Gay, Catholic and Doing Fine

[Mister Agenda]

No, I'm not a Christian because I realized that the bible is pretty fucking stupid, and there's absolutely no reason to believe a goddamn word it says.  I realized that the God everyone talked about, the god that 'loves everybody' wasn't the same god that everyone believes in.  Because that god doesn't love everyone.  It's not unconditional love, it's VERY conditional.  So I say fuck off with that.  It's too fucking stupid for me.

I'm not shaking my fist at your god, because your God doesn't exist.  I'm shaking my fist at your stupid fucking religion, started by people over two thousand years ago that people today believe in for pretty stupid fucking reasons.

Wouldn't it be great if God just let you have your own way all the time?

Pretending he doesn't exist accomplishes that for you except that like the author of the article in the OP, you know you're just lying to yourself.

(And knowing this really, really pisses you off.)

Again, believing in God doesn't seem to impair believers from doing what they want any more than atheists. It's clear that belief in God is quite compatible with doing what you want.

Are you saying that atheists have too much integrity to believe in God and also do what we want?

[Mister Agenda]

How would you feel if your child was gay, and because they felt like an outcast because of the church they committed suicide?  Because a lot of gay teens are committing suicide, and the church is strongly linked as a contributing factor.  When they hear maggots like athrock using words like 'disorder' to describe them, and bastards like Pope Nazi XVI call them a defection of nature, how could it not affect them?  Consider what that does to a person who is raised to believe in this kind and all loving god, who are raised to believe that it's the 100% truth.  Then when they discover they are gay -- and yes, discover.  They do not make a decision to be gay.  When they discover they are gay, they have feelings of shame and they feel they are wrong inside.  When there's not a damn thing wrong with them.

Christian doctrine is simply put outdated.  Going 2000 years without an update, sans the wacky mormons, will tend to do that.  "Gods" perfect laws aren't perfect any more.  They do far more harm than good.  When a book includes stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday... it's not exactly a book that you should get your morality from.

But she's not that type, that's her excuse.

Kinda like when a mafia underling says "I didn't put out the order, my Godfather did, personally I liked the guy we whacked, but he knew the rules. I'f he hadn't been a rat, he'd still be alive."

Sounds more like a fact than an excuse. America invaded Iraq with the support of the majority of the American people. I, on the other hand, opposed the invasion. I'm not that type of American. Someone asking me to defend American foreign policy as an American is going to be disappointed at my response. They might say I'm making an excuse...but that wouldn't really be fair, would it? I'm allowed to have my own position that doesn't blend with the majority of my demographic.

[Mister Agenda]

AGAIN, other people quote different holy books, so what.

You have not a lick of evidence that your god exists even before you get to the first word. And the crap in that comic book is not backed up by science, and as much as you would like to believe it is a moral guide, it is far from one. It is a gang manual.

Nobody is angry at something that does not exist, but yes, we are angry at the bad logic that allows you to cling to such an old comic book. That was then, this was now. We know better now.

Obviously, many more people disagree.

Including many former atheists.

You should be able to find just one here then, right?

[Mister Agenda]

How the hell does having degrees in philosophy (or theology for that matter) make a person an expert in the supernatural?   I got MY PhD from ghost buster's academy, so don't talk to ME about ghosts!  I ain't scared of no ghosts....

Esquilax is exercising her ability to critically think and use common sense.  No advanced degrees necessary.  

My point being that despite her bluster, she would be no match in a formal debate for the better-trained WLC.

WLC is a good debater. I wouldn't want to be on a stage with him. He knows how to get the audience on his side.

But his apologetics fail as do all apologetics. He employs circular reasoning, credentialism (which you seem fond of as well), begging the question, fallacy of composition, and his main fall back argument (direct witness of the Holy Spirit) isn't a logical argument at all. Offstage, his arguments fall apart. It's not really his fault, no one has been able to define or argue God into existence with logic that can stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

I think Esquilax would wipe the floor with him in a formal forum debate where WLC's theatrics will be of no avail.

[Mister Agenda]

Source? Other institutions have similar problems, but I'm interested in knowing what study determined that the rate is lower in the RCC.

And those other institutions don't claim to represent God on Earth.

Google it. 

In addition to child molestation issues, the Protestant clergy also has problems with divorce and adultery that the Catholic priesthood does not have for obvious reasons.

