Atheistforums.com

Well, Catholic child-buggering Priests are in the news once again!  The Archdiocese of Baltimore has posted a list of 71 priests accused of sexually abusing children. I have to even feel sorry for this Archdiocese of this location because, shouldn't they post the "convicted" names only, instead of the "accused" because of the possible ramifications thereof? The Catholics were never too smart to begin with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/05/11/the-archdiocese-of-baltimore-has-posted-a-list-of-71-priests-accused-of-sexually-abusing-children/

Catholics, if you were sexually abused by your ungodly Priests in the past, and if you’re able to walk again, and don’t have a falsetto voice anymore from being buggered, there is help for you by contacting the following organization.
SURVIVORS NETWORK OF THOSE ABUSED BY PRIESTS
http://www.snapnetwork.org

So far, the primitive church of Catholicism, where their hierarchy is dressed in the same manner as a KKK Grand Dragon, has paid out 4 BILLION DOLLARS of their flocks hard earned money in reparations and settlements relative to their pedophile child buggering priests and coverups. The irony is, the Catholic church wonders why their flock is declining!

Furthermore, the Catholics have no more right to claim ANY moral authority over anyone because of their disgusting pedophile priests, and the documented coverups of same! WWJD? If he were real, he would kick the Catholic asses and their ungodly doctrine back into the mythical past where they belong.

One can only wonder if Catholics actually admit that their truly a Catholic in this day of age, disgusting!

But, wait a minute - didn't the priests only just start buggering kids a couple of decades ago? We never heard about this until then, so presumably they haven't been doing it for hundreds of years.

Papa Frank acknowledged that 1 in 50 priests is a (KNOWN!!!!) paedophile! There are priests that abused hundreds of children! Imagine that ratio among school teachers! It would cause a civil uprising! But not when the abuse comes from people who do god's work.
One can only guess what the REAL number within the ranks of the clergy is and what the number of victims is. So many abuses have been internally covered up and many, many children never came forward because of shame!

Possibly a pederastry that goes back to ancient Greece.  The NT was originally in Greek, not Aramaic.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 12, 2016, 03:57:32 PM
Catholics, if you were sexually abused by your ungodly Priests in the past, and if you’re able to walk again, and don’t have a falsetto voice anymore from being buggered, there is help for you by contacting the following organization.

Go easy on the abused. I know that stuff leaves them no sense of humour about it. It really messes them up.I was married to a victim. She told me, as she was destroying my world, that she hated men and enjoyed destroying their lives.

Any institution that allows activity based on authority and is carried on behind closed doors has the potential for abuse. Protestant religion doesn't get a pass either. Jerry Sandusky of Penn State abused children for a long time and got away with it. Jimmy Savile got away with it in children's hospitals. There is no doubt a certain type of person is drawn to the clergy, and very often indoctrinated themselves when young. The abused become abusers. I have personally posted easily a half dozen news releases on clergy abusing their charges.

I was a youth group leader for 2 years with the Jesus People Ministries. We had two girls who had no father that took a shine to me. Mama basically dropped them off at the church and went on her way. There was a potential for abuse there, if I had chosen to do so. Church leaders and ministers are given a pass because of the authority vested in them. Misuse and abuse is a real possibility, believe me.

UM not defending priests or anything

but a good number of teachers were also pedophiles. Pedophiles will find jobs where they have access to children. You just don't hear about all of them. Not to mention the ones that get away with it.

Quote from: doorknob on May 12, 2016, 09:08:41 PM
UM not defending priests or anything

but a good number of teachers were also pedophiles. Pedophiles will find jobs where they have access to children. You just don't hear about all of them. Not to mention the ones that get away with it.

True. Certain types of people gravitate to jobs that give them access to their chosen targets.

Quote from: stromboli on May 12, 2016, 09:12:06 PM
True. Certain types of people gravitate to jobs that give them access to their chosen targets.

This is why the best bank robbers, are bank presidents.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 12, 2016, 03:57:32 PM

Well, Catholic child-buggering Priests are in the news once again!  The Archdiocese of Baltimore has posted a list of 71 priests accused of sexually abusing children. I have to even feel sorry for this Archdiocese of this location because, shouldn't they post the "convicted" names only, instead of the "accused" because of the possible ramifications thereof? The Catholics were never too smart to begin with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/05/11/the-archdiocese-of-baltimore-has-posted-a-list-of-71-priests-accused-of-sexually-abusing-children/

Catholics, if you were sexually abused by your ungodly Priests in the past, and if you’re able to walk again, and don’t have a falsetto voice anymore from being buggered, there is help for you by contacting the following organization.
SURVIVORS NETWORK OF THOSE ABUSED BY PRIESTS
http://www.snapnetwork.org

So far, the primitive church of Catholicism, where their hierarchy is dressed in the same manner as a KKK Grand Dragon, has paid out 4 BILLION DOLLARS of their flocks hard earned money in reparations and settlements relative to their pedophile child buggering priests and coverups. The irony is, the Catholic church wonders why their flock is declining!

