12 March, 2011

Anti-Catholic students protest at university chapel in Madrid :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

First it was the Catholic chapel at the university in Barcelona; now it's happening in Madrid. The only 'good news' in this latest incident is that the event was captured on video so that people will not be able to claim that Catholics are distorting or exaggerating these events. 
Anti-Catholic students protest at university chapel in Madrid

Anti-Catholic students protest at university chapel in Madrid :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

52 comments:

  1. Well, this is interesting. It seems that the same citizen attitude that dumped Mubarak on his butt and is now fighting that mass murderer, Gadhaffi, is loose on the streets of Europe!

    Give it a real hard think, Tim -- would this be happening if the Church had not attacked first? Spokesmen for the Vatican claim the "right" to preach hatred against people simply because of who they are, and then they want to remain unscathed by retaliation? I don't think so.

    This will all settle down when the Church backs off its attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lady Janus: "Church backs off its attacks"??? First off, this is a Jesuit university ergo one of the most liberal on the European continent. The Pope might more likely feel attacked there than would the student protesters.

    Further, interrupting a mass, professing one's opposition to the Church by making out half naked on the altar?? Sorry, but I cannot bring myself to countenance anything like that. I see it as a profound and extremely sacrilegious act intended to profane and demean.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whoa, Tim. I read the article. It didn't say anything about anyone's "making out" on the altar. It says that several women stood on the altar and took their shirts off...a couple of them declared that they were lesbians... but nobody had sex. And where did it say that a mass was interrupted?

    Now, I'm in favor of everyone's allowing everyone else the freedom of their own worship -- or not -- and of leaving others' property whole and undamaged. However, I was not kidding about the attacks. The Vatican spokesmen have long and loudly and publicly proclaimed their negativity, lobbying for governments to enact laws depriving homosexuals of the courtesy to be left alone without interference. When you see articles like this, it makes your blood boil, yes? So how do you think gay men and women around the world feel? They have been targets for too long, they've had their fill, and they're not gonna take it anymore. "Profane and demean?" This is simply retaliation for the Vatican's profaning and demeaning of them as human beings.

    "The archdiocese called it “shameful that in a democratic society where there is supposed to be respect for others..."

    I don't know how democracy got into the recipe, but if the archdiocese wants respect, it must also be willing to give it, not simply collect it as if it were dues owed by even those who are not members.

    Was this bad behavior? Yes it was. Do I understand what sparked it? Yes I do.

    How about you?

    By the way...where's the film?

    ReplyDelete
  4. They wouldn't want to count on me sitting on my hands if they tried to pull a stunt like this in our church during Sunday Mass. I'd do as the Lord did with the money changers.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  5. Paul writes: "I'd do as the Lord did with the money changers."

    So...you would overturn the furniture in your own Church? Seems to me that if anyone has made your Church into a den of theives, it would be the regulars and not the protesters.

    Read about it here...

    "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." – Matthew 21:12-13

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know the story Anonymous but thanks for posting. I was thinking more along the lines of this verse from John.2:15
    So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts,

    Jesus wouldn't stand for people turning his house into a den of thieves, I doubt he'd stand by while some deviants decided to desecrate the church either. I doubt I'd be flipping tables though I might if some bare ass psychotic was standing on it hurling abuses.

    Cheers
    Paul

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul :
    Which of the two distinguishing features would be the one most likely to trigger the impulse to start flipping ? The " bare asses" or the "psychosis?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Paul,

    Just so we are all clear - are you advocating physical violence against protesters?

    Are there any limits to the violence you are advocating?

    Do you often take scripture out of context to justify the promotion of violence with whom you disagree?

    Would the protesters be justified in defending themselves if you began whipping them with a corded rope?

    I think your call to violent action deserves a response.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I stated, no need to flip over good furniture unless some loud mouthed psychotic was standing on it. No need to damage innocent furniture. The fact someone feels the need to put their lady parts on display isn't a factor, its just indicative of their depravity.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous

    First off could you please take some kinda name for clarity? If you want to have a dialogue it would be nice to know which anonymous said what.

