Christianity Harms Society. Why I Mock Christians

[Esquilax]

Not dependent, but made necessary. As a Catholic in a privileged position I am expected to use the goods that I own in moderation and save the best for guests, the sick, and the poor.

Which is why I have such trouble with the Vatican, filled with art and treasure: it's fairly clear that your leaders- the ones ostensibly closest to god- don't agree with you there.

You do not condone it, and neither does the Church. You and the Church are in agreement. Paragraph 2389 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So then why are the archbishops aware of the hush money being dispensed? See, this is the problem: you're clinging to the rules your church has set in place, while ignoring the level to which they're being broken when it favors the church. But what use are the words, if they aren't backed up with deeds? Tyrannies across the world have been built on the backs of shiny, happy words masking the degree to which those words don't apply to the people in power. You're happy to put the words on a pedestal as the good thing, but the actions don't matter because they're performed by people and not the words, which completely ignores the fact that the people ignoring the words are the ones who get to interpret them in ways that are binding to the rest of you.

This is witty but fails to make the point I believe you were shooting for.

The point is that an organization so committed to wealth that they coat their headquarters in gold can't be claimed to not endorse rampant capitalism.

This is the "Old woman and her Bible" routine. It is convent to say that the Bible justifies wars to the reader because there are verses that do so. It is also convent to say the Bible does not justify wars because there are verses that do so.

I am already aware of the extent to which your holy book contradicts itself.

So I will correct my statement. There is something called a just war, but it is not to be taken lightly and should only be pursued when all other options have failed.

You might want to correct that further, because those just wars in the bible include a lot of child murder and forced marriage and so on.

Bold added.

I am arguing that the Church is not responsible because, like I said, the Church does not promote harm. When someone does so, whether they be a participant in the Church or not, they are acting OUTSIDE of the Church's expectations.

So that official church doctrine against birth control, up to and including lying about condoms and AIDS in Africa... that's not promotion of harm? Officially sanctioned hush money to quiet villification of pedophiles while they're shuffled around to avoid prosecution isn't promotion of harm?

You've got to understand, "the church" isn't a thinking being: it doesn't have expectations, and I'm not about to bring god's supposed expectations into play until you can demonstrate the existence of such a being. The church is populated by people, and the ones causing the harm here are the ones positioning themselves as being close to god, the ones that speak for him. The ones who get to determine the rules. Your entire argument basically boils down to the idea that, because these people spout ingratiating platitudes on one side while failing to live up to them on the other, we shouldn't hold this collection of holy folks apparently elected by an ineffable god to task for them.

And this is the root of your problem. You cannot seem to separate the Church and its believers. It is unfair scapegoating, as if all the bad in the world comes from the Church, the only pedophiles in the world are priests, and whenever someone who claims to be a Christian ends up on the news for doing something wrong it proves that the whole system is fucked up and full of heartless morons.

The Church is what interprets the Bible, the sole authority, and if you looked into what it had to say instead of stealing quotes from quotes from quotes, you might be able to expand your world view and not be so single minded.

I never said all the bad in the world comes from the church, I'm just not willing to give those that do within the church a pass based on a No True Scotsman fallacy. You said it yourself; the church interprets the bible. Aren't the archbishops kind of a big part of the church? Isn't the pope, who sat atop that gold throne, and knew of the abuse cases in at least a few iterations? Where are you drawing the line, if those guys aren't a part of the church's authority?

You are going to laugh at this but -

Guilt

and the need to say that you are sorry.
Society requires nothing in this regard, only that you pay for what you did wrong through some sort of punishment. Religion requires it, even when you don't get caught. Religion gave us "I'm sorry" and the secular world is trying to dispose of it.

You're right, I am going to laugh. Do you know why?

It's because your church requires that you say sorry not to the person you wrong, but to god. No recompense is required, no crime too great to avoid salvation; just apologize to Jesus, and you're fine. Religion gives you guilt as a mechanism for making you feel like you owe the church when they also give you a (conveniently immaterial) get out of jail free card, and you're playing into it hook, line and sinker.