Furthermore, the Catholics have no more right to claim ANY moral authority over anyone because of their disgusting pedophile priests, and the documented coverups of same! WWJD? If he were real, he would kick the Catholic asses and their ungodly doctrine back into the mythical past where they belong.

One can only wonder if Catholics actually admit that their truly a Catholic in this day of age, disgusting!

I certainly hope you never admit to anyone that you graduated from high school (assuming you did which is questionable based on your logic).

Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?

And please tell us that none of your tax dollars go to support these schools where predators roam the halls and locker rooms looking for their next victims.

After all, given the disgusting sexual abuse of kids by public school teachers and their willing accomplices, the administrators who hid them, why would you ever admit you were a part of that or subject your own kids to the risk?

Found this on Reddit. took me 2 minutes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/seminary-student-allegedly-planned-sex-baby-mexico-article-1.2515560

Before you start pointing fingers you better start looking in your own woodpile.

Quote from: stromboli on May 13, 2016, 10:06:40 AM
Found this on Reddit. took me 2 minutes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/seminary-student-allegedly-planned-sex-baby-mexico-article-1.2515560

Before you start pointing fingers you better start looking in your own woodpile.

Is he still in the seminary?

From the Washington Post:

Five myths about the Catholic sexual abuse scandal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602026.html


WARNING: You may have to re-think your blatant prejudice after reading the article.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 10:24:56 AM
From the Washington Post:

Five myths about the Catholic sexual abuse scandal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602026.html


WARNING: You may have to re-think your blatant prejudice after reading the article.

Blatant prejudice?

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9428.0

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9501.0

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9382.0

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9247.0

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9028.0

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8994.0

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8961.0

I am prejudiced. I have 3 children and six grand children. Yes indeed, I'm prejudiced.

These are mostly just the ones I've posted. Get on Reddit and do some reading. News articles appearing weekly. There is much more than that. It says "Atheist" up at the top there. Why you choose to come on here with your drivel and somehow expect to prove your BS just tells me how closeted a mind you have. Catholicism is an evil organization and has been perpetrating the worst possible behavior for centuries. Try as you might it is indefensible.

I am a former theist. Some here former Catholics. we were smart enough to see the truth and left. In real life you are probably a smart guy, but boy you seriously got your head up your you know what. Hope you start looking at the big picture and seeing it for what it is, a massive con job that perpetrates the worst behavior of humanity.

Quote from: stromboli on May 13, 2016, 10:51:16 AM
I am prejudiced. I have 3 children and six grand children. Yes indeed, I'm prejudiced.

These are mostly just the ones I've posted. Get on Reddit and do some reading. News articles appearing weekly. There is much more than that. It says "Atheist" up at the top there. Why you choose to come on here with your drivel and somehow expect to prove your BS just tells me how closeted a mind you have. Catholicism is an evil organization and has been perpetrating the worst possible behavior for centuries. Try as you might it is indefensible.

This is just your opinion. Clearly, a billion or so people have the opinion that the Catholic Church is not an evil organization. A lot more people in the course of 2,000 years have not thought this. Even our "competition"...you know, the Orthodox and the Protestants...would be unlikely to call us "evil".

Were you this anti-Catholic in your theist days? If not, what happened to you to make you this angry?

And are you equally concerned that your grandchildren will be molested by public school teachers? Or is this just selective outrage on your part?

You and I might agree that SOME evil people have been Catholics and we might agree that individual members of the Catholic Church have done bad things in the past, but a blanket charge that the Catholic Church is an evil organization is simply unsupportable given the positive contributions that Catholicism has made to society as a whole.

This is anti-Catholic prejudice...the last prejudice still permitted in this country.

QuoteI am a former theist. Some here former Catholics. we were smart enough to see the truth and left. In real life you are probably a smart guy, but boy you seriously got your head up your you know what. Hope you start looking at the big picture and seeing it for what it is, a massive con job that perpetrates the worst behavior of humanity.