    If the protesters would like to stand outside the church on the sidewalk and spew their venom I'd ignore them. If they decided to barge in and disrupt mass and desecrate the place right before my eyes as these clowns did in Spain I won't sit on my hands.
    As for how far would I go? I certainly wouldn't do anything a security guard or a bouncer wouldn't do in a similar situation elsewhere to restore order.
    As for my taking scripture out of context, by all means, please put John 2:15 in context for me. Jesus made a whip with the cord, not a skipping rope.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  11. So Paul your saying Jesus went about whipping people who were schizophrenic and that He is telling you to do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Behold - I present to you Paul...an ardent foot soldier of the new Catholic Taliban!

    He abrogates the prerogative of God himself to justify physical violence against those with whom he disagrees. Hardly surprising really, Paul. After all, you also advocate political violence against women who want autonomy over their own bodies. You also demand that "the gays" retreat into the closet - another form of social violence.

    I have some questions for you Tim: Do you think John 2:15 justifies physical violence against protesters? Do you approve of people like Paul using your website to publicly advocate for violence? Will you be providing the police with Paul's IP address given his incitement to violence? Or may the scriptures be used to rationalize a call to violence?

    Just curious...

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul
    Are you telling us that Jesus whipped people suffering from schizophrenia and that he has told you to do the same ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Larry Anonymous sedated Green15 March, 2011

    I happen to have a some very good freinds who live with a psychotic disorder , would you mind apologizing to these people along with all the other marginilized good people you regularly degrade , devalue and condem ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larry: How did your name get changed with 'Anonymous' and 'sedated' added between your first and family names? I am grateful for the fact that you are neither anonymous nor sedated. Perhaps something weird is happening with Blogger?

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  16. Larry Anoymous sedated Green15 March, 2011

    You grateful why Tim ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Larry Green15 March, 2011

    Given the subject and context of this dialogue I am perplexed as to how are moved to interject something as trivial as you just have.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Larry: Why?

    1. You put your name behind what you say and don't hide behind some anonymous handle

    2. Because you speak you mind clearly and with conviction. I know we do not always agree, but that's no different than with many other regular posters here. You do not resort to name calling or insults but forcefully express your opinion.

    You will always be welcome here.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  19. Martin: No I do not think that the passage from John justifies violence on any believers part.

    As to the question about Paul expressing himself, I do not censor or edit the comments from others here. So long as there are no personal insults or attacks, then I'll post the comment.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  20. Larry Green15 March, 2011

    I am not surprised at all that of all those who regularly post on this site and who claim to be Christians , Martin is the only person who sounds to me like Christ.Listen to him and let his words pentrate without any preconcieved notions of what his motives or sources are.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Martin: How does one obtain an IP address? I had a problem with a person a while back and the Police asked me if I could supply his IP address. When I said that I had no idea how to find such a thing, they were able to obtain it somehow from the Detachment office and determined that the offender was writing from California.

    If you can tell me how to obtain such information, I'd be most appreciative.

    Thanks.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  22. Larry: I've known Martin for more than 25 years as we were in University together in London. He is indeed as good a person as you perceive him to be and I do not ever question his motives.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  23. Larry Green15 March, 2011

    I am very deliberate in my choices to develop relationships and bonds with people who marginalized and for many different reasons cast aside and unless one is a very strong person ( I am not ) it is not easy to be seen with some of them in places where they are looked down upon the most.
    Very sad for me to say that this blog in particular has proven to be one of those places. But I do continue to work hard at rising above my own prejudices and fears and to stand up with them and not settle for mediocrity and the status quo. I am learning slowly and gradually that I can no longer sit passively while my neighbors , my brothers , my sisters, continue to be marginalized. I have come to know how difficult it is to reject lies and illusion because the prejudice and the fear in myself and in others from which they spring , violently resist challenge , change and truth. You haven’t heard me yet but I have no doubt whatsoever that indeed you will.
    Paul, Again
    Would you mind apologizing to my freinds who live with a pschotic disorder along with all the other marginilized good people you regularly degrade , devalue and condem ?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tim
    If you consider me a problem you need not take any action to stop me. Just say the word and I'll not post another word. I like your articles and the hot button topics but I have no desire to cause you any grief.

