A new report is out showing the Most Holy Chaste Catholic Church has been covering up child sex abuse for decades:
Following a three-year investigation in the Dublin Archdiocese, the country’s largest, the report concluded that four archbishops routinely protected abusers and failed to inform police of the allegations. One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another confessed that he had abused on a fortnightly basis over 25 years.
“The volume of revelations of child sexual abuse by clergy over the past 35 years or so has been described by a Church source as a ‘tsunami’ of sexual abuse,” said the report….
The judicial probe discovered that the archbishops did not report abuse to police until the 1990s as part of a culture of secrecy and to try and avoid damaging the reputation of the Church.
The report said: “All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities”.
It found children who complained “were often met with denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases. Suspicions were rarely acted on”.
Some of my Catholic friends boycott large companies because they have donated to gay rights or pro-choice organizations. Yet they give their money and loyalty to an organization that has been abusing children and covering it up for decades (though it’s probably been more like 1,700 years). It’s mind-boggling.
Ugh. Religion is evil. :(
Religion isn’t evil. This man is evil.
The Roman Catholic Church has been committing crimes against humanity much longer than “this man” has been part of it. He is a cog in a machine.
Religion is arguably evil. The RCC is definitely evil.
Any organization that asks you to turn off your critical thinking skills is evil. Any organization that “forgives” crimes like this in the name of God is evil. Any organization that covers up the wrong-doings of its members is evil. Hence, religion is evil. Period.
I keep thinking about what would be happening if the Catholic Church was McDonald’s or Disney World. What would happen if it was found out that Disney World employee’s had been molesting children and Disney had been covering it up for decades?
They would surely freeze Disney’s owner…oh…
They would nail the leader to a … oh wait…
*snrk*
Or hang him by one foot?
Any company that had been shown to complicit in abuse on this scale would be, to not put to finer word on it, fcuked. The interesting question why was the Catholic Church was able to get into this situation in the first place as no company would have the required number of staff this complicit in these type of actions.
In the real world abuse would get you fired from you job and a gaol sentence in the alternate world of the Catholic Church it seems to be more important to protect the brand image than screwing people’s lifes up. Maybe it’s a twisted form of logic which says that we are all born sinners but can find salvation through Christ or even the god must of had a plan for the children that where abused …
The Catholic Church, a.k.a: The International Man-Boy Love Association.
Disgusting, hypocritical, and criminal.
TIMBLA? ;-)
I am not in the slightest bit surprised.
Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.
Best. Comment. EVER.
From an atheist tee-shirt website, I think?
Agreed!
what website? i want it! ;)
http://www.hellatees.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HT&Product_Code=031&Category_Code=RP
Though I think this is better:
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/atheist/
Now I wonder, what’s more “against nature”?
Homosexuality or chastity?
(Hint hint: one is documented in hundreds of vertebrates, the other is found only in superorganisms where the leader individual(s) chemically castrate the subordinates.)
Dio ce ne scampi dagli Orsenigo !!!
Since we can “know them (His true followers) by their fruits” then we can easily discern that this “priest” is neither a true follower of Christ nor a “priest” unto God for he manifests an evil, rotten nature derived from that dead, withered tree within that he “eats” (lives) from. Death (sin) is the “fruit” of his life.
This man is caught in the hypocrisy (duality of natures) of religion which, as LRA pointed out so well in an earlier comment…is evil and is also that which Christ so despised and reserved the harshest rebukes for in the NT.
Happy Holidays to my unbelieving yet immensely valuable and highly esteemed friends! :)
John, you say the same thing every single time a Christian does something wrong. You say: Oh, he’s not a REAL Christian. I suggest you fire up YouTube and look up the “No True Scotsman” video, then get back to me – Because YOU do not get to define “Christian” as being “anybody who believes what John C believes”. That is not what the deffinition of “Christian” is, and you really need to grasp that. Really.
