socks

Thank you! newlife's question brings up so many things....and you have quite a bit to chew on there too. The nature of "sin" - that word, what is it, what does it actually mean? What is sin and more importantly - why is it, that thing or that state? I come back to this idea of relationship and "fellowship", a sharing of life. I took it all back to some basic realities - that we are single unique instances of consciousness - I am me, I know I'm not you or someone else and for the most part I can start by stating that a healthy human instance of life will always know that and accept it, more and more as it grows in understanding that. While I may learn over time that I'm a "part" of other things, of everything else, that has definition - I am not a part of everything or anything else to the extent that it reduces my own awareness of self. So I could say, I'm connected through relationships and processes, each one of us with each other and with everything else we are aware of. To me this single reality is never excepted or superceded by anything else, ever, while we are alive and aware of it. If we were to lose that sense to a demonstrable degree it would demonstrate itself by our own selves becoming less aware and conscious. Our ability to measure that basic state would degrade and we'd become unaware of ourselves. We "die" which may be what that really is. Either way - self awareness is fundamental. It seems that separation is therefore inherent and unavoidable - we can never all of us individually be "one" because of our intuitive awareness of time and memory. So if we are separate, what does it mean really to reconcile and be "at peace"? Sin - how do you here define it?

newlife, mine has changed but not on that point (salvation conditional on behavior, actions, "sin"). Overall I sense from the Bible that God is more interested in "saving" than not, more pro relationship and sharing than he isn't, more inclined towards grace and mercy than condemnation. The goodness of God leads to repentance....I recognize a shift from what I read in the O.T. histories and the God that Jesus preached - a complete view of God as merciful and gracious, loving and forgiving.....In the O.T. they killed, drove out, conquered and the same was returned to Israel for "sin". Christ's message picks up from that and speaks of forgiving as God forgives, as seeing God as His Father, as loving those who would be your enemy. His teachings synthesize what I read in the O.T. to a character profile that - IMO - in fact suspends judgment and imposes it on Christ, in whom we can then be reconciled through . I understand salvation to be conditional on acceptance of Christ and that requiring a clear recognition of our own need for reconciliation to God. An act of faith that then opens up the relationship and clarity into it. i would compare our relative understandings somewhat like a person who lives with someone and doesn't know who they really are. Eric Clapton comes to mind - his "sister" was really his Mother but he didn't know it. His mother was 16 when she gave birth to Eric and due to a whole range of circumstances thought it best if her parents could raise him and so - his parents were really his grandparents and who he was told was his "sister" was really his mother, Patricia Clapton.. In a situation like that the relationship is what it really is - and the people involved do know and relate to each other in a completely normal and natural way but not for who they really are to each other. We can "know" God, "see" him and have understandings of Him that range from not believing He exists at all to believing He is now a "Father" to us. Coming to a knowledge of the truth sets us free - knowing who, what, where, when and why - in that then we don't need to filter or anthro-morph it into something we can grasp but know it for what it really is. I don't think it's expected we will do that completely in this segment of life but we can continue to look, learn and understand.

Agree, on the scale and focus of the new Pope Guy. It's a lesser of two evils to me. Which still keeps us in the same arena... ...Given that he's fully paid and vested for his room and board and all related accoutrements for as long as he chooses to remain. (even if he resigns he'll be in finely appointed digs compared to a majority of those who line up to kiss his ring). :blink:/>/> "Let's just wait...and see....what comes out of the river...."

Q: That guy kicked you in the nads...pretty hard too! That must have hurt!" A: Yep. Q: So can you ever forgive him for that? Here - want a chair?" A: Yes, thanks. And yes, I already did. Q: Great - but you clocked him back pretty hard. He hasn't woken up yet. A: I see that. I knew he'd want to make amends for what he did so I went ahead and handled it with him. Q: So - do you still feel bitter about that? A: A little yes. Q: Think you'll get over it? A: Dunno - check back with me in a month and I'll let you know how my nads feel.

