September 30th, 2013
08:55 AM ET
Popes John XXIII and John Paul II to be declared saints in April
From Ben Wedeman, CNN
(CNN) - Popes John XXIII and John Paul II will be declared saints in April, the Vatican said Monday.
The announcement came after Pope Francis met with cardinals to discuss the planned canonizations of two of his predecessors. The ceremony will take place on April 27.
It will be the first time two popes will be canonized at the same time.
To be named a saint involves a series of steps, but the qualifications are straightforward, according to the veteran Vatican analyst John Allen.
"You put a holy life and two miracles together, according to the Catholic system, you've got a saint," he said.FULL STORY
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
Saint: A dead sinner revised and edited.
"From silly devotions and sour-faced saints, good Lord, deliver us!"
-St. Teresa of Avila
Why are so many posts disappearing?
I've noticed that too.
Report Abuse – bot, of some sort?
@Albert : Why are so many posts disappearing?
Because we have a immature participant clicking on the "Report abuse" link. This is one of the reasons that I will frequently start a new thread – the older ones are "reported" and deleted.
I think it takes more than one, but you are correct about the immature part.
If someone clicks "Report Abuse" a message automatically gets deleted without any human review? What a lame system.
@Albert : If someone clicks "Report Abuse" a message automatically gets deleted without any human review?
I'm not sure if there is a human review or not, but often the post will be deleted REGARDLESS if it violates the stated terms.
@ME II : I think it takes more than one
What I notice is that (all of sudden) every one of my post is labeled "Your comment is awaiting moderation." This appears to mean that only one person is needed for it to be so marked.
You may be right, but it seems to me that when I report something, e.g. commercial spam, it does not disappear immediately. I'm not sure about 'awaiting moderation' as I haven't seen that in quite some time.
Just curious... Would you "report" my comment above, just to see what happens? Thanks.
@ME II : Just curious... Would you "report" my comment above, just to see what happens? Thanks.
Done! I 'reported' this post. BTW – I rarely report any post, regardless how offensive the post is.
I'm not seeing any change or notice of any kind. Hmm, not sure how it works.
Bye! got things to do, be bact later–I hope.
'You have not yet acquired perfect love if your regard for people is still swayed by their characters – for example, if, for some particular reason, you love one person and hate another, or if for the same reason you sometimes love and sometimes hate the same person.'
St. Maximos the Confessor
Thanks for calling the Food Network hotline. Billing is $9.95 for each 60 second period. To accept, say "Creme Fraiche".
Old Maximos probably had a whole lot of bad a$$ behaviour to confess to thus the handle, as does are fallen desp!cable sinner our friend BD does. After all that is why he joined the cult for his required redemption, too bad it does not come with rehabilitation.
Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) was a Christian monk, theologian, and scholar.
In his early life, Maximus was a civil servant, and an aide to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. However, he gave up this life in the political sphere to enter into the monastic life. After moving to Carthage, Maximus studied several Neo-Platonist writers and became a prominent author. He supported the position that Jesus had both a human and a divine will. Maximus is venerated in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. His Christological positions eventually resulted in his torture and exile, soon after which he died. However, his theology was upheld by the Third Council of Constantinople and he was venerated as a saint soon after his death. His feast day is celebrated twice during the year: on 13 August and 21 January. His tiitle of Confessor means that he suffered for the Christian faith, but was not directly martyred. His Life of the Virgin is thought to be the earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
I told you you would get used to being wrong. Hang in there though, it will get easier.
His life of the virgin, really? Pretty dumb mythology. I thought someone knocked up Mary when she had jesus and then again when she had his brother. Is there some condition as almost a virgin? If old Maximus believed what he wrote he was as deluded as you BD.
I think this was summed up pretty well in Kevin Smith's "Dogma":
"The nature of God and the Virgin birth, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."
Talk about diverting from one target to the next OK, You failed at your disparagement of Maximus so you move over to that old tried and true stand by of attacking the Blessed Virgin. I pity you.
Either that or god got hooked on the human s&x act and visited Mary on multiple occasions, hence the brother of jesus. Mind you being god and all he could of slept around whenever he wanted. These myths are just too stupid to believe.
