|
Because I should have posted this here originally:
Ok, so I'm sure most everyone knows by now that, while acting as bishop Ratzinger, pope Benedict allowed a man who molested more than 200 deaf boys to go free and almost assuradely go on to molest again. Given that this man covered up the crime, shouldn't he be considered an accessory after the fact and held responsible for his actions? How can the catholic church hope to mend its very tarnished reputation if it continues to try and deny/cover up this mess? Dominoes (as Jon Stewart said) has shown more remorse for its s&@#ty pizza than the catholic church has for countless molestations and other sex crimes!
And don't even get me started on the fact that the church elected a pope who was a member of the Hitler youth...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Well, the Christian counterargument is that the Abrahamic God did exactly what you suggest, many times in fact. He worked miracles and wonders which he had men record for future generations. He even showed up in person, publicly claiming his own identity, and got executed for it (although, being God, he knew that was going to happen and it was part of the plan from the get-go).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And the record of this happening outside of the Middle East is where again? Did the other cultures on Earth not deem the appearance of the one true god worthy of recording? What about us poor saps born millenia after God made his cameo appearance? We need to rely on the accounts of such miracles recorded in a book, translated dozens of times, and filled with cultural/time period/geographic references that can only be understood through extensive study and research?
Seems to me, we got the shaft.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It seems to me that if the Flat Earther's won't accept overwhelming evidence that they're wrong that humans are just inclined to be naturally skeptical of things that are new to them. Or that which goes against their current belief system. Even if the Abrahamic deity appeared before the world and said "I am God." I think we'd still have a large number of skeptics still denying his existence. Its part of human nature, IMO. I think that one of the best ways out of this is to try and be like a philosopher and a scholar.
Stupid people believe a lot of stupid things. Gathering together a sufficient mass of them does not make those things into facts. If the biblical god showed up and said "I am God" and all 8 billion people on the planet witnessed that (hey, he's God, he could do it), the people who denied that it happened would be a in a very tiny minority and so stupid and/or defiant that they should be purged from the genepool anyway.
How can the catholic church hope to mend its very tarnished reputation if it continues to try and deny/cover up this mess?
According to at least one bishop, the church is blameless and the whole thing is a Zionist smear campaign.
Because I should have posted this here originally:
Ok, so I'm sure most everyone knows by now that, while acting as bishop Ratzinger, pope Benedict allowed a man who molested more than 200 deaf boys to go free and almost assuradely go on to molest again. Given that this man covered up the crime, shouldn't he be considered an accessory after the fact and held responsible for his actions? How can the catholic church hope to mend its very tarnished reputation if it continues to try and deny/cover up this mess? Dominoes (as Jon Stewart said) has shown more remorse for its s*&*ty pizza than the catholic church has for countless molestations and other sex crimes!
And don't even get me started on the fact that the church elected a pope who was a member of the Hitler youth...
There is the fact that as a member and church LEADER that pope palpatine(he just reminds me sooo much of the emporer) is trying to emulate christ in the fact that you must forgive for we all fall short of the glory of GOD. Forgivness is the reason they can hide behind the church. Christ did not keep track of sin and admonished his followers to not track it either.
Then it comes down to following the law laid forth by Christ or the law passed down by man, which one do you think they're gonna do.As far as the whole hitler youth thing, please let it go. We all do stupid things in our youth.
I'm just sorry for the homosexual community because they are going to catch even more flack because some very ignorant people are going to equate ALL homosexuals with peodophiles, and thats just wrong on every level.
|
|
How can the catholic church hope to mend its very tarnished reputation if it continues to try and deny/cover up this mess?According to at least one bishop, the church is blameless and the whole thing is a Zionist smear campaign.
WTF is wrong with these people? The catholic church is like a poster child for the eradication of organized religion. I just cannot fathom that they would go to such great lengths to deny a problem that is so well known...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
/snip
Despite my Presbyterianism, I am not, in fact, anti-Catholic. I sympathize with the Catholic Church for many reasons even when I disagree with them theologically.
But I gotta agree with X on this one. The Catholic Church really bolloxed this whole business up royally. I think the issue stems from the historical fact of Church sovereignty; it acted as it has done for the last 2000 years, solving its problems internally without engaging civil authorities. In these cases that has been an enormous mistake. Child molesting priests are criminals and the RCC, by knowingly concealing these crimes, has made itself an accomplice. Certainly I don't think the Church itself should be prosecuted. But (and IANAL) it seems that there's really a solid case to prosecute individual members of the hierarchy who knowingly concealed these crimes and merely shuffled pedophile priests off to different parishes where they could strike again. The Pope himself, however, is a different story--as a sovereign head of state, he can't be prosecuted, and the RCC must deal with his crimes on its own. The mistake it's currently making is turtling instead of dealing with these priests drastically and publicly. It should be showing the world that pedophile priests will not be tolerated, that they will suffer the strongest sanctions the Church can bring to bear, and that they will be handed over to the local jurisdiction, along with any evidence, for criminal prosecution.
|
|
Because I should have posted this here originally:
Ok, so I'm sure most everyone knows by now that, while acting as bishop Ratzinger, pope Benedict allowed a man who molested more than 200 deaf boys to go free and almost assuradely go on to molest again. Given that this man covered up the crime, shouldn't he be considered an accessory after the fact and held responsible for his actions? How can the catholic church hope to mend its very tarnished reputation if it continues to try and deny/cover up this mess? Dominoes (as Jon Stewart said) has shown more remorse for its s*&*ty pizza than the catholic church has for countless molestations and other sex crimes!