So what constitutes a “true Christian” then Custador? It seems a “reasonable” conclusion that since the word itself (Christian) is defined as “little christ” or “of Christ” than we can simply contrast Him (his recorded words, deeds, life and nature that he manifested) against those claiming to be “of” Him. You’re making it way too complicated my friend. You’re also taking the easy way out I might add.
Christ is “of too pure beauty to behold (to look upon) iniquity”. Obviously, a man who molests children over and over is not “of” Christ, it’s so simple even a child (especially the childlike) can know it.
In the U.S. we have a children’s television program called “Sesame Street” that you may be familiar with. They have a long standing educational bit they do contrasting various shapes, fruits etc against one another while singing these lines “one of these things is not like the other”. How true.
“In the U.S. we have a children’s television program called “Sesame Street” …”
Watch it a lot do you?
Hey, now. Bashing Sesame Street is going too far.
There is no such thing as a “true” Christian, in the religious sense, as Christianity, like all religions, is based on the biggest of lies (that one’s thoughts and actions are in accordance with the wishes and requirements of a deity). The truth cannot be derived from a lie. OTOH, there can be true followers of the philosophy attributed to a man named Jesus of Nazareth. The difference, while subtle, makes all of the difference in the world. The difference is that the former relies on false authority to assert his or her personal belief onto others, while the latter internalizes the lesson in an attempt to improve his or her own behaviors – regardless of what others do and without fear of retribution from an imaginary being.
Sorry Cletus, I adhere to no behavioral mandate from a “deity” my friend. What you speak of is an external behavior modification program, ie that dreaded and oppressive thing called religion which is hypocritical by nature since it demands from those enslaved to its lie that which it is impossible for them to give in return, namely a transformed nature. So yes, I agree “religion” is a terrible lie but thankfully not even close to the true offer which (respectfully intended) you have not yet made mention of in any of your numerous posts.
One can not “mimick” Christ, the Substance of His Self, His divine (original, spiritual) nature which is the ground of our (true) being since it must be formed (deposited) within us. So the philosophical approach you describe is at best a fallacy since Substance can in no way be contrived, imitated.
What “offer” would the be, John? Eternal life? Consciousness after death? Citizenry within some eternal Kingdom?
If not mimicking Christ, if as you say, the ground of our true being is already of Christ and within us al (I assume you think it’s within us all), then what good is “The Word”? Why would we need it?
Your words are mumbo jumbo BS.
John, why do you call yourself a “Christian”? It’s such a blanket label anyway, and let’s be honest – you’re pretty unique.
“… you’re pretty unique.”
One can but hope!
Custador, consider with me for a minute. Let’s look at the way you phrase the question “why do you call yourself a “Christian”? By inference, it is obvious that the very word “Christian” carries negative connotations in your mind, that is all too apparent and expected given the forum, etc.
But how is it that you have arrived at such a conclusion (the term Christian as a negative?) Is it not due to what you have personally witnessed/experienced of Christians and Christianity over the course of your life? Sure it is and rightly so. Now contrast your experience and astute deductions with the Christ of the NT, the difference is staggering…one of these things is not like the other (sesame street again).
Since organized religion, ie the “Church” claims by its own admissions to represent Christ, to be His true followers then what are we to make of the (rather severe) contrasts? How can we (reasonably) reconcile the two? The only possible conclusion (assuming that the Christ of the NT is the standard) that one can reach is that what we see today is at best an imposter, a fabrication, not the real Article.
So maybe it’s not that I’m so unique (I’ll take that as a mild and rare compliment, ha thx) but that what you thought was representative of Christianity and have despised all your days (and rightly so) was actually…a gigantic LIE and no one likes to be lied to. We have to wade through the poo to get to the true, but I assure you “its worth the wade” (bad joke ugg).
So do yourself an (equally gigantic) favor and dis-believe the lie that organized religion (accurately) represents Christ or has His life flowing through their veins, is “of” Him at all. If you’ll begin again from that premise I am confidant that you will have a new (and clearer) perspective for what it’s worth to you, if anything.
You’ll know when you truly encounter the genuine Article.
All the best…
John C…
This is a pretty coherent defense of your point. Just thought I’d let you know that you did a good job.