And no, those groups don't represent God on earth, but the Church doesn't claim to BE God on Earth...just to be the people of God on earth. The people - all of them combined - are the Church, and we've never claimed to be perfect.

After Googling, I find that there has been no formal study that shows that Catholic clergy molest at a lower rate than other institutions. I'm perfectly aware that there is no evidence that they molest at a higher rate, and don't claim that they do. However, you did claim that they molest at a lower rate, and there is no scientific support for that.

By 'not perfect' you seem to mean 'not the slightest bit better at refraining from committing crimes than any other demographic'. You'd think the people of God could do better, if they were actually the people of God.

[Pat Mustard]

None of your fucking business, shitstain. But I'll tell you this, I left the church for perfectly good and cogent reasons, I left it because I grew up and started thinking for myself, not letting others dictate to me and do me down like they've done to you.

Called it.

Called what, the fact that you're a bigoted piece of shit idiot? I've been telling you that for ages, along wit others. The fact that I'm entitled to not bother with your rude and off-topic questions? Anybody with a modicum of tact and people skills would have tod you that.

[Pat Mustard]

How does that fit in with the church's teachings? Wouldn't that entire relationship be a dealbreaker to get into heaven as far as the church is concerned?

Also, why do you think the ideal scenario is a "mom and dad"? There's quite a bit of positive research on that not being the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24...48320.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus

Well first there is no "deal breaker" for getting into heaven. That's not really how it works. It all depends on a person's culpability, and that is something we can't speculate on. We can't say "so and so committed ____ act so they are going to Hell," or anything like that. 

I do agree with the Church that the ideal scenario for a child is to have a mom and a dad. But between staying in the orphanage/foster homes and having same sex parents, I'd pick the latter for sure, and I don't doubt for a minute that they can't be good parents. 

I've heard studies and testimonials of both claims being made (about what family structure is better), so in the end I think it becomes a matter of opinion and which stance makes the most sense to you.

Stop referencing the discredited Regnerus propoganda then, and start reading properly referenced peer reviewed double blinded studies then. You keep reading shit and you'll keep regurgitating it.

[Brian37]

CL does the same thing the far right does. This is what all religions do, both non violent and violent do. They use the same old books with the same words to justify their positions either way. Both the well intended and the paranoid are both making excuses for antiquated naked assertions.

Evolutionary biology, not old books, explain nature. Neither the left or the right want to face this. The left has the empathy, but it is still falsely attributing our species ability to be compassionate to the divine. The right who is willing to "defend" religion to the point of violence, also think they are doing the right thing, from their point of view, but again, they too, believe they are guided by the divine.

[robvalue]

Further to that, if you feel you really need a book and a bunch of priests etc. telling you how you should act, there's something seriously wrong with you in the first place. I don't see that any of them have anything more important to say than you could get through common sense; and that's the good parts of it.

It's often the other way around, of course. People have made up their mind how they want to act, and can rely on religious justification rather than a rational one. It's when they realize the religious angle isn't cutting it and they try and justify bigotry through "logic and science" that it becomes all too clear what rubbish it is.

Or they've been indoctrinated with prejudice since a young age. This is probably the most likely scenario, actually.

[Brian37]

Further to that, if you feel you really need a book and a bunch of priests etc. telling you how you should act, there's something seriously wrong with you in the first place. I don't see that any of them have anything more important to say than you could get through common sense; and that's the good parts of it.

It's often the other way around, of course. People have made up their mind how they want to act, and can rely on religious justification rather than a rational one. It's when they realize the religious angle isn't cutting it and they try and justify bigotry through "logic and science" that it becomes all too clear what rubbish it is.

Or they've been indoctrinated with prejudice since a young age. This is probably the most likely scenario, actually.

Well to be fair, while modern science isn't allowing excuses for naked assertions, the evolutionary reality is that this gap filling is a flaw in our perceptions of reality. 

Our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed, and gap filling is a way for our species to cope where answers lacked. It literally stems from life having to make quick decisions and not always having the time to slow down and test our perceptions. As a result of our species starting out in scientific ignorance we simply projected our human qualities on non human things in the form of super natural. 

Delusion in the form of gap filling is natural, not good, but natural, it is a result of an imperfect reality. The good part of our evolution, despite that messy reality, is that we have and continue to overcome our false perceptions.