And don't even get me started on the fact that the church elected a pope who was a member of the Hitler youth...
There is the fact that as a member and church LEADER that pope palpatine(he just reminds me sooo much of the emporer) is trying to emulate christ in the fact that you must forgive for we all fall short of the glory of GOD. Forgivness is the reason they can hide behind the church. Christ did not keep track of sin and admonished his followers to not track it either.
Then it comes down to following the law laid forth by Christ or the law passed down by man, which one do you think they're gonna do.
As far as the whole hitler youth thing, please let it go. We all do stupid things in our youth.I'm just sorry for the homosexual community because they are going to catch even more flack because some very ignorant people are going to equate ALL homosexuals with peodophiles, and thats just wrong on every level.
According to xian mythology, christ was altruistic in his forgiveness. The only reason the church forgave these sickos was the fact that it would be very detrimental to the church if they did not forgive and sweep under the rug. This is not following the teachings of christ...it is exploiting those teachings for gain.
I was also apalled that people are saying that homosexuality is the reason behind these molestations. To my knowledge there has been no study linking homosexuality with any type of aberrant sexual behavior, yet there is more and more data linking being a celibate priest and pedophelia.
As to Hitler youth...i have a hard time letting it go b/c, well he followed a man who exterminated millions of people. There's doing stupid things in your youth and there's joining a hate group...totally different things.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If the biblical god showed up and said "I am God" and all 8 billion people on the planet witnessed that (hey, he's God, he could do it), the people who denied that it happened would be a in a very tiny minority and so stupid and/or defiant that they should be purged from the genepool anyway.
When he did show up in person, working miracles to prove his identity, the majority of people still did not believe him. The "tiny minority" were those people who did.
|
|
/snipDespite my Presbyterianism, I am not, in fact, anti-Catholic. I sympathize with the Catholic Church for many reasons even when I disagree with them theologically.
But I gotta agree with X on this one. The Catholic Church really bolloxed this whole business up royally. I think the issue stems from the historical fact of Church sovereignty; it acted as it has done for the last 2000 years, solving its problems internally without engaging civil authorities. In these cases that has been an enormous mistake. Child molesting priests are criminals and the RCC, by knowingly concealing these crimes, has made itself an accomplice. Certainly I don't think the Church itself should be prosecuted. But (and IANAL) it seems that there's really a solid case to prosecute individual members of the hierarchy who knowingly concealed these crimes and merely shuffled pedophile priests off to different parishes where they could strike again. The Pope himself, however, is a different story--as a sovereign head of state, he can't be prosecuted, and the RCC must deal with his crimes on its own. The mistake it's currently making is turtling instead of dealing with these priests drastically and publicly. It should be showing the world that pedophile priests will not be tolerated, that they will suffer the strongest sanctions the Church can bring to bear, and that they will be handed over to the local jurisdiction, along with any evidence, for criminal prosecution.
He's still immune from prosecution even though his crimes were committed while he was NOT a sovereign head of state? Pull a polanski on his ass...as soon as he leaves the country arrest his ass and let him sit in jail for the rest of his life. Those children and the children the priest went on to molest deserve justice, not beurocratic b+&+!~!# excuses.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If the biblical god showed up and said "I am God" and all 8 billion people on the planet witnessed that (hey, he's God, he could do it), the people who denied that it happened would be a in a very tiny minority and so stupid and/or defiant that they should be purged from the genepool anyway.When he did show up in person, working miracles to prove his identity, the majority of people still did not believe him. The "tiny minority" were those people who did.
Huh. Maybe the majority was right then too. How compelling must the miracles have been if they couldn't even persuade a majority of the people witnessing them at the time that the dude performing them was god? Maybe they weren't miracles after all.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If you want to know what Christianity's answers to your questions are, I'm happy to oblige. I am aware that these answers may not be to your satisfaction. I do not feel obliged to persuade or convince you. But if you're looking to score points, I respectfully bow out of this discussion.
He's still immune from prosecution even though his crimes were committed while he was NOT a sovereign head of state? Pull a polanski on his ass...as soon as he leaves the country arrest his ass and let him sit in jail for the rest of his life. Those children and the children the priest went on to molest deserve justice, not beurocratic b~##*#~& excuses.
