The backbreaker

[athrock]

Wow... you really have a listening problem, don't you? I told you to stop trying to project motivations onto me in order to satisfy your bizarre idea (no doubt imparted to you by leaders/mentors within your religious social circles) that atheists think the way we do because we're emotionally traumatized.

So bizarre. I have a "listening problem"? Not all atheists are "emotionally traumatized"...did I say that? Nope. I'm just "listening" to what you say and how you say it. 

Rocket, seriously, have you ever heard Christians ranting against the FSM the way some atheists rant about God? Nope. Because Christians couldn't care less about what is an obvious fantasy. However, many atheists (and your writings lean in this direction) frequently rail against the "pschopathic" "sky-daddy" worshiped by "bronze-age goat-herders", etc. Seriously, do you not hear how pathetic that sounds? I mean, you "brights" sure are worked up into a lather over something that you claim is all make-believe.

No, the fact is that you know God is not the Easter Bunny...you just don't like the fact that He has rules that you don't want to follow. It's an emotional response...not an intellectuals one.

Secondly, my mother has a PhD, is a professor at LSU, and is one of the most well-read persons I know, except on subjects of science and any historical facts that might potentially contradict the Biblical Literalism that is the hallmark of her fundamentalist faith. The reason I left my faith actually was because of her grudge against the Catholic church for her perceived crimes against True Christianity™, which ironically sound just like yours.

We have something in common. My father-in-law had a PhD, was a graduate of LSU, and he was a research scientist as well as a faithful Catholic.

But the real question for me would be: What are these "crimes against True Christianity" that she "perceived"? (Oh, and I note the trademark symbol; you simply can't NOT vent your anger and disdain when you post, can you? And you want me to believe that you are dispassionately objective about the facts of Christianity?)

When I was still a Christian, I was trained in apologetics...with a particular bent toward understanding the claims of Catholics, and how to refute them.

Then we have more in common. When I was a Protestant, I became aware of the historical evidence for Catholicism, and I have spent decades studying the arguments that Protestants use against Catholicism. I believe we are well-suited for some spirited (if not spirit-filled) discussions.

I became an atheist after my realization about the church's mistakes about science led me to apply the same scrutiny to the Protestants, and then to other religions. I continued studying throughout the decade or so that followed my departure from that home, and to some degree continue to do so, though I care a lot less about your cult now than I did when being a member of it (and finding my freedom from it) was still fresh.

Were you ever a member of my "cult"? Apparently not. I'm not sure when your mom bolted from the Catholic Church taking you with her, but I'd be more than happy to assist you in finding a better understanding of Catholicism's response to science. We may even share some of the same opinions of true, Young-Earth fundamentalists, btw.

I don't do what I do because I'm angry, or resentful. I do it to protect HER feelings, and to not be a jerk of a son. After realizing that I couldn't talk to her about the problems of her position without her getting emotionally invested and hurt/offended, I stopped talking with her about it... it's along the lines of trying to tell a football fan that his team/club sucks by pointing at statistics. They just don't want to hear it, and it's not worth the argument if you care about the person.

I understand. My mom and I disagree strongly on several subjects, so while I am happy to discuss anything with anyone, I know she would rather not hear about some things from me, so I let it go. See? We have this in common, too!

Finally, I'm not the one with the emotional blind spot. You see your god through rose-colored glasses, after years of conditioning (the repetitive nature of Catholic masses should be a red flag to you that it's a brainwashing technique), but if you were evaluating the actions of Lord Shiva in the Bahagavad Gita, say, it would be clear as day to you. The difference between us is that I see no difference between Adonai (Lord) Yahweh and Lord Shiva.

Ah, well, you have a valid point there. I do see differences between Yahweh and Shiva though there may be some similarities, also.

As for the "repetitive nature of Catholic masses", Jesus said, "Do this [observe the Lord's Supper] is remembrance of me." So, we do it.  Were we supposed to stop at some point?  

[athrock]

Catholicks do seem to struggle with this issue.  Its what happens when you let fairy tales run your lives.

http://catholicherald.com/stories/Straig...eaven,6744


Yes...when faced with a problem they invent bullshit.

