Religious Controversies: The Right Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]

dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]

Sorry, no one here is defending rapists, they are defending the Catholic Church. Most people would want them to go to jail. Me? A catholic? I want to hang 'em from the tallest tree around. All of them, all hundred or so of them.[/quote]

Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.

62

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

Really, so 3.2% of child molesters are religious clerics, and only a fraction of that statistic is Catholic clerics, and my religion has the majority of them? I think you need to learn how to read statistics.[/quote]

What religion is accused more for rape charges?[/quote]

First, not to be a “racist” but I would bet all my money that Muslims commit more rape than any other religion. 2, you said your religion has the majority, not your religion has the majority out of all religions. Why artificially limit the scope to religions?[/quote]

I bet you might be correct with your first statement. I doubt there are any reports on this as most often these are probably covered up.

63

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.

64

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< Obviously, rape is a greatly traumatic act that causes suffering to the victim. One should not cause suffering for others. Obviously, I’m against rape.[/quote]
Obvious to who? What if there is consent? Who are you to stick your nose into somebody’s business and tell them what the age of consent is or what suffering is? What if I disagree? What makes your definitions any better than mine?[/quote]

If there’s consent, then it’s not rape, is it? That’s consensual sex.[/quote]

NOt legally for a minor. Pedophiles often have consent of the child.[/quote]

I’ll respond to this, but first, answer this: what is wrong with a man having sex with a minor?
[/quote]

Not mature enough to understand consequences and therefore cannot consent. The same way a drunk person cannot consent (only the minor doesn’t control their maturity)
[/quote]

If these consequences lead to suffering at a later time for the victim or his/her families, then this action is wrong. There are cultures that had consequential sex between men and children (ancient Greek) which did not result in consequences at a later time. It was considered normal.
[/quote]
Are you a moral relativist?(what the Greeks did at the time was okay but now its wrong) or an absolutist?( What the Greeks(or any culture) did was wrong and had and always been wrong). I am a moral absolutist.

65

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]

Yes.

“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm

66

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< Obviously, rape is a greatly traumatic act that causes suffering to the victim. One should not cause suffering for others. Obviously, I’m against rape.[/quote]
Obvious to who? What if there is consent? Who are you to stick your nose into somebody’s business and tell them what the age of consent is or what suffering is? What if I disagree? What makes your definitions any better than mine?[/quote]

If there’s consent, then it’s not rape, is it? That’s consensual sex.[/quote]

NOt legally for a minor. Pedophiles often have consent of the child.[/quote]

I’ll respond to this, but first, answer this: what is wrong with a man having sex with a minor?
[/quote]

Not mature enough to understand consequences and therefore cannot consent. The same way a drunk person cannot consent (only the minor doesn’t control their maturity)
[/quote]

If these consequences lead to suffering at a later time for the victim or his/her families, then this action is wrong. There are cultures that had consequential sex between men and children (ancient Greek) which did not result in consequences at a later time. It was considered normal.
[/quote]
Are you a moral relativist?(what the Greeks did at the time was okay but now its wrong) or an absolutist?( What the Greeks(or any culture) did was wrong and had and always been wrong). I am a moral absolutist. [/quote]

Relativist.

67

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]

Yes.

“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]

Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.

68

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Relativist.[/quote]

No offense, but moral relativism is one of the worst things in this world.

69

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]

Yes.

“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]

Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]

Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).

70

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Relativist.[/quote]

No offense, but moral relativism is one of the worst things in this world.[/quote]

None taken. Please explain why you think that.

And actually, now that I think about it, I’m somewhat in between those two extremes. For me, whether something causes suffering onto others (people, animals, environment) is the determinant if an action is morally good or bad. In this way, I’m an absolutist. However, actions that cause suffering in one area might not cause suffering in another (to people, animals, or environment). In this way, I’m a relativist.

