About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
881

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is the average conversation with you:
Makavali: I don’t believe your invisible sky god exists, prove it.
pat: Multiple logical fallacies and pleading to the Bible and obviously biased sources. Ha, I’ve proved God exists.
Makavali: Points out the many errors in pats irrelevant assertions, like how the Roman Catholic Hitler wasn’t atheist.
pat: That’s stupid, your just an idiot atheists are the worst God is the way forward.
sticks tongue out like a 5 year old
Links more skyhooks with no verifiable proof and claims proof isn’t needed with faith.
Makavali: ???[/quote]

Fixed. The reason I stop responding after a while is:

  1. A lot of the time the thread gets away from me (man that whole employment thing is annoying), which results in;
  2. Me losing interest in the eventual believers circle jerk that occurs. Or;
  3. I get totally confused as to how your brain even works. Your reasoning is usually circular, and your logic doesn’t exist. Martin Luther would be proud.
882

[quote]pat wrote:
The child abuse issue, is despicable in every way shape and form. the cover up by some of the bishops was just as bad. I can tell you that activity isn’t sanctioned by the church. Clergy are people and some are bad people. The damage they caused has been devastating. The whole church paid dearly for the horrid actions of the few. The whole church has taken corrective action, but if somebody wants to be evil, then they will be.[/quote]

Please. The entire institution of repressing sexuality and telling people it’s wrong to feel what they feel is what caused such horror. And the fact is that the higher levels of the Church DID sanction it. They didn’t make a move to remove those priests from the Church, they moved them to another hunting ground.

Don’t try and talk down systematic child abuse.

883

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The child abuse issue, is despicable in every way shape and form. the cover up by some of the bishops was just as bad. I can tell you that activity isn’t sanctioned by the church. Clergy are people and some are bad people. The damage they caused has been devastating. The whole church paid dearly for the horrid actions of the few. The whole church has taken corrective action, but if somebody wants to be evil, then they will be.[/quote]

Please. The entire institution of repressing sexuality and telling people it’s wrong to feel what they feel is what caused such horror. And the fact is that the higher levels of the Church DID sanction it. They didn’t make a move to remove those priests from the Church, they moved them to another hunting ground.

Don’t try and talk down systematic child abuse.[/quote]

Child abuse is everywhere; and it should be condemned wherever it is. We are - all of us - unable to escape sin. Even Catholics (hah!). And, of course, the absolute numbers re: abuse in the Catholic Church are horrifying. Please, however, let’s keep in mind:

Sexual abuse/harassment is notoriously difficult to “measure” - and while no child abuse should be excused, we do need to put the numbers (percentages/rates of course, not absolute) in context vis a vie other institutions. This quickly becomes complex.

On the one hand, it often goes unreported; on the other hand, there are also examples of it getting over-reported due to “copy cat”-type accusations, witch hunts, etc.

This has happened at a number of day care centers, for example, here in the Boston area.

And regarding the Catholic Church abuse scandal here in Boston - quite literally and suddenly every other man was claiming abuse. Now, no doubt there was abuse; a great deal of it; and a huge coverup by fucktard Cardinal Law. However, it also must be remembered there was also (potentially at least) a great deal of $$$ at stake for those making their claim. And the media played a huge role in stirring up hysteria as well.

Even very rabid anti-Catholic people now admit that this ^^ was happening.

Finally, while I am not excusing it, as far as I know, sexual abuse is no more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in other institutions, including schools, families, other religious denominations, etc.

884

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Child abuse is everywhere; and it should be condemned wherever it is. We are - all of us - unable to escape sin. Even Catholics (hah!). And, of course, the absolute numbers re: abuse in the Catholic Church are horrifying. Please, however, let’s keep in mind:

Sexual abuse/harassment is notoriously difficult to “measure” - and while no child abuse should be excused, we do need to put the numbers (percentages/rates of course, not absolute) in context vis a vie other institutions. This quickly becomes complex.