    I'm simply stating I'd defend the church from anyone that would choose to physically assault a congregation, whatever banner they choose to fly under. What these protestors did isn't peaceful. They shoved the Chaplin to the floor and desecrated the church. It was an assault, not a peaceful protest.
    In light of the growing violence against Christians in recent years and the elevated hatred being expressed, I don't think it would be prudent to be so passive with potentially dangerous individuals. I don't think being a Christian entails constantly being a door mat for abusive people. These so called protestors rely on that fact. Notice they didn't stage their protest at a mosque? I think Christ overturning tables and chasing people out of the temple supports the idea that a line can be crossed. I think these people crossed it turning Gods House into a den of obscenity.

    Martin continues to make exquisite straw men but he hasn't a clue about me, what I think or what I'd do. I don't think I'll bother responding to him because it only makes him more vitriolic. He's got me somewhere between Hitler and Stalin but I recon his work isn't done yet. He's looking for more straw.

    Larry tried so hard to steer this toward an issue of discrimination against the mentally ill but it isn't. Sorry Larry but it was a good try.
    They both tried their hardest to make me the problem all the while turning a blind eye to the nazi like behaviour of these violent protestors. Essentially they're defending the groups criminal behaviour.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  25. Paul: If you were a problem... I would have told you so. As with everyone else who posts here, you are most welcome. As I've said to others, I say to you, so long as comments are civil and intelligent, they will be posted. I've never blocked anything from you. As I said, if there's a problem... I'll let you know.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Paul,

    Anyone with the reading comprehension of a Grade 5 student can see that you advocated physical violence against protesters, and you used John 2:15 as your justification. No straw man necessary on my part pal. Read your own words:

    “I know the story Anonymous but thanks for posting. I was thinking more along the lines of this verse from John.2:15
    So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts,

    Jesus wouldn't stand for people turning his house into a den of thieves, I doubt he'd stand by while some deviants decided to desecrate the church either. I doubt I'd be flipping tables though I might if some bare ass psychotic was standing on it hurling abuses.”

    Do you now deny your own words? Will you retract them? Will you apologize for your outlandish comments?

    Hi Tim,

    I am only a guest here, but I would suggest that the limit of free speech should be drawn around the incitement and encouragement of physical violence. Moreover, my use of the term “Catholic Taliban” is not mere name calling – it is an economical way to point out that all religious fundamentalism (whether it is Catholic, Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Hindu…) has a tendency to use violence and coercion to enforce its theology. Paul’s incitement to violence illustrates the point well. Paul may be different in degree to the Taliban – but the impulse and motivation to forcefully control others is the same.

    Lastly, I think Paul’s reference to Christ’s cleansing of the temple is very apt – however, as usual Paul has got it exactly backwards.

    If one sees the Church as corrupted by temporal power and wealth, and misusing its influence in the public square to thwart the legitimate aspirations of vulnerable groups (such as women and LGBT folks) then what the protesters did was perhaps an expression of Jesus’ anger towards the “moneychangers in the temple”. It was the temple denizens who desecrated the temple – not the protesting Jesus.

    I am not condoning violence, and the article in question offers no evidence that there was violence (Paul’s assertion that the priest was pushed to the ground is a fabrication), but I can certainly understand the impulse to take the protest to the source of corruption.

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  27. Martin: I appreciate your points. Thank you for them.

    I didn't take Paul's comment too literally when he referenced John 2:15. So I don't see him as 'encouraging' violence. Had I been there, I would have confronted the protesters, but not with violence, with words. I was raised to believe that it is ALWAYS inappropriate to demonstrate in the manner that was described in the article. Maybe it's just the 'Canadian' in me. I have no problem with public protest. I have no problem with any free speech so long as it is not violent. Had the protest taken place in Canada, they protesters would have been arrested as the Criminal Code states that it's a crime to disrupt any religious service. Thus there would be no need for violence. The appropriate civil authorities would deal with the 'offenders'. Just as I believe that the Church needs to be held responsible under the law for its offenses (including those of its employees like priests), so too should the law be the one to deal with situations as occurred in Madrid.

    Tim

    P.S. I am SICK & TIRED of snow. Would you please be kind enough to send some warm weather this way from the south. Even a couple of days above zero would go a long way to improving my spirits. This is the 2nd year in the past 15 that I didn't go south for a winter break and I am now regretting that I didn't at least jump in my car and drive far enough south to escape the scourge of all this snow! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Tim,

    You are correct about the laws in Canada. I am not suggesting for a moment that the protesters should NOT be held legally accountable for their actions. I simply note that I can understand WHY protesters would target the church. IMHO if Jesus were to return to earth today, I suspect he would re-enact the cleansing of the temple...likely starting in Rome and carrying on to every mega-church in the USA (many of whom are funnelling political contributions into Republican PACs).