Resentment = feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury People make such a huge deal out of trying to not resent things or to feel like resentment is wrong when often I think the correct response is to, in fact, resent them. In further fact I think it's been a mix of different philosophies and religious ideas that have incorporated the interpretation that being resentful and even "bitter" is wrong. Bitter - here's a fun definition: having a harsh, disagreeably acrid taste, like that of aspirin, quinine, wormwood, or aloes. When something tastes nasty it just does and I want to know that and remember it if I have the misfortune to taste it once. Many have been convinced there's some state of saintly spiritual nirvana we should aspire to, never experiencing a sense of something being wrong and nasty or being disagreeable. Or that with enough Tough Love we get big enough "spiritually" for nothing to bother us - yeh, VPW promoted that idea but hardly ever succeeded for more than an hour as he could go apoplectic about anything big or small. I don't believe to ignore the essence of how we perceive and feel is "Christianity" or even how God sees and thinks about creation as He's brought it into being. It certainly isn't how God is described in the Bible, if that's the source material we use. I know the standard verses and then some - in regards to bitterness and resentment I think what the bible teaches is more a broad over arching view of how man should think and feel - avoid being "consumed" or occupied with anger to the extent it warps our other thought processes. Knowing there are going to be, should be, things that we don't like, that are nasty bad and wrong that are always going to be that way and that will always need to be handled. The effects of long term bitter ness and resentment may not be good for the human system but I have come to accept that to deny them will reduce my own analysis and - as the Way called it - how I "ascertain" a truthful understanding of life. Every preacher worth his or her salt can do a 30 minute sermon on not being bitter or not being resentful - toward God. Rather that man should come to an acceptance and embrace of God's intentions and plans as much as we can understand. Yet we know God fully expects us to function as in a "relationship". I don't believe however that having done that first we should do anything to exclude our sense of good/bad, right/wrong and like/dislike in favor of some comfy happy place in our minds. We should learn to recognize , use and manage those kinds of feelings and perceptions to better live.

You make good points eagle - In general, very general, I lean towards forgive more than to not do so - but I don't define forgiveness as a clean slate, fuggedaboudit every single time. I would add to your comments that there are many situations where more work will need to be done to actually do those involved any good, and without that forgiveness itself will be without power, significance and be meaningless. * I see the capacity to forgive without reservation in both quality and quantity to be a desirable thing and I would think is something that can only be achieved at the highest level of endeavor - "with God all things are possible". But f'instance ex-Wayfers, there's a few I can think of that have been free to quote willy nilly from the bible but have little concern for it's meaning and ramifications, they're just thick headed. On a practical level it is probably a combination of several things that we hear and see addressed - The well being of the person who is being asked to do the forgiving and forgetting. And on the other hand - The desire of others for it to go away, to stop hearing about it, wishing it had never happened, wanting for it - the thing - to be gone, all better or something to that effect. The stuff cherry picked from the Bible that's usually taught about forgiving isn't really what I'd call surgically accurate information or guidance. It usually seems to reflect a kind of folksy, common sense advisory. "If you hold on to that hurt it will make you bitter and then you'll only hurt more. You have to let it go and forgive the other person to really be free of it." Forgiveness is used too easily to be the kind of thing extended that is a complete wash, where the thing forgiven can only be resolved successfully by simply "deleting" it from consequence or consideration. I - really - believe - that's - what - the - Bible - teaches - about - God's - Forgiveness and how God views it toward us but not how we are expected to live with everything, all the time. Salvation is forgiveness that allows for reconciliation where nothing can be offered toward the resolution by one side - us, "forgiveness of sin", man reconciled with God His creator. Not all things require that kind of one-sided/do-all forgiveness. It's ridiculous to assume they would, IMO. Jesus taught to forgive yes and to extend that over and over. I don't see anything about that forgiveness being a free pass to go out and screw up again, but allows for the fact that that will happen - look at us with God - He forgives once in a way that allows for forgiveness over and over, from our viewpoint. But God doesn't stop working with us, teaching us, molding and shaping us through Christ and life. We see a single acceptance of Christ's work, God extends it to us. We have to learn to live in and with it. I wouldn't need the Bible or any further attention if that was all there was to it - I'd just go, "sin nor more" and so what? I'm forgiven, no need to say or do anything else, let me and my "new nature" go on their merry way. Jesus and the gospels supports a view of a life free of the emotional and intellectual encumbrances of failure: That the truth will make you free. Free - to do what? We "are" and "have" and "shall" a lot of things. I have a treasure in an earthen vessel. Christianity is often taught from a "this world is not my home, just a passing through" view. I doubt this life would exist at all if God really just expected us to .... it all away and not be concerned about anything at all. If nothing has a cost or a value that would make it of such importance as to want to understand it, fix it, reconcile it, change it. That's the very kind of work Jesus Christ was involved in. But I think many people just want anything bad to just go away so they can get back to being happy-happy. There's probably a lot of "would you just shut up and stop worrying about that?" Sometimes that's the right thing to do - sometimes not. But I suspect those who promote that kind of action and who are then also served by it. Maybe they're not as interested in my well being as they are in their own. Which would be very human and understandable if not plastered with a bible tag to price it out better.