71

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]

dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]

I am sticking up for the Church, and not the people that did this. I agree they should go to jail. This is by far one of the top 2-3 things done by the Roman Catholic Church ever that I hate. These priests should be castrated if I had a say. I just do not want people to think it was the Church that did this. They were individual men that did this. The Pope or the Cardinals also had a hand in it by moving them around. If they were going to move the priests they should have not allowed them access to children ever again.[/quote]

But the church did allow this. They were aware of this for years. This is the same thing as a school principal being aware a teacher was raping children and instead of calling the authorities, they simply moved them to different classes.

The church is guilty.[/quote]

The principal is guilty and not the School. The Pope or Cardinals, or who ever makes the decisions on priests are the guilty ones. Jesus is the head of the Chruch, and he is crying that something like this happened. The church is bigger than the Pope, and all Beleiving Christians. You are a smart Guy BackinAction, I also like reading your posts, and I respect you. I am just saying think about it.

72

For a church, Catholic, or any, to be defined by Christ, should be able to define their acts, creeds, reasoning, rules, regulations and structures etc by following the Biblical examples of those things.
The Catholic church is unable to do that. They cannot define, by book chapter or verse many of their
beliefs and creeds. You said yourself you didn’t hold all their truths…think you said that. The Pope would be a good starting place, as would the rest of the manmade hierarchy that
is derived from the Roman government getting involved in religion itself. Call no other man Father. There was never an intention by Christ to divide leaders and laity. Who are the Nicolations that Jesus “hated the deeds of” as a warning to the church at Ephesus and at Pergamon? Do the greek word study on that…kind of a stretch for me, the logic behind the word, but it is interesting.

When Jesus was talking to Peter about building His church on the rock, meaning Peter, that is not correct. Peter simply claimed the answer to the question, was that Jesus was the Christ. There’s the rock, He is the Foundation. Not Peter. Peter denied the worship to himself that man wanted to give him. Peter was a frail, mistake laden human being, like us. Denying his very Lord even when warned he would, and denied that. Told to turn away from Christ as though he was satan, for wanting to fight a fight Christ wouldn’t take part of. Even, much later in his ministry, treating gentiles differently because of the presence of Jews. Peter was a man.

Martin Luther nailed a pretty good bunch of issues with the Catholic church on their door, those still hold truth today. But no “church” is perfect. Read the seven letters to the churches of Asia in Revelation. Each one of them is fraught with issues, but Jesus still dwelt in them and admonished them to move on and to perservere. Fight the fight, keep the faith and the crown is ours to gain.

My difficulty in religion, and I am religious, is judging others hearts solely on what religion they belong to. Not all Catholics, Baptist, Jews, etc etc etc are bad people. Not all are good either. Men want to believe, and their choice is to believe to believe, or simply not believe at all.

My choice is to believe in Christ as the Risen Savior. Based on Bible study, based on deep study within the Bible to find the truth. Based on faith and hope. Praying that His grace is as magnificent as I can possibly imagine…even more so.

73

Moral relativism is what causes good men and women to do and allow all manner of evil things.

74

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]

dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]

I am sticking up for the Church, and not the people that did this. I agree they should go to jail. This is by far one of the top 2-3 things done by the Roman Catholic Church ever that I hate. These priests should be castrated if I had a say. I just do not want people to think it was the Church that did this. They were individual men that did this. The Pope or the Cardinals also had a hand in it by moving them around. If they were going to move the priests they should have not allowed them access to children ever again.[/quote]

But the church did allow this. They were aware of this for years. This is the same thing as a school principal being aware a teacher was raping children and instead of calling the authorities, they simply moved them to different classes.

The church is guilty.[/quote]

The principal is guilty and not the School. The Pope or Cardinals, or who ever makes the decisions on priests are the guilty ones. Jesus is the head of the Chruch, and he is crying that something like this happened. The church is bigger than the Pope, and all Beleiving Christians. You are a smart Guy BackinAction, I also like reading your posts, and I respect you. I am just saying think about it.[/quote]

I’ll definitely think it over some more. Thanks dmmadox.

