk to yourself.
I’ll tell you what, can you believe the idiocy of groups like the NRA that are claiming Obama wants to confiscate all guns?
What in the hell does a post count matter for? 1 or 100 posts Suzie and you are still judgmental and disown your own allies because you fail to realuze others walk a different path than yourself.
I offer to protect all of your personal info if we meet and you then demand that all leftwingers post all of their personal information before you’ll agree? I’ll remind you that I didn’t ask for your phone number, your address or you real name. You are truly a circus unto yourself.
LMAO! As I said before, you fear being exposed for the fraud and phony that you are, even with guarantees that you won’t be. It’d be sad if it wasn’t so hilarious.
“gdad: Suzie is trying to push a post with her name in the picture to the Most Popular list. ”
I know all about her ego (or her pitiful need for attention), J.M., but I’m guessing that if he wanted to, Dan could just remove her name from the pic. Maybe she hasn’t thought of that.
Of course they are. Every principal and public school administrator is absolutely above the fear of losing their jobs and getting their socks sued off.
Comment by Suzie — February 13, 2013 @ 12:09 pm
While the higher ups in the Catholic church never gave the molesters they protected a thing to worry about. Did they issue them new suitcases when they moved them to a new city?
While the higher ups in the Catholic church never gave the molesters they protected a thing to worry about. Did they issue them new suitcases when they moved them to a new city?
The same thing was done in the public schools, Debbie
LMAO! As I said before, you fear being exposed for the fraud and phony that you are, even with guarantees that you won’t be. It’d be sad if it wasn’t so hilarious.
Guarantees? From a leftwinger? Let’s face, J.M. White. I don’t think you exactly have my best interests at heart.
The lengths that Suzie will go to so she can claim to run this blog, or keep threads going, or knock the thread about Obama off the top 5 list is truly pathetic but that is the kind of pathetic score keeping such empty people live for. Whatever the parameter, she will deliberately change it the moment you are on to her. If she cared about sin, she would care about all sin, and I think we all know she does not. What a Trojan.
OMG. Is Sandi actually posting on another thread to keep this one from overtaking it?
LOL.
And you people talk about me.
But anyhow, this one got on the top five list. Even if only for a moment. Thanks, guys.
Now you can do what you want. LOL.
Create an alter ego and talk to yourself.
Comment by Debbie — February 13, 2013 @ 4:45 pm
Rich.
Hey guys, this is how it looks. The obama thread got booted. Even if catty folks resurrect it, this is how it looked at 5:23 p.m.
The official timeline of ‘Rush Limbaugh in Decline’ UPDATED (1056)
Put your thoughts about today’s Franklin County deputy story here (609)
Charles Darwin: Brilliant scientist or agent of Satan? Put your thoughts here! (456)
Virginia teachers got the shaft again (414)
We interrupt this blog for a message from Westboro Baptist (392)
Suzie @ 4:52 Complete BS.
Hell, 127 of the posts are yours, Canteloupe. Thank yourself.
“Canteloupe”
lol.
I’d like to personally thank J.M. White for putting us ahead to stay @ post #386.
This shows there IS a place on here for thoughtful discussion of solid issues. Thanks again, everyone.
389. “The same thing (protecting child molesters from prosecution and giving them new opportunities to molest children) was done in the public schools”
Comment by a poster desperately trying to minimize the seriousness of child rape and protection of child rapists by the Catholic hierachy.
HERE ARE THE FACTS
There are nearly 3.5 million fulltime public school teachers in the U.S.:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
There are less than 39,000 Catholic priests in the U.S., and counting
ordained Diocesan positions, the total is still under 100,000:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html
The public rebuke of Cardinal Mahoney by his successor is only the beginning of criminal and civil prosecution in a single diocese, and they are likely to continue and spread as investigators in other areas finally overcome the systematic institutional coverup of widespread child rape by the Catholic hierarchy:
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/la-time-without-precedent-archbishop-s-rare-move-likely-first-sign-troubles-come
Didn’t quite finish my last post. I meant to add that with so many more fulltime public school teachers than priests, the number of prosecutions for sexual impropriety should be similar as a percentage of the whole IF the incidence rates for similar levels of misconduct and responses by instututional authorities were the same.
It seems no easily comparable statistics are available, but anecdotally, the frequency of criminal prosecutions of public school teachers strongly appears to be greater (as a percentage) than prosecutions of priests. Does this reflect a higher prevalance of cases in public schools? Not necessarily, as it may also reflect a higher prevalence of coverup in the Catholic diocese, particularly given the high incident rate of child molesting priets relative to the much smaller number of priests than teachers.
Aside from, and possibly more important than determing how high the percentage of priests who molest children, is the separate issue of institutional coverup, a crime in itself. RICO investigations might be necessary to get answers about that, but the question that underpins all the longstanding and extensive efforts of Catholic hierarchy to hide and protect child molesters, is this:
What is the motivation for covering up such ammoral and criminal behavior?
What Would Jesus Hide?
I have an idea. Why don’t we all give up hate for Lent?
Could this blog even survive?
Why do you need Lent to give up hate, sherry? The religion that is behind Lent is one of the most hateful and intolerant of them all. You can just be a good person and give up hate can’t you?