This reminds me - Florida. Gerald Wr enn was the goober limb boss there, and region tool at a point if I recall. After he got kicked off that job for - I think the press release version was that he'd overworked himself and his family life suffered as a result and he needed some well earned time for that - the report from the beleaguered corps in his region he'd abused for years was the usual litany of $, women and lies. In the beginning of my second year there I could vouch that he was a liar extraordinaire, a bully with a direct line to VPW and all around general purpose mook. Great guy when I first met him, did some things together, some ministry work - great guy. Went south and sour, per anyone who relied on him or needed his assistance. Unless you had money or stuff or golfed or had something he wanted in which case you were golden. The Corps Assignments - I knew generally that the assignment meetings had become exercises in geo - management, some common sense strategy planning and increasing amounts of dart board on a map "who wants him" stuff. The logic of the earliest expansion discussions I heard or was a part of when we planned Way Production tours wasn't rocket science or suited for Mount Sinai - the early WOW office, and Trunk coordination were pretty straightforward IMO and down to earth. Then when we went to Florida I became aware of what an ego driven political circle jerk it had become for the about 50 or so region, limb, area and trunk people. There were some assignments that didn't match or make sense. I had a Branch that was fairly large and one of the last years where any PFAL classes or fellowship expansion occurred down there, according to what those who came after told me. I asked GW about some of the assignments, what the thought was, the guidance, etc. on three people specifically - two who'd told me they'd requested a change and been denied without explanation - and one who'd just shown up there kind of obviously dazed but was really a nice guy who I thought deserved better than being squeezed in - it seemed he could do better with a better assignment. I was told - course it's no surprise now - 1. it's not my place to ask 2. since you won't stop, the people who want to leave are wrong and need to stay and 3. and this was unusual because in GW's anger he actually told the truth I think, out of sheer egotism - That the one guys' name had been brought up, there was no obvious assignment and GW had raised his hand and said "I'll take him!" and that was how it went down. He just wanted more Corps, as many as he could get in his state - period, honest as he could be and now it was "my job" - his words - to make it work. In other words he was a total dik about it and was hell bent on bumping his numbers up to be the biggest limb, biggest region and if there was anything going on in the Way he wanted a lot of it so he'd be up front and center. He left it up to everyone else to figure out how to make that madness work. It didn't, and by the second year in he was on the way out and everyone breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. Craig acted surprised - why hadn't he been told about all the bs sooner - and he had been but he wasn't listening and didn't have time for it. VPW was shocked - my God, this is the man who was going to help me move the WOW!!! Duh. Anyhoo - the kindest thing I could say about these things were you have to speak up, be prepared, represent your own interests and be emphatic and passionate about what you wanted. Then flip a coin and come out swinging (metaphorically speaking of course).

/> Agreed! Certainly a different scenario than a priest getting clammy with a pre teen boy, I'll give him that. In High School we had a Father Donovan - I'll give his hame, there must be more than few Father Donovan's over the years....he was in his late 30's, red hair, Irish, from Ireland, wiry and lean. Smoked, and by that time I think I was flirting with cigarettes, and he chain smoked Camels. Taught Religion my sophomore year, out in one of the "Portables" they were called, small standalone rooms that were on the perimeter of the back court area. There were 4 if I remember correctly and in between classes he'd walk out back behind them on one side and light up. Very nice guy, spent a good part of the class sessions covering a wide range of topics, current interest stuff. He told us his background - he'd graduated high school, done a few things, worked and then took a couple years to go off on his own, hitchhiked all over Europe, did some really interesting and cool stuff, worked at all sorts of jobs to pay his way, saw the world, lived the life. He implied he'd gone out to sort himself out a bit and "find" himself. I thought that was immensely cool. He was very down to earth and not really impressed with himself other than he had the air of intellectual superiority that Jesuit priests all seem to have. And he had an air of the Searcher in him too, of being a thoughtful person who was trying to learn his place in the world. I have no doubt he'd had sexual relations as a young man, he was single, good looking and out to see and learn what the world was all about. I figured good for him, he wasn't there with a bag over his head, he could see the world for what it was. He did make a point of saying that unlike many of his peers he didn't go into the priesthood directly from school at the age of 13 or even 18. And he'd seen stuff, done stuff and had stories to tell. I remember feeling like this was not the end of the road for him. A guy like that would have a much better sense of who he was and how to live and work than many of the priests who grew up and into the priesthood from childhood. In fact they could set up their religious orders to have shorter lengths of time - say 3 or 5 years, with a view to developing those who really do feel lifetime service is their calling to be able to pursue that in different ways.The current model has failed badly and for those who handle it successfully I would wonder as you - what kind of life might have these people have had given the opportunity?