@JonJon
… and you can make much the same point about Communism. So a coherent defence but not a good defence.
Jon Jon…thanks friend and fellow believer! (did you mean to imply that John C has in times past come across as incoherent or vague? Oh the nerve of you!…tee hee :)
All the best.
@ Jabster
Oh, there are good defenses of communism. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with positive reinforcement.
“Oh, there are good defenses of communism …” in much the same way that John C made a good defence of his point, yes I agree.
So John C, acording to you most christians are not true christians and thus fake. True christians are a very rare find almost none-existing.
Who would then be a true christian? Mother Theresa that did pile up all the money in her bank account?
Did you even attempt to look at the term ‘no true Scotsman’? Also, that’s an awful lot of untrue christians wandering around the church, considering how endemic the abuse was and how many archbishops and priests were aware of it and allowed it to continue. Not to mention the Vatican, which completely ignored the investigators’ efforts to get more information from them, so are they not true christians either? At this rate, christianity is going to shrink to pretty insignificant cult if being hypocritical means you don’t count.
John, most of what you call “the Church” (big C) is not. The translation is “ecclesia” which means “called out ones” meaning separate (holy, kadosh in hebrew). Christ’s true church is not a building or any denomination but a “spiritual house” of which He is the Head. You’re still associating the long-robed pious ones as belonging to Him because they SAY they are but their actions speak otherwise. You shall know them by their fruit. All the best.
John C, can you answer a question? Do you understand the “no true Scotman” concept? Also, it is not just pious men in robes I am talking about, it is everyone who calls themselves “christian” that enabled and tolerated this behaviour, from the ‘seat of St. Peter’ down to every single catholic who puts money in the collection plate to support the institution that industrialised sexual abuse of children. That’s a huge number of not-true-christians who somehow got a hold of a christian membership card. After all, they were all baptised with the holy spirit, just like Jesus asked.
Additionally, as I said before, your argument that no hypocrite can be considered a true christian reduces christianity to basically nothing.
John M…with all due respect, you must be new here. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve gone over “no true Scotsman” in the last year…’nuff said.
As per your comment, no not all these professing “Christians” were baptized in the Holy Spirit (I’m not referring to water baptism) but most were simply indoctrinated from ancestral lines into a religious stupor handed down for generations, ie going to a church building, following empty, pointless man made traditions, rituals and rule keeping mandates etc. None of these things has anything to do with being a (true) Christ follower.
Hypocrisy? It’s curable, there is a Remedy.
Well, if you had a nickel for every time someone had asked you to address the No True Scotsman fallacy, you’d be a rich man indeed. On the other hand, if you had a nickel for every time you had actually responded to such requests, you’d have… less than five cents.
Meh. Technically, the No True Scotsman applies only when a definition is changed mid-argument to the benefit of one side. So far as I know, John C has been consistent with his definition of Christianity. Now, it may be an incorrectly constructed definition, but it is not a No True Scotsman.
@Eleme
Doesn’t that rather assume that’s it’s possible to work out what John C is saying in the first place?
Doesn’t that rather assume that’s it’s possible to work out what John C is saying in the first place?
Strangely, it doesn’t. If he is incomprehensible, then he can’t have committed a No True Scotsman, since he can’t have offered a public definition.
@Eleme
Not really true … just because we didn’t know Australia existed doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist. For all we know John C may have been claiming the cup of a True Scotsman without us even knowing.
I would argue the fallacy applies so long as his definition is so ill-defined as to be malleable to make christianity look perfectly innocent under any circumstances.
This, I’ll grant you quite easily.
On the one hand we hear Christianity is the must popular religion in the world so it must be true and on the other hand large swathes of Christians are deemed not to be True Christians(tm) by other Christians. It’s enough to make your head spin … and that reminds wait for the Catholic Church’s spin on this … no doubt it was all the gays’ faults!
Maybe they’ll try to blame it on Galileo.
Nope …
“Let me tell you of course before you go too far, most of the offences are being committed by homosexuals.”