On the one hand, it often goes unreported; on the other hand, there are also examples of it getting over-reported due to “copy cat”-type accusations, witch hunts, etc.

This has happened at a number of day care centers, for example, here in the Boston area.

And regarding the Catholic Church abuse scandal here in Boston - quite literally and suddenly every other man was claiming abuse. Now, no doubt there was abuse; a great deal of it; and a huge coverup by fucktard Cardinal Law. However, it also must be remembered there was also (potentially at least) a great deal of $$$ at stake for those making their claim. And the media played a huge role in stirring up hysteria as well.

Even very rabid anti-Catholic people now admit that this ^^ was happening.

Finally, while I am not excusing it, as far as I know, sexual abuse is no more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in other institutions, including schools, families, other religious denominations, etc.[/quote]

Yes there was hysteria. But there was also a lot of child abuse coming from men who should have been celibate and were put into a position where a great deal of parents trusted them with their children. But no other human institution has had such high rates of sexual abuse.

But that said, I will agree that the people lying to get money are scumbags who deserve nothing. They belittle the trauma that the actual victims had to endure.

A little perspective for you:

  • “2% of the priest population can be classified as true pedophiles with a three to one preference for boys. This gender attraction is reversed in the general population. […] 4% of the priest population become sexually involved with adolescents”.

  • “Several accounts already record the extent, history and struggles of the sexual abuse of minors by priests in the United States (Berry, 1992; Burkett & Bruni, 1993; Rossetti, 1990; Sipe, 1990a). […] A quick review of the alleged priest abusers who have come to legal attention demonstrates the trend: 10 priests of a total of 97 in a Southwestern diocese; 9 of 110 in a Midwestern diocese; 7 of 91 in a Southern diocese; 15 of 220, and 40 in a diocese of 279 in the Eastern United States. […] Sixty Catholic priests and brothers were in prison on sexual abuse charges as of September 1994”

  • Father James Porter victimized 200 minors in the 12 years between 1960 and 1972 when he was active in the priestly ministry. Many of his victims report violent rape, cruel humiliation, and punishment that can only be described as sadistic. […] One priest who “saw” Porter rape a child defended him, when confronted by a parishioner, with response, “Father is only human.” […] In 1993 he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 years in prison for a portion of his offenses. He is one of only a small fraction of priests who have been prosecuted by the law for abuse of minors.

  • Many priests, even those sent for psychiatric treatment for child abuse, are kept in positions of authority in the Church. Maybe because the Church is lacking so many priests, and to expel them all would be too damaging to the structure of the Church.

  • More than a dozen suicides by priests facing public exposure of their sexual activity were recorded between 1990 and 1993.

885

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Child abuse is everywhere; and it should be condemned wherever it is. We are - all of us - unable to escape sin. Even Catholics (hah!). And, of course, the absolute numbers re: abuse in the Catholic Church are horrifying. Please, however, let’s keep in mind:

Sexual abuse/harassment is notoriously difficult to “measure” - and while no child abuse should be excused, we do need to put the numbers (percentages/rates of course, not absolute) in context vis a vie other institutions. This quickly becomes complex.

On the one hand, it often goes unreported; on the other hand, there are also examples of it getting over-reported due to “copy cat”-type accusations, witch hunts, etc.

This has happened at a number of day care centers, for example, here in the Boston area.

And regarding the Catholic Church abuse scandal here in Boston - quite literally and suddenly every other man was claiming abuse. Now, no doubt there was abuse; a great deal of it; and a huge coverup by fucktard Cardinal Law. However, it also must be remembered there was also (potentially at least) a great deal of $$$ at stake for those making their claim. And the media played a huge role in stirring up hysteria as well.

Even very rabid anti-Catholic people now admit that this ^^ was happening.