Nuts is the weird circle of irony around that priest's defense. If I understand it correctly his defense is - That while in his role as a priest - Which required he swear an oath to celibacy- He fell in love with a woman- Who he then secretly married- And continued to live a life that was completely false to those who looked to him as a priest- For 10 years- And so therefore would not have smooched and groped a teenage girl- Because he was in that - relationship? - with the other woman that he loved. I agree with you - I'm glad he was at least honest with his own feelings and did something about it, albeit a tad dishonestly. (I love your two finger reference!) But - yeah, I guess if I looked at it from his standpoint he did take a stand of sorts and follow his inner heart, and he would have known it wouldn't be a secret forever or perhaps planned a time when he could move on and out. Dunno. But I - and this is just me - I don't think that would constitute a very strong platform for establishing his personal integrity. He broke his own rules that he accepted when he took that oath, made the commitment and imposed the rules upon himself. So basically we have a guy who admits he lied for 10 years asking to be accepted as someone who then wouldn't lie again because he was too busy lying about the other relationship. That's a little like a guy with your jelly on his face saying he didn't take my berries because he was busy making jelly sandwiches. A little, to me. But I give him some cred' regardless - I hope he can get this behind him, move on and have a happy life. I do not believe that there is a biblical imperative for those who serve in any formal or informal role within the Church to marry or not marry or any combination of the two. There's advice and guidance, that's it but no rules other than the obvious common sense ones that apply to all as advice and guidance.

That's nuts Twinky! I get it though - I've read that this is more common than we might think. The need for companionship, close intimate sharing, reinforcement, feedback, support are all very basic needs. I've always thought that it's unrealistic and unreasonable to assume that everyone who chooses a life in a religious order that includes celibacy will be successful consistently across a lifetime. Nearly all of the nuns and at least two priests that taught my elementary school the years I was there left their orders later. One factors in then - what effect did their personal struggles and confrontations with such things as celibacy effect their work, how much and in what ways....? There are different sides to that kind of committment - what it means to the person making it and what it means to those he will then work with and serve. These stories, reports, lawsuits are really just the tip of an iceberg. They reflect when the damage is worst, laws have been broken, serious harm has been done. Incredibly the RC leadership has gotten away with their defense of self managment and regulation. They have so abused the sense that a religious committment to a specific set of moral and ethical creeds can inspire a higher level of care, concern and responsibility and in fact exemplify the opposite through their denial and lack of responsibility. A great deal of the RC's history in regards to relationships and marriage is TOXIC. The culture of fear in the church is so strong that those men and women who are most outraged against this stuff will not break rank and openly rebel from within to create an opposing culture of non tolerance. There are churches in the U.S. that have declared bankruptcy - not sure how that works for a church but they've done it - due to the millions of $$$$ paid out to settle lawsuits. I would think that would cause some Archbishop or Cardinal to step up and put the brakes on if there were any who really cared. I mean - at least if only to protect their bankrolls. While I recognize there are good people in the church I still find it atrocious that someone like the Pope can take office and get good marks from the press for acting "normal". I'd be more impressed if it was reported that Day Two he sat down with his direct reports and said "we're going to work on this sexual abuse problem we have, so cancel your vacations we're going to fix this". Instead it all strikes me as more of the cutesy precious mugging that goes on with RCics...."Oh Loooook!...He's THE POPE! and he actually opens the door for himself and talked to other people while he walked and LAUGHED at a joke! Oh, he's SO HUMAN and he's THE POPE! Can you believe it? Oh, I'm getting in line to kiss his ring, I can't wait this is just SO COOL!"

He said that "for the moment" he was in favor of maintaining the celibacy rule "because we have ten centuries of good experiences rather than failures." There's a guy who's swimming in de nial. Aside from whether it's a healthy policy at all and actually does any good for anyone, long term - He also alludes to a very important and powerful aspect of that condition - It's a struggle, a matter of discipline. And to all the priests who can't keep their hands off little boys YES MR POPESTER FOR THEM IT DOES SEEM TO BE A CHOICE THEY MAKE. The N.T. writers cover that ground, HOW TO HANDLE REPROBATE WOLVES, who make ruin in the flock. And it's clear that there are serious gaps in their end to end process for attracting, reviewing, training, approving and maintaining a body of mentally, physically and emotionally healthy members. His position that they have 100's of years of good experiences is such a farcical statement it doesn't warrant serious attention but it does highlight the reality of Roman Catholic Vaticanism - no matter how normal he appears to be, "for the moment" the rules will stay as they are and I've no doubt he'll defend the ordinances until his last dying breath. Prove me wrong, FrankenPope! I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong.