    As to whether or not Paul was serious in his incitement to violence, I will let him speak for himself. He is certainly free to retract his statements and to apologize. I can only judge him by what he writes.

    Regardless of Paul's "seriousness" I think we all need to be careful about creating an atmosphere which normalizes and legitimzes violence. I get very concerned when I see scripture used as a justification for violence. Radical Islam does it - and so apparently do many fundamentalist or "orthodox" Christians.

    Cheers...Martin

    PS: Was just in Nassau - but forgot to bring back the warm Carribean breezes and the azure cloudless skies. Maybe next year.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Martin: You wrote: "PS: Was just in Nassau - but forgot to bring back the warm Caribbean breezes and the azure cloudless skies. Maybe next year."

    To which I immediately feel envy!!! Lucky fellow. I've been to Nassau once to visit some nuns from Pembroke who have a convent there. Only spent a couple of days (it was a side trip from a vacation in Florida) but it was wonderful!! Your description inspires me to start my little 'winter vacation savings fund' again. (The past two years have been dedicated to paying off debt from renovating my cottage. That will finally be done in another three months so I can start to save in earnest for a trip next winter.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tim gets it. My table turning line was me giving a smart ass response to Larry's? smart ass attempt to belittle my understanding of the scriptures in play. I'll retract it for those not able to make the connection and I apologize if I offended anyone planning to break laws by shove my priest aside, jump up on the altar, show their naughty parts and release a deluge of hate speech on an unsuspecting audience of men women and children.

    I stand corrected. The chaplain remained on his feet when he was assaulted by the protestors.
    "The group of students stormed into the chapel with a megaphone and pushed the chaplain out of the way"
    So yes, the assault didn't result in a fall. My bad.

    Regarding the Lord and his whip, if Jesus was justified in chasing money changers out of the temple, I think he'd have done no less with those that would desecrate his church with violence, sacrilege and obscenity. I think the verse says being a Christian doesn't require one be a doormat when your faith is attacked. I may be wrong but thats how I read it.

    If Fred Phelps and his gang showed up at a gay man's funeral and tried to pull the same kind of stunt, I'd not be disturbed if someone decided to show them to the back door or bar their entrance to the assembly just the same.

    Call me old school but this kind of behaviour is reprehensible and you've lost your peaceful protestor status when you launch such assaults.

    "I think we all need to be careful about creating an atmosphere which normalizes and legitimzes violence." I find this statement ironic coming from someone lobbing terms around like "Taliban Catholics".

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Paul,

    For your information, you are not Jesus Christ, therefore, you ought to be very careful about taking on the mantle of divine retribution. At best it smacks of arrogance...at worst it looks like delusion.

    I find it ironic that you encourage violence against "Fred Phelps and his gang", while simultaneously whinging on that you have been unfairly characterized as an advocate of violence (i.e. a member of the new "Catholic Taliban").

    Do you ever read the stuff you write before pressing the "Post Comment" button?

    I suppose this is as close to a real apology that we will ever see from you.

    Seriously Paul, nothing I can write here condemns you more eloquently than your own words.

    Carry on buddy.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  32. Tim did you receive a comment from me that you did'nt post ?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Larry: No. When did you send it?

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  34. Larry Green16 March, 2011

    Will any of the "Christians" ever have the courage and humility to at least sometime accept and admit that at the very least sometimes they are wrong and the truth has been beautifully demonstrated by a " non-Christian. "

    Tim : you said, "so long as comments are civil and intelligent, they will be posted. As I said, if there's a problem... I'll let you know." Is there some sort of behind the scenes group you need to confide in before making decisions about who’s in and who’s out ? From the view over here, Paul clearly fails miserably on every aspect of the stipulated criteria.