Finally, while I am not excusing it, as far as I know, sexual abuse is no more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in other institutions, including schools, families, other religious denominations, etc.[/quote]

Yes there was hysteria. But there was also a lot of child abuse coming from men who should have been celibate and were put into a position where a great deal of parents trusted them with their children. But no other human institution has had such high rates of sexual abuse.

But that said, I will agree that the people lying to get money are scumbags who deserve nothing. They belittle the trauma that the actual victims had to endure.

A little perspective for you:

  • “2% of the priest population can be classified as true pedophiles with a three to one preference for boys. This gender attraction is reversed in the general population. […] 4% of the priest population become sexually involved with adolescents”.

  • “Several accounts already record the extent, history and struggles of the sexual abuse of minors by priests in the United States (Berry, 1992; Burkett & Bruni, 1993; Rossetti, 1990; Sipe, 1990a). […] A quick review of the alleged priest abusers who have come to legal attention demonstrates the trend: 10 priests of a total of 97 in a Southwestern diocese; 9 of 110 in a Midwestern diocese; 7 of 91 in a Southern diocese; 15 of 220, and 40 in a diocese of 279 in the Eastern United States. […] Sixty Catholic priests and brothers were in prison on sexual abuse charges as of September 1994”

  • Father James Porter victimized 200 minors in the 12 years between 1960 and 1972 when he was active in the priestly ministry. Many of his victims report violent rape, cruel humiliation, and punishment that can only be described as sadistic. […] One priest who “saw” Porter rape a child defended him, when confronted by a parishioner, with response, “Father is only human.” […] In 1993 he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 years in prison for a portion of his offenses. He is one of only a small fraction of priests who have been prosecuted by the law for abuse of minors.

  • Many priests, even those sent for psychiatric treatment for child abuse, are kept in positions of authority in the Church. Maybe because the Church is lacking so many priests, and to expel them all would be too damaging to the structure of the Church.

  • More than a dozen suicides by priests facing public exposure of their sexual activity were recorded between 1990 and 1993.[/quote]

Everyone knows that there has been sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. None of what you’ve posted or linked says anything about rates of abuse in the Catholic Church versus other institutions.

Here’s “A little perspective” for thou: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

The Conclusion reads, in part: [quote]Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.[/quote]

P.S. - btw, your link up there is hilariously misinformed about the Church. I really don’t have time to point out all the mounting errors in it.

886

I read through a majority of the posts and never once saw this point brought up. The Catholic Church or any organization will NEVER intentionally harm anyone/any thing. In the past, yes. Not during our current life times. Why is it no one realizes that priests don’t become pedophiles, instead it was a some pedophiles who became priests. I’m going with the later being more likely than the previous statement. Plus my instincts tell me that is where the truth lies.

887

I agree, the Bible doesn’t prohibit marriage with a priest. However, ask any priest of any denomination if they have enough spare time to devote to the parish AND a wife? Someone would be getting shorted, somewhere IMO. The Catholic Church didn’t institute this rule for a couple of hundred years until after Jesus left this earth. Instead of taking my word on a bb forum, talk with s local priest. They are busy men, but they can make time if you are willing to wait and set up an appointment.

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
However, I don’t believe the bible prohibits marriage for the priest, that’s something that was “invented” shall we say, or misinterpreted/taken the wrong way.[/quote]

888

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Everyone knows that there has been sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. None of what you’ve posted or linked says anything about rates of abuse in the Catholic Church versus other institutions.

Here’s “A little perspective” for thou: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

The Conclusion reads, in part: [quote]Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.[/quote]

P.S. - btw, your link up there is hilariously misinformed about the Church. I really don’t have time to point out all the mounting errors in it.[/quote]

Sorry if I don’t take the word of the Catholic League, seeing as they are devoted to defending the institution responsible for a lot of these crimes. And at any rate, they are saying “Oh, well our rate of child molestation is no worse”, well despite that being patently untrue, that is a GREAT way of skirting around the issue, is it not?