I wasn't always a Catholic. I am an adult convert. You weren't always an atheist. You are an adult deconvert. Naturally, we feel strongly about the positions we hold currently.

That said, I think you would have a hard time proving your view of the Catholic Church in light of all the good that it has done.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512Erv-u08L.jpg)

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 10:24:56 AM
From the Washington Post:

Five myths about the Catholic sexual abuse scandal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602026.html


WARNING: You may have to re-think your blatant prejudice after reading the article.

Actually after reading this attempt to explain away the culpability of this Moral, Just and Beautiful institution, I am even more disgusted. 

Here is an example from the exploding the myths of the church atricle:

3.  Sexual abuse is more pervasive in the Catholic Church than in other institutions.

"Sexual abuse of minors is not the province of the Catholic Church alone. About 4 percent of priests committed an act of sexual abuse on a minor between 1950 and 2002, according to a study being conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. That is roughly consistent with data on many similar professions."

Wow! only 4%!!  Hell, that's nothing to get worked up about you guys!  That's not much.  Let's see............how many priests was that (I don't know the exact number for that time frame, but you can look it us and do the math)?  I'm sure the victims sure feel better now.  Is that the total number or just the ones that became public?  I wonder how many were/are hidden?  And this is from an institution that preaches that Jesus is your very own personal god--your savior; he loves you and looks after you.  And keeps you safe so your local priest can play patty cake with you.  And this priest is steeped in the teachings of this morally objective person/god that Jesus is.  He is an expert in this field, so he is intimately familiar with Jesus' teachings.  Yet that did not stop them from not only creating victims of the most vulnerable, but then  lying about it--and the infallible pope covering it up as well.  Yes, these are the actions of a strong follower of the objective morality of Jesus. 

And there we are told that the rate of creating victims is about the same as many similar professions.  I don't think these other professions are really equal in that none of them are steeped in the objective of the teachings of Jesus.  The priest is THE expert in this field and is lead by the infallible pope, so what could go wrong?  And still, with all that preparation, soul searching, praying (preying, actually) and study, the best this wonderful, beautiful, moral institution was to be roughly the same as others.  What the hell is the point of this Institution then, if at it's best, it can only do average work?  Well, what that real work is is fairly easy to see--gain power, maintain power and gather wealth--at that this wonderful, beautiful institution excels!!!!  Hyprocracy--the Crown Jewel in the Pope's Miter! 

The point being that the Catholic clergy has made a concerted effort to cover up their crimes, misdirect investigations, relocate perpetrators and deny, deny, deny.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 07:59:11 AM
I certainly hope you never admit to anyone that you graduated from high school (assuming you did which is questionable based on your logic).

Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?

And please tell us that none of your tax dollars go to support these schools where predators roam the halls and locker rooms looking for their next victims.

After all, given the disgusting sexual abuse of kids by public school teachers and their willing accomplices, the administrators who hid them, why would you ever admit you were a part of that or subject your own kids to the risk?

Randy,

You debate as a child with your ever so weak circular reasoning and comical red herrings.

YOUR PATHETIC WEAK QUOTES: "I certainly hope you never admit to anyone that you graduated from high school (assuming you did which is questionable based on your logic)." 

Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?

And please tell us that none of your tax dollars go to support these schools where predators roam the halls and locker rooms looking for their next victims.

After all, given the disgusting sexual abuse of kids by public school teachers and their willing accomplices, the administrators who hid them, why would you ever admit you were a part of that or subject your own kids to the risk?"

Randy, you don't have the sense to feel embarrassed over your weak and comical circular reasoning as you assume as a premise the conclusion in which you wish to reach to save face upon the topic at hand rather than address it fully relative to within the church. Then you use red herrings to take the lime light off of you being a member of a church that COVERED UP PEDOPHILE PRIESTS buggering innocent children, going back to RATzinger being the impetus of the coverups in the 1960s! The Catholic fact of priests buggering kids, and their subsequent coverups, will never leave your division of Christianity, no matter how you try in vain to be apart from it!  Disgusting!

Randy, do a visual for us of your pedophile priests, under the name of Yahweh's doctrine, screwing little kids as Yahweh watched in disgust! "For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens." (Job 28:24)

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 13, 2016, 11:34:34 AM
Actually after reading this attempt to explain away the culpability of this Moral, Just and Beautiful institution, I am even more disgusted. 