Sorry JohnC, but your logic is at fault here. Let me give you an example.
Let’s suppose you take your car to a mechanic (for whatever reason). When you come back, you find it horribly screwed up. So you might want to complain to the workshop owner, who replies that the mechanic was, in fact, not a true mechanic, as you can clearly see by contrasting what he did to what a true mechanic does: True mechanics don’t screw up things, so he’s not a true mechanic.
Will this help you? No. Will this help anyone? No. Is it an incredibly lame excuse? Oh yes.
To anyone, the question why a ‘false’ mechanic is allowed to work there comes up immediately; so, why can a ‘false’ christian get to such a high-ranking position in church?
What you’re doing here is plain and simple denial. And it’s quite ridiculous, because it’s so easy to see through or to counter. In any real-life situation, you’d be horribly offended to even think about the reasoning you’re so proudly proclaiming here, because it’s just silly.
And there’s the fact that Catholics will claim (with exactly as much justification) that John C is not a True Christian. Why should we take John’s word for it, and not the Pope’s?
I can’t wait to hear what that dickhead Donohue’s spin on it is.
I’m surprised they aren’t pushing to abolish child abuse laws. They push for blasphemy (anti-free speech) laws, and force their beliefs into law all the time.
The Catholic Church … so screwed up it thinks that it’s being persecuted if it’s denied it’s “rights” rights to discriminate and persecute others.
Q: How do you get a nun pregnant?
A: Dress her up like an altar boy.
lol
I am wondering if there is a statistical relation between phedophilea and beeing religious.
I’m of the opinion that they probably don’t start out as paedophiles. My take on it is this:
A lot of the Catholic priesthood are gay (stay with me, I’m not trying to be homophobic and I can back this up) because young, gay catholic men are susceptible to being in denial. They’re far more likely to take Holy Orders because they’re far more likely to think that the idea of chastity isn’t that big an idea – after all, they’ll have never had any difficulty at all controlling their sexual urges around women, right? So no worry! What other kind of sex is there (at least as far as they’re concerned)? So time passes, they get older and a severe case of blue-balls sets in. They’ve never had sex and they’re not even allowed to shake hands with Mister Happy to take the pressure off. And when they finally become fully-fledged priests, what happens? They’re put in a position of power and responsibility over a bunch of people, most notable over a bunch of kids. What happens? There you go. I think that’s why so many more boys are abused than girls.
If they’re not even allowed to bash the bishop they must end up with testicles like space hoppers …
Well, they’re not “allowed” to bugger the choirboys either, but you know how that goes.
Totally agree with you there. Yeah, think about it. If you’re a young tortured homosexual catholic male what would be the best get out of jail card, BECOME A PRIEST! The catholic leadership and all of christianity for that matter feel homosexuality is a sin. So becoming a priest in a tortured young man’s mind would equate to atoning for that sin. I’ve always felt the reason the catholic church is against gay marriage in the states is because they know that more then 80% of their priests and bishopric in the states are homosexual. If they supported gay marriage you could make the argument that it will deplete they’re recruiting for priest. As conniving as the catholic church is I’m of the opinion they know that and shaming gay men of their sexuality will guarantee their priest and bishopric ranks will always be accounted for. Now that’s evil!
Well, I think the fact it’s more boys than girls may be because there are more boys around priests than girls…
But it makes sense, really, that young tortured boys would turn into half-crazed old men… which is sad beyond belief.
“…as part of a culture of secrecy…”
I really do not understand why everybody keeps on repeating this plain lie. It was not a “culture of secrecy” but a clear cut policy, there were direct orders from the Vatican to shut up and cover the rapes.
See this:
http://bit.ly/7IIj1O
and also:
http://bit.ly/8S2qAF
Where Lord Ratzi writes, (reminding everybody): “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.”
Well pointed out. And what are the consequences of disobeying such orders? Much worse, theoretically, than being complicit in covering up sexual abuse. Rot in hell or rot in jail?
Umm, maybe I’m missing something here?