By the way, you didn’t seriously entertain the idea that I thought Protestants were off the hook, did you? It’s like you think I’m targeting just Catholics. For future reference, that’s one of the first things that people think of when it comes to religious deviancy, but I’m just as disgusted by Protestants doing the same, Muslims mutilating the genitalia of infants, honor killings, ritual suicide and a whole platter of disgusting behavior promoted by irrationalists.

889

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is why i think that christian morality, or religious morality, isn’t a way to lead a good life, but is meant to be used as an instrument to control the masses by the church. I think the bible itself is an instrument to control and manipulate the masses, and a powerful instrument at that…
[/quote]

It has been used in that manner, but that is a violation of the values of the church and the tenants laid out in the bible. Religious people can and will be jerks, and someone looking to screw with people they’ll use any means possible. That doesn’t mean that the whole thing is wrong or bad, because some have chose to use it’s power for personal gain or to be plain evil.[/quote]

…you’re obviously a man who makes his own mind up, and i’m sure there are many more believers like you who do the same, but on a whole institutionalized religion does not play nice…
[/quote]

Take an example and lets discuss it…[/quote]

…allright, but i’m gonna turn in after this one. So what about the Pope’s stance on homosexuality, contraceptives and the child abuse issues plaging the Catholic Church and the way the Church deals with these issues? Is that good christian morality? 'Cos from where i’m standing, they need a good slap upside the head and a kick in the nuts for being archaic mysoginist assholes…
[/quote]

First I wanted to add that organized religion is ultimately just a guide. A person’s faith journey is their own.[/quote]

…no it isn’t, that is just apologetics pat, and you know it. The Church has had, and still has, a lot of influence on people and that influence is wielded with a heavy hand. Sure, much of the real power they had is gone, but as long a people listen and obey the church leaders, religion is not just a guide…

…if it’s about restricting acces to communion or just the church, i don’t care about it; it’s a club with rules and why join the club if you can’t follow the rules? The problem starts when people in public office use their religion’s stance on homosexuality to discriminate against gays. Perhaps not simply a moral issue, but that’s next…

…why would the Church deny the benefits of condom use with regards to stopping the spread of AIDS? One other thing: are you argueing that supporting the use of contraceptives by the Church will likely lead to an increase in births and STD’s? i’m speechless. I’m without speech

[quote]The child abuse issue, is despicable in every way shape and form. the cover up by some of the bishops was just as bad. I can tell you that activity isn’t sanctioned by the church. Clergy are people and some are bad people. The damage they caused has been devastating. The whole church paid dearly for the horrid actions of the few. The whole church has taken corrective action, but if somebody wants to be evil, then they will be.
[/quote]

…i can go along with that people will be people, sure. But how the fuck to you explain that these child abuse cases have been going on for decades all over the world with the Church knowing about it, and nothing happened? What about the Magdalene girls in Ireland who had to endure all kinds of abuse well into the 1960’s?

…institutionalized religion is a corporation, it’s a huge bussiness aimed at control and profit. The proof is in the pudding…

890

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I agree to some degree (the hypocrisy/tyranny), but when you’re talking about stuff such as sex before marriage, only having one wife etc, these are pretty standard “rules” brought to the West by institutionalised Christianity. Yet, someone like yourself may say that they would not “cheat” on their wives because of their own humane principles…but these are principles that have been instilled on society in the West (not necessarily something that comes naturally to mankind).[/quote]

Monogamy isn’t a purely Christian concept. Where are you getting this?[/quote]

That’s beside the point. Whether it was as much a Roman concept (for example) as it was Christian, the point is that whatever the culture is like, that’s what people tend to take on as their own principles.

In other words, you cannot say that culture has no impact on us as individuals - we are heavily influenced and conditioned by it. Thus, people cannot say that without “rules”/principles, they would do fine with morality (as if ALL “morality” is perfectly natural and conceived only by their own minds).