I was going to leave this alone, at least for a little bit, but since the topic was raised, I think Ratzinger should do hard time. Him and the entire chain of command between each molesting priest that the Church covered up for and his own office. Every one of them is clearly guilty of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and, for the apparently endless ranks of recidivist molesters, to commit child molestation. If those are not crimes, what is? This is exactly the kind of organizational behavior that the RICO Act was written to outlaw.
Connecticut is contemplating removing the statute of limitations from child molestation charges. Fair enough. One could make policy-level arguments against or for the position, and about statutes of limitations in general.
The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.
And
The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.
This raises the question as to what sort of mission they have going on, doesn't it? What kind of people do these bishops know they're employing and trusting with children? I mean that's one hell of an admission.
|
|
Because I should have posted this here originally:
Ok, so I'm sure most everyone knows by now that, while acting as bishop Ratzinger, pope Benedict allowed a man who molested more than 200 deaf boys to go free and almost assuradely go on to molest again. Given that this man covered up the crime, shouldn't he be considered an accessory after the fact and held responsible for his actions? How can the catholic church hope to mend its very tarnished reputation if it continues to try and deny/cover up this mess? Dominoes (as Jon Stewart said) has shown more remorse for its s*&*ty pizza than the catholic church has for countless molestations and other sex crimes!
And don't even get me started on the fact that the church elected a pope who was a member of the Hitler youth...
There is the fact that as a member and church LEADER that pope palpatine(he just reminds me sooo much of the emporer) is trying to emulate christ in the fact that you must forgive for we all fall short of the glory of GOD. Forgivness is the reason they can hide behind the church. Christ did not keep track of sin and admonished his followers to not track it either.
Then it comes down to following the law laid forth by Christ or the law passed down by man, which one do you think they're gonna do.
As far as the whole hitler youth thing, please let it go. We all do stupid things in our youth.I'm just sorry for the homosexual community because they are going to catch even more flack because some very ignorant people are going to equate ALL homosexuals with peodophiles, and thats just wrong on every level.
According to xian mythology, christ was altruistic in his forgiveness. The only reason the church forgave these sickos was the fact that it would be very detrimental to the church if they did not forgive and sweep under the rug. This is not following the teachings of christ...it is exploiting those teachings for gain.
I was also apalled that people are...
I've tried again and again to try and show people articles from the American Psychological Association stating that homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked. but when it comes down to it people are going to be hateful a*+@*+$s one way or another despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
|
|
He's still immune from prosecution even though his crimes were committed while he was NOT a sovereign head of state? Pull a polanski on his ass...as soon as he leaves the country arrest his ass and let him sit in jail for the rest of his life. Those children and the children the priest went on to molest deserve justice, not beurocratic b@%!%!~* excuses./snipDespite my Presbyterianism, I am not, in fact, anti-Catholic. I sympathize with the Catholic Church for many reasons even when I disagree with them theologically.
But I gotta agree with X on this one. The Catholic Church really bolloxed this whole business up royally. I think the issue stems from the historical fact of Church sovereignty; it acted as it has done for the last 2000 years, solving its problems internally without engaging civil authorities. In these cases that has been an enormous mistake. Child molesting priests are criminals and the RCC, by knowingly concealing these crimes, has made itself an accomplice. Certainly I don't think the Church itself should be prosecuted. But (and IANAL) it seems that there's really a solid case to prosecute individual members of the hierarchy who knowingly concealed these crimes and merely shuffled pedophile priests off to different parishes where they could strike again. The Pope himself, however, is a different story--as a sovereign head of state, he can't be prosecuted, and the RCC must deal with his crimes on its own. The mistake it's currently making is turtling instead of dealing with these priests drastically and publicly. It should be showing the world that pedophile priests will not be tolerated, that they will suffer the strongest sanctions the Church can bring to bear, and that they will be handed over to the local jurisdiction, along with any evidence, for criminal prosecution.
Umm I know I already posted this in another thread but... someone does plan to do the very thing you suggest, one Richard Dawkins
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
...stuff...Feeling especially antogonistic today?
I'm still blaming Easter. Plus, most of this has been responses to responses which started with refutations of the usual "science is based on belief too" garbage and progressing into my usual "non-universal = not true" garbage.
|
I'm still blaming Easter. Plus, most of this has been responses to responses which started with refutations of the usual "science is based on belief too" garbage and progressing into my usual "non-universal = not true" garbage....stuff...Feeling especially antagonistic today?
The Atheist Church of Science down the street says that you're wrong.
I find your lack of faith delicious.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The Atheist Church of Science down the street says that you're wrong.I'm still blaming Easter. Plus, most of this has been responses to responses which started with refutations of the usual "science is based on belief too" garbage and progressing into my usual "non-universal = not true" garbage....stuff...Feeling especially antogonistic today?
I make a save to disbelieve:
Edit: Doh! I believe.
The Atheist Church of Science down the street says that you're wrong.I make a save to disbelieve:
1d20
Edit: Doh! I believe.
Ugh. They like to go by the acronym FACTS.