From your first link: “The document dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest’s conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.”
I, umm, I actually think that’s kind of reasonable? You’re right that it doesn’t go out and flat out warn everyone in the world to stay away from their priest, but it a) flat out obligates anyone who was the subject of solicitation for sex from a priest to report it to his superiors, which seems to indicate a concern for rooting out problems in the clergy, and b) leaves the victim or anyone not professionally involved with the inquest completely free to talk about it to whomever they’d like. Requiring discretion from those investigating the crime seems very reasonable, especially in case false accusations are leveled, as does requiring silence from the clergy member under investigation so that they can’t raise support for themselves among people loyal to them.
This seems pretty straightforward to me. The wikipedia article you linked to actually says specifically that the allegations that this policy is used to cover up sex scandals is linked to a lawyerly shenanigan:
“When evaluating Fr. Doyle’s study, the reader is cautioned to recognize that Fr. Doyle triggered the entire cycle of stories about the alleged cover-up document by providing Crimen sollicitationis and an imperfect English translation to plaintiffs’ lawyers.”
From the wikipedia article on the “pontifical secret,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_secret
“”These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.”
Especially bear in mind that last bit: the confidentiality we’re talking about is confined exclusively to ecclesiastical action, and the pursuit of independent, governmental legal action by the plaintiff is actually *required*. There is no penalty imposed for anyone not directly involved in an investigation or tribunal in an official capacity.
From what I’ve read, this all seems to indicate a pretty responsible attitude toward abuse of power by the clergy. Maybe somebody better versed in Catholicism can correct me if I’m wrong? I’d love to get the opinion of an ex-priest if there are any around.
Excellent picture of the Rat, BTW.
Awesome picture of creepy ol’ man with a Santa hat….
Yeah it is ;)
ummm, yeah… That’s the Pope.
Well, my goodness! If I were to have hovered my mouse over the picture I would have noticed that it has alt text “The Pope Looking Evil”.
Still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a creepy ‘ol man with a Santa Hat, though. :D
Merry ChriFSMas!
He stole christmas!!
So, since there’s already been the notorious “notruescotsman” debate, lemme ask a related question.
While it might be poor form to say ad hoc: “well, that doesn’t conform to the (hastily redefined) definition of X, so therefore it can’t be X,” I am wondering if this can’t be taken too far.
I mean, at some point definitions do have to be narrowed. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with refining a definition, only with refining it in order to make an assertion true in the face of a counter example.
I think the definitions that we’re using basically just need to be clarified. I think this is essentially a semantic dispute. A theist will occasionally use an entirely different set of criteria for evaluating what qualifies someone as a Christian than will most of the atheists I’ve interacted with on this site; this difference is not usually ad hoc, but is often a real disagreement as to the definition. The most common definition mix-up I’ve seen is the tendency by atheists (and some theists) to locate Christianity in an outward profession: if you say you’re a Christian, you’re a Christian. This is an oversimplification; people often a) lie, or b) give little or no thought to what they actually believe.
Sure, some people will locate Christianity in a profession of faith, but this is a broad enough definition that it isn’t particularly useful, and there is nothing that forces anyone to accept this definition. Also, there isn’t any reason why a revised definition can’t be substituted for a definition that is incorrectly assumed by an opponent: if you build an argument based on a definition I do not actually hold to be true, that’s just as fallacious as revising a definition in an ad hoc way in order to preserve some sweeping assertion (see: straw man).
I don’t think a profession of Christianity “makes you” a Christian in the same way that registering Republican “makes you” a Republican. If I say I’m a bachelor, but I’m married, I’m not a *true* bachelor. That isn’t fallacious, it is a correct use of a definition. If I disagree with your definition of X, I can certainly contest that definition if I do so responsibly.
And to be fair, I’m not really assuming all the people complaining about notruescotsman think that the best criteria for Christianity is self-proclamation thereof. I’m mostly using this as a convenient example. There are absolutely other requirements, many of which are far more important in a definition.
