Thank you CL, your kind words mean a lot to me

Yeah, unfortunately the majority of theists we get coming through here do more to hurt their cause than help it. Most spout off a load of ignorant twoddle completely misrepresenting atheism, post a couple more insults then vanish.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Everything was passed down from word of mouth.

But that's part of the problem, don't you think? Btw, I have the same opinion about the bible. Campfire tales making the rounds on the trade routes. But you know how it goes with word of mouth. One person says this and the other says that and in the end the story looks completely different than the ones originally told.

And kudos for not assuming the bible to be written in stone right from the start.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:08 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 1:56 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know people say that to me a lot here, and I appreciate it. But I feel like as Christians we need to take responsibility for our failures. Yes, it was technically "others" but we are all part of the same group together and I feel like we need to take responsibility for the times we fell short.

I hate to post and run, but I really need to go to bed.  But before I do, I'd like to know how you square your sentiment that we need to take responsibility for our failures with the notion of vicarious redemption.  Please take a look at the Christopher Hitchens quote in Rhythm's signature.  If you think Hitchens is wrong to express repugnance at the idea of vicarious redemption, how does that relate to any sense of moral responsibility?  Yes, I know that Christians think of Christ's alleged sacrifice as an act of God's love and grace.  But to think the act itself makes any sense, it seems to me that the believer must also think that without it we are deserving of damnation.  Doesn't responsibility pretty much go out the window with such a viewpoint?  (And please -- no Pauline nonsense about the Law functioning only to demonstrate our hopelessly fallen nature.)

I will address this in the morning.

(June 17, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Correct.

The ages of the victims suggest that the priests were targeting young men...not young boys.

Do you approve of raping 13-year-old boys? Do you think it's more moral than raping 10-year-old boys?

Sorry that my hair-splitter is in the shop for sharpening. You'll need to distinguish the moral differences of the two acts, and you'll need to explain why you regard that difference as meaningful.

This entire "it wasn't pedophilia, raping adolescents is called hebephilia" entirely dodges the point that priests fucking young boys is a betrayal of the morality those priests are charged with exemplifying.

You're retreating to semantics because you know you've already lost the moral battle. Don't think you're fooling anyone here ... but in case you do think that, I will make sure to disabuse you of that notion.

(June 18, 2015 at 3:25 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 17, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Correct.

The ages of the victims suggest that the priests were targeting young men...not young boys.

Do you approve of raping 13-year-old boys?  Do you think it's more moral than raping 10-year-old boys?

Sorry that my hair-splitter is in the shop for sharpening.  You'll need to distinguish the moral differences of the two acts, and you'll need to explain why you regard that difference as meaningful.

This entire "it wasn't pedophilia, raping adolescents is called hebephilia" entirely dodges the point that priests fucking young boys  is a betrayal of the morality those priests are charged with exemplifying.

You're retreating to semantics because you know you've already lost the moral battle.  Don't think you're fooling anyone here ... but in case you do think that, I will make sure to disabuse you of that notion.

To be fair, Randy has repeated multiple times already that the abuse was very wrong and that those priests should face criminal charges.

I don't think his point is that it's any less immoral.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:27 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It breaks my heart to know that so many of you have been shunned and treated so cruelly by theists. It especially upsets me when it's done by Christians, because they are my people. What a shame that some of us wandered so far from the example and words of Jesus, whom we should be trying to emulate.

He would approve, I'm sure. After all he came to bring a sword, not peace, and to ride in the blood of his enemies. And the same eternal damnation many of us have been threatened with is his idea after all.

Jesus did say a lot of really horrible shit, I agree. His fuzzy character requires selective reading.

I have a hypothesis about this in fact, I can't find the place I first heard about it. He could be an amalgamation of two characters, one peaceful and one warmongering. It makes far more sense to me.

(June 18, 2015 at 3:38 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 3:25 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Do you approve of raping 13-year-old boys?  Do you think it's more moral than raping 10-year-old boys?

Sorry that my hair-splitter is in the shop for sharpening.  You'll need to distinguish the moral differences of the two acts, and you'll need to explain why you regard that difference as meaningful.

This entire "it wasn't pedophilia, raping adolescents is called hebephilia" entirely dodges the point that priests fucking young boys  is a betrayal of the morality those priests are charged with exemplifying.

You're retreating to semantics because you know you've already lost the moral battle.  Don't think you're fooling anyone here ... but in case you do think that, I will make sure to disabuse you of that notion.

To be fair, Randy has repeated multiple times already that the abuse was very wrong and that those priests should face criminal charges.

I don't think his point is that it's any less immoral.

His aim is to dodge the point by appealing to fine distinctions which don't mean jack-shit to those victimized.

If raping teens is not equally immoral, then he needs to answer why that is. And if it is equally immoral, then he needs to quit trying to muddy the waters.

(June 18, 2015 at 3:01 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I love science! Lol.

Speaking of which, did you know that it was a Catholic priest who first introduced the big bang theory? And that the pope of the time was super excited about it?   There is no animosity on the Church's part towards science, and there hasn't been for a very long time.

yes... did you know that Galileo was a Catholic?
Or, better yet, the first guy to investigate into genetics (before we knew anything about genes), Mandel, was an actual friar.

It must have also been a religious person who coined the term "god particle" to the Higgs Boson.