[split] Big Announcement and Invitation

[Randy Carson]

Are you equally outraged by the public school teachers who prey on our kids? 

Or do you focus exclusively on Catholicism?

The focus on religious criminals is perfectly apt.

After all, your own Jesus said:

16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

A faith which both produces leaders who molest children, and hide the criminals who molest children, is a rotten faith.  

NOTE TO MODS: YES, I WROTE THIS.

This is poor logic, Parker. The faith did not PRODUCE the sin, the sin was there all along. 

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a "devil" (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on "Moses’ seat" found in the opening verses of Matthew 23:  “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

"Moses’ seat" is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as "hypocrites," "blind guides," "blind fools," "serpents," and a "brood of vipers." But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to "obey and do everything" the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Of course, sin and corruption in Church leadership should never be condoned but neither should they surprise us. The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Finally, we should consider the following from Pope Piux XII’s 1943 encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi:

And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo:

"Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Where is the problem in what I said? In the absence of theism, atheists like Stalin and others killed millions in the last century alone. Where is my error?

I go on to explain it.

You realize that the god you worship has condemned every human in history to death for the "sin" of the first two, right?


And then paid the price for everyone of them? Yes, I realize this.

No; you see, and I know this is probably very new information to you but bear with me -- even after Jesus was allegedly killed at Calvary, people still died.

People died of gunshot wounds and dysentery and the cancer that your god saw fit to create; they died of cliff-falls and shark attacks and pneumonia; they died in tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and fires; and if none of that got them, and even if they were saved Christians, they still died of old age.

What this means for you, Skippy, is that your god is responsible for death. ALL death. After all, he invented it.

For you to complain that Stalin and Mao added up to a hundred million deaths, when your god's hands are so bloody is rich. You worship the original, and the most prolific, killer. And yet you complain that humans who haven't approached 1/20th of your god's toll are murderers because they lack belief in your god.

Sorry, but you look like a thoughtless twat when you shitpost like this. You really should examine what it is you believe, because clearly you worship an evil god, but are in denial about it.

---

The focus on religious criminals is perfectly apt.

After all, your own Jesus said:


A faith which both produces leaders who molest children, and hide the criminals who molest children, is a rotten faith.  

This is poor logic, Parker. The faith did not PRODUCE the sin, the sin was there all along.

Nonsense. The fact is, they took advantage of a position of authority in order to satisfy their depravities, which the morality your god allegedly imbues did nothing to stop. If blind worshippers like you would open your eyes and stop assigning power to these perverts, their depredations would be much less -- yet you, in your faith, defend them.

It follows that their perversions are a product of your faith.

Your faith.

You are defending child-molesters.

You are defending a religion which hides child-molesters even as it claims the moral authority of God's teachings.

[religious garbage excised]

I don't care what your Bible says, because in following the sickening teachings you've posted, your priests have led you to the path of defending evil.

You should be ashamed of yourself -- but that requires morality.

[dyresand]

@OP pretty much Stalin killing people was the churches fault pretty much you created that guy.
All he wanted to do was be a Activist and apart of the church heck a religious communism could have existed
but yeah again the church kicked him out and that would be the fault of your side right there and the
reason why Atheism is dominant in Russia.

[Randy Carson]

Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children.  Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age."

This is homosexuality - not pedophilia - and the media does not want to report this fact.

Forgive me, my hair-splitter is at the shop for sharpening.  The fact is, an adult assfucking a teenager is still a crime.  That is not "homosexuality" -- that is homosexual priests molesting minors.

Yes, it is. But not one the media wants to talk about. Homosexuals are preying upon these kids...homosexual priests to be sure, but they are part of the homosexual community. And this doesn't fit well with the current love-affair that the media has with the LGBT agenda.

It happens in schools, it happens in Protestant Churches, it happens in Catholic Churches, it happened at Penn State, etc, etc. But the Catholic Church draws the heavy fire. Why do you suppose that is?

And that makes me wonder -- do you disagree with the Church's position that homosexuality is a sin, or, as your own Bible says, an "abomination"? Why do you defend sinners who not only commit "abomination", but do so upon minor children who both legally and sensibly cannot give informed consent -- and then pretend that it's not what it is?

Please cite the post # wherein I defended priests who have committed this or any crime. Are you actually following the thread at all?

You have a very, very detailed delineation of right and wrong.  I wonder why it is that the line between right and wrong, in your mind, seems to depend on who is doing the wrong?