    Paul : Larry is not trying to turn “ this “ into anything. Martin has quite properly addressed the fact that you use this website to advocate for violence against protesters. I have addressed the discriminatory elements of your comments. You ‘re comments were offensive and harmful to people with mental illness , their loved ones, their friends and to the common good. The implicit assumption is that the activity in question can be explained by the “ typical “ behaviour of people who are predisposed to a psychosis . Not a chance it could be a tactic employed by some very normal , courageous, and good people who can no longer “ sit on their hands “ to shock someone into listening. It worked. Not Martin nor I is “ trying to make you the problem” , the point is that you are already very much a part of “the problem.”
    Paul, Again
    Would you mind apologizing to my friends who live with a psychotic disorder along with all the other marginalized good people you regularly degrade , devalue and condemn ?

    Not sure what you call this Tim , if not uncivil , unintelligent , name calling? Maybe if Paul would have said something like “ bare ass cancer patients” or “ bare ass bitches “ or “ bare ass retards “ , not sure what name specifically would raise concern for you, surely you could think of at least one.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Larry: Was this your missing comment?

    Paul expresses himself clearly. He is a big boy (I assume) and can speak for himself. What he wrote is not different in tone or tenor from some of the things that you have previously posted here that would be offensive to priests in specific or Catholics in general. I've had no problem with your comments in the past (nor with this one). I doubt I'll have problems with what you post in the future. I would say the same to Paul.

    I am not a censor. I am not an elementary school teacher telling everyone to behave and speak nicely to each other. Some of our conversations here generate a great deal of heat. There's nothing wrong with that.

    Hope this clears it up for you.

    Fr. Tim

    (BTW: I checked in my comments, spam and past comments boxes that blogger provides and I cannot find your earlier comment. If this is not a reposting of that comment, please feel free to send it along again.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Regarding the Lord and his whip, if Jesus was justified in chasing money changers out of the temple, I think he'd have done no less with those that would desecrate his church with violence, sacrilege and obscenity."

    Y'know, I can't help but notice that you haven't explained why the money-changers were in the temple in the first place, Paul. Or perhaps you don't know that they performed an essential service? Seems incredible to me that you, a self-identified Christian with biblical familiarity wouldn't know this, and that making such a comparison to what happened here makes no sense. But perhaps history does not play a part in the game of, "what I would have done if I had been there."

    As for this incident's being an "unprovoked" attack, that is simply not the case. This was retaliation for the attacks by the institution of the church against citizens who have committed no crime. Yet that institution feels free to deny them human rights, human feelings, simple courtesy, and the right to follow one's own path without interference from those not affected by it.

    It is unfortunate that some people got roughed up. Perhaps even people who aren't an active part of the anti-gay movement. Just passive at it. But the saying goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. The military calls it "collateral damage." At least no one was beaten to death for being Catholic, right?

    You are pleased to call it "sacrilege" when someone "spoils" an inanimate edifice belonging to a religious institution. What do you call it when that institution promulgates hatred against people? And don't try to tell me or anyone else here that the hate is on the sin rather than the sinner because we're all too smart to believe that. You cannot separate the sin from the sinner, so when you hate the one, you automatically must hate the other.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Tim this was my missing comment.
    You are not a censor and you have never had any problems with my comments in the past but you have accused me of name calling ( which I have not done ) and warned that if I continued , my voice would be shut down.
    Truth is that you have'nt cleared up anything for me , I see much more clearly than you think.
    For sure you cleared it up for your appeasing buddy Paul though.

    ReplyDelete
  38. IF your cattle need straw, call Martin. He's got plenty.

    "For your information, you are not Jesus Christ, therefore, you ought to be very careful about taking on the mantle of divine retribution. At best it smacks of arrogance...at worst it looks like delusion."

    Yes Martin, I'm the messiah. LOL!

    Keep stuffin bud!

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  39. And so we have Paul's sincere apology...whining to the end that he is more sinned against than sinner.

    I have demonstrated that he has advocated for violence twice, and lied once in this thread, and this is the thin gruel of an apology with which he favors us.

    And had I not mentioned "police", "incitement to violence", and "IP address" I doubt we would have even seen this much.

    Cheers...Martin

    Very instructive...

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  40. Martin: Personal note of thanks! Today is the 2nd day with predicted temps above zero! Seems you did bring some warmer weather back from your trip. I appreciate you sharing it with we frozen northeners.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  41. Martin

    You're threats of imprisonment have achieved their goal, silencing outrage and ensure unhindered assaults on churches by criminal hate mongers everywhere. Congratulations!