"Corps Alumni" designation always intrigued me, as applied. Any graduate of a (thing) that has graduats would be an "alumni/a". The few I met at the tale end there who were being called that were basically people who SpartanDale didn't want to drop but who he liked or felt still had warm snuggly feelings for the Way but were ready to move on over rover and at least not be a pain in the foot. That would have been around '87 - ''89, I think. More a Retiree designation kind of feel. I guess it defined the person alumnificating that they were no longer actively "learning" in the program and therefore were actually "out" of the program, as defined.....? It just seems an awkward title as Martinscale used it, and Weird. The old model was a young man's game.....but as I've spoken to others over the years I'm finding many hadn't quite planned far enough ahead to see how their futures might look. I wasn't early on but by the time I was getting close to 30 I was. My interests and my own challenges with growing older probably didn't make me prime beef anymore, and I'm sure I sounded somewhat less spiritually hoo-rah and more boots-on-the-ground than most. A little less blushy at the idea of moving again and again, which we already agreed we weren't going to be doing regardless of what the Skunk Office decided or ScarfinDale hooted up. Course if you're trying to keep a full time gig in the middle of the '80's there, you imbibed whatever loogies MarbleDale was offering up and made plenty of overt overtures of love to the Way Ink so as to reassure them of your undying committment. To them. As is known, I decided to cut my losses, leave whatever they wouldn't honestly return behind, chalk it up as line items for my next year's Spiritual-God-Keeps-Track-Anyway ABS Return Form 000 (a guitar, an amp, several dozen books, a redwood burl table, a couple 1,000 days of the best I had etc. etc. etc. etc. to those dipwads at New Knocksville) and just move on to swim the warm refreshing waters of God's Good Grace in a different land, under another sky. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at whatever those meetings are now but the warm musty smell of those walls and carpets and the site of all that old gray, pale skin would likely cause me to snarf up my last meal. I have today between 10 - ? guitars, depending on the month, have had to give away amps to make room for the ones I've got, books come and go and that table - well, I'll have to take solace that those idjuts were probably too stupid to know what to do with it and some po' Wayfer scratched their head at some point and said well donggonit, I guess it'll make good firewood, and either burned it or tossed it. So it goes. For those wondering what's to become of them if they leave those dirt bags on the side of the road - all I could say is it works out fine in the end. There's that night when you look out and see nothing but stars and you think - what's to become of us now, what will this be tomorrow?....don't sweat it. And even if the only thing you change is their ability to influence you directly, that's enough. :wink2:/>/>

Humility is easy to fake. The manner of self deprecation is often confused with a true meek heart and mindset. I wonder what "collaboration" really means....? Sounds vague, I haven't seen anything very specific either Twinkster. It could mean that he's as good as most Catholic Top Dogs at hiding the skeletons. It could be an accusation based on lack of information. Could mean he helped the wrong side. That's not hard to do - depending on which is the wrong side this week. Pope Frank! Gotta love it. Catholics are SO in denial. Wanting a Pope that will be "forward" thinking, while there's 1000's of weepy RC's sopping up the tears of joy that there's a new Popester in the Vatican. Oh Lord! It's a great great day! The new boss is about like the old boss and will be for a long time - they're not going to elect a new Pope that's going to do anything differently than the old ones have done when it comes to key critical doctrinal and practical areas. That's not the Job - the job is to protect the traditions, they're very clear about that. It's no secret. RC's wanting a progressive Pope is like Wayfers wanting a progress President. It won't happen.

Indeed, the height of arrogance. A most beautiful wreck, LCM was. Great snap shot, sky. I guess their hedge of protection got a good....trimming. Opened up the view a little.