Until the '80's at least limbo was a central rcc doctrine, haing the seal of papal infallibility and all. Stillborn infants couldn't be buried on "consecrated" ground because of it. The main reason it is now relegated to speculation is because it was deemed to be losing the church adherents and also peripheral enough to drop without controversy or notice.

It was a theological speculation and not a doctrine.

As for losing adherents, the Catholic Church is actually growing.

[Angrboda]

Until the '80's at least limbo was a central rcc doctrine, haing the seal of papal infallibility and all. Stillborn infants couldn't be buried on "consecrated" ground because of it. The main reason it is now relegated to speculation is because it was deemed to be losing the church adherents and also peripheral enough to drop without controversy or notice.

It was a theological speculation and not a doctrine.

As for losing adherents, the Catholic Church is actually growing.

As a proportion of the global population, the Catholic community has remained fairly static at about 17.5 per cent for the past 50 years.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/th.../55152.htm

[athrock]

First, since the percentage of homosexual priests who have committed these aggressive crimes against young men is LOWER than the percentage of teachers, coaches and Protestant ministers who have done the same things, it's not actually a uniquely CATHOLIC problem.

This is an extremely disgusting thing to say and I expect you to apologize to the group of people you offended.

By that I mean that the standard of decency that I hold normal people would compel you to apologize, but I have no illusions that you will do so because you are so arrogant and you do not believe you can ever be wrong.

Because you see, I am very much into women and yet I have no desire to violate an 8 year old girl.  Yet you imply that it is the homosexual priests that are raping these boys, as if homosexuality and pedophilia are linked.  The reality is that they are just as linked as heterosexuality is linked to "heterosexual" pedophilia.  You are a bigot.  You seem to be unaware that many young girls were molested by priests also, and even if that wasn't the case, there is no reasonable connection between the sexual appreciation of a masculine, mature male body and the sexual appreciation of a pre-pubescent little boy.  You are sick.


Lastly you say coaches and teachers engage in this more often than priests?   SOURCE????

Just out of curiousity, I decided to do a bit of Googling myself, and I found some data from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. First, from their statement of beliefs:

OCRT Statement of Belief:

We are a multi-faith group. As of late-2012, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.

Clearly, this is not a Christian or Catholic group. Second, here are there findings on the homosexual aspect of the priest scandal:

Who are the victims of abusive priests?

The general consensus is that the vast majority of priests do not abuse young people. Among those who do abuse, most fall within the following definitions:

A small minority of abusive pedophiles who have a heterosexual orientation and are sexually attracted to pre-pubertal girls, less commonly to boys, and sometimes to both boys and girls. They often have sexual feelings to children of a particular age group -- e.g. 7 and 8 year olds.

A much larger percentage of abusive ephebophiles who are priests with a homosexual orientation. They are sexually attracted to post-pubertal young men, aged 14 to 17 years. 3 Most are also probably also attracted to adult males.

Nobody knows, with any degree of accuracy, what percentage of priests fall into each category. One can only guess from the cases that are seen in court.

Columnist Ann Coulter claimed, without citing references, that "It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests – more than 90 percent – are accused of molesting teen-age boys." She criticizes The New York Times for intentionally suppressing the gender of the alleged victims by using gender-neutral terms such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser." 4

Donald Cozzens, former vicar of priests at the Diocese of Cleveland, OH, wrote in the year 2000 about his experience in the Midwest:

"As a group, [child sexual] abusers tend to be married men who prey on girls, although many pedophiles abuse both girls and boys. Our respective diocesan experience revealed that roughly 90 percent of priest abusers targeted teenage boys as their victims. ... Relatively little attention has been paid to this phenomenon by church authorities. Perhaps it is feared that it will call attention to the disproportionate number of gay priests. While homosexually oriented people are no more likely to be drawn to misconduct with minors than straight people, our own experience was clear and, I believe, significant. Most priest offenders, we vicars agreed, acted out against teenage boys." 5,6 More recently, in 2002, he quoted other estimates that "90 percent to 95 percent, and some estimates say as high as 98 percent of the victims of clergy acting out [are] teenage boys." 5

Bill Blakemore of ABC NEWS.com stated in an online interview on an ABC message board: "The vast majority of cases that have come to light in this crisis, somewhere between 90-98 percent apparently, are not technically pedophilia because they are cases of homosexual abuse of teenage boys aged 13-17." 7 He probably picked up the data from Donald Cozzens' writing.