Remember the whole point of this debate, you say that humanity doesn’t need to live their lives by God’s standards, and that they do fine without them.[/quote]

You seem a bit lost here. First you say Christianity bought monogamy to Western civilization, then you say that it’s beside the point? You just made my point for me, morality doesn’t come from God, it comes from us.
[/quote]

I proved your point that morality didn’t come from God just because of “one thing”? lol

Christianity was the main reason for the spread of the acceptance of monogamy in the West. Whether you want to discuss if we were also influenced by pagans or whatever, is going off topic and is minuscule in comparison to the effect Christianity had. Besides that, many in cultures where monogamy was the “norm”, they still had mistresses (strictly prohibited by Christianity). It was the Roman Catholics (and later other sects) who spread “like wildfire” in the West and had the power to “force” marriage and faithfulness to just one mate.

If monogamy just came from us, how is it that many say it’s our natural inclination to have more than one mate? Many men will claim it’s more natural to want to “spread his seed” than to stick to one…

The whole reason for me saying that in the first place, was to demonstrate the influence religion (and by extension, the bible) has had on culture. That is, it’s not just humans natural “internal” inclination.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
You forget that despite the various external (and admittedly some internal) differences, for the most part we are the same. It’s not actually that surprising morality has basic principals common to humanity, and even to a degree, animals that we are closely related to.
[/quote]

What you class as morality and what I do, is not always the same. What the average person says is “right”, is not right in the bible. For example, would you say that it’s wrong to have sex before marriage as long as you love the person and are old/mature enough? Would you say that it’s ok to look after “number one” first? Would you say it’s OK to “get even” with someone? Would you say that it’s OK to lust after a woman even if “you would never cheat on your wife”? Here’s an important difference in “your” morality, and the bible’s: Would you say it’s OK to give most of one’s attention/devotion/affection to something “earthly”, or anything other than the creator? That, in the bible is a sin…

“For the most part, we are all the same”…Really?

How come in some cultures, stealing is pretty much accepted (as if it’s a “human right”)? How come child prostitution is widely practised even by parents in some parts of the world? How come in some parts of the world marriage at 12 is acceptable, but in others that is thought of as sick? How come hitting a woman is acceptable in some cultures but not others? The list goes on…

Even if you include the so called “minor” differences in morality between everyone, it still adds up. Many of these deeper issues of morality can make a big difference to your quality of life and those around you. Like I said earlier, people like yourself oversimplify morality.

People like yourself also minimize the importance of spirituality or a need for hope. The bible doesn’t just help out with the “basic” morals.

891

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Is “slavery” really unthinkable nowadays?[/quote]

Yes.

Not slavery.

You must be quite young to not understand the difference between involuntary servitude and a mutually signed contract for services.[/quote]

I didn’t say they were exactly the same, just not THAT much different. It’s not just about mutual agreement to do work, some people are obligated to do jobs they don’t particularly like or want to do (especially in developing countries).

And no, slavery does still exist in some forms (e.g. child labour). It’s not that it’s acceptable, rather, a way of survival.

892

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
That’s a long story, but in some respect, you’re right (apart from that doesn’t excuse their despicable behaviour).

However, I don’t believe the bible prohibits marriage for the priest, that’s something that was “invented” shall we say, or misinterpreted/taken the wrong way.[/quote]

…but surely you agree that much of what is taught, and has been taught, as christian morality is not directly dependant on ones own interpretation of the bible? IOW, the Church tells you what christian morality is; you can’t really separate the bible from the Church because the Church has [had] the biggest [historical] impact on society…[/quote]

That’s a different story. I do believe that what the churches says and what the bible says has been contradictory. And the churches have distorted the bible in many ways (mainly due to power/control/customs). What’s your point, how does that tie into the discussion? Does that mean that the bible is wrong and as individuals you can gain no benefit from it?[/quote]