Paul Allen and WayDale set the model, IMO. Information was online prior to that, some discussion sites like Trancenet but they weren't specific or focused in the way Allen and his board were. One guy, one story, one platform. A crowd gathered around that and grew. GS is part of that growth. The web content really expanded very quickly once he opened up WayDale. I always assumed - from day one, that was what he intended. Get it up and get a crowd contributing, lots of discussion, debate, hell raising, squabbles, the good the bad the ugly. It was very successful. His pending lawsuit and the ongoing discussion created a s--t storm that quite literally buried the Way Inc. in sheer pounds of words written. Everything that's been written on WayDale or here in forums isn't true or factually correct however. I'm sure everyone here has read things on all sides of the fence they wouldn't bet to be true and have doubts about. That doesn't make the platform unstable and isn't outside the range of normal expectation. It would be unreasonable in my opinion to expect 100 per cent true facts or to proceed only if there was 100 per cent truth. That's where Wayfers get fouled up IMO. Rather than accept the inevitability of human imperfection (which they so grandly exemplify) and work within the realities of human effort and work towards bettering the process they back step into piles of "just the Word".....don't do anything except quote the Bible, cherry pickin' Bible verses. That just ignores reality and cuts off the ultimate purpose of man's creation - to glorify God, each in his own way and identity. Facebook? I treat that a little different. No grand purpose there, for me, just a public web presence of sorts and really - the value is the ease it allows for exchanging certain kinds of things like photos, etc. with family. There's other means of doing that though so it's not as if it's a permanent fixture in my philosophical pyramid of life or anything. I reserve the right to delete anything I consider inappropriate. I treat it as a conversation from my doorstep. Get ugly with me, right or wrong - I don't care. You're going to get gone really quick. That's just the way it is. I won't stink up my page with stuff I don't like. It's a matter of choice and preference, me, moi - what I like and don't like and what my friends and family feel about it. I got some political rants from ex Wayfers last year that caused some of my more earth bound friends to message me and ask "what the f's with that goober?"....they were nice about it but those who really know me know I"m passionate but push comes to shove I'm not going to condemn you to hell for anything other than possibly backing the wrong team for the World Series, that kind of thing. So I do reserve the right to change the channel, if I so choose. Big whoopdee doo. If that makes anyone so irate they smell mind-control-nuttiness, they may not be able to be my friend then - okay, I guess I can accept that. That hurts. I'll suffer terribly and likely lose many a night's sleep, tortured by the loss. But I'll survive, with less and wounded and of course terribly deluded though I be... but - I'll survive. />

Nor I. Bye to this one. Stay warm. The Pope is as close to a worthless use of human kind that we can get, IMO. It doesn't get said enough, probably because it can't be said too much. I'm sure at some point every Pope was just like all of us at one time - young and full of hope. People make their choices. Apparently there's not enough good Catholics doing good to counteract the organizational ability of the Church to do bad. Thus - the ongoing treachery of the Church as delivered by it's leadership. I see this as normal (in fact but IMO only), I would assign the outcomes of humanity in general to things like inertia and the First Law of Motion, basic stuff and that those things factor into how God works and accomplishes. It's His Choice though - that He leaves some of the choices in our domain and up to us. While human intellect and "will" provides dynamic and seemingly unpredictable elements to the mix of mans' march forward, things do seem to work in cycles, back and forth, up and down, over the long curve of time. IMO this is as it should be and as it will be until something - let's say "God" - changes the rules of the field. Doesn't mean we'll get used to it or like it or even fully understand it. My way of expressing that state is "Life is cool. When it doesn't suck". And - Life sucks - when it isn't cool. Life is difficult at best for many and is in serious "suck" mode for many of us, much of the time. Others and times and other people, not so much that way and it could be versed as "good" and nice. But IMO it won't be grandly swell and wonderful for everyone or even most, all the time. But the Pope? The Pope is really an office that's filled every few years by a different guy. Different guy, same path that got him there. It will take monumental change to get a different office and a different kind of guy. As a non RC I don't care. As a member of Club Earth, I do but I'm hoping they don't keep adding to the pot of problems. It's getting thick as it is.

Exactly why I have no sympathy for this Pope. Or his predecessors. The Pope acts like he's completely disconnected from reality, way high up in the clouds somewhere and wouldn't know a molester from a can o' paint. It's somebody else's problem, those Americans, those other guys over there. Here he's the Head guy of the organization for which the accused work for (and the RC's seem to like to settle out of court) and ... You'd think he'd be F'ING ....ED OFF AND READY TO KICK SOME foot at the horrid irresponsibility of the priest hood, that he'd be able to see how much it's killing people, inside and out. Instead he walks around with his fricking hand up in that ridiculous blessing gesture, barely able to walk and acts like his mere presence is enough, just that he shows up is reward enough for those who rush to kiss his ring. Well, the "investigation" is some kind of a move in the right direction. And may be this pope's retiring reflects some level of realization of what a complete dik brain he is. Pope needs to go. Others to follow, soon. Dump the ballast and clean house. Catholics can then Hail Mary!