Here they are, in all their... something.Their also on You Tube! And crazy looking too! ... Wait is that a pink and red Hawaiian flower shirt he is wearing?
|
|
The Atheist Church of Science down the street says that you're wrong.I make a save to disbelieve:
1d20
Edit: Doh! I believe.
Ugh. They like to go by the acronym FACTS.
Here they are, in all their... something.Their also on You Tube! And crazy looking too! ... Wait is that a pink and red Hawaiian flower shirt he is wearing?
I was totally kidding. I really had no idea.
I was totally kidding. I really had no idea.
You mean I looked that up and hurt my brain for nothing?
The Atheist Church of Science down the street says that you're wrong.I make a save to disbelieve:
1d20
Edit: Doh! I believe.
Ugh. They like to go by the acronym FACTS.
Here they are, in all their... something.
EDIT...REMOVED.
OK I watched the video and changed my mind.
The guy is clearly American and I think he is engaged in that quintessential American past time...
'The Quest for the Holy Tax Loop Hole".
Child molesting priests are criminals and the RCC, by knowingly concealing these crimes, has made itself an accomplice. Certainly I don't think the Church itself should be prosecuted.
Why not?
If a corporation (say Enron) can be held accountable for the criminal acts of its employees, why should the Church get a free pass? The only difference I see between an Enron-esque company and the Church is that Enron execs 'promoted' the criminal behavior whereas the Church didn't encourage but certainly 'fostered' criminality by actively covering it up, protecting pedophiles, strong-arming parishioners into remaining silent, etc. So why shouldn't the Church (Jesus Inc.) be held responsible?The Pope himself, however, is a different story--as a sovereign head of state, he can't be prosecuted, and the RCC must deal with his crimes on its own.
Leaving aside whether Vatican City should actually be considered a 'state' regardless of the treaty... there is no basis to say the Pope, as a Head of State, can't be prosecuted. He'd just join a nice little club:
Omar Al-Bashir, President (Sudan) charged w/ war crimes and crimes against humanity
Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia) - war crimes
Hissène Habré, exiled former President (Chad)
Khieu Samphan, President of the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia)
Manuel Noriega, Dictator (Panama) - in jail for such prosaic crimes as drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering.
As for the RCC 'dealing' with the Pope's or anyone else's crimes... as you pointed out, the Church has sheltered and covered up for these criminals for many years. There is no reason to expect they will 'prosecute' the higher ups any more vigorously than they handled the pedophiles themselves. If anything, their behavior to date proves they cannot or WILL not 'deal' with them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Why not?
If a corporation (say Enron) can be held accountable for the criminal acts of its employees, why should the Church get a free pass? The only difference I see between an Enron-esque company and the Church is that Enron execs 'promoted' the criminal behavior whereas the Church didn't encourage but certainly 'fostered' criminality by actively covering it up, protecting pedophiles, strong-arming parishioners into remaining silent, etc. So why shouldn't the Church (Jesus Inc.) be held responsible?
If you prosecute the Church, who goes to jail? The parishioners in the third pew? Only people who are baptized and confirmed? All priests everywhere? Just the bishops on up? Should we put the religion of Islam on trial just because some Muslims are terrorist criminals? It isn't practical, and it isn't a good idea. A few bad bananas don't ruin the whole bunch. Go after the priests who did it and the individuals who assisted them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. But the idea of going after the Church itself is a non-starter. It obfuscates the real issue and conflates it with a general hostility toward Catholicism. Frankly, it smacks of religious persecution and it's unfair to all the Catholics who didn't have anything to do with the crimes involved, including the Catholic victims.
Leaving aside whether Vatican City should actually be considered a 'state' regardless of the treaty... there is no basis to say the Pope, as a Head of State, can't be prosecuted. He'd just join a nice little club:
Omar Al-Bashir, President (Sudan) charged w/ war crimes and crimes against humanity
Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia) - war crimes
Hissène Habré, exiled former President (Chad)
Khieu Samphan, President of the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia)
Manuel Noriega, Dictator (Panama) - in jail for such prosaic crimes as drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering.As for the RCC 'dealing' with the Pope's or anyone else's crimes... as you pointed out, the Church has sheltered and covered up for these criminals for many years. There is no reason to expect they will 'prosecute' the higher ups any more vigorously than they handled the pedophiles themselves. If anything, their behavior to date proves they cannot or WILL not 'deal' with them.
I agree with you that the RCC is unlikely to take any action against the Pope, regardless of whether or not he was complicit in these crimes. I wasn't arguing that he shouldn't be held liable for any crimes to which he may have been an accomplice. But practically it just isn't going to happen. By international law, de jure and de facto, a sitting head of state can't be prosecuted by a foreign power. A deposed head of state is another matter. To prosecute the Pope, you would first have to depose the Pope by establishing military dominance. Let's be real here. No country in the world is going to start parachuting troops into Vatican City. That is what it would take to bring the Pope to trial, and that is just not going to happen, for many reasons.
|
|
Why not?
If a corporation (say Enron) can be held accountable for the criminal acts of its employees, why should the Church get a free pass? The only difference I see between an Enron-esque company and the Church is that Enron execs 'promoted' the criminal behavior whereas the Church didn't encourage but certainly 'fostered' criminality by actively covering it up, protecting pedophiles, strong-arming parishioners into remaining silent, etc. So why shouldn't the Church (Jesus Inc.) be held responsible?If you prosecute the Church, who goes to jail? The parishioners in the third pew? Only people who are baptized and confirmed? All priests everywhere? Just the bishops on up? Should we put the religion of Islam on trial just because some Muslims are terrorist criminals? It isn't practical, and it isn't a good idea. A few bad bananas don't ruin the whole bunch. Go after the priests who did it and the individuals who assisted them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. But the idea of going after the Church itself is a non-starter. It obfuscates the real issue and conflates it with a general hostility toward Catholicism. Frankly, it smacks of religious persecution and it's unfair to all the Catholics who didn't have anything to do with the crimes involved, including the Catholic victims.
...Leaving aside whether Vatican City should actually be considered a 'state' regardless of the treaty... there is no basis to say the Pope, as a Head of State, can't be prosecuted. He'd just join a nice little club:
Omar Al-Bashir, President (Sudan) charged w/ war crimes and crimes against humanity
Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia) - war crimes
Hissène Habré, exiled former President (Chad)
Khieu Samphan, President of the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia)
Manuel Noriega, Dictator (Panama) - in jail for such prosaic crimes as drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering.As for the RCC 'dealing' with the Pope's or anyone else's crimes... as you pointed out,
Actually a ruling head of state has been arrested and prosecuted. 1989 Augusto Pinochet former dictator of Chile was arrested and tried while on a visit to britain.
|
|
Mistranslation over the years have also caused some problems. I remember seeing something that suggested the the parting of the Red Sea may have been a mistranslation of "Reed Sea," a marsh that once existed along the northern edge of the Red Sea. It is apparently mentioned on a stele in the Egyptian Museum.This is one that is fairly easy to account for as well. Translators would look at a map and find the currently existing landmarks under the wrongful assumption that nature is permanent. The Sea of Reeds was very small and in a place that wasn't very important to people living in other parts of the world... or even to Egypt for that matter. Easily bypassed by sea routes and northern roads, the Sea of Reeds would be ignored for a long time.
The Red Sea, however, is a large body of water just to the south of where biblical scholars are looking anyway. What could be better propaganda wise than a major miracle that parted a deep salty sea rather than a mushy, shallow tidal bog?
Another thing I've noticed is that Abram is from Ur... and most biblical scholars assume that means he comes from the famous city of Ur in Sumeria. There were, however, other Urs that existed during that time period. The place where he's most likely from is in Syria or Turkey today.
It's most likely that there were so many cities named "Ur" because people would ask "What city is that" and someone would say "Err...." and the askers would take that as the name before the other guy could remember wtf the name of that town was.
Or something.
And the record of this happening outside of the Middle East is where again? Did the other cultures on Earth not deem the appearance of the one true god worthy of recording? What about us poor saps born millenia after God made his cameo appearance? We need to rely on the accounts of such miracles recorded in a book, translated dozens of times, and filled with cultural/time period/geographic references that can only be understood through extensive study and research?
Seems to me, we got the shaft.
Well, there was a monothesitic movement in 14th century BC Egypt based around the god Aten. The movenment ended after the death of the Pharaoh Akhenaten and the priests of Amun reaserted power and reestablished the old religion.
Some researchers have compared it to Judaism, but very little is known about Atenism.
If you prosecute the Church, who goes to jail? The parishioners in the third pew? Only people who are baptized and confirmed? All priests everywhere? Just the bishops on up? Should we put the religion of Islam on trial just because some Muslims are terrorist criminals? It isn't practical, and it isn't a good idea. A few bad bananas don't ruin the whole bunch. Go after the priests who did it and the individuals who assisted them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
That's what we are proposing. When a corporation is found guilty of a crime, not every single human being that works for it, nor all its customers, go to jail. But the corporation itself is criminally liable, as is everyone directly involved in setting and administering the lawbreaking policies.
I know no good moral reason why the Catholic church should be treated any differently than any other organization, secular or otherwise. If a school district or the ACLU were guilty of these same things, I'd be chomping at the bit to ram RICO so far up their asses that it explodes (figuratively, of course) out the top of their heads and showers us all with the gore of the guilty. Why should a church, any church, be any different?
|
|
And the record of this happening outside of the Middle East is where again? Did the other cultures on Earth not deem the appearance of the one true god worthy of recording? What about us poor saps born millenia after God made his cameo appearance? We need to rely on the accounts of such miracles recorded in a book, translated dozens of times, and filled with cultural/time period/geographic references that can only be understood through extensive study and research?
Seems to me, we got the shaft.
Well, there was a monothesitic movement in 14th century BC Egypt based around the god Aten. The movenment ended after the death of the Pharaoh Akhenaten and the priests of Amun reaserted power and reestablished the old religion.