It is worth noting that if the age of consent for homosexual activity were lowered to the age of 16, as it is in many jurisdictions, then many -- if not most -- of the criminal acts by abusive priests would disappear. Most charges by the police against abusive priests would never materialize. Cases of ephebophilia would still represent an ethical quagmire, however. They would be a gross violation of the priest's ordination vows and would be an extremely harmful experience to most of the teens. For example, in Kingston, ON, Canada where our office is located, an Anglican church official was convicted of sexually abusing many dozens of young children and youths. Many people believe that two suicides resulted from these criminal acts.

And this regarding the relative frequency of abuse by Catholic priest relative to Protestant groups:

How do levels of abuse by Catholic and Protestant compare?

You guessed it! Nobody knows with any accuracy.

Alan Cooperman wrote in the Washington Post:

"Gary Schoener, a psychologist whose Walk-In Counseling Center in Minneapolis has consulted with more than 1,000 victims of clerical sexual abuse, believes that the percentage of abusers is no higher among Catholic priests than among Protestant ministers. But in his experience, he said, priests have more victims because they operate longer before they are caught." 8

Some people view celibacy as an unnatural lifestyle. They speculate that a higher percentage of priests are abusers than are Protestant ministers and pastors, because of the Catholic church's celibacy requirement. The implication is that if celibacy were made optional, then priests could marry and wouldn't abuse youths and children.

Most Protestant clergy are free to marry, and most heterosexual ministers and pastors do marry. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find reliable information about the level of abuse among Protestant clergy.

There also does not seem to be any reliable information about the level of child molestation among those Roman Catholic priests who are married. Thus any abusive pedophile and hebephile data would be of such low accuracy as to be useless. (The existence of married priests within the Roman Catholic Church is a surprise to many. When the Episcopal Church decided to ordain females, about 95 Episcopal ministers in the U.S. were so distressed by the idea of sharing the priesthood with women that some converted to Roman Catholicism in order to remain in a purely male priesthood. The church allowed them to remain married.)

And compared to other groups:

Comparison of abuse in the Catholic Church with that in U.S. public schools:

A U.S. Department of Education report issued in 2004 examined a number of American studies into the prevalence of sexual misconduct by school staff. They found that between 3.5% and 50.3% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career. They found that teachers, coaches, substitute teachers were the most common offenders.

If this report is accurate, then sexual abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic church, and by other clergy, appears to pale in comparison with the abuse being experienced by children and youths in the public schools. 9

+++

Catholic priests are NOT exceptional in this sad reality, and quite possibly, they are less likely to commit these crimes than men in other groups.

Now you know. Tell your friends.

[athrock]

It was a theological speculation and not a doctrine.

As for losing adherents, the Catholic Church is actually growing.

As a proportion of the global population, the Catholic community has remained fairly static at about 17.5 per cent for the past 50 years.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/th.../55152.htm

Thank you, Jormugandr.

Our own experience is this:

Priests needed: As Church growth explodes worldwide, parishes can't keep up
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priests-needed-as-church-growth-explodes-worldwide-parishes-cant-keep-up-92360/

[athrock]

Catholicks do seem to struggle with this issue.  Its what happens when you let fairy tales run your lives.

http://catholicherald.com/stories/Straig...eaven,6744


Yes...when faced with a problem they invent bullshit.

Until the '80's at least limbo was a central rcc doctrine, haing the seal of papal infallibility and all. Stillborn infants couldn't be buried on "consecrated" ground because of it. The main reason it is now relegated to speculation is because it was deemed to be losing the church adherents and also peripheral enough to drop without controversy or notice.