Probably not - but hope springs eternal they say. This hit me last week in the midst of this story hitting the news - seriously. RC theology includes Mary as an active partner and participant in God's plan of redemption. Mary is their Mediatrix and although it's not fully baked into the doctrine, Mary's role as the active intercessor of God's grace - God, Christ, grace delivered through Mary - is debated and I would say has a place of general but vague acceptance amongst many Catholics. I recited 1000's of times the Big 3 - The Our Father, the Hail Mary and the Apostle's Creed. The "Hail Mary" is a cornerstone of Catholic prayer life and her presence a part of much of the faith's meditative posture. Catholics would defend it as a good thing, not a bad one and not as destructive. Rather, as an important and vital recognition of God's eternal purposes. Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, Now and at the hour of our death. Amen. We used to pass around a big plastic statue of Mary, hollow, that contained a big set of Rosary Beads, that was used to recite these prayers. Catholics know the drill. You recite over 50 HM's. It's an act of "Marian" devotion with spiritiual designs yes but after a few dozen rosaries - and that's just a drop in the bucket for a Catholic - over time you pretty much get Mary burned in the brain. There's a lot of $ in rosaries, we used to pick a new one up every couple years, "holy cards", little statues - lots of Mary stuff. It was like a year round rock concert, there was always stuff to buy and take home with you. Mary, the Mother of God, is forever burned in Catholic consciousness as a young woman, fair, pretty, the archetype of human grace and devotion. And Catholics approach Mary in a very practical way - get on the skids with God, God is the Angry Old Man of the Clouds, ready to judge and condemn. Mary? Mary's that part of spirituality that represents true faith, love, innocence, obedience and trust. To a Catholic, more so than Christ in my opinion - Christ is the image of defeat and suffering, dreadful horrible suffering, immortalized in image and icon forever on the cross - the sacrifice. Mary is in a very real and practical way the expression of God's kindness, forgiveness and grace in the human form - much more than Jesus Christ who was the person of God. Mary's on the bus, just like one of us because she is. One of us. This is how the Roman Catholic orders taught and represented the teaching when I was growing up. SO - It hit me, like a ton o' lead - why does traditional RC management disconnect these doctrinal positions from the realities of Church leadership and governance? A female Pope would seem logical, natural, an extension of the heart and core of the faith. Sure, it was Peter they believe that got the Keys to the Church and they've flailed on that succession for 100's of years now - but really....maybe Peter/The Pope should be more of a Grounds Keeper kind of guy, capable and active, but the true hand of leadership be a succession from Mary.... ? Hail Mary! Yeah, I know. />/>/>

It's time the members took back their church and ousted the bloated papist tics in Rome. Given that the RC's revere Mary as the Mother of God and that they call it the "Mother Church" - really, the entire rejection of female clergy in the church is bizarre, to say the least. There's more Lady's of this and Mother's of that in the RC church than - well at least as many as in any decent mythology. It's really kind of funny and indicative of the dysfunctional world of their belief that a church is on the one hand so overwhelmingly male, and single male and at the same time has such a huge preoccupation with one woman, one completely unattainable in any real, personal way. No wonder they have so many problems. Time for a Popess? It would actually seem like the right direction for them to go when you think about it. Why doesn't the Mother Church have a Good Mother to rule it? Food for thought....

Moi? Raised on the stuff. I sweat Catholic Kool Aid for 10 years of parochial education. It was a tempestuous relationship at best. It did give me a view into the diversity of the religious orders populace. I never heard a thing about the perv priest stuff until I was in high school and middle of the first year there were a couple of guys who'd entered seminary immediately after graduating elementary level and then quit within a year and showed up. They talked about there being "queer" priests and how weird they were. I didn't ask a lot of questions, I was just glad they'd been able to drop out - some families pressure their kids to stay in. So that was about 1964. Law suits have come out of that seminary years later. But - nothing, not one from the elementary school I attended. I got to know those priests pretty well and although they were goobers of the highest degree there's no way I believe they would have been involved or tolerated such things. One in particular would have gone medieval on anything like that, I'm sure. So they weren't and aren't all bad. But the Pope? the Vatican old guard? Bishops, Cardinals? Generations of swine replicating over and over. RC theology makes Scientology look reasonable. /> and those guys are the head pricks in the dik parade.

The Pope, the Vatican and the entire Roman operation and it's worldwide network are an insult to humanity. IMO. Talk about Drama Queen Religion - middle aged Catholics gasping and clutching their rosary beads, can't pray fast enough for the ol' Pope and his apparently declining health. Pope - see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya. One of these days if justice is served your entire tax-shielded-golden-egg-multi-billion-dollar-club-for-men will be drug by it's dirty collar into the street and thrown to the gutter. In the meantime, enjoy your retirement.

True, WW. Usually they go until they expire. I'm sure Catholics will sleep better knowing this one's final years are spent in relative comfort. For an Emperor. I think he gets a gold bathtub, Ron.