Some researchers have compared it to Judaism, but very little is known about Atenism.
It seems Aten may've existed before Akhenaten came to power, and that he was just the Pharaoh who had the power to make it into a national religious movement. All that is known is that the cult persisted until the reign of Tutankaten... who'd change his name to Tutankamun when he took power.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Why should a church, any church, be any different?
The short answer is that it's unfair to go after an organization itself, even if members of that organization acting in official capacity are guilty of wrongdoing, because there are other members of that organization that are innocent of any wrongdoing. So in that regards, I don't think that the RCC's case should be any different from any other organization. In fact, I think that the idea that these criminals got a free pass because of their status in the organization is tremendously unfair and illegal. If I found out my pastor was committing felonies you can believe I'd be dialing the cops. But I disagree with the practice of going after organizations because certain members of those organizations did wrong. I know these cases aren't isolated, but it isn't as if there was a church-wide coverup policy in which everybody from the pews on up was complicit. Punish the guilty, not the innocent. The offenders and those who covered it up are guilty; the other 98% of Catholics are not. To put it a different way, if we can't prosecute the KKK as an organization despite its despicable beliefs and the illegal actions of some of its members, how can we prosecute some other organization because of the actions of a few of its members?
|
|
Apparently people are getting outraged more and more with the actions of the RCC. Here's an article on the homosexuality slip up made by the popes right hand man last week. Apparently many people didn't let that one slide.
But I disagree with the practice of going after organizations because certain members of those organizations did wrong. I know these cases aren't isolated, but it isn't as if there was a church-wide coverup policy in which everybody from the pews on up was complicit.
Actually that's precisely the case, excepting the bit about everyone in the pews. When we see the exact same pattern of behavior in diocese after diocese, in country after country, it's profoundly clear that a policy is in place. Some of the documents have even leaked, and more are likely to follow. You admitted such a church-wide policy exists when you declared the cases are not isolated.
But the people in the pews are an entirely different situation. They're not employees of the organization. They're its customers, not its employees. I agree that they're not culpable (at least not as a class) but there's no risk of Random Churchgoer in Pew Six ending up in the slammer even if the entire organization is indicted.
To put it a different way, if we can't prosecute the KKK as an organization despite its despicable beliefs and the illegal actions of some of its members, how can we prosecute some other organization because of the actions of a few of its members?
If the members are acting out organizational policy, both they and the organization are and should be culpable. As it happens, we have prosecuted the KKK as an organization, just as we have the mafia.
In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[46] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.
That's the first Klan. It was an informal group with no official member lists or anything like that and still got hammered, though it only vanished when other, better-organized paramilitary terrorist groups arose to accomplish the re-enslavement of the ex-slaves.
The second Klan had all the trappings of an ordinary fraternal organization. That one and its various organized descendants have been treated as groups had had organization property seized for the deeds of its members. In one case, the KKK couldn't cough up the dough and its HQ got given over to one of its victims, who sold the property to buy his first house.
|
|
Someone recently asked "Why" I was an atheist. I told them that I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell because I’m ‘bad’ one. As someone raised in the overchristianized western culture I really can't see how that can be reconciled.
|
|
Someone recently asked "Why" I was an atheist. I told them that I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell because I’m ‘bad’ one. As someone raised in the overchristianized western culture I really can't see how that can be reconciled.
You are angry at Christians and you have every right to be. All that I can really say is that I'm truly sorry that you haven't really been shown what "God" is really about. You've been shown hatred and lies. I really wish there was some way to "reconcile" that, but negative experiences have a way to overshadow positive ones. I cannot change what other "Christians" have shown you. All that I ask is that you not think of us all the same way.
That's what we are proposing. When a corporation is found guilty of a crime, not every single human being that works for it, nor all its customers, go to jail. But the corporation itself is criminally liable, as is everyone directly involved in setting and administering the lawbreaking policies.I know no good moral reason why the Catholic church should be treated any differently than any other organization, secular or otherwise. If a school district or the ACLU were guilty of these same things, I'd be chomping at the bit to ram RICO so far up their asses that it explodes (figuratively, of course) out the top of their heads and showers us all with the gore of the guilty. Why should a church, any church, be any different?
I think that it's better to prosecute the individuals responsible for crimes, not the organizations they work for. Organizations are abstract entities. Crimes are committed by individual people and usually hurt other individual people. Prosecuting an organization only lets the people who committed the crime hide behind the organization and skate free without consequence while the organizations gets fined or sanctioned in some manner. We already do things that way in the corporate world. An example of the results we get is the recent coal mine explosion in West Virginia. The company responsible violated federal safety regulations on numerous occasions. They were also fined on numerous occasions but treated the fines as just part of the cost of doing business. I think there would be a whole bunch of miners alive today and working in safer mines if the punishment for violating federal regulations had been jail time for the president and officers of the company.