…it means that you cannot separate the Church and it’s teachings from the bible. If you claim that christian morality had a big impact on european society, you also must look at what the Church did in the name of it’s deity. I’ll bet you that there are far more people who listen to what their churchleader is saying in regards to morality, than what they glean themselves from reading the bible…

…this is why i think that christian morality, or religious morality, isn’t a way to lead a good life, but is meant to be used as an instrument to control the masses by the church. I think the bible itself is an instrument to control and manipulate the masses, and a powerful instrument at that…
[/quote]

Sounds like you think there is a big conspiracy theory or something :slight_smile:

You can’t tarnish the bible with what man has done with it. Yes, it is a big tool, but initially, the Christians used it in the right way. As time went by, apostates came, and people in power used it; that’s when things tended to go wrong.

You’re not deciphering what the bible teaches and the church/man. It’s like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of the Quran.

Some good came out the bible, but where bad came, there was usually a hidden agenda/misinterpretation of those with power.

893

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it means that you cannot separate the Church and it’s teachings from the bible. If you claim that christian morality had a big impact on european society, you also must look at what the Church did in the name of it’s deity. I’ll bet you that there are far more people who listen to what their churchleader is saying in regards to morality, than what they glean themselves from reading the bible…

…this is why i think that christian morality, or religious morality, isn’t a way to lead a good life, but is meant to be used as an instrument to control the masses by the church. I think the bible itself is an instrument to control and manipulate the masses, and a powerful instrument at that…
[/quote]

Sounds like you think there is a big conspiracy theory or something :slight_smile:

You can’t tarnish the bible with what man has done with it. Yes, it is a big tool, but initially, the Christians used it in the right way. As time went by, apostates came, and people in power used it; that’s when things tended to go wrong.

You’re not deciphering what the bible teaches and the church/man. It’s like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of the Quran.

Some good came out the bible, but where bad came, there was usually a hidden agenda/misinterpretation of those with power.[/quote]

…so when was the cut-off point then? When Constatine adopted christianity for the Roman Empire? According to the wiki page that happened in 312 A.D. That’s 1700 years. When did christians stop doing good with the bible, and the apostates took over? And i ask again: what good is it to separate the bible from religion, when religion using the bible did so much damage, whilst claiming it was christian morality that shaped european society?

894

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I agree, the Bible doesn’t prohibit marriage with a priest. However, ask any priest of any denomination if they have enough spare time to devote to the parish AND a wife? Someone would be getting shorted, somewhere IMO. The Catholic Church didn’t institute this rule for a couple of hundred years until after Jesus left this earth. Instead of taking my word on a bb forum, talk with s local priest. They are busy men, but they can make time if you are willing to wait and set up an appointment.

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
However, I don’t believe the bible prohibits marriage for the priest, that’s something that was “invented” shall we say, or misinterpreted/taken the wrong way.[/quote]
[/quote]

I don’t doubt that. Was just pointing out the fact that the bible says marriage or celibacy is a personal decision, not something that should be forced.

Having said that though, I’m not entirely sure marriage would have “solved” the issues of some of the priests who were perverts. Likely, most child molester priests would have a sick desire for kids whether married or not.

895

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it means that you cannot separate the Church and it’s teachings from the bible. If you claim that christian morality had a big impact on european society, you also must look at what the Church did in the name of it’s deity. I’ll bet you that there are far more people who listen to what their churchleader is saying in regards to morality, than what they glean themselves from reading the bible…

…this is why i think that christian morality, or religious morality, isn’t a way to lead a good life, but is meant to be used as an instrument to control the masses by the church. I think the bible itself is an instrument to control and manipulate the masses, and a powerful instrument at that…
[/quote]

Sounds like you think there is a big conspiracy theory or something :slight_smile:

You can’t tarnish the bible with what man has done with it. Yes, it is a big tool, but initially, the Christians used it in the right way. As time went by, apostates came, and people in power used it; that’s when things tended to go wrong.