    Janus

    This statement makes no sense:

    "And don't try to tell me or anyone else here that the hate is on the sin rather than the sinner because we're all too smart to believe that. You cannot separate the sin from the sinner, so when you hate the one, you automatically must hate the other."

    Everyone is a sinner. If this statement were true, a believer would have to hate everyone including ones self. I do agree with you though that some people are hated personally simply for being gay and this is wrong. The antics of Phelps and his congregation would certainly support that idea.
    Mother Theresa believed homosexuality activity was sinful yet she was one of the first people to start a care facility in America for people dying of AIDS. Do you think she hated gay people? Really? There are many examples of hate the sin, love the sinner in the world. Your blanket statement just doesn't hold up.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  42. Larry Green17 March, 2011

    Tim : you are clearly troubled and weary at the sight of your sweat drenched little buddy !

    ReplyDelete
  43. Oh Paul...you are now the martyr. Sniff...sniff...hand me a hanky dude...while I dry my eyes. What an icredibly touching performance.

    Only problem is:

    a) you have not retracted your comments;
    b) you have not apologized;
    c) you are not silent;
    d) I fail to understand how your unfettered freedom to incite violence is a core tenant of "orthodox" Catholicsm

    Look pal, as far as I am concerned you can go on jabbering forever. It won't be me that shuts you up...I imagine decent "orthodox" Catholics will get tired of you discrediting the whole lot of them - and they will tell you to put a sock in it.

    You know, if I had written the innane things that you have, and I got called out for it...I would have done the decent thing and simply replied:

    "On second reading, I can see how my earlier comments might have been construed as an incitement to violence and be regarded as demeaning to people suffering from emotional/cognitive disorders. We all exihibit a lapse in good judgement from time to time, and unfortunately, this was one of those occasions for me. I sincerely apologize for any hurt or offence my comments might have caused. In no way did I intend my comments to endorse violence against any persons."

    Had you done that Paul, you would have earned my respect and that of a good many other folks who read this blog. Instead, you have treated us to an incrediblly boorish display of testosterone fueled, white male privilege.

    By all means Paul...speak on dude!

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Tim,

    No problem. We are enjoying the more spring-like weather here in the "big smoke" as well.

    I am jealous of the cottage. Sounds peaceful...we love friends with cottages. Nudge, nudge...wink wink.

    Have a gr8 day!

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Everyone is a sinner. If this statement were true, a believer would have to hate everyone including ones self."

    Exactly, Paul. Very profound, in fact. Well done! Apparently my previous statement made more sense to you than you knew...

    ReplyDelete
  46. So you believe Christian's hate everybody? Thats your theory?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  47. Larry Green17 March, 2011

    Tim re:Huh? You're bent on bringing "cooler temperatures " into the discussion.It's all about prejudice, hatred, violence, exclusion and exposing lies until a more important topic like The Weather comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "So you believe Christian's hate everybody?"

    Oh, don't pretend to be so bloody thick, hm? I never mentioned Christians. Deliberately misconstruing what I said is a tactic of the guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Janus

    Unlike yourself, I can be thick at times so you'll have to forgive me.
    Clearly you thought I was referring to no Christian believers in my statement below that you so highly endorsed.

    "Everyone is a sinner. If this statement were true, a believer would have to hate everyone including ones self."

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Clearly you thought I was referring to no Christian believers..."

    No I did NOT. You did not specify "Christian" believers, so I had no reason to think that's what you meant. Had you specified "Christian" believers, I would have taken you to task for your errant generalization, because I happen to know for a fact that all Christians do not hate those that are different from them for whatever reasons...be it skin color, religion, or sexual preferences.

    Stop trying to rewrite what I say and focus on what you see -- exactly what you see -- no more, no less. Don't try to "read between the lines" -- I don't write anything there.

    And I stand by what I said about your statement.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Martin: You would be more than welcome to visit, or if the place is unoccupied feel free to use it. I share this place with a few whom I trust will respect it whenever its feasible at no cost. Feel free to contact me if you're interested... especially when summer (finally) begins to assert itself. I'm only off for a few weeks and the place is not yet 'booked' for the coming summer. I have every convenience of home (assuming you have a cell phone) and although it's smaller, it's at least as comfortable as Grand Bend. A village of 600 (with a grocery store and a decent take-out place with a five km drive) but excellent swimming, peace and quiet. I think you'd enjoy it.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics