What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Jackalope]

Here is site that offers multiple sources if you click on "read more"

http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/

You're missing the point, yet again.

Whether Catholic priests abuse children at a higher or lower rate than the general population or any other group is irrelevant, as are the other points brought up by that apologetic site you quoted.

What's at issue is that Catholic church leadership had for at least decades shielded abusive clergy from civil prosecution (by "handling" the problem internally), and instead of removing their access to children, such clergy were often shuffled between parishes - and they did this all the while claiming to represent a higher moral authority.

*That's* the crime in all of this.

[Catholic_Lady]

Randy Carson, I had never heard of that before. I do think that homosexuality is just as different from pedophilia of little boys as heterosexuality is different from pedophilia of little girls.

I think an attraction towards a child has little to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. I don't see the connection here.

---

---

---

Wow, thanks for the recap! You have been paying attention!

When a pretty lady is involved, I always pay attention!

Everything here is correct... the only objection I would make is that God does not change lol.

Oh, darn...

But, but, but... the god of the OT, Yahweh, used to be the Yahu from Midian,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh:

His name may have originated as a title for El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel), but although El and Yahweh have much in common they also have many differences.[11] The more probable explanation is that he originated as a storm-god from regions south of Israel and Judah,[12] where Egyptian inscriptions mention a "land of the Shasu Yahu", the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom and Yahu a place name.[13]

There is considerable support–though not universal–for the view that the Egyption inscriptions do refer to Yahweh.

Then, he was plucked from the pantheon of that region and taken as the only god that matters or something, by Abraham, or Moses or some other city-state ruler, making its appearance as the antagonist to the Canaanites.
These guys, had El as the head god:

El, not Yahweh, was the original "God of Israel"—the word "Israel" is based on the name El rather than Yahweh.[22] He was the chief of the Canaanite gods, described as "the kind, the compassionate," "the creator of creatures".[23] He lived in a tent on a mountain from whose base originated all the fresh waters of the world, from where he presided over the Assembly of the Gods with the goddess Asherah as his consort.

[...]

Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, joined the pantheon headed by El and in time he and El were identified, with El's name becoming a generic term for "god".[24] Each member of the divine council had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of El, including Yahweh, each receiving his own people

Curious read, isn't it?
Shall we go on?

After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god.[30] Thus Chemosh was the god of the Moabites, Milcom the god of the Ammonites, Qaus the god of the Edomites, and Yahweh the "God of Israel"

So... that's why he didn't want his people to worship other gods... That would mean that they were the people from another nation state.

In each kingdom the king was also the head of the national religion and God's viceroy on Earth,[33] reflected each year in Jerusalem at a ceremony when the king presided over a ceremony at which Yahweh was enthroned in the Temple.[34]

The centre of Yahweh's worship lay in three great annual festivals coinciding with major events in rural life: Passover with the birthing of lambs, Shavuot with the cereal harvest, and Sukkot with the fruit harvest.[35] These probably pre-dated the arrival of the Yahweh religion,[35] but they became linked to events in the national mythos of Israel: Passover with the exodus from Egypt, Shavuot with the law-giving at Sinai, and Sukkot with the wilderness wanderings.

I see... the king wouldn't want people to desert to neighboring states, "either"... so it's best to have god command everyone to worship only him.

Scholars agree that Israelite monotheism was the culmination of a unique set of historical circumstances.[45] Pre-exilic Israel, like its neighbours, was polytheistic.[46] Yahweh and El merged at religious centres such as Shechem, Shiloh and Jerusalem,[47] and the national god appropriated many of the older supreme god's titles such as Shaddai and Elyon (Almighty).[48] Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was probably worshiped as Yahweh's consort, and various biblical passages indicate that her statues were kept in his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria.[49] Yahweh may also have appropriated Anat, the wife of Baal, as his consort, as Anat-Yahu ("Anat of Yahu," i.e., Yahweh) is mentioned in 5th century records from the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Egypt.

[...]

Baal and Yahweh coexisted in the early period of Israel's history, but from the 9th century they were considered irreconcilable, probably as a result of the attempts of King Ahab and Jezebel, his Phoenician queen, to elevate him in the northern kingdom.[49]

The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, but more likely with the prophet Hosea in the 8th; even then it remained the concern of a small party before gaining ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period.[46] The process by which this came about might be described as follows: In the early tribal period each tribe would have had its own patron god; when kingship emerged the state promoted Yahweh as the national god of Israel, supreme over the other gods, and gradually Yahweh absorbed all the positive traits of the other gods and goddesses; finally, in the national crisis of the exile, the very existence of other gods was denied.

Still think the guy didn't change?

And I haven't even delved into OT -> NT divergence!!

Thank you.

I think Randy can better explain this, but what I can say is that we still believe that God did not change. God always has been and always will be the same as what Jesus portrayed to us through his time here. Perhaps we didn't understand God quite right before Jesus came and set the record straight and showed us through example what God is really like, since He was God Himself.

---

Here is site that offers multiple sources if you click on "read more"

http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/

You're missing the point, yet again.

Whether Catholic priests abuse children at a higher or lower rate than the general population or any other group is irrelevant, as are the other points brought up by that apologetic site you quoted.

What's at issue is that Catholic church leadership had for at least decades shielded abusive clergy from civil prosecution (by "handling" the problem internally), and instead of removing their access to children, such clergy were often shuffled between parishes - and they did this all the while claiming to represent a higher moral authority.

*That's* the crime in all of this.

Well, the crime is both. Both the people who abused, and those who covered it up were wrong. Whateverist said he doubted that school staffers ever cover up abuse, but the fact is they do. As you can see from the site, some school staffers also did and do cover up cases and brush stuff under the rug.

[Randy Carson]

---

---

Wow, thanks for the recap! You have been paying attention!

When a pretty lady is involved, I always pay attention!

Everything here is correct... the only objection I would make is that God does not change lol.

Oh, darn...

But, but, but... the god of the OT, Yahweh, used to be the Yahu from Midian,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh:

His name may have originated as a title for El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel), but although El and Yahweh have much in common they also have many differences.[11] The more probable explanation is that he originated as a storm-god from regions south of Israel and Judah,[12] where Egyptian inscriptions mention a "land of the Shasu Yahu", the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom and Yahu a place name.[13]

There is considerable support–though not universal–for the view that the Egyption inscriptions do refer to Yahweh.

Then, he was plucked from the pantheon of that region and taken as the only god that matters or something, by Abraham, or Moses or some other city-state ruler, making its appearance as the antagonist to the Canaanites.
These guys, had El as the head god:

El, not Yahweh, was the original "God of Israel"—the word "Israel" is based on the name El rather than Yahweh.[22] He was the chief of the Canaanite gods, described as "the kind, the compassionate," "the creator of creatures".[23] He lived in a tent on a mountain from whose base originated all the fresh waters of the world, from where he presided over the Assembly of the Gods with the goddess Asherah as his consort.

[...]

Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, joined the pantheon headed by El and in time he and El were identified, with El's name becoming a generic term for "god".[24] Each member of the divine council had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of El, including Yahweh, each receiving his own people

Curious read, isn't it?
Shall we go on?

After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god.[30] Thus Chemosh was the god of the Moabites, Milcom the god of the Ammonites, Qaus the god of the Edomites, and Yahweh the "God of Israel"

So... that's why he didn't want his people to worship other gods... That would mean that they were the people from another nation state.

In each kingdom the king was also the head of the national religion and God's viceroy on Earth,[33] reflected each year in Jerusalem at a ceremony when the king presided over a ceremony at which Yahweh was enthroned in the Temple.[34]

The centre of Yahweh's worship lay in three great annual festivals coinciding with major events in rural life: Passover with the birthing of lambs, Shavuot with the cereal harvest, and Sukkot with the fruit harvest.[35] These probably pre-dated the arrival of the Yahweh religion,[35] but they became linked to events in the national mythos of Israel: Passover with the exodus from Egypt, Shavuot with the law-giving at Sinai, and Sukkot with the wilderness wanderings.

I see... the king wouldn't want people to desert to neighboring states, "either"... so it's best to have god command everyone to worship only him.

Scholars agree that Israelite monotheism was the culmination of a unique set of historical circumstances.[45] Pre-exilic Israel, like its neighbours, was polytheistic.[46] Yahweh and El merged at religious centres such as Shechem, Shiloh and Jerusalem,[47] and the national god appropriated many of the older supreme god's titles such as Shaddai and Elyon (Almighty).[48] Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was probably worshiped as Yahweh's consort, and various biblical passages indicate that her statues were kept in his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria.[49] Yahweh may also have appropriated Anat, the wife of Baal, as his consort, as Anat-Yahu ("Anat of Yahu," i.e., Yahweh) is mentioned in 5th century records from the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Egypt.

[...]

Baal and Yahweh coexisted in the early period of Israel's history, but from the 9th century they were considered irreconcilable, probably as a result of the attempts of King Ahab and Jezebel, his Phoenician queen, to elevate him in the northern kingdom.[49]

The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, but more likely with the prophet Hosea in the 8th; even then it remained the concern of a small party before gaining ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period.[46] The process by which this came about might be described as follows: In the early tribal period each tribe would have had its own patron god; when kingship emerged the state promoted Yahweh as the national god of Israel, supreme over the other gods, and gradually Yahweh absorbed all the positive traits of the other gods and goddesses; finally, in the national crisis of the exile, the very existence of other gods was denied.

Still think the guy didn't change?

And I haven't even delved into OT -> NT divergence!!

So, if I understand correctly, the Jewish people went from believing in a variety of Gods to believing in a single God. This move to monotheisim took a long time and required quite a bit of effort, apparently, on the part of Yahweh due to the heavy influences of their own past and the interactions with the polytheistic nations around them. Although the Israelites were not always faithful to Yahweh, once they finally embraced God who had revealed himself to them, their relationship with God made Israel unique among the nations.

In short, the one true God formed a people with whom He covenanted Himself in preparation for the sending of His own Son into the world.

Is there something more you want to draw from Israel's history than that?

[pocaracas]

Thank you.

I think Randy can better explain this, but what I can say is that we still believe that God did not change. God always has been and always will be the same as what Jesus portrayed to us through his time here. Perhaps we didn't understand God quite right before Jesus came and set the record straight and showed us through example what God is really like, since He was God Himself.

I understand that may be what you guys believe in.... but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

I told Randy this before. What you believe in *may* not be in tune with reality.
People from way back then believed in something different. People in the future will believe in something yet more different (this sentence sounds weird...). Beliefs have evolved and are still evolving.

[Whateverist]

Do either of you seriously think pedophilia is more rampant among public school teachers than it is with Catholic priests?

That is one question.  Another is, do either of you seriously think there has been the same effort to cover it up when it emerges as there has been among the priesthood?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes for either of you I would appreciate knowing the source for your opinion, assuming there is one.  

It is the failure of the Catholic leadership not to seek legal intervention for its priests the way I believe every school system would always do in regards to its teachers which I find the most reprehensible.

Here is site that offers multiple sources if you click on "read more"

Well I did look into it and found it based on just one report filed by a Ms. Shakeshaft of Hofstra University. Many news sources trumpeted it as "news many were afraid to report". But by far, many more shamelessly did pass this unsound report on. This report by Wendy McElroy exposes many flaws. One passage of McElroy's report:

Among the questions asked of students by the one AAUW study was, “during your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following things to you when you did not want them to? Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures or looks.” A list of 13 other behaviors follows.

The question seems to be the nexus at which sexual abuse in school is established. Thus, the 10 percent figure properly includes “sexual abuse” by fellow students and other non-school employees. That fact alone invalidates the AAUW study for Shakeshaft’s purposes. It also invalidates her conclusions.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1331

It looks to me as if Shakeshaft is a discredited source, and the only source, for exaggerated figures for sexual abuse in the public schools. I'm going back to find out more about Shakeshaft and whether Hofstra or any other university is still associated with her. This looks like your typical conspiracy theory. Child abuse happens wherever adults work with kids. But it is telling that so many Catholic websites are still trumpeting Shakeshaft's report. Rather than unearthing a coverup by the public schools, it looks as though you have brought to our attention one more attempt to by the Catholic church to spin its cover-up of its own sex scandals.

[Randy Carson]

Thank you.

I think Randy can better explain this, but what I can say is that we still believe that God did not change. God always has been and always will be the same as what Jesus portrayed to us through his time here. Perhaps we didn't understand God quite right before Jesus came and set the record straight and showed us through example what God is really like, since He was God Himself.

I understand that may be what you guys believe in.... but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

I told Randy this before. What you believe in *may* not be in tune with reality.
People from way back then believed in something different. People in the future will believe in something yet more different (this sentence sounds weird...). Beliefs have evolved and are still evolving.

Fail #1: There was a pretty radical break between Judaism and Christianity. That's not "evolution" from Moses to Jesus.
Fail #2: Although Catholic doctrine develops (as understanding develops), our doctrines have NOT evolved over the past 2,000 years.

I don't think that the Catholic Church 2,000 years from now (if Jesus hasn't already returned) will be teaching anything differently on transubstantiation, the efficacy of baptism, the all-male priesthood, the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, etc.

[Randy Carson]

Here is site that offers multiple sources if you click on "read more"

Well I did look into it and found it based on just one report filed by a Ms. Shakeshaft of Hofstra University.  Many news sources trumpeted it as "news many were afraid to report".  But by far, many more shamelessly did pass this unsound report on.  This report by Wendy McElroy exposes many flaws.  One passage of McElroy's report:

Among the questions asked of students by the one AAUW study was, “during your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following things to you when you did not want them to? Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures or looks.” A list of 13 other behaviors follows.

The question seems to be the nexus at which sexual abuse in school is established. Thus, the 10 percent figure properly includes “sexual abuse” by fellow students and other non-school employees. That fact alone invalidates the AAUW study for Shakeshaft’s purposes. It also invalidates her conclusions.

 

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1331

It looks to me as if Shakeshaft is a discredited source, and the only source, for exaggerated figures for sexual abuse in the public schools.  I'm going back to find out more about Shakeshaft and whether Hofstra or any other university is still associated with her.  This looks like your typical conspiracy theory.  Child abuse happens wherever adults work with kids.  But it is telling that so many Catholic websites are still trumpeting Shakeshaft's report.  Rather than unearthing a coverup by the public schools, it looks as though you have brought to our attention one more attempt to by the Catholic church to spin its cover-up of its own sex scandals.

So many Catholic sites are trumpeting the study because it was commissioned by the Department of Education - not the Catholic Church - and because idiots on the Internet are still repeating the kind of crap that is seen in your post.

This Wikipedia article suggests that there was some ambiguity between sexual harassment and sexual abuse...but not ambiguity about students being sexually abused by other students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft

For example, Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of House, is currently under investigation for a number of issues. And he is accused of having a sexual relationship with a high school student which occurred when? When Hastert was a high school coach.

Here are some other non-Catholic sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ig...in-school/
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-n...ales-70625

[Nope]

Randy Carson

I'll be a lot more blunt than CL: the Catholic Church's mistake was in believing that gays could be accepted into the priesthood in the first place without the problems that are being discussed surfacing eventually.


There is no "heterosexual priest" problem in the Catholic Church.  There is a "homosexual priest" problem that is being mis-identified by the media as a "pedophile priest" problem. But these aren't straight, horny priests molesting girls. These are predatory homosexuals preying on boys. (And the affairs with parishioners you speak of are nothing in comparison to the problems experienced in Protestant churches.)

http://pix11.com/2014/09/24/li-priest-ac...-girl-std/

A Long Island priest is accused of molesting a 6-year-old girl, resulting in her contracting an STD.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_2...ng-3-girls

HIBBING, Minn. -- A Hibbing priest was charged Thursday with five counts of criminal sexual conduct for allegedly inappropriately touching three girls in incidents starting last year and continuing through this week.

http://www.rense.com/general24/lifelonghorror.htm

A priest raped Sharan Falotico when she was 13.

She's since tried to kill herself three times, spent nine months in a psychiatric ward, and saw a marriage shatter

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/nyregi...-girl.html

A Roman Catholic priest was sentenced yesterday to four months in jail for molesting a 12-year-old altar girl at her home in Brooklyn in 1999.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-s...sting.html

A Catholic priest who pleaded guilty to inappropriately touching an 11-year-old Fairfax County girl last year was sentenced Friday to nine months in jail.

http://gothamist.com/2011/08/04/bronx_pr...xually.php

An elderly Bronx priest was arrested yesterday and accused of sexually abusing a teenage girl who had just started working at his church rectory last week. Father Jaime Duenas, 87, was arraigned on charges of sexual abuse, forcible touching and endangering the welfare of the 16-year-old girl. And according to prosecutors, he gave this excuse in his cell before his arraignment last night: "She didn't protest to getting a massage...She was wearing short skirts."

http://bossip.com/813367/hide-ya-kids-33...nage-girl/

A California superior court judge sentenced Father Uriel Ojeda, 33, to eight years in state prison on Friday for molesting a teenage girl multiple times.

“My actions were those of a weak and sinful man,” Ojeda said in court.

Ojeda pleaded no contest to sneaking into the young girl’s bedroom at her parents’ Sacramento home on the night he was ordained and climbing into bed with her as she slept.

http://www.priestabusetrial.com/2012/05/...duals.html

The link above is about a priest in PA that abused multiple women

Yes, priests molest girls also.

[pocaracas]

So, if I understand correctly, the Jewish people went from believing in a variety of Gods to believing in a single God. This move to monotheisim took a long time and required quite a bit of effort, apparently, on the part of Yahweh due to the heavy influences of their own past and the interactions with the polytheistic nations around them. Although the Israelites were not always faithful to Yahweh, once they finally embraced God who had revealed himself to them, their relationship with God made Israel unique among the nations.

In short, the one true God formed a people with whom He covenanted Himself in preparation for the sending of His own Son into the world.

Is there something more you want to draw from Israel's history than that?

Effort?
Planning by the rulers, Id say.
The romans then took care to build roads and unwittingly disseminate that single-god concept. It is a simplistic concept and much better suited bring a whole people together, than the divisive polytheist one... Just look at Egypt and how many times they turned over from worshiping Amun to worshiping Ra and vice-versa! Eventually, they came up with Amun-Ra and had peace for a while!

Also, a "one true god" making a covenant with a specific people? A very localized group of people? If you can't see how limited and ungodly such behaviour is, I'm afraid you are hopeless.
And all that just to bring forth a very human-looking "son of the one true god" who would pass on his message to a few uneducated townsfolk, who would pass on his message in such a flawed manner that, 2000 years later, Israel isn't really following those teachings, most of the humanity doesn't follow them...
I wouldn't stand behind such a flawed god.

[pocaracas]

I understand that may be what you guys believe in.... but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

I told Randy this before. What you believe in *may* not be in tune with reality.
People from way back then believed in something different. People in the future will believe in something yet more different (this sentence sounds weird...). Beliefs have evolved and are still evolving.

Fail #1: There was a pretty radical break between Judaism and Christianity. That's not "evolution" from Moses to Jesus.

Still one single god... not so radical.

Fail #2: Although Catholic doctrine develops (as understanding develops), our doctrines have NOT evolved over the past 2,000 years.

I don't think that the Catholic Church 2,000 years from now (if Jesus hasn't already returned) will be teaching anything differently on transubstantiation, the efficacy of baptism, the all-male priesthood, the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, etc.

If there will be a catholic church then... whoever is alive at the time will report on it.