You’re not deciphering what the bible teaches and the church/man. It’s like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of the Quran.

Some good came out the bible, but where bad came, there was usually a hidden agenda/misinterpretation of those with power.[/quote]

…so when was the cut-off point then? When Constatine adopted christianity for the Roman Empire? According to the wiki page that happened in 312 A.D. That’s 1700 years. When did christians stop doing good with the bible, and the apostates took over? And i ask again: what good is it to separate the bible from religion, when religion using the bible did so much damage, whilst claiming it was christian morality that shaped european society?

[/quote]

That’s an interesting question which has quite a story behind it. Strictly speaking, the cut off point was when the last of the 12 apostles of Jesus died, which was John in 100 C.E. This apostasy was already foretold by Jesus and his apostles.

Examples:
In an illustration Jesus foretold that people wouldn’t be true to the truth. He likened the true religion/kingdom to wheat (the good), and the “screwed up” version of religion as the “weeds” (apostasy) growing in amongst it. (Matthew 13:24, 25)

The apostles constantly had to set the churches straight (1John 2:26 & 3John 9, 10). Paul said that “subtle bad influences” were at play in his time , and that those bad influences were being restrained at that time (apparently by the apostles of Jesus), and that these unknown influences would develop into wicked things being done in the name of Christianity. In other words, Paul warned that hypocritical apostasy would shortly take place. (2Thessalonians 2)

Paul said that after he died, oppressive “wolves” would infiltrate the church/religion and would twist things etc and just want people to follow them instead of the teachings. (Acts 20:29, 30)…sound familiar?

To sum up; the bad came with the good.

896

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Everyone knows that there has been sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. None of what you’ve posted or linked says anything about rates of abuse in the Catholic Church versus other institutions.

Here’s “A little perspective” for thou: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

The Conclusion reads, in part: [quote]Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.[/quote]

P.S. - btw, your link up there is hilariously misinformed about the Church. I really don’t have time to point out all the mounting errors in it.[/quote]

Sorry if I don’t take the word of the Catholic League, seeing as they are devoted to defending the institution responsible for a lot of these crimes. And at any rate, they are saying “Oh, well our rate of child molestation is no worse”, well despite that being patently untrue, that is a GREAT way of skirting around the issue, is it not? [/quote]

Yes, it’s from the Catholic League - are they not allowed to defend themselves? Especially, if no one else does or will argue their side? Who am I supposed to cite? The press is for the most part extremely anti-Catholic.

However, instead of dismissing the report/study because it comes from them, you might try actually refuting the evidence they put forth that the Catholic Church is no worse than other institutions, religious or otherwise.

Besides the ancillary issues I mentioned before and above, you should also remember the sheer size of the Church. Somewhere I read that all institutions have about 1% rate of abuse - translate that into real numbers wrt the Catholic Church and you can see the absolute numbers would be/are stunning.

Also, another hysteria example I thought of last night: I don’t know if you remember or know that in the 1990s there was a “repressed memory” rage in the feminist community regarding sexual abuse by fathers. Hundreds of thousands of young women were being “counseled” and came out of the sessions convinced that they were raped by their fathers and subsequently repressed the memory. At my school there were sit ins, rallies, hundreds of women claiming this; if anyone dared to question it, they were shouted down (you’re blaming the victim, etc.; and admitting this is extremely difficult, no one would fake it, etc.)

And here ^^ there was no $$ changing hands.

Anyway, it all turned out to be utter and complete fucking bullshit (well, I’m sure there were a few)

Good as far as you go. But it’s not far enough.

As long as you’re being fair, let’s include “secular” institutions: families, schools, youth organizations of all kinds, etc.

897

Marriage will never solve ‘personal issues’ however the priests don’t become molesters because of the job. Molesters saw an opening to play with children when they became priests. Living a lie is easy for perverts and so they masked the sickness until in a seat of influence.