Ex-RC, here. I'm glad he retired, if his strength and health prevent him carrying out his duties. Sounds like he retires to the Vatican's equivalent of a villa, with his own staff and round the clock security. Your donations at work to support the priestly "vow of poverty". Because it's so highly unusual for a Pope to retire this side of 6 feet under a side of me figures there are larger forces at work like Catholic and global politics. I mean, you look at some of those guys, God love 'em but they couldn't stand up straight or speak without wheezing. More power to him - he's got the golden ring to retirement heaven for a priest...as long as this isn't really the first step to some future "accident". (Just another Nutty Conspiracy) />

I think the question was - could you elaborate on what the good stuff is, in your own words and what does it mean to you? VPWster actually did teach along these lines regarding grace and very much to the overwhelming saltation, all that transferred the "old" with the "new", the age of Law and the age of Grace that followed as part of the atonement in Christ. I'll say, this gentleman puts it forth very well, and does a good job setting it forth but it's not in conflict with what VPW taught in PFAL, at all. Where there is conflict and that not only for subsequent endeavors of VPW is that in practice there can be a tendency towards the same cause and effect, earn/rewards process mindset that man has in a pre-atoned state, a be good or else kind of a deal, do what I say, not what I do, etc. that line of thinking where man's natural sense of loss (his ultimate death) over shadows his newness of life in Christ. Way theology pushed "rewards" - benefits from "doing the Word" that would be realized in the future, as part of the grace package-in-Christ. That's not an entirely unique stance, Catholic theology has forms of it. However VPW taught that atonement, salvation and God's merciful forgiveness were a gift, not an earned benefit and that charis/grace was in the "Christ in" us. The "in Christ" part of his teaching was the flip of that, what we do with what we already have received. It's in PFAL, maybe you did miss it. I'm not defending or trashing. That was one of the main things that caught my ear and mind when I first heard it years ago. Having been raised in years of dense Catholic teachings I immediately saw the differences.

I would say yes, there are strains of that visible in society. In the Way if I believed that Satan was pushing cue balls around on the table of life, I'd be trying to identify and understand who, what, where, and when. The why would be filtered through theology. I know this isn't a political discussion but politics is a fertile ground for this kind of thinking in that category, way's...... I was somewhat surprised that a lot of people got behind Sarah Palin, fr'instance. Yet, she never said...anything...that was insightful, illuminating or even in many cases knowledgeable. No matter whether I agreed with her or her politics at all, or was of the same mindset or opinion. (I wanted to support her at first but was just unable as time went on).....She was a spokesperson of sorts, appointed by her party and given opportunity to present...which was fine. Well meaning but not meeting my expectations for the White House positions. Not to say that McCain, or Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney or most of the more recent candidates for those jobs were either. Yet, and this was kind of amazing to me - people often praised someone like Palin because she was "better than" the opposing partys candidates who they thought were terrible....so - the New Greatness was for someone to be better than someone else, who was....terrible. Not much going on there, in my opinion. Guns - now, that's another one. Again - no fight intended here - but for illustration sake - so many Christians have cooked up a Jesus-centered platform for gun ownership and the ability to act both defensively and offensively....I've read ex Wayfers quoting Jesus about the deal with "buy a sword" instructions to His disciples, yet within a day we see Him tell them to put them down and in fact does not act offensively nor encourage His disciples to do so either. So, if nothing else, when push came to shove they may have been ready but were not ever actually instructed by Jesus to act. But - yeah, there's a big push amongst many ex Wayfers to have an arsenal, and some do have that feeling that's what Jesus would want....weird. To your point, a "spiritual" battle as described in Ephesians is not going to be won with guns, that's kind of the ultimate knife at a gun fight scenario. So if I were a spiritual-view conspiracy-nutter, I'd be looking elsewhere for arms. Me-I don't think God or Jesus care if we want to shoot each other to hell and back, they're going to let us do it. For now. I just would not drag them into it when we clearly are in an age when neither the Old Testament perspective nor the Coming Age reality is in place. We have both capacity and facility to do good and live right - or not. We may like to preach 'n' holler 'bout Jesus comin' back with a grenade launcher and He's gonna settle scores and take names - fine. That being the case then...in the meantime....can we maybe just kind of not make it worse? That's my take anyway - but sure, I think it requires a lot of care to not go off on every little fear and paranoia we have, nor on every great success and joy. Celebrate the good, learn from everything we can and live a peaceful life as much as I can. Outside of my own insulation-shielded subterranean communications center where I keep 5 years supply of food, water and Pampers, I don't worry 'bout nuttin'.