When he did show up in person, working miracles to prove his identity, the majority of people still did not believe him. The "tiny minority" were those people who did.
But the big question is did he really show up and did he really perform miracles? All we have is a group of second hand accounts saying that some poeple witessed this and that happening, without any independent verification from other sources (something that I understand historians insist upon before accepting anything as fact nowadays). We also have other written accounts of men claiming to be representatives of God or gods that contradict the Christian record. What basis is there to accept the Christian record over the Koran or the teachings of Bhudda or the stories in the ancient Indian holy texts? Or for aqccepting that any of them are true at all?
|
|
I think that it's better to prosecute the individuals responsible for crimes, not the organizations they work for. Organizations are abstract entities. Crimes are committed by individual people and usually hurt other individual people. Prosecuting an organization only lets the people who committed the crime hide behind the organization and skate free without consequence while the organizations gets fined or sanctioned in some manner. We already do things that way in the corporate world. An example of the results we get is the recent coal mine explosion in West Virginia. The company responsible violated federal safety regulations on numerous occasions. They were also fined on numerous occasions but treated the fines as just part of the cost of doing business. I think there would be a whole bunch of miners alive today and working in safer mines if the punishment for violating federal regulations had been jail time for the president and officers of the company.
When an organization has policies that perpetuates the crimes that individuals are committing, then something has to be done about the organization. If a private company were to have said "we're going to shelter you from the law if you molest kids by keeping it quiet and moving you around" there would be a GIGANTIC outcry for the gov't to shut down that business. That is what is going on with the RCC, and measures need to be taken to shut them down within our borders. They are aiding and abetting the worst type of criminals with little to no punitive action being taken. Christians talk about being moral and doing what is right...where's the outcry? Where's the indignation? They should be ashamed of their hypocritical selves...
What basis is there to accept the Christian record over the Koran or the teachings of Bhudda or the stories in the ancient Indian holy texts? Or for aqccepting that any of them are true at all?
One obvious empirical approach would be to try one or more of these methods and see if they perform as advertised. Of course, Christianity and Islam pretty much require you to be dead to receive the fruits of your efforts, but the Buddha taught that you could become free of suffering in this life -- it would seem simple enough to try out his path and see if it works.
I think that it's better to prosecute the individuals responsible for crimes, not the organizations they work for. Organizations are abstract entities. Crimes are committed by individual people and usually hurt other individual people. Prosecuting an organization only lets the people who committed the crime hide behind the organization and skate free without consequence while the organizations gets fined or sanctioned in some manner. We already do things that way in the corporate world. An example of the results we get is the recent coal mine explosion in West Virginia. The company responsible violated federal safety regulations on numerous occasions. They were also fined on numerous occasions but treated the fines as just part of the cost of doing business. I think there would be a whole bunch of miners alive today and working in safer mines if the punishment for violating federal regulations had been jail time for the president and officers of the company.
It's not an either/or issue. I want the culpable individuals to go to jail AND the culpable organization to get sanctioned to within an inch of its life.
Someone recently asked "Why" I was an atheist. I told them that I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell because I’m ‘bad’ one. As someone raised in the overchristianized western culture I really can't see how that can be reconciled.
All of that may be true (and personally I only find the first offense even debatable) it's not really an argument against the existence of a deity. At best it's an argument against a particular type of deity (specifically the omnimax type, since omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience are fundamentally incompatible with any world any of us has ever seen) but it misses entirely many other classes of divinity. Sophisticated theologians are quick to deny omnibenevolence and/or omnipotence. William Lane Craig, who I am told by people who enjoy reading his sort of thing is one of the top shelf apologists, denies omnipotence in the conventional sense.
Granted Christians generally believe in omnimax types, and the deities defended by their apologists bear remarkably little resemblance to those believed in by millions who they claim to share a religion with, but that's a separate issue.
Rejecting Christianity is not the same as rejecting theism. The first does not entail the second. Doing the second, however, would entail doing the first since Christianity is obviously a species of theism. It's just not the ony one. Just ask Pure Land Buddhists or Hindus. Or Wiccans. Or the Muslims. Or the Jews. :)
What basis is there to accept the Christian record over the Koran or the teachings of Bhudda or the stories in the ancient Indian holy texts? Or for aqccepting that any of them are true at all?One obvious empirical approach would be to try one or more of these methods and see if they perform as advertised. Of course, Christianity and Islam pretty much require you to be dead to receive the fruits of your efforts, but the Buddha taught that you could become free of suffering in this life -- it would seem simple enough to try out his path and see if it works.
Prayer has been shown to have absolutely no efficacy whatsoever* (Well, none beyond the placebo effect -- but that's hardly attributable to prayer per se).
Unfortunately, it has taken me years to realize that it's a mistake to believe that data will change anyone's mind, especially when it comes to religion.
* To clarify: Prayer can be quite effective in making the person praying feel better. It can obvious provide a sense of peace. But actually changing the outcome of events? No dice.
P.S. I'm not trying to say prayer is bad, or even a waste of time; just that it doesn't work as advertised.