Please, please BD do not let my disparagement be limited to just a few saints and popes and unbelievable myths, think of the bid picture any fool that has been captured by the RCC scam. BTW I can admit I am wrong, there I did it, but it is something that a pompous, arrogant, know it all like you should try at least once. Humility BD although, I find you amusing once in a while.
Your original quote from Maximus was off topic. Then in a response to me you wax elegant about his book the life of the virgin, how do you figure that I did the diverting when you brought the crap up in the first instance, so sad BD.
Boof Deacon just enjoys spouting off RCC stories and memorizing lists of indulgences, long prayers and catechism quotes. It's the perfect religion for addicts who need to stay busy, busy, busy.
He's the RCC Austin, one step away from the gutter. He knows it, that's why he fights so hard to defend his death cult criminal enterprise.
'When you see two evil men befriending one another, you may be sure that each is cooperating with the other's desires.'
St. Mark the Ascetic
Busy, busy, busy, Boof. Gotta keep the shaky shakeys away.
When the authorities come calling about the docu.ments held by the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith simply reject all demands.
St. Carta the Shredder
I'm certainly no Bill Deacon fan, but frankly, your ad hominem vendetta against him reflects worse against you than it does against him. You have many better points to make.
Boof Deacon is a known liar and pedophile apologist on this blog, as many others can confirm. It's not an ad hominem when it's true.
Feel free to scroll around and see the evidence for yourself, or I can post a few of his lies for you if it will make you feel better.
I realize that he is terrifically hidebound and twists like a pretzel to make his points - but perhaps focusing on those instances and not just calling him names like "Boof" would make your case with more class.
I'm not going to copy/pastes long threads of conversation just so people like you won't think I'm being "classless". Boof knows what I mean, as do most of the regular posters here.
Feel free to skip my posts if you don't like them.
It's just that I hate to see your valid issues being watered down, and even negated, by low name-calling. IMHO, of course.
My responses can stand on their own, but thanks for your concern, I guess.
Of course our opinion of others is swayed by their characters. This is how we avoid dangerous people and dangerous situations. This is how we protect our loved ones from dangerous people and situations. The people who tell you not to judge by character are the sort of people looking to take advantage of anyone naive enough to listen to them.
@tallulah13 : Of course our opinion of others is swayed by their characters. This is how we avoid dangerous people and dangerous situations.
And some use this same criterion that some have used to say that blacks are sub-human, that religious people are nuts, etc. The root of the problem is its subjective nature – too insensitive and you get into trouble and too sensitive and you become hateful. And when you become filled with hate, you're unable to have a respectful discourse with those of differing viewpoints.
Color of skin is not character. Character is behavior, you would be a better person if you knew the difference.
Racism is judging someone based on their ethnicity, not their character.
The same holds true of any kind of sweeping generalization, like hating an an individual based on their religious affiliation (or lack thereof).
Making a determination about someone based on their character – IE: the way in which they comport themselves – is valid, necessary and an unavoidable facet of being a social creature.
If someone has an aggressive nature and this nature consistently manifests itself in violence, I will judge them to be a potentially dangerous person and will treat them accordingly.
Religious belief is a legitimate evaluation of a person's "character". I don't negatively judge all Christians simply because of that label, but I do judge those who hold bigoted, hateful beliefs because that is a behavior not shared by all Christians. I may disagree with all Christians based on their beliefs, but I only dislike those who have this extra bit of nastiness in their hearts.
There is a fine line here, I think Tallulah. The best quote I have heard is that judgment is harmful when it is used to condemn but it is useful in telling quality from mediocrity. That's what I think you are talking about, which I agree with. But that has nothing to do with love.
Judging others by their characters is basic common sense. It is how we survive. This is why we have a criminal justice system. Personally, I am more than happy to avoid people who engage in pursuits that are criminal or might endanger my family or myself. You want to be a victim? Have a great time.
Whoosh! right over your head.
Not really, bill. You were off topic. I don't judge others by what gifts or talents or basic intelligence they possess. Everyone has something to offer. I judge people by their actions, because actions reveal character.
Interesting. Are you saying that judging others is okay if for the purposes of praise, but not okay if for the purpose of condemning?