I’ll easily grant that you can fallaciously revise the definition of Christianity, but it is important to remember that it can be a legitimate and even necessary revision, too. We do kind of have to come to some agreement about our definitions.
Yup.
If I heard the same thing when someone claimed that a good deed was performed by a Christian then I would agree with you … but that’s not what we hear is it?
It is unreasonable to expect a side of an argument to voluntarily weaken itself. That’s what opponents are for.
It is also unreasonable to expect someone not to point it out …
I agree. I’m only saying that that duty traditionally falls to the other side of an argument, not its proponents.
Does duty not also say that it’s best not to put foward an argument that says kick me here in big red letters?
Probably. Although, occasionally, ITSATRAP!!!
erm … anyway roast chicken with roast parsnips, carrots, potatoes and rosemary beckons …
I largely agree with this, though I think you’re drifting into category error territory with the example of married vs. bachelor, since that is more of a binary attribute where you can tangibly be one thing or the other. Still, I get what you are saying. However, with the particular instance sparked here by John C (again, apparently), his definition of christianity has become so vague and nebulous as to be as meaningless as the broader one used to say that anyone identifying as christian is christian. If you are only christian by not being a hypocrite and bearing the fruits christ demands of you, then there are no christians in existence. There will also be a lot of confused self-identified christians wondering why their membership to the club was revoked by one man writing his own dictionary.
hehe, you don’t need to convince me that I don’t really agree with JC’s definition of Christianity. We haven’t ever had it out, but we wouldn’t agree on it.
Understood. He was right on one thing, I’m new. :)
So how would one go about defining a Spirit or the spirit led life? It defies any attempts at labeling, is impossible. Any attempt at labeling would invariably only detract from the substance of its experience, is self-defeating, limiting.
I have known this Way of living now for a quarter century and still have yet to define it satisfactorily in words (which is painfully obvious by my many feeble attempts here, lol). Christ said ” The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Jn 3:3.
Abraham is a shadow and type of us, (spirit led believers, not the religious) in that God “called him out” of his fathers house (country, paternal identity, etc) saying “leave your fathers house, go to a NEW land that I will show you” and so Abraham harkened to the Voice even though scripture says he didnt quite know where he was going, where the Voice was leading him. Romans 8:14 says it this way “as many as are led by the Spirit, these are the (true) sons of God”.
The Spirit can never be controlled, only followed, obeyed. I have found the result of my obediance to the Spirit of God is always greater measures of freedom and further revelation (heavenly/spiritual truth & light breaking through in my inward man).
You can’t define “it” because Christ is not definable, for “the world knew Him not”, couldn’t put a label on Him (lunatic, son of God, etc) because He wasn’t from here (was not earthly in nature but heavenly meaning spiritual) was from “above” which is not a place but a superior (higher) realm than the lower, physical realm of appearances, of the sense life.
See…I told you, it cant be done! lol…All the best.
Christ said ” The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Jn 3:3.
Of course, he was wrong about that. We do know where the wind comes from and where it goes. Science marches on.
You just p4n3d Jesus!
LOL. Meteorological breath weapon, Jesus rolls to save…
Phew…
Takes half damage.
If you want in interesting look at meteorological science in the Bible, check out what Ecclesiastes says about the Coriolis effect! (Forget where, but the winds travel in circuits. As long as we’re taking things waaaaay literally, its kinda cool.)
@ John C
I think an accurate definition of Christianity could be established, or at least attempted. With that said, I don’t know that *I* could do it. I was thinking about it earlier, and the only things I can come up with are extremely provisional.
A definition of God is certainly possible, I think, as long as it is primarily inclusive rather than exclusive. The traditional “Omni” God is quite workable, and we could even include a provision for divine mystery (which I figure you’d like) or at the very least a provision that any human definition of God can extend only so far, but that that doesn’t necessarily limit the presumed powers/characteristics of God. A bit messy, but I do think its workable.
Defining human/religious/spiritual/mystical experience of God is incredibly sticky, and I’m inclined to go with your non-definition for simplicity’s sake.