Someone recently asked "Why" I was an atheist. I told them that I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell because I’m ‘bad’ one. As someone raised in the overchristianized western culture I really can't see how that can be reconciled.
This is fine and all as a personal opinion but I don't really see what to do with a post like this. I mean if you had some interesting or compelling evidence to show that religion is a prime motivator in war then one might be able to have some kind of a discussion with this.
Still trying to explore some element of the topic - I suspect its actually factually wrong to state that '[god]...is the primary cause of conflict'. places of the same religion tend to be groups together and I suspect that if we actually went through the trouble of counting up wars we'd find that some small majority of wars are actually fought between people of the same religion. That number boost by a significant margin if we demand that all the participants on each side don't share religion...in this case even such obvious shoe ins such as the European Wars of Religion fail the test as Catholic France would tend to intervene on the side of the protestants in order to counter the growing power of the Catholic Austrian Empire.
Beyond this I think seeing religion as a 'cause is usually missing the real cause. Nation States fight wars for many reasons but its usually to obtain some kind of objective and its rare that religion is something that one can win. Instead religion is used as an after the fact justification and usually some kind of propaganda rallying point. Something that one can rely on to motivate your own people and a bludgeon useful in convincing your people that the enemies people are different, wrong and probably fundamentally evil and working for whoever the bad guy is in your sides world view.
What basis is there to accept the Christian record over the Koran or the teachings of Bhudda or the stories in the ancient Indian holy texts? Or for aqccepting that any of them are true at all?One obvious empirical approach would be to try one or more of these methods and see if they perform as advertised. Of course, Christianity and Islam pretty much require you to be dead to receive the fruits of your efforts, but the Buddha taught that you could become free of suffering in this life -- it would seem simple enough to try out his path and see if it works.Prayer has been shown to have absolutely no efficacy whatsoever* (Well, none beyond the placebo effect -- but that's hardly attributable to prayer per se).
Unfortunately, it has taken me years to realize that it's a mistake to believe that data will change anyone's mind, especially when it comes to religion.
* To clarify: Prayer can be quite effective in making the person praying feel better. It can obvious provide a sense of peace. But actually changing the outcome of events? No dice.
P.S. I'm not trying to say prayer is bad, or even a waste of time; just that it doesn't work as advertised.
I think your quite significantly underestimating the power of placebo's. Historically speaking probably the best medicine we had. Beats the heck out of bleeding anyway.
|
|
Someone recently asked "Why" I was an atheist. I told them that I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell because I’m ‘bad’ one. As someone raised in the overchristianized western culture I really can't see how that can be reconciled.This is fine and all as a personal opinion but I don't really see what to do with a post like this. I mean if you had some interesting or compelling evidence to show that religion is a prime motivator in war then one might be able to have some kind of a discussion with this.
Still trying to explore the topic - I suspect its actually factually wrong. places of the same religion tend to be groups together and I suspect that if we actually went through the trouble of counting up wars we'd find that some small majority of wars are actually fought between people of the same religion. That number boost by a significant margin if we demand that all the participants on each side don't share religion...in this case even such obvious shoe ins such as the European Wars of Religion fail the test as Catholic France would tend to intervene on the side of the protestants in order to counter the growing power of the Catholic Austrian Empire.
Beyond this I think seeing religion as a 'cause is usually missing the real cause. Nation States fight wars for many reasons but its usually to obtain some kind of objective and its rare that religion is something that one can win. Instead religion is used as an after the fact justification and usually some kind of propaganda rallying point. Something that one can rely on to motivate your own people and a bludgeon useful in convincing your people that the enemies people are different, wrong and probably fundamentally evil and working for whoever the bad guy is in your sides world view.
I interepreted it as not necessarily war, but just what he said...conflict. Technically, jews, muslims, and christains are all followers of the abrahamic god. All you need to do is look at all of the conflicts (both small-scale and the ones on a large enough scale to be considered a war) that are started due to the small differences of faith between these religions to know what he is talking about.
Hell, the muslims even kill each other over different sects of islamic religion (much like the catholic-protestant conflicts in Ireland). IMHO organized religions have done more harm than good in their long and sordid history. Not only are they at the root of untold numbers of killings, but they have subjugated most of the human race to an (or any number of) imaginary authority figures.
Basically what it boils down to is the old "if it's too good to be true, it probably is" addage. If somebody/something tells me that I can have an eternity of peace and bliss just for serving them for a short (by comparison to eternity) time frame, that starts setting off alarm bells. Indentured servants fell into the same trap, and the various gods of these religion has indentured most of humanity through one religion or another.
|
|
I think your quite significantly underestimating the power of placebo's. Historically speaking probably the best medicine we had. Beats the heck out of bleeding anyway.
IIRC prayer is "effective" in less than 1% of cases (much less than most placebos) and most of the "miracles" attributed to prayer could probably be attributed to simple medical errors in diagnosis if proper investigations were actually conducted.