Post a Comment On: Politics in Mudville "Ohio’s victims of clerical sexual abuse left frustrated by Senate Bill 17"
12 Comments - Show Original Post
I'd like to apologize to all the readers of this blog for my over the edge, nasty posts inspired by "she whose name will not be mentioned".
I was way out of line and acting in a way I would not want to be treated.
3:43 PM EST
Perhaps 'name not mentioned' was raptured early.
9:39 PM EST
noah's ark said...
Oh, yes...it's all fun and games until God sends everyone who entertains reasonable skepticism about a 2000 year-old text straight to Hell!!
And what does Lord Voldemort have to do with any of this?!? For Pete's sake, talk sense, man!!
10:06 PM EST
Lord Voldemort can scare the dickens out of people just like the Wizard of Oz and other fanciful Great Demons of the Night.
10:30 PM EST
I think Lord Voldemort was Dick Cheney before he saw the dermatologist.
10:31 PM EST
Repentance is good for the soul, microdot --though you DO sound a little like the wife beater who says it's all her fault that you got a little nasty (your word.) "she inspired me! otherwise, the milk of human kindness runs in my veins!"
Sorry, LD, I'm still here!
Faith vs. skepticism --do we really think the infinite God admires and excuses the finite skeptic for his brilliance and his independence --when he lands on the wrong side of truth?
Notice that I have said something similar to what your Father Doyle has written --that there is quite possibly a long history of sexual sin in the cloistered, secretive priesthood --and it's only natural that the all-male enclave would attract males with abnormal appetites--and create more such males through their pedophilia/pederasty--and protect each other. That's not to indict all priests or the church's doctrine, at all --but one wonders what allegations would surface --or would have surfaced--or would even be manufactured --if priests would start to give up some of their own. Is internal blackmail guaranteeing silence --as in "Give me up and I'll tell on you!"
12:05 AM EST
Pagan Roman said...
Back in the Roman Empire, we used to f!ck all the whores we wanted, and drink all the drink we wanted. It was acceptable for adult males to have sex with teenage boys. Indeed, Julius Caesar may have had sex with Augustus Caeser himself when the latter was a child. But now, these Christian folks have turned otherwise ordinary priests into a bunch of perverts. Under a Pagan regime, none of this would be a crime.
2:21 AM EST
I still stand by my opinions, my apologies were to the readers of this blog,whose reason and intellignce I respect.
I still think you are a hysterical nut case who is only a few steps from working yourself into a frenzy of cross burning on lawns.
Keep posting, Babe, you only do yourself more damage with every word!
Anything I say would only inflame your inflated sense of self importance.
3:50 AM EST
microdot- if you or I had the time and/or the desire, we could copy/paste all of her posts and write a book.
I've thought about it. Yet, I am unsure of the best title. Could you help out with some suggestions?
7:42 AM EST
"do we really think the infinite God admires and excuses the finite skeptic for his brilliance and his independence --when he lands on the wrong side of truth?"
Should the faithful be admired and excused when faith leads them to land on the wrong side of the truth? Look at the endless varieties of religion in the world. They all can't be right. Maybe God appreciates a skeptic for being honest enough to admit "I really don't know".
What has always been puzzling to me about the Christian faith is the notion that the only unforgivable sin is skepticism. The worst mass murderer can repent before death and be saved. On the other hand, a person who cannot decide, amongst various competing religions, which is the true religion -- that is a crime worthy of eternal damnation?
And what about a person who WANTS to believe, but finds the evidence too shaky, and thus entertains doubts about the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is that worthy of God's scorn and wrath?
What about a four year-old child, raised as a Hindu, who dies of malaria? Didn't accept Jesus...does the child's soul burn in Hell? If God is a reasonable diety, I cannot believe such a result is possible.
Who shows more respect for God, the believer who claims God burns souls in Hell with scant justification, or the skeptic who argues that God would never be so unjust?
9:01 AM EST
Don- excellent comments.
9:13 AM EST
Why did you apologize, Microdot, since you are doing the same thing again?
You are absolutely right to suggest my posts should stand so you can all see how ignorant, illogical, irrelevant, obtuse, and wrong I am -right? What's to delete? I dont' name-call or use bad language nor get terribly explicit in x-rated ways --so why delete ME? (My view on homosexuality is held by millions of bible-believers --and it is not bigotry but a legit view of the Creator's design and intentions for our bodies.) So what is too dangerous about honest exchange of ideas on a forum of this nature? I couldn't possibly convince anyone, right? or give anyone info they don't already know -- or point out any fallacies in anyone else's thinking? Right?
So let the posts speak for themselves.
But of course, it is LD's blog and he is the blogmaster and can do whatever he likes --either entertain free exchange of ideas and free speech --or keep it controlled so that there is only one consistent liberal view on every issue and no info or opinion to the contrary.
Don --In John 20: 24-31 --the disciple Thomas was a doubter who had to see the nailprints in Christ's hands in order to believe that the man standing before him in the upper room was REALLY the crucified one. Doubting is not the unpardonable sin for one who says as Thomas, "Lord, help thou my unbelief!"
It's when we are conceited in our skepticism, scornful of Christ's death and resurrection--that we may be committing --not the unpardonable sin for which there is no forgiveness --but a sin, nonetheless, for which we DO need to repent in order to access the blood of Christ over all our sin.
Thomas presented himself to Christ, doubts and all. And Jesus said, "'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." ....
"These words are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.
Jeering and mocking Jesus for His claims is nothing new.
The child who dies without knowledge? Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven."
Many believe that the blood of Christ will cover those who earnestly seek God and show compassion to others, even though they lack knowledge of Christ -but we don't have an absolute assurance that this will be a frequent situation because our own righteousness is insufficient in any case --we are commanded to tell the world because Christ's Gospel is LIGHT in the darkness --direction--the Way to God --assurance --for our souls. People will be saved by their faith and repentance, and their baptism is an outward sign of an inward work of God's grace --as is their compassion and righteous deeds.
The Bible speaks of Rahab, a prostitute, as a heroine of the faith --because she believed and helped the disicples escape. David, an adulterer and worse, is our Psalmist and also a pre-Christian hero of the faith --and Job was a pre-Jewish complainer with good reason to complain--but is credited for his patience --because he did not turn against God in his afflictions.
God has not given us impossible standards for entrance to Heaven --just a Savior --for it is ONLY sinners who are saved --"For all have sinned and come short of God's glory" "There is none righteous, no not one."
So skeptics saveable? YES --but the proud and scornful? must repent or beware. The one who is saved says, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."
Rather than, "Thank you, God, that I am not as sinful(or as stupid) as this repentant, humble believer."