I'm thinking you've got a bunch of double-standards that cannot stand up to scrutiny.  Therefore, I'm looking forward to your answer, because while my hair-splitter is in the shop, my scalpel is nice and oiled.

Explain yourself in a coherent fashion.

I did, and you have not understood. See my previous posts.

---

No; you see, and I know this is probably very new information to you but bear with me -- even after Jesus was allegedly killed at Calvary, people still died.  

People died of gunshot wounds and dysentery and the cancer that your god saw fit to create; they died of cliff-falls and shark attacks and pneumonia; they died in tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and fires; and if none of that got them, and even if they were saved Christians, they still died of old age.

What this means for you, Skippy, is that your god is responsible for death.  ALL death.  After all, he invented it.

You are speaking here of physical death? Yes, death is a result of the fall. But your experience of life does not end when you stop breathing, Parker. Your spirit continues on living. FOREVER. 

But you're pissed because people die? Even of old age? And that's God's fault because we don't live forever?

For you to complain that Stalin and Mao added up to a hundred million deaths, when your god's hands are so bloody is rich. You worship the original, and the most prolific, killer.  And yet you complain that humans who haven't approached 1/20th of your god's toll are murderers because they lack belief in your god.

Sorry, but you look like a thoughtless twat when you shitpost like this. You really should examine what it is you believe, because clearly you worship an evil god, but are in denial about it.

How many people has the Catholic Church declared to be in hell, Parker? Ballpark number?

This is poor logic, Parker. The faith did not PRODUCE the sin, the sin was there all along.

Nonsense.  The fact is, they took advantage of a position of authority in order to satisfy their depravities, which the morality your god allegedly imbues did nothing to stop. If blind worshippers like you would open your eyes and stop assigning power to these perverts, their depredations would be much less -- yet you, in your faith, defend them.

It follows that their perversions are a product of your faith.

You're suggesting that Christianity teaches the rape of children as one of its formal doctrines?

Do you have any support for this position?

[Esquilax]

It happens in schools, it happens in Protestant Churches, it happens in Catholic Churches, it happened at Penn State, etc, etc. But the Catholic Church draws the heavy fire. Why do you suppose that is?

"But everyone else is doing it!"

This is a kindergarten argument. I'm constantly surprised how often I need to remind theists that two wrongs do not make a right.

You're suggesting that Christianity teaches the rape of children as one of its formal doctrines?


Do you have any support for this position?

I seem to recall a few moments in the bible where your god specifically orders that all the virgin women and children be taken from a conquered village, for the purposes of becoming slave-brides to their captors, so... let the wiggling and simpering excuse-making begin, I suppose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, it is. But not one the media wants to talk about. Homosexuals are preying upon these kids...homosexual priests to be sure, but they are part of the homosexual community. And this doesn't fit well with the current love-affair that the media has with the LGBT agenda.

They are part of the theist community. You know, the community that says "without god, we wouldn't be moral". Now, by behaving in such an immoral fashion, are they actually saying that there is no god -- or are they saying that that line about morality requiring god is bullshit?

Or, and you will shudder to think it, are they saying both?

You follow the moral teachings of the rudderless.

It happens in schools, it happens in Protestant Churches, it happens in Catholic Churches, it happened at Penn State, etc, etc. But the Catholic Church draws the heavy fire. Why do you suppose that is?

I've criticized it wherever I've seen it. Paterno and Penn State caught hell for their oversights. I will be happy to list the protestant perverts who have done this misdeed, and excoriate them as well.

But while you're busy pointing the finger at others, you still haven't answered the question, which is why do you follow the moral authority of a church which generates and protects perverts?

I almost feel bad for having to point out to you that simply because someone else did the same thing, it doesn't excuse your Sunday padre his little lustful moment with the choirboy. That whole "two wrongs don't make a right" thing. You might have heard of it -- but then again, to judge from your posts in this thread, you might not be familiar with the idea.

Please cite the post # wherein I defended priests who have committed this or any crime. Are you actually following the thread at all?

Numbers 29, 40, 44, and 53 -- you repeatedly attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your own "holy" men bugger children, by bringing up other examples. Additionally, you brush off the words of your own Christ regarding the genesis of corruption in an organization in order to preserve your viewpoint that the Catholic hierarchy has behaved appropriately in regards to the molestations it has protected and enabled.

You're not fooling anyone with your slimy rhetoric. If a Catholic priest does it, you will either justify it, or deflect from it, and both are forms of defense. In these cases, you've chosen the latter method. You're not fooling anyone here.

