Priest made young boys dress up as Baby Jesus then sexually abused them

submitted by Antarchomachus from metro.co.uk

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Tums_is_Smut_bkwrds 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We are reminded that sexual abuse of children is how homosexuals reproduce.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did someone say "ritual sexual abuse"?

[–]In-the-clouds 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Looks like a satanic priest to me. Yes, the enemy has infiltrated the churches of the world, and many leaders don't even believe in God. It's like when the Jews demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, they obviously did not believe he was the Lord. When he resurrected, they paid the soldiers that were supposed to guard his tomb, to lie and say his disciples took his body out of the tomb. But how would they have gotten around the soldiers to do that? To this day, no one has found the remains of his body. That is because his body was spiritualized.

And his spirit is here today!

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Thank you.

Have you seen Brian Holdsworth interview with a guy who worked with the Shroud of Turin? There are a lot of things out there about it, this one is not better or anything than those, but I found it really well done. The guy, a Jewish photographer who worked with scientists on very highly specialized projects before being asked to work with a team of scientists on the shroud, documented the work they did and so has command of like every aspect of what kind of evidence the shroud is. He pointed out how it survived the Iconclasts in the east, and how the reason the icons in the east look the way the do may well (if not must) be due to the fact that the face on the shroud is as it is. But, the actual mysteries around the shroud are amazing and the interview is very dynamic and engaging.

Satanism in the church was predicted, many times in many places, long and not so long ago. And it is at every level of the church. There are still good priests and some good bishops and cardinals, and I thank God for them, as I thank God for the good people I meet in both eastern forms of Christianity and in protestantism.

I think though the way the Catholic church has been targeted by evil says something about it's role. Even in economics or what was called the field of political economy, the ideas in the Church that culminated in the Distributism of Pope Leo XIII, talked about by CK Chesterton, and expanded upon by Hilaire Belloc, are a serious and realistic alternative to the two forces that seem to be at odds with each other: capitalism and communism. No wonder the world is so against the Church.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Had to go look up Distributism, had never heard of this economic ideology (similarly not a fan of capitalism or communism), but there are some solid ideas there as you say. Thanks for referencing that.

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is new to me, newer than it should be. I always looked at "third" options between the two as weakly trying to appease both sides. To me it aligns well with "localism" and the good aspects of anarchism which do really exist in spite of all the childishness and literal groomers and pervs who have flocked to it for maybe a century, and all the city-bound college professors and grifters who some how thing everything will just roll into cities as it is now while they write poetry for the masses. Distributism sees a capitalist owning everything and the government owning everything as the same problem-- we all see that as the problem both sides pose us. Instead, we all own our shit and our ... means of production to borrow a term and all that.

[–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The shroud of Turin is something I heard about, and saw pictures of it. (I don't remember hearing the name you dropped here, though.)

Maybe a flash of light from the face of Jesus made an imprint of his image. I would not be surprised if it were true, since the body of Jesus was spiritualized, and he is called "the Light of the world".

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Beautiful points! Thank you. Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ8KRXDtCgI It is really good, engaging, and the time went by fast for me.

[–]In-the-clouds 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's strange that the speaker, Barrie, claimed to be a Jew, and when asked about what he believed, when he was speaking at the Vatican for a Tedx talk, I listened for a couple minutes and never heard him confess that Jesus is the Lord, our Savior that gives us victory over sin and death. I lost interest in listening.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What did you lose interest in? The Tedx talk (which I'm not familiar with), or the Holdsworth interview? I would hate to think you tuned out Holdsworth because Barrie Schwortz did not convert to Catholicism. I find the interview to be a great resource on the mysteries of the Shroud and more (like how the image of Christ we see in all the icons are similar).

The shroud is a mystery, it's not the religion. It says nothing about what Catholics or any Christian believes. It can't.