Here's an excerpt from a helpful article:

Whatever Happened to Limbo?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cult...limbo.html

At the outset of this article, note that the Church has never officially defined the doctrine of limbo. Rather, limbo is a theological supposition that became a popular way of dealing with a teaching of our Lord regarding the necessity of baptism for eternal salvation and what happens to the souls of individuals who die without being baptized..

Jesus taught, "I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God's kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). The Catechism consequently asserts, "The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit'" (#1257).

[Pat Mustard]

Until the '80's at least limbo was a central rcc doctrine, haing the seal of papal infallibility and all. Stillborn infants couldn't be buried on "consecrated" ground because of it. The main reason it is now relegated to speculation is because it was deemed to be losing the church adherents and also peripheral enough to drop without controversy or notice.

It was a theological speculation and not a doctrine.

I've had monks, nuns, priests and even an archbishop telling me that limbo is real and true, and definitely exists. They all asserted it because it was established as being true under the doctrine of papal infallibility.

As for losing adherents, the Catholic Church is actually growing.

In Europe it's nearly dead, in South America it's losing adherents rapidly, both to non-belief and to more extreme christian sects, in Asia it continues to barely exist. It is not growing, and it can only claim to even hold steady because it changed its own rules to stop people from defecting, especially after the site countmeout.ie had shown Irish people how to formally defect from an organisation they had long left and over 12,000 defected in a short period of time. To point out the absurdity of accepting the lying, criminal and pederast rcc's own numbers, I am still counted as being catholic, even if I went and got myself excommunicated, I would still be counted as catholic. They are so afraid of the fact that they are in reality losing numbers big time that they are doing everything they can to hide this fact.

PS: you forgot to include the motto in your avatar: Ad Pederasta, per Aspera

[Nihilist Virus]

This is an extremely disgusting thing to say and I expect you to apologize to the group of people you offended.

By that I mean that the standard of decency that I hold normal people would compel you to apologize, but I have no illusions that you will do so because you are so arrogant and you do not believe you can ever be wrong.

Because you see, I am very much into women and yet I have no desire to violate an 8 year old girl.  Yet you imply that it is the homosexual priests that are raping these boys, as if homosexuality and pedophilia are linked.  The reality is that they are just as linked as heterosexuality is linked to "heterosexual" pedophilia.  You are a bigot.  You seem to be unaware that many young girls were molested by priests also, and even if that wasn't the case, there is no reasonable connection between the sexual appreciation of a masculine, mature male body and the sexual appreciation of a pre-pubescent little boy.  You are sick.

No, I'm simply more knowledgeable about the facts than you are. Look into the matter for yourself, and you will learn that the overwhelming majority of the incidents involved post-pubescent males and not pre-pubescent children. Therefore, this was not true pedophilia, it was homosexuality.

Which is not what liberals want to hear, is it?

Lastly you say coaches and teachers engage in this more often than priests?   SOURCE????

You have Google. Do your own research.

Because the popes were apparently appointed by God himself and they were all aware of the abominable worldwide coverup.  In fact it is statistically unfeasible to suggest that there has never been a pope that was a child rapist as a priest.

They were all aware? You have proof? SOURCE?????

Which popes? When? What did they know?

And you probably don't want to hear this, but the Church has been implementing many safeguards to ensure that these things don't continue.

An utter lie.  Jesus prayed that God would take the cup of suffering from him.  Jesus begged and said if there was any other way that he would prefer that.  Since there was no other way, it follows that God is subject to the law.  Yet as you saw with the story of how he contradicted his own Torah to torture and killed David's son for his own amusement, we also conclude that God is above the law.

Well, since you are not a Christian, I can't expect you to know the nuances of Scripture, so let's walk through this. You may recall that Jesus was fully God and fully man. In His humanity, he was as fearful of dying as you and I would be. So, His prayer to have the cup pass him by is completely understandable. But what Jesus actually said was:

Matthew 26
39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

As you can see, Jesus aquiesced to the will of His Father. Then when soldiers came from the Sanhedrin to arrest Jesus, some of His followers moved to defend Him. Here is that account:

Matthew 26
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

If you believe in something that not only lacks empirical evidence but also is not even internally consistent, then you are utterly irrational.

