My Escatological Vision

[dqualk]

Another theist who likes to redefine words. Oh boy.

Ok, first off, atheists can have spiritual beliefs. Which is why calling every atheist a materialist would be wrong since it isn't true. I happen to be a materialist but I just wanted to make clear that not all atheists are materialists. An atheist is simply one who does not believe in a god. It couldn't be more simple. If you can't understand that then you're either an idiot or you're in denial. Both Wiki and the good old English dictionary agree with me.

I know this. Many people use athiest in the way I do when they are not being exceptionally specific. But for your sake I'll be more specific. Personally I think any educated person reading this should be able to pick out what kind of atheist that I am currently in dialouge with. I recognize there are many atheists and I am not putting them all in one basket, I am simply using the term atheist for simplicities sake. But ill use materialist atheist just for all of you.

It doesn't strengthen you're argument. Since it's a lousy point to make. Alot of people believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, were they right about that? Fuck no! So it doesn't matter how many believe in a god, they can still all be wrong as hell. A lie is a lie, no matter how many believe it.

Yes it does stengthen my arguement. For example, I would not believe in evolution if it were not for the fact that most scientist do. Does that fact make it right? No. Does it make it more likely than other theories? Yes. It is true that it can still be wrong despite the number who believe in something, just like evolution can still be wrong, and so can relativity, however, they are very likely due to various reasons. Also, if you would read the entire thread you would see that both of these issues so far have already been dealt with.

Did you know everyone is born atheist? No baby ever comes out of their mother with a belief in god. And since all you need in order to be an atheist is to simply lack belief in a god, every child starts off as an atheist. Some remain atheist like myself. So I'm willing to bet that atheism has been around much longer than religion.

Well I think an agnostic would be better. Belief is a hard thing to pin down. Clearly infants have some beliefs, for exmaple, they believe that theyre parents want to take care of them, for this reason they latch to the boob, even if that believe is simply hard wired within them.

And Ace Otana, if you are an agnostic I am clearly not talking to you concerning burden of proof. I recognize that the burden of proof is not on you.

And if you have any questions I would be glad to talk about whatever.

---

@ Pad It is to bad you think that way, but unless you want to prove that I am a fool then perhaps you should have your conversation some where else?

@ Min I would hate the straw man you have built for me too. You have clearly not sought out what my real opinion on the abuse scandal is. I don't blame you. Its a hard thing to accep the validity of others beliefs, as it makes you feel uncomfortable, so you come up with some excuse to hate them and "write them off." Like he supports a pedophile church, when that is clearly not thte case.

And at least I now know that you are not usually a troll, you just really dislike me so you troll me personally. That is a step in the right direction I suppose.

---

@ Mid how do you find the podcast? Is it on itunes or something? Thanks for the recommendation.

---

Hmmm... Still seems a bit... 'fuzzy'. Could you elaborate please?

Are you asking me to elaborate or min?

If you are asking me I agree with everyone that the bishops, priests et al. involced in the grave abuse scandal comitted evil and they need to be handed over to the authorities. What I pointed out is that the teachings of the Church teach against the evil of molestation and cover ups, and the Canon Law of the Church says a priest is to be defrocked and handed over to the secular authorities. The bishops et al broke protocal and "covered it up" so that their brother bishops would not see what they had done. For this reason, the Pope et al. could not see to it that Canon Law was carried out, and that victims were cared for properly.

My point is, when one atheist does something evil I do not bind it upon all atheists. You should not do this to the Catholic Church either. However, I can bind on all atheists that they do not believe in God. In the same way we can bind on the Church their teaching that pedophilia is a grave and evil deed, and so is covering it up. We can also, in a more limited way, bind on the Church her Canon Laws, and these laws teach that these idiots who do evil are to be dealt with properly by defrocking and giving to the secular authorities. So if anything the Church herself is good on the issue concerning the abuse scandal, however, and I will agree with those who make this charge, some of her members are downright evil.

[OnlyNatural]

I would not believe in evolution if it were not for the fact that most scientist do. Does that fact make it right? No. Does it make it more likely than other theories? Yes.

Science doesn't work like religion. Scientists don't have one Science Bible written thousands of years ago that they continually refer to, nor do they base their theories on myths that have been passed down and elaborated over generations. Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving as theories are tested and evidence is accumulated. When certain theories fail to explain a phenomenon, they are modified or discarded. And no scientist just believes in evolution because they have faith in it. They can look at the objective evidence themselves. And so can we. Not so for religious 'theories.'

If you are asking me I agree with everyone that the bishops, priests et al. involced in the grave abuse scandal comitted evil and they need to be handed over to the authorities.

I'm curious... would you say the same of the Pope, if he was involved? Or is he 'infallible' and blameless, no matter what?

[dqualk]

I agree science does not work like religion. My anaology fails on that level. All I am saying is that the number of good intelligent well meaning people that believe in something strengthens the case for that thing. It does not prove that it is right.

