Shadow Minister,

Having reviewed this thread, thus far, what are your thoughts?

Oliver... you are far too generous.

Those who 'believe' believe they serve their god, who sits above us all, and so have no need to comply with 'our' human made laws.

It's simple. Belief absolves any notions of responsibility to others... the complete opposite of what they claim it drives them to do.

Of course, it never occurs to these goons that they cannot possibly know what their god wants them to do, otherwise they would be as wise as their god, and that cannot ever be allowed to happen or it would diminish the 'special status' of their god, rendering it to 'human' sized status.

They certainly 'think' they know what it wants, they certainly tell each other various fibs to back it all up, but they simply cannot 'know'.

So, playing games with meetings about obeying the law, the human made law, is just a part of pretending they are 'special'.... even Popes die but you'd think if they were so close to their god they'd be spared such degrading situations as death....made into angels maybe?

It is simply astounding that so many people feel so insecure that they need to grasp onto lies to be able to exist, and then feel the need to make those lies even more complex by mixing in rituals, myths and miracles.

The Blue Cross,

What is also curious and I have touched on it several times over many threads: The early Jesus sects leading up to c. 250 would not have a bar of the teaching of the institutionalised church which grew between c.250 CE - 325 CE. Reading Edward Gibbon and Robin Lane Fox, suggests that the very early Christians had bishopics close to the laity and that power distance as avoided.

Moreover, the early bishops were Jewish not Latin and, the authority of bishops does not come Peter, rather the establised Jewish rabbanical traditional. Confession, historically, is related to martyrdom. Sinners would be absolved by the righteous, who were about to meet the God. I have never heard the clergy point this history out.

The persecutions of the Jews actuall helped Christianty by pushing them into the country side spreading the Faith. When the religion was small there letters sent between the local communities. As the faith grew administraive leaderships were put in place. Still there was no social mobility attached to being a Christian.

Constantine (325 CE)acted to institutional creeds and select preferred Gospels forming basis from Canon law could evolve, commencing with "Holy" Roman Empire up untii today's issues, wherein the modern church is nothing like that started by the applauded mendicant and humanist, Jesus Christ.

I have only rearely been successful on drawing direct discussion on matters like these, which is odd, because, my citations are historical. One the other hand, a "made-up" church would have no justification for Canon Law in the first place, even if Jesus was a god. Their Jesus might not wish to know them.

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

As with most threads, this seems to have drifted into looking at some of the more obscure points.

A recommendation I got from someone is that Catholic priests should have the following warning tattooed on their necks "not safe for children under 13"

Oliver.. I have noted your historical bent. I find that informative, and handy to know. I would have thought the tale of the tables-in-the-Temple might have been capable of being extrapolated to include the power structure of the modern churches, but that would be too easy for these 'believers', maybe?

I am signed up to a US Xtian 'wineskins' newsletter. Last week we exchanged views on his latest guff, the forthcoming return of Jesus and 'all the signs' pointing that way 'for the last 15 years'.

I asked what the 'signs' were, and when/how he realised this.

The GFC was not listed as a 'sign', unusual because Xtians are right into greed and 'wealth creation' as a sign that their god loves them (the talents tale).

He told me the signs were the problems within the church... and the drop off in attendance.

I ventured deeper, suggesting that 'God' might in fact be readying to reward those who saw the falsehood of the established churches and left them by the side of the road to follow a more enlightened path on their own.

I suggested that the rise of 'atheism', as described by 'the fearful ones' anyway, was a sign too, and that it was these people, who saw through the sham of Popes, Bishops, Priests, Deacons,Vergers, Vicars, and particularly the charlatans who self-anoint as 'pastor', who might just make it through the needle's eye hole, and the rest who might be about to burn in their own Hell, with their excessive wealth.

Funny... I've not heard back from him for a while.

'A Sign'?

Frankly, it seems that all organisations that grow too big end up corrupt, and I see no reason why this man-designed nonsense should think it is any different to any other man-designed power structure.

After all, even DOCS must do some good somewhere, or the numerous education departments, but that does not mean either is a tower of strength and virtue does it?

I think what Shadow Minister meant to write was for the tattoo to read 'to be taken with a pinch of salt'.

Pericles,

I will read the intervening posts in due course but I note that on Thursday, 22 April 2010 9:16:44 AM you seem to be critical of George as follows:

">>nothing would help the Church more than if [the Pope were to be jailed], judging from my own experience with the public (not only Catholic) reaction to the jailing of bishops by Communist authorities on blown up charges.<<

What if - and this was the original direction of this thread - it is proven in court that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime?

Are you suggesting this would be beneficial to the Church?

I certainly get the allusion to martyrdom inherent in your reference to "Communist authorities".

But would the public, "not only Catholic", actually express support for a human being who would do such a thing?"

Many in here have suggested that the Pope is guilty of aiding and abetting a crime in spite of the media rhetoric they rely upon only hinting that we are getting closer to discover that. That has been the flavour of the thread not your hypothetical. Even the title suggests something stronger than a hypothetical. George has rightly pointed out that there is no evidence suggesting that the Pope is guilty so he would be a martyr if he is wrongly prosecuted for political reasons.

You then criticise his attempt to respond to that criticism, for "extraneous verbiage, impenetrable subordinate clauses and outright obfuscation". How would you communicate if someone levelled something so inaccurate at you? He obviously isn't attempting to derail but instead is communicating in the imperfect manner that anyone unfairly facing such criticism could be expected to. He is also trying to avoid misrepresenting himself as a legal expert which complicates thing further. I'll read on to see whether he gets it together or you win the game.