But is not the praise of one, in fact, the condemning of others?
What if you don't find much "quality" in people who discriminate against gays, or those who deny basic science?
Ben, the point being, whether you find quality in them or not, your duty to love is not lessened. Think of the saying. "love the sinner, hate the sin". People who use this are making a judgement on the sin but retaining the commitment to love. Just as you may find no quality in someone who holds values opposite of yours, you should oppose those values but not diminish the person hood of the other. This is why, whatever our values might be, that we can say love is not love unless it also is delivered with truth. So what happens is people deteriorate into judgement and critical condemnation of their opponent based on the oppositional values they hold by saying "You're going to he ll" or "He's a pedo-priest" rather than reconciling their values to the truth. The argument then should be "what is truth?
"Love the sinner, hate the sin."
Translation: We'll pretend we're okay with you.
I'm not co-opting that hackneyed phrase doobz, though I was certain you or another would think so. I am using it to illustrate the point of difference between judgement and love. Here, see if this helps:
'Love others much, but visit them seldom.'
St. Catherine of Siena
BD The truth. You can not handle the truth, BD. The truth being that your religion and dogma is now and ever was BS. Not a lot of love shown by the RCC over its history other than the love of the almighty dollar.
Absence makes the heart grow stronger.
St. Kate the Baciatore (Kiss me Kate)
I really don't care what hackneyed old quotes you put up here. They're all equally ridiculous.
The Bible could have just as easily claimed that being black was a "sin", and some Christians actually believe(d) something quite like that. What's apparent is that "sin" itself is a bigoted opinion much of the time. It was once "sinful" to be an actor, because it involved a level of lying, for another example. The "truth", however, is that most people now don't feel that acting is sinful anymore, and a large number of Christians have stopped believing that being gay is wrong either. You can say "Hate the sin", but when people get to make up their own minds what is sinful, that bit of teaching becomes meaningless.
A tidbit for the religionauts who like to pretend that scientific evidence for God abounds:
"Faith is knowledge that cannot be rationally demonstrated. If such knowledge cannot be rationally demonstrated, then faith is a supernatural relationship through which, in an unknowable and so undemonstratable manner, we are united with God in a manner that is beyond intellection."
– St Maximus the Confessor
Irrational, supernatural, ineffable, and unprovable – ergo, not even remotely scientific.
Who ever said it was?
Not Catholics, at least. The vatican has, to a very large extent, made peace with scientific facts.
I'm talking about YEC folk – the types that try and argue that Intelligent Design is just a scientifically valid as the Theory of Evolution.
Even when those people propose scientific ideas you dispute, I don't think they are claiming that faith and science are on the same empirical plane. I'm pretty sure most people see faith as something they accept without scientific support.
I don't think you've been paying attention to the debates with Creationists on this blog.
Haven't you seen Live4Him's list that "proves" the Christian God's existence?
The sects that insist on a literal interpration of teh Bible as the innerrant Word of God must necessarily look at it as an "all or nothing" proposition – if one thing in the Bible is proven false, then the whole house of cards collapses. They therefore concoct more and more convoluted rationalizations to keep up their delusion that the Bible is an historically accurate, scientifically provable book.
Unlike the Catholic church, they cannot fathom that books like Genesis are allegorical morality tales and not factual chroniclesof the universe's origin.
Nobody then ought to argue that creationism be taught in science class, right? Creationism requires faith, and a denial of the scientific evidence. That belongs in Sunday School, not any public school.
BD also, was your original post not a diversion from the topic in the first instance? How did it relate at all to the two Johns becoming saints? Hypocrisy again Billy? Pot calling the kettle.
"'You have not yet acquired perfect love if your regard for people is still swayed by their characters"
So are you finally admitting the Christian god is not a "loving" god? By this definition he has the opposite of "perfect love".
Cheesy, if you'll notice, it is the atheists above who insist they retain the right to judge others and withhold love based on that judgement.
Yes, I can "withold" love based on my judgement. Same as your god does. The problem comes in when your quote refers to "perfect love" as not doing that, therefore your god does not have perfect love.
Bill Deacon keeps his leftover pizza in the fridge.
What's leftover pizza?
A garage band from New Jersey.