You are defending child molesters by trying to deflect attention from them onto others. You are refusing to address the point that a moral authority such as a priest should not be doing things like, you know, fucking children in the ass.

I did, and you have not understood. See my previous posts.

Oh, I understand quite well what you're up to; I simply have no time for bullshit. You will quit deflecting and present your position on the Church's defense of child molesters, or you will continue to be regarded as a defender of child molestation.

If you don't like that, tough shit. If you lay down with dogs, you're bound to get fleas.

Quit the dissimulation, and speak the truth.

You are speaking here of physical death? Yes, death is a result of the fall. But your experience of life does not end when you stop breathing, Parker. Your spirit continues on living. FOREVER. 

Evidence, please.

But you're pissed because people die? Even of old age? And that's God's fault because we don't live forever?

No, Einstein. I'm saying that you criticizing an atheist regime for killing a hundred million while your god has killed literally billions according to your own holy book is a clear case of double standard brought about by bias.

This isn't rocket surgery. Pay attention to what is being said and quit trying to be clever, because let's face it, you're not qualified for that. Your own holy book says that god introduced mortality into mankind as a result of the Fall. Do you really want to argue otherwise? Are you so unlearnt that you need chapter and verse?

Or are you simply being dishonest?

How many people has the Catholic Church declared to be in hell, Parker? Ballpark number?

I don't give two shits rubbed together what your church has to say about something of which it has no knowledge.

You're suggesting that Christianity teaches the rape of children as one of its formal doctrines?

Do you have any support for this position?

Is English your native tongue?

Reread what I wrote, and don't insult my intelligence with this sort of tripe again.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This thread is a croc of shit.

[Silver]

This is my home. I am not uprooting for a place that will not accept me for the entirety of me.

[robvalue]

Right. Any place where gays will be discriminated against just for being gay is not somewhere in interested in going to.

Even priests who are supposedly very close to God and talk to him and all that, still can't be persuaded not to abuse children. And God watches them do it, not stepping in, not even throwing them out of his church. Fuck free will. If someone is harming someone else, the harmed party has had their free will compromised. So why is the free will of the abuser to be preserved as precious while the poor child loses their free will, they can't get away, while this sick fuck abuses his authority and trust? God is not punishing them, neither is the church.

Bollocks piss weasels fuck balls to it all. Until the Catholic Church hands over their abusive priests to the police, along with all the evidence they hold, and does so in the future as soon as a crime is committed, it is a criminal organisation. Fucking arse shards. God cannot even keep his own house clean, so he can get lost.

[Esquilax]

Even priests who are supposedly very close to God and talk to him and all that, still can't be persuaded not to abuse children. And God watches them do it, not stepping in, not even throwing them out of his church. Fuck free will. If someone is harming someone else, the harmed party has had their free will compromised. So why is the free will of the abuser to be preserved as precious while the poor child loses their free will, they can't get away, while this sick fuck abuses his authority and trust? God is not punishing them, neither is the church.

The problem with the free will excuse, like so many other theistic excuses made when their god fucks up, is that it fundamentally misunderstands what free will even is. One would think that being able to accurately represent the main concept of what you're talking about would be an extremely important part of any argument, but for theists I suspect that actually the most important thing is getting god off the hook, and so they'll settle for less.

Free will does not mean that one is absolutely, one hundred percent successful and able to perform any action they like, merely that they are able to desire and attempt that action. Whether they succeed or fail is immaterial; if they can try, then their free will is not compromised, and if there's any theists out there willing to argue this point, then they've already lost, because people fail at things all the time, so therefore god is already compromising their free will by not making them succeed, under that logic. Gravity prevents me from floating off of the planet whenever I want, so is my free will compromised by my earthbound nature? If so, then god is already breaking the premises of the argument, for everyone on the planet, and the argument is void. If not, then clearly I am not guaranteed success at whatever I want within the bounds of my free will, and the argument is void.

It follows, either way, that god can intervene in child rape cases. If success is a necessary component of free will then god is just making exceptions for child rapists in his already universal repression of free will, and that's entirely fucked up. If success is not required for free will, then god could ensure the rapist fails in his crime without breaking the rules. The argument fails either way, even if we ignore the obvious moral problems with the idea that god values the free will of rapists and killers over the safety of their victims, something that evidently our legal system will not lower itself to.

Got anything better than a misrepresentative nothing argument, theists?