75

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Moral relativism is what causes good men and women to do and allow all manner of evil things.[/quote]

How would you define “evil things”? And why do you think moral absolutism wouldn’t allow this as well?

76

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]

Yes.

“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]

Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]

Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]

This is one of the issues that Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Chruch allows their priests to marry if they so choose. By making this choice they can be a priest but will never be able to be the Patriarch or Pope if you are Roman Catholic. Paul made the statement is was better to be with out a wife. I can see why the Roman Catholic Church thinks this way, but it just seems a bit extreme IMO. Priests in the Old Testament Hebrew Church were married, and had children, so why not priests of the Catholic Church? I guess what I am saying is that I still am struggling with this one. I am glad I am married and marriage and children are a blessing from God.

77

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Moral relativism is what causes good men and women to do and allow all manner of evil things.[/quote]

How would you define “evil things”? And why do you think moral absolutism wouldn’t allow this as well?[/quote]

Anything that starts off with “well, such and such does it” or “if I think about it this way it isn’t wrong”.

An extreme example of this would be “Jews aren’t really people so burning them in ovens is okay”.

78

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Moral relativism is what causes good men and women to do and allow all manner of evil things.[/quote]

How would you define “evil things”? And why do you think moral absolutism wouldn’t allow this as well?[/quote]

Anything that starts off with “well, such and such does it” or “if I think about it this way it isn’t wrong”.

An extreme example of this would be “Jews aren’t really people so burning them in ovens is okay”.[/quote]

I agree with you in that.

79

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]

Yes.

“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]

Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]

Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]

This is one of the issues that Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Chruch allows their priests to marry if they so choose. By making this choice they can be a priest but will never be able to be the Patriarch or Pope if you are Roman Catholic. Paul made the statement is was better to be with out a wife. I can see why the Roman Catholic Church thinks this way, but it just seems a bit extreme IMO. Priests in the Old Testament Hebrew Church were married, and had children, so why not priests of the Catholic Church? I guess what I am saying is that I still am struggling with this one. I am glad I am married and marriage and children are a blessing from God.[/quote]

You have to have the context for what Paul was saying. I know we could do some creative interpretation justify it and be apologists for Paul being wrong, but… Paul clearly believed that the second coming was eminent: like, Jesus was going to be back within his lifetime or shortly after, so in that context, you can see how focus on anything but matters of faith might be seen as a waste of time, Even in the centuries following, in the early church, folks really thought Jesus is gonna be back any day now, be ready. It really wasn’t until the post-middle-ages that the leadership of the church stopped assuming that Jesus was a coming any second, and that the second coming was probably in some distant future instead (the the Born again movement in the US in the 19th century brought that back).

80

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]

Yes.

“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]

Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]

Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]

This is one of the issues that Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Chruch allows their priests to marry if they so choose. By making this choice they can be a priest but will never be able to be the Patriarch or Pope if you are Roman Catholic. Paul made the statement is was better to be with out a wife. I can see why the Roman Catholic Church thinks this way, but it just seems a bit extreme IMO. Priests in the Old Testament Hebrew Church were married, and had children, so why not priests of the Catholic Church? I guess what I am saying is that I still am struggling with this one. I am glad I am married and marriage and children are a blessing from God.[/quote]

You have to have the context for what Paul was saying. I know we could do some creative interpretation justify it and be apologists for Paul being wrong, but… Paul clearly believed that the second coming was eminent: like, Jesus was going to be back within his lifetime or shortly after, so in that context, you can see how focus on anything but matters of faith might be seen as a waste of time, Even in the centuries following, in the early church, folks really thought Jesus is gonna be back any day now, be ready. It really wasn’t until the post-middle-ages that the leadership of the church stopped assuming that Jesus was a coming any second, and that the second coming was probably in some distant future instead (the the Born again movement in the US in the 19th century brought that back).
[/quote]

But the Protestants allow their Chruch Leaders to get married. The Catholics are the only ones that do not.