I'm curious... would you say the same of the Pope, if he was involved? Or is he 'infallible' and blameless, no matter what?

Yes I would say the same of the Pope if he was involved. Thank God we have had good Popes for the last while now. However, we have had evil Popes in the past.

Now a Pope could do something that would convince me that Catholicism was false, and that is teach something infallibly to the Church that is not true, concerning faith and morals. So if the Pope all of the sudden said homosexuality was not a sin, or if he said Jesus was just a man or something like this I would be forced by my own logic to accept that Catholicism is false. But in my studies this has never happened.

People have tried to demonstrate changes in Church teachings, so to help you out if you plan to do that to me the most usual claims is that the Church's teaching on slavery has changed, and another more recent popular one is that the Church's teaching on religious freedom has changed. Another really popular one is that the Church's teaching on usury has changed. I think slavery and usury are really the most popular charges against the Church.

[Minimalist]

"IF" he was involved? There is no "if" about it. He was involved up to his scrotum.

http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/pope-be...-cover-up/

Murphy wrote a pleading letter to Cardinal Ratzinger begging not to be dismissed saying that he was old and had repented of his “sins”. There is no record of a response from Ratzinger, but the trial was immediate suspended after Murphy wrote this letter to Ratzinger.

Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998, still a priest. – NYTimes

Ratzinger’s role in dismissing and moving around Murphy is disturbing at best. Even more shocking is the mentality that if a man who rapes over 200 deaf boys simply confesses his “sins” to an mythical god,

[dqualk]

Your link suggests that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, failed to act against a Wisconsin priest who was accused of molesting scores of boys at a school for the deaf.

Is the story damaging? Yes. Should the Vatican have acted faster? Yes. Should the accused priest have been laicized? In all probability, Yes again.

Nevertheless, before assigning all blame to the Vatican, consider these factors:

1. The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn't.

2. The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations. Local Church officials could have given police all the information they had about the allegations against Murphy. Indeed they could have informed police 40 years earlier. They didn't.

3. Milwaukee's Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn't. Instead he transferred the predator priest to a new diocese, allowing him to continue pastoral work giving him access to other innocent young people. And as if that weren't enough, later Archbishop Weakland made sure that there was no "paper trail." There was certainly a cover-up in this case. It was in Milwaukee, not in Rome.

4. Having called the Vatican's attention to Murphy's case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action. Because the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited so long to take action, the canonical statute of limitations had become an important factor in the Vatican's decision to advise against an ecclesiastical trial.

5. In a plea for mercy addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Murphy said that he had repented his misdeeds, was guilty of no recent misconduct, and was in failing health. Earlier this month Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the chief Vatican prosecutor in sex-abuse cases, explained that in many cases involving elderly or ailing priests, the CDF chooses to forego a full canonical trial, instead ordering the priest to remove himself from public ministry and devote his remaining days to penance and prayer. This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican's inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.

6. The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined. In 1996, when the archbishop made that prediction, the public outcry would--and should--have been focused on the Milwaukee archdiocese, if it had materialized. Now, 14 years later, a much more intense public outcry is focused on the Vatican. The anger is justifiable, but it is misdirected.

This is a story about the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland--who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself--to shift responsibility to Rome.

[dqualk]

Ratzinger’s role in dismissing and moving around Murphy is disturbing at best. Even more shocking is the mentality that if a man who rapes over 200 deaf boys simply confesses his “sins” to an mythical god,

If he confeses his sins with a truly penitent heart he will be forgiven. If he is insincere he will go to hell.

[Dotard]

.....a man who rapes over 200 deaf boys simply confesses his “sins” to an mythical god,

If he confeses his sins with a truly penitent heart he will be forgiven. If he is insincere he will go to hell.

Disturbing.

You are a sick man. For the safety of the children in your area, please seek professional help.

No. I am not kidding. Seriously.

[Minimalist]

Ratzinger’s role in dismissing and moving around Murphy is disturbing at best. Even more shocking is the mentality that if a man who rapes over 200 deaf boys simply confesses his “sins” to an mythical god,

If he confeses his sins with a truly penitent heart he will be forgiven. If he is insincere he will go to hell.

As I said elsewhere...you are despicable.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@ Pad It is to bad you think that way, but unless you want to prove that I am a fool

I need prove nothing,you have already done that all by yourself.

then perhaps you should have your conversation some where else?

Go fuck yourself. (and I mean that in the kindest possible way)

[Zen Badger]

Ratzinger’s role in dismissing and moving around Murphy is disturbing at best. Even more shocking is the mentality that if a man who rapes over 200 deaf boys simply confesses his “sins” to an mythical god,

If he confeses his sins with a truly penitent heart he will be forgiven. If he is insincere he will go to hell.

Oh, well.... that's alright then, really...........

Pal, any credibility you might have had went straight down the shitter with that comment.