Christianity does not lack empirical evidence nor is it internally inconsistent. Feel free to attempt an argument opposing this, if you wish.  

Well... yes and no.

Yes he did so willingly but only because there was no other way.

Just "yes", no "no".

John 10:17-18
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 10
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

You have shown that you are a bigot and that you give half-assed answers which do not stand up to even casual scrutiny.  I expected a whole lot more from a guy taking it to atheists at their own forums.  I'll be sure to amend my expectations appropriately.  If you can put together one damn sentence that makes a lick of sense, I'll consider it to be progress.

I look forward to seeing how well you can respond to my "half-assed answers". 

Firstly I missed the part where you address this thread. You ignored it when I repeated it here:

Is God above the law?

If yes, then why send his son to die? You address the perspective of Jesus but leave God's half out. So yet another half assed answer. Tell me WHY God had this happen when it was completely unnecessary. If you CANNOT, if all you can say is that I have to ask God,then your beliefs cannot be drafted in any kind of sensible manner. I.e. your beliefs are irrational.

If God is not above the law, why did he break his own law by torturing and killing David's son as punishment for David?


And once again, if you want to associate pedophilia with homosexuality then I have to ask: are you attracted to 8 year olds of the opposite sex? What percentage of the heterosexual population is? Are you saying that homosexuals have a higher tendency to be pedophiles?


What is my source for the popes being in on the conspiracy? Well, the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, a cardinal who presumably is ranked below only the pope and no one else, made rape victims sign a vow of silence. I.e. a coverup. Do you believe the pope was unaware of this? If so, why didn't the pope fire his ass when this came out?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...e-vow.html

A U.S. Department of Education report issued in 2004 examined a number of American studies into the prevalence of sexual misconduct by school staff. They found that between 3.5% and 50.3% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career. [color=#3366ff]They found that teachers, coaches, substitute teachers were the most common offenders.

Wow, between 3.5% and 50.3% are you kidding me? That is your victory?

Couldn't I just as easily say that between 3.5% and 50.3% of priests are rapists and still be correct? Or how about between 3.5% and 100% of priests are rapists. That is correct, lol. Now look I've magically put priests back in front without even doing anything.

[athrock]

It was a theological speculation and not a doctrine.

I've had monks, nuns, priests and even an archbishop telling me that limbo is real and true, and definitely exists. They all asserted it because it was established as being true under the doctrine of papal infallibility.

As for losing adherents, the Catholic Church is actually growing.

In Europe it's nearly dead, in South America it's losing adherents rapidly, both to non-belief and to more extreme christian sects, in Asia it continues to barely exist. It is not growing, and it can only claim to even hold steady because it changed its own rules to stop people from defecting, especially after the site countmeout.ie had shown Irish people how to formally defect from an organisation they had long left and over 12,000 defected in a short period of time. To point out the absurdity of accepting the lying, criminal and pederast rcc's own numbers, I am still counted as being catholic, even if I went and got myself excommunicated, I would still be counted as catholic. They are so afraid of the fact that they are in reality losing numbers big time that they are doing everything they can to hide this fact.

PS: you forgot to include the motto in your avatar: Ad Pederasta, per Aspera

Wishful thinking is a powerful thing, Constable.

You keep telling yourself what you want to believe, okay? 

[Pat Mustard]

Wishful thinking is a powerful thing, Constable.

You keep telling yourself what you want to believe, okay? 

Hey you're the one with the imaginary friend, you're the one defending an organisation who chose as a leader less then ten years ago a man who had told the rest of them to protect criminals against inquiries from police organisations about their crimes, you're the one that constantly comes on to threads in a vain attempt to either derail them so their messages don't come across or to handwave away reality because it disagrees with your delusions, and finally you're the one who constantly tells us that evil is moral.

Better take the plank out of your own eye before you try take the mote of dust out of mine, it has blinded you to the truth.