Correct, and they are in the fridge and it's cold and they can't plug in.
Well let them out! They might run out of oxygen.
So a great and holy man (John XXIII) and one whose hubris did not allow him to recognize his physical and mental decline (JPII) are both to be canonized. I guess that was the price the Church had to pay to finally get John XXIII the recognition he deserved.
As we watched John Paul decline, I thought he offered a poignant lesson on the value of life even as one ages past their usefulness and into failing health, a stark contrast to the Terry Schiavo case.
In your educated opinion Bill, how many organs dooe someone need to have functioning for you to still consider them 'alive'?
I'm not a doctor but in the case of my daughter's mother lapsing into a coma, they were able to keep her functioning at a low level of brain activity that would not sustain kidney or heart function but there was a conflict between the medication they were using to stimulate her brain and the dialysis she was on. The option came down to stimulating her brain with no measurable results just so they could keep the dialysis and respirator running.
'A day will come, perhaps it is not far off, when we must bid goodbye to life, goodbye to the world, goodbye to our relations, goodbye to our friends. When shall we return, my children? Never. We appear upon this earth, we disappear, and we return no more; our poor body, that we take such care of, goes away into dust. When we quit this world, where we shall appear no more, when our last breath of life escapes, and we say our last goodbye, we shall wish to have passed our life in solitude, in the depths of a desert, far from the world and its pleasures. We have these examples of repentance before our eyes every day, my children, and we remain always the same. We pass our life gaily, without ever troubling ourselves about eternity. By our indifference, one would think we were never going to die.'
St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars
Why should we have wished to have lived in solitude just because life doesn't go on forever? That's like saying that you should never have gone and done anything interesting, or fun because it won't last forever. Ridiculous, and childish.
BD, yet another quote from a fellow deluded catholic that has nothing to do with the two Johns becoming saints and you often berate others for straying off topic. The good news two more phony saints and 50 more RCC clip joints being shut down around the world.
Personally, I am glad that I spent this one life I get with the people I love. I am glad that I experienced the things I did and I regret very little. I have always tried to make amends to those I have hurt as quickly as possible, because I know existence is finite and I would hate to leave this life with too much unfinished business. Life is brief, but good.
I feel bad for the guy you're quoting. It sounds like he was pretty miserable.
Some of these celibate guys probably need a hug.
The Cure of Ars brought a mixture of kind understanding and personal strength to the people of Ars. In the beginning his sermons were directed against drinking, swearing, and dancing. He tried to show his parishioners the value of resting from work on Sunday and of going to church regularly. His rigorous fasts and his prayers that lasted well into the night proved to the people that he was more strict with himself than with them. Gradually the spirit of Ars changed. It became a model of Christian behavior. More and more frequently visitors from other towns asked the curé of Ars to hear their confessions. His spiritual vision had grown to the point where his insights into their problems were very helpful. By 1845 Vianney was patiently spending more than 12 hours a day in the little confessional box of the parish church, while people who had come to Ars from all over France waited in long lines to ask his advice.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/st-jean-baptiste-vianney#ixzz2gTmqhjhQ
What have your stupid saint quotes got to do with the two Johns becoming saints? And you accuse others as making diversions, more hypocrisy BD?
So basically this guy wanted to remove fun from the lives of his parishioners. Cue the theme to "Footloose".
What a jerk. I hope some local Kevin Bacon type stood up to show them that dancing and having fun is okay. My pity is officially revoked.
He was spending more than 12 hours a day in the confessional? Sounds more like he was employing the Cure of Arse.
How does the Roman Catholic understanding of “saints” compare with the biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is “beatified” or “canonized” by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.
Quoted from: http://www.gotquestions.org/saints
If this were the only messed-up theology, tradition and practice of the RCC it wouldn’t be too bad.
This would be awesome information if it weren't completely wrong.
On what Biblical teaching or other evidence can you say this statement (quote) is wrong?
Picture if you will BD frantically leafing through his catechism and/or his book of quotes from the saints to find a plausible answer. Failing in his search BD will simply duck the question, a catholic and christian tactic.
Here is the simplest, from the catechism of the Church:
946 After confessing "the holy catholic Church," the Apostles' Creed adds "the communion of saints." In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: "What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?"479 The communion of saints is the Church.