Edit: What am I thinking? I’m pretty sure Jesus doesn’t even have to roll in order to save. Pretty sure that’s a class feature.
I feel like such a nerd. I’m gonna go try to write a paper on Hume now.
Indeed. Monks.
JonJon…thanks I appreciate your efforts and position and would only add the following: The only possible way of “defining/expressing/proving” the truth of God in this life, ie His existance/nature/substance/Life is physically, visibly, or manifesting His life from within to without expressing His nature in the very same way that Christ did when His disciples said “when are you gonna show us (reveal) the Father” and JC responded “when you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father”. Pretty bold statement eh? Do we dare make the same…YES since Christ was not only the Payment Son but also the Pattern Son and IS (should be) our very life (Col 3.4…Christ who IS our life) as well.
If His life is now mine, the life within me that I now LIVE FROM (having abdicated my own, inherited, adamic Lie..fe thereby taking Him up on the true Offer, ie His life, which is of an eternal kind and qualiity in the here and now in exchange for my own which manifests the present reality of the kingdom, Luke 17.21 & 33) then I can not but express and project that (visibly unique) kind and quality of life in a realm mostly devoid of that (spiritual) life form and so now I think differently, speak differently, act and live differently which appears to outsiders/unbelievers as quite foolish, childish). This is the meaning of that elusive and sometimes scary word…holiness meaning “set apart” or as Custador unknowingly called it “unique”.
We see in Mark 7.24 JC “entering a house (which we are, a type of us) that He might be hid” and then it reads “but it was not possible that He be hidden”. The life of God in us stands out, is “unique” in this world because it is truly “other worldly” or “from above” as JC said and so can not be hid although at times we feel like hiding ourselves because (thankfully) we dont fit in!
It is so imperative that we ‘see” Him for when we see Him (accurately, truly) then we shall be like Him (1 Jn 3.2). This is not referring to a “someday” but is a here and now proposition. Consider 2 Cor 3.18 saying “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the SAME IMAGE from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord”. That SAME IMAGE? hmm. Then I have to ask you “have you seen Christ?” Do you have the revelation of Christ (within?).
I’m getting sidetracked a bit now…but you get the point that God can not be, never intended His “proofing” or defining to be in textual form, ie the Bible is not “proof” of God’s existance, etc. It can only be LIVED FROM, that’s why Custador (and the world) naturally rejects/despises what he has seen masquerading as Christ in organized religion as “proof” of God. The expression of His (unique) life from within to without is the only way the world is going to know, hence the “mystery of the ages” as Paul revelated is Christ IN you (Col 1.27). Then says “that we might present every man perfected (restored to his original God-like image and likness) in Christ (Col 1.28).
This is why I say it’s not so much about the external print, ie bible but the internal blueprint, His nature (that SAME IMAGE which is love (being formed within us (Gal 4.19).
**DANIEL, I’ll back off now on the # of comments as a courtesy, I’m aware that I’m becoming a little too “active” again…sorry.
All the best.
Can the witnessing and evangelizing be removed please. Even though John C attempts to apologize at the end its for the number of comments and not the content.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible for John C to restrain himself from evangelizing.
John, one of the fruits of the spirit is self-control. Perhaps you’re not filled with the spirit? ;)
I hate deleting comments, so please don’t make me.
I was merely responding to Jon Jon’s comments about how we define (if possible) “God” was not purposely trying to “evangelize” anyone despite what you may think…honestly.
Oooooh!!!
that was at LMNOP. I’m tired.
FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!
I need to remember to refrain from subscribing to these comment threads. My inbox is being flooded!
Yeah, when I started getting over a couple hundred emails a day from comments (~8 months ago), I really had no choice but turn off comment notifications. It was taking me hours to go through them.
Yet, people still send their kids to retreats and Sunday schools. Churches are like a candy store to pedophiles. Don’t even get me started on the evangelical preachers and their kinky sex and meth.
Pingback: Cowell one step from Jesus, Irish Priests just prove religion is a good place to hide. « The Sorcerer
Working with the English to Destroy the Irish