I think he is moved by what he sees on the shroud, the crown of thorns, the horrible treatment, and he seems to have no doubt as to who the Person is. He does not know how the image formed, and no one around today does. He seems to not know Jesus is Word made flesh, Son of God, one of three persons in the Holy Trinity. I think a lot happened in the aftermath of Jesus' Crucifixion that effected what became rabbinical Judaism. You see it in the archaeology that shows number of Christian Jewish burials found dating to the time, and in the interpretations and debates both what little we have on record from then and since. He has to unpack the religion he grew up with and see it as a product of that time and that group's refusal to accept a Messiah could be real that did not over throw Rome and make their fallen tribes and nation the masters of the world based on that ethnicity. I think of Mary. What did she know or expect? When she buried the body in the tomb, did she know he would be resurrected in three days? I do not know if she knew that. I know she saw just how evil and ugly Satan's hatred is. I know she saw just how evil and ugly we can be a species to each other and to our God because we easily believe the lies that are all around us and love in a disordered way things around us. I know we pray her seven sorrows because of how immense her sorrows are.

We know that the pains we feel in life are not the point. The hatred from the world, the nonsensical nature of so much of life, none of it is the point. God is to be loved above all things, but we want to FALL in love, we want friends, and comfort in the world, we want to not have to worry about bills and things, and we often put so much effort into worldly things, anger and even hatred for those who harm us, when their actions show how lost they really are. Jesus said to the weeping women as he carried the cross that he wept for them. Those faithful to Him learned at some point that defeating Rome was not the point, worldly things were not the point, pain is not the point. Those who rejected him did not learn that. Barrie's tradition reorganized itself around a big Jesus-sized hole in it's theology, and filled it with as many things as there are sects and people. He has to wrestle with that, I guess. I have to wrestle with other things.

I can't imagine what he believes, but I know he must come to what ever he believes from a different path than I did. I know he will express it differently than I for many reasons.

[–]In-the-clouds 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I am going to listen to a man teach me about Jesus, or present evidence about the Lord, I want the man to be convinced of the truth.  But I don't want any man teaching me, because the Lord himself is my school master, teaching me through his word.  Few people give his word the time of day, instead they are deceived by the teachings of men.

You correctly identified the man Jesus as the Son of God, the word that became flesh.  However, he is not one of three persons.  There is only one God and he is one person.  And these three are one:  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.  The Son is one attribute of God, but fully one with the Father, and having all power of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus told his disciples, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.  This is one of the greatest revelations I have received:  Jesus is God.

God himself became man to die for our sins on the cross.  The Spirit of God was in the man Jesus.  God is love, he is the word, and he is a consuming fire, but he is one God, not three separate persons.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The man in the interview is not teaching you about Jesus. He is talking about the shroud of which he has considerable knowledge. And, clearly with your certainty about the trinity and proper doctrine and the words to express, few if any will have anything to teach you about Jesus.

No where did I type "separate".

Skip the interview because the interviewee is Jewish. Confuse him sharing his expertise on the shroud with what he isn't doing (talking about Jesus), and remain confident and smug about it. You won't lose anything by not hearing what he has to say. I'm sorry to have suggested it to you and wasted this much of your time.

[–]In-the-clouds 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You have the right to suggest content, especially on a website like this. I was being honest with you, that I did not wish to watch the entire interview, and when you asked for an answer, I told you my reason. I hope you are not offended by me. I am sorry if I came across as smug. I want none of that proud attitude clinging to me. But I do want to provide an honest answer if asked a question. I was actually pleased to find someone (you) that I could share a mystery about God that few talk about, that Jesus is God. Most are not ready for that revelation.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough, and thank you for frank engagement here. I was taken aback by our differences in wording, I guess, over trinitarian doctrine. To say "God in 3 Persons" is not controversial except in Islam or Nestorian type Christianities (or I guess Unitarian? I don't know. UUs are mostly atheists if not in theory certain in my experience around them).

I do think you're missing out, unless you are either 1) so very up on all the facts, mysteries, and Mysteries around the shroud, or 2) if you are not interested in them. The owner of the shroud gave it to scientists, some Christian, some not, to do what ever testing they could on it with out destroying it. These are the only people ever to gain such thorough access to it and so anyone else speculating about it are just doing that: speculating. This guy happened to be the who documented it all, and he did an admirable job. I don't see his contribution very different than say the way Aquinas used Aristotle or even Islamic theologians when using them served best when he was writing his theological works.

I also strongly suspect anything you hear about the shroud would then be a watered down version of Barrie is providing, because he is one who is most out front with the best information about it. One does not have know anything about the shroud, believe anything said about by anyone, or be suspicious of it: it can help those it helps or it can be an unknown (as I guess it is to most people).

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kinky.