947 "Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others. . . . We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church. But the most important member is Christ, since he is the head. . . . Therefore, the riches of Christ are communicated to all the members, through the sacraments."480 "As this Church is governed by one and the same Spirit, all the goods she has received necessarily become a common fund."481
948 The term "communion of saints" therefore has two closely linked meanings: communion in holy things (sancta)" and "among holy persons (sancti)."
Dang okfine, don't you hate it when you're wrong? Don't worry, you'll get used to it.
@OKfine, Oh I don’t doubt that he will find objections to the quote, but they will be of Papal origins, not Biblical origins.
@Bill Decon: Ditto to what I said to OKfine.
How wrong BD? You managed to find the required quotes, you did not fail and responded, I am quite proud of you. Unfortunately you should remember that I think the RCC catechism is BS rom cover to cover. Rightly you indicate that although I am wrong from time to time, I have never sinned unlike you.
But I'm not arguing with you Ok. guest asked for Biblical or other evidence, which I provided. My repeated plea is that folks who would argue against the Church actually argue with what we are and not what they think we are. The quote from the catechism shows exactly how the Church views sainthood, which is exactly the opposite of what guest posted. One of the things that discourages me most is that typically atheists have better arguments against the Catholic faith than my Protestant brothers. At least atheist usually attempt to reject the Church out of hand as you do. Protestant are more prone to distortion.
I suppose the area in which you are wrong on this thread is when you thought I would divert or run away or whatever it is you claimed. If there is any accusation I think doesn't apply to me, it's avoidance and cowardice.
All Christians have at least some messed up traditions/teachings. That whole Rapture thing is just a modern-day bit of folklore, and there is no way that Prosperity Gospel fits with Jesus's message.
If you are talking about what is commonly called: “The Secret Rapture” you are right, and most of the erroneous teachings of many protestant churches come from the RCC. They just won’t admit it. I’m not sure what you are calling: “Prosperity Gospel” but if it is what I think you are talking about, I totally agree.
By "Rapture" I'm talking about anyone being beamed up by God prior to anything happening literally from Revelation, which I also think is silly.
I also think that the theology of Salvation Through Grace Alone doesn't work in practical terms, unless you're willing to share Heaven with a bunch of murderers who managed to get religion just prior to their execution without lifting a finger to try repaying the families of their victims? There's simply no justice to that theology.
Tell you what BD why not try to stop the off topic silly saint quotes that have nothing to do with the topic, you are actually behaving more like Topher and Live4Him, deal?
BD you stupid saint quotes are not a diversion from the topic, same MO as yesterday.
I find it ironic that popes are called Pious and selfless, when in plain site they are actually fulfilling their fantasies of power and future immortality. Can you imagine being so self-centered?
For those that do not read the business news. The Associated Press October 1, 2014
Vatican City–The Vatican took another step in its efforts to be more financially transparent by publishing a first ever annual report for the Vatican bank on Tuesday. It comes as Italian prosecutors investigate alleged money-laundering there, a Vatican monsignor remains in detention and the pope himself probes the problems that have brought such scandal to the inst!tution.
Some quick facts from the report.
6.3 billion Euros in customer assets
18,900 customers including Vatican offices and embassies and individual cardinals, bishops and priests.
Earnings for 2012 equaled 86.9 million Euros ($116.95 million)
There are still some investigations ongoing but it is nice to see Frankie taking an active role in trying to clean up the dirt that his Saintly predecessors left behind.
Whatever...make them all saints for all the good it will do. The bar for what qualifies as a miracle these days is pretty low compared to events depicted in the Old Testament. Chris angel and David Copperfield can match the stunts performed by Jesus.
They failed to overcome the second law of thermodynamics – necessary for them to be anything now, much less saints. There is no John Paul II or John XXIII.
Another article ridiculing members of the dead jew zombie cannibal vampire death cult. You just have to love cnn!
How about some adult comments for a change.
Vampres have nothing to do with the RCC.
Southern baptistis, maybe, but lets not start throwing childish insults at an entire organization just because they believe in fairy tails and screw children.
