So why follow teaching of corrupt pedophiles?
?
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that priests should not marry, and as I mentioned before they used to and some popes had many children (often by many women). But there is a case for celibate priests to be castrated if they can’t control themselves:
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
Matthew 5:30
It’s not their teaching. [quote=“chris_ottawa, post:944, topic:268570”]
?
[/quote]
I was merely noting that heterosexuality has little to do with men controlling their libido.
Certainly. I think there’s a case for defrocking them and flaying them alive.
Catholics allow for the forgiveness of any sin provided the sinner is repentant. Otherwise we’d have quite a few quadruple amputees in Catholicism.
Note: I am not defending the clergy here. The hierarchy’s corruption will eventually be rooted out and destroyed.
While atheism has increased in the last couple decades. It is still a pretty small percentage that claim to be atheists in the USA (like 4%). Some are arguing it is higher like around 20%, because of polling errors, and the fact that others knowing about your atheism is something that can get you negative consequences. I’ll say my gut feeling is it is around 10-15% (especially if we include agnostics in, which by definition are also atheists).
I am not convinced that atheism and immorality are correlated. There isn’t data that I am aware of to support that idea.
The Bible isn’t, but a lot of the other stuff is. Or is based on Babylonian and Egyptian mystery religion.
It has a lot to do with them not molesting boys.
You’re too merciful.
It sure wasn’t like that back in the inquisition days. But in this case, what sort of repentance is sufficient for a pedo priest to not only be allowed to remain a priest but to be left alone with young boys? A quick death is more than they should be able to ask for.
Seriously, this church pedo thing really bothers me. How could they let it go on for so long and so many kids got molested? It’s like the Catholic church is basically a gay pedophile cult that hides behind Jesus. There is absolutely no excuse. It’s bad enough if anyone does that to a kid, but in a situation like this it’s even worse. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy.
In other countries it’s higher, particularly among white people… Many churches here closed or are only attended by a handful of seniors. It’s mostly non-white people that go to church, at least in Ottawa.
If you don’t believe in God or any religious scripture then what do you base your morals on? For example, you are the same guy who was defending gays and transsexuals, you see that as acceptable while to nearly all religious people that is some severely immoral shit.
If there is no God then nothing is intrinsically right or wrong. It’s only what you like or don’t like.
Agree.
Going to church doesn’t make one a Christian, and not going to church doesn’t make one an Atheist.
Living in a society with other people.
I think many religions got this wrong. I don’t see them causing harm to others. I don’t see why they can’t live in society and contribute like others just because of different attraction.
That may be true, but you won’t do well in society if you do a bunch of anti-social things like steal, kill, rape. IMO, we didn’t need a holy book to tell us that these things aren’t good for people to do if the goal is to live together and get along (which is probably required in many cases to reproduce with someone else, which is a large drive most humans have without being told to have it).
The remission of sins is for the soul, their punishment on this earth is another matter entirely.
As it should.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I can assure you, you are very much a rarity in saying that 
That is true, I’m just using it to illustrate the point that white Canadians have largely abandoned religion. It’s the first step to becoming an athiest.
So you base your morals on what other people accept around you? Is child molesting wrong though? If you live in ancient Rome or Greece you would have thought it was perfectly normal.
There are plenty of other immoral things, some illegal, that people do while living in and contributing to society. Doesn’t make them any less immoral.
Depends how you define “doing well” and which society.
So one way or another the Catholic church really fucked up by letting these priests go about their business.
That is absolutely without question, and there will be a reckoning on it, one way or another.
Yes for the most part. I do have some things that slightly differ.
If you were an ancient Hebrew following much of the old testament you would think that owning slaves was perfectly normal to. You would think that killing your enemy’s women and children was okay if following the Bible.
The Christian church doesn’t follow the Bible that closely in their teaching (this is a good thing). They base their teaching mostly on what society deems acceptable (which homosexuality is only recently becoming acceptable). Many churches are allowing LBGT ministers now. Some churches still teach that homosexuality is a sin, but are inconsistent on a lot of other Biblical rules that don’t make sense to modern day society. Women have their heads uncovered, they serve shrimp in church!
At that time it was normal, and not just amongst Hebrews. Also it wasn’t like the transatlantic slave trade either.
You’re taking that out of context, you don’t appear to know what you are talking about.
Some things are based on morality (LGBT), others tradition (heads covered and such), and others based on hygiene (shrimp and other unclean animals).
Are you saying biblical law was based on social norms? If so, I agree with you.
In what context is this okay to do? I don’t think there is one, so your point is irrelevant.
Some things in the Bible are social norms of the time it was written, yes.
You don’t think because you don’t know what you are talking about.
There seems to be consistent talk these days about sexual practices as if the consequences of them literally are confined to the bedroom because sex takes place in a bedroom.
In what context is it okay to kill the women and children of your enemies?
I know you didn’t ask me but I’d like to chime in. I’m still profoundly incapacitated so I hope this post makes sense (if it doesn’t I’ll edit it in a couple days when I get out).
Morality should be based around repercussions/benefits associated with certain actions. This should be and is independent of religious scripture. When I did read scripture, I noticed it frequently contradicted the values/ideologies it appeared to preach, hence the concept of appeasing morality upon religious basis to me seems odd. Rather to me it sometimes appears catering towards having a certain stance on an issue due to religious merit means “the bible/Torah/whatever says this and it agrees with my stance here so I’ll interpret it this way and ignore the rest”.
Scripture isn’t black and white per se (aside from certain blatant rules). I view these texts as fundamentals serving to instill morale within historic, fairly barbaric societies that needed a reason to believe in something.
Child molestation is wrong because scientific literature indicates the brain of a child isn’t formed well enough as to allow a child to be capable of giving consent. Furthermore decades of case and anecdotal reports exist showcasing the damage rape/child molestation can induce.
It’s a no brainer here, this isn’t subject to interpretation. Pedophilia on the other hand absent of the individual actually acting out (i.e watching child pornography, soliciting children etc) is fucked up, but it’s a shame some people are neurologically hardwired in a way wherein the only way they can get off is by thinking about inducing harm to others. These people should be able to reach out and receive help, whether it be counseling, chemical castration (androgen deprivation etc, though numerous long term side effects exist). Homosexuality on the other hand doesn’t hurt anyone. Similar to pedophilia it isn’t a choice to be gay, but the difference resides within whether their what they’re attracted to irreparably harms others. As a result homosexuality isn’t immoral to me.
You tell me. It doesn’t actually say that it’s okay to do that, which is why I said you are taking it out of context.
You seem to be a big proponent of anal sex, but scientific literature indicates all sort of harms associated with that. Why the double standard on morality determined by science?
It’s now in kids’ classrooms.
There’s this thing called tolerance in a free society