The above ^ is my primary point. Pedophiles became priests, this is the truth yet many people THINK the opposite to be true.

About marriage, priests have to devote MASSIVE amounts of time to a parish, the parish where I’m from in Boise has over 300 registered families. That doesn’t even count the other unregistered parishioners that don’t have a ‘family’ and are not counted! I’m not trying to argue with you by any way, my opinion is the standard was instituted for the general public of the parish. A priest serves because they are so willing to give their time to people. Does that make enough sense : )

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I don’t doubt that. Was just pointing out the fact that the bible says marriage or celibacy is a personal decision, not something that should be forced.

Having said that though, I’m not entirely sure marriage would have “solved” the issues of some of the priests who were perverts. Likely, most child molester priests would have a sick desire for kids whether married or not.[/quote]

898

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Marriage will never solve ‘personal issues’ however the priests don’t become molesters because of the job. Molesters saw an opening to play with children when they became priests. Living a lie is easy for perverts and so they masked the sickness until in a seat of influence.

The above ^ is my primary point. Pedophiles became priests, as many people THINK the opposite to be true.

About marriage, priests have to devote MASSIVE amounts of time to a parish, the parish where I’m from in Boise has over 300 registered families. That doesn’t even count the other unregistered parishioners that don’t have a ‘family’ and are not counted! I’m not trying to argue with you by any way, my opinion is the standard was instituted for the general public of the parish. A priest serves because they are so willing to give their time to people. Does that make enough sense : )

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I don’t doubt that. Was just pointing out the fact that the bible says marriage or celibacy is a personal decision, not something that should be forced.

Having said that though, I’m not entirely sure marriage would have “solved” the issues of some of the priests who were perverts. Likely, most child molester priests would have a sick desire for kids whether married or not.[/quote]
[/quote]

Makes perfect sense. And I agree that likely, perverts were perverts from the start.

899

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is the average conversation with you:
Makavali: I don’t believe your invisible sky god exists, prove it.
pat: Multiple logical fallacies and pleading to the Bible and obviously biased sources. Ha, I’ve proved God exists.
Makavali: Points out the many errors in pats irrelevant assertions, like how the Roman Catholic Hitler wasn’t atheist.
pat: That’s stupid, your just an idiot atheists are the worst God is the way forward.
sticks tongue out like a 5 year old
Links more skyhooks with no verifiable proof and claims proof isn’t needed with faith.
Makavali: ???[/quote]

Fixed. The reason I stop responding after a while is:

  1. A lot of the time the thread gets away from me (man that whole employment thing is annoying), which results in;
  2. Me losing interest in the eventual believers circle jerk that occurs. Or;
  3. I get totally confused as to how your brain even works. Your reasoning is usually circular, and your logic doesn’t exist. Martin Luther would be proud.[/quote]

Let’s try something real. It’s obvious by your rewrite of my post, that you actually never read anything I wrote or are incapable of understanding it.
So let’s try something tangible. Read what I wrote and prove me wrong. Prove me wrong, or shut the fuck up. Because your out of your league here otherwise if that’s really the best you could do.

900

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The child abuse issue, is despicable in every way shape and form. the cover up by some of the bishops was just as bad. I can tell you that activity isn’t sanctioned by the church. Clergy are people and some are bad people. The damage they caused has been devastating. The whole church paid dearly for the horrid actions of the few. The whole church has taken corrective action, but if somebody wants to be evil, then they will be.[/quote]

Please. The entire institution of repressing sexuality and telling people it’s wrong to feel what they feel is what caused such horror. And the fact is that the higher levels of the Church DID sanction it. They didn’t make a move to remove those priests from the Church, they moved them to another hunting ground.

Don’t try and talk down systematic child abuse.[/quote]

Bullshit. Further proof you have no idea what you are talking about. You watch a BBC program and you think you know everything.