Don't RCC crazies believe they drink the blood of their zombie leader, not to mention eating his flesh? I look forward to your apologie.
word is John XXIII will be known as St. Senility and John Paul II will be St. Touchy-Feely.
It may be that there is a God, Creator of the Universe etc., and the imaginary God (no relation) of people who believe in God, Creator of the Universe etc. There's a problem in ontology, the Gettier problem, which basically says you get no points for believing in something, even if it's true, if there is a flaw in how you came to believe in it. The flaw can be like this: There is a pond with a large tree-covered island obscuring your view of a large part of the pond. On the part you can see there are convincing duck decoys that you believe to be ducks. On the part you cannot see there are real ducks. You may believe and claim to know that there are ducks on the pond. This is classical justified true belief. There are ducks on the pond, but, as Gettier points out, justification has gone awry here. In the same way, you may believe in God but your belief may never connect you with the real God.
Great analogy. I go further. There may be a god, but it's not one of the mythological gods created by man in every religion devised so far. Every god devised so far is clearly limited by man's imagination from the time it was created.
Yes and I would add two more possibilities to the problem (not to say they may be the only ones):
1. The obscured part of the pond with the real ducks existed before you viewed the pond with decoys (but do not exist as you are now viewing the pond with the decoys); and
2. The obscured part of the pond with the real ducks may come into existence only some time after you view the pond with decoys.
Problem with that analogy is, of course, that we know that ducks are actually real.
"Mermaid" would fit better, wouldn't you say?
Everything is naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living god. My god. All mine.
I became a saint the moment I was born into his kingdom, the everlasting kingdom of god. It is inside me. It flows out of me thru the everlasting supply of his holy spirit which they who believe in him are given in abundance. Glory
His glory is greater the the noonday sun. Ask saul-paul.
" It flows out of me thru the everlasting supply of his holy spirit"
Oh goodness. I'll bet the people at the colon hydrotherapy clinic are ready to see you leave after each visit.
His magnificence shines night and day. Indeed there is no shadow of turning with him.
Is there any way to harness that energy and generate electricity?
One of the most perfect descriptions of the Christian mindset:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
- Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
So if God is like I would be, he made us exactly the way he wants us. He enjoys all the unfairness, pain and suffering.
That was poorly written, but I meant God is a dick.
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
Hopefully, they are seeking in their own way.
Always be Closing.
Admittedly, I am seeking. I am seeking the simplest and most beautiful single expression of meaning. I suppose one might say that is a type of "god/idea." I wish there was evidence for a god; I think I would prefer a universe with that authority and semblance of humanity.
However, none of the gods described can exist for various reasons and because of certain contradictions. I wish there was a god, but there doesn't seem to be one. Or at least, there are none overly concerned with transmitting a clear directive to all humans equally...as in, objective and verifiable proof.
We are the universe becoming aware of itself (GOD).
You are but the morning sunlight fading on the grass
I like your last comment better than your OP.
Maybe. Or maybe the universe is already aware of itself, and our observance is exactly what is required. Who knows? What difference does it make?
Or is it a "moment's sunlight" ?
But then again, does the quote from your OP get at the heart of the argument or does it just get at the heart of the wonder.
There is a way to God. Jesus found it. Others have. So can you.
Through us the Universe is aware of only a very small part of itself indeed.
Lol, yeah, Tom. Our part must be so small, that, oh hell, it hurts to think about something that small – now I have to put some eyedrops in.
Not true. That's just an attempt to silence those who don't want religion forced onto them. You would resist if Islam, for example, were to be made the basis for laws, to have its texts displayed on public buildings, to have their prayers at public meetings, their call to prayer, etc.
I'm sorry, "Apple Bush", but your assertions are inconclusive. Some people believe that God, in fact, has no dick.
So we are made in the image of of a male God with nipples (one would guess) and no dick. That makes me uncomfortable. Particularly when it wants the organ altered to satisfy some obscure part of its covenant with us.
This might explain some things. Maybe that why vestments have been so concealing. Maybe early theists were so confused by what they thought their god might be, the best they could do to be as god-like as possible was to be as androgynous as possible.
He obviously has DNA or Jesus would have been female. That Y chromosome had to come from somewhere, and it wasn't Mary.