Here is an example from the exploding the myths of the church atricle:

3.  Sexual abuse is more pervasive in the Catholic Church than in other institutions.

"Sexual abuse of minors is not the province of the Catholic Church alone. About 4 percent of priests committed an act of sexual abuse on a minor between 1950 and 2002, according to a study being conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. That is roughly consistent with data on many similar professions."

Wow! only 4%!!  Hell, that's nothing to get worked up about you guys!  That's not much.  Let's see............how many priests was that (I don't know the exact number for that time frame, but you can look it us and do the math)?  I'm sure the victims sure feel better now.  Is that the total number or just the ones that became public?  I wonder how many were/are hidden?  And this is from an institution that preaches that Jesus is your very own personal god--your savior; he loves you and looks after you.  And keeps you safe so your local priest can play patty cake with you.  And this priest is steeped in the teachings of this morally objective person/god that Jesus is.  He is an expert in this field, so he is intimately familiar with Jesus' teachings.  Yet that did not stop them from not only creating victims of the most vulnerable, but then  lying about it--and the infallible pope covering it up as well.  Yes, these are the actions of a strong follower of the objective morality of Jesus. 

And there we are told that the rate of creating victims is about the same as many similar professions.  I don't think these other professions are really equal in that none of them are steeped in the objective of the teachings of Jesus.  The priest is THE expert in this field and is lead by the infallible pope, so what could go wrong?  And still, with all that preparation, soul searching, praying (preying, actually) and study, the best this wonderful, beautiful, moral institution was to be roughly the same as others.  What the hell is the point of this Institution then, if at it's best, it can only do average work?  Well, what that real work is is fairly easy to see--gain power, maintain power and gather wealth--at that this wonderful, beautiful institution excels!!!!  Hyprocracy--the Crown Jewel in the Pope's Miter!

Other studies have placed the percentage in the 2-2.5% range. Still bad, but lower than in the population as a whole.

IOW, the average Catholic child is at greater risk of being molested by his teacher or swim coach than by the parish priest.

But that inconvenient fact doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

And by the way, not only do Protestant Churches have THESE problems, but they also face the issues of ADULT homosexuality and heterosexual ADULTERY among their clergy.

So, again, why the selective outrage?

Quote from: stromboli on May 13, 2016, 01:45:34 PM
The point being that the Catholic clergy has made a concerted effort to cover up their crimes, misdirect investigations, relocate perpetrators and deny, deny, deny.

As have public school officials, Penn State University, the Boy Scouts of America....

Why the selective outrage? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 03:24:40 PM
Other studies have placed the percentage in the 2-2.5% range. Still bad, but lower than in the population as a whole.

IOW, the average Catholic child is at greater risk of being molested by his teacher or swim coach than by the parish priest.

But that inconvenient fact doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

And by the way, not only do Protestant Churches have THESE problems, but they also face the issues of ADULT homosexuality and heterosexual ADULTERY among their clergy.

So, again, why the selective outrage?

Randy,

Why the selective outrage?! Are you kidding? Because it is done under the auspices of the Catholic Church that allegedly gives a moral foundation to its followers, where innocent children are to be in a safe haven at their church, and that preaches how ungodly an act of pedophilia is and how it should be punished! Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L? Sure you can.

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)  Correct me if I am wrong, but has the Catholic Church drown any pedophile priests with millstones around their neck lately? Huh?

Granted, your primitive Yahweh god has a myriad of examples of pedophilia in his Bronze and Iron Age bible, but that is for another discussion. In the meantime, you're to do everything that you can to prevent any further molestations by your priests, or other attendees, in the church that you hang out at, promise?

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 13, 2016, 02:29:32 PM

Randy,

You debate as a child with your ever so weak circular reasoning and comical red herrings.

Then it should be relatively easy for you to dispatch my arguments. Let's see how you do...

QuoteYOUR PATHETIC WEAK QUOTES:

Quote"I certainly hope you never admit to anyone that you graduated from high school (assuming you did which is questionable based on your logic)." 

Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?

And please tell us that none of your tax dollars go to support these schools where predators roam the halls and locker rooms looking for their next victims.

After all, given the disgusting sexual abuse of kids by public school teachers and their willing accomplices, the administrators who hid them, why would you ever admit you were a part of that or subject your own kids to the risk?"

Randy, you don't have the sense to feel embarrassed over your weak and comical circular reasoning as you assume as a premise the conclusion in which you wish to reach to save face upon the topic at hand rather than address it fully relative to within the church.

If I have used circular reasoning in this discussion, please quote my posts and PROVE this assertion.

QuoteThen you use red herrings to take the lime light off of you being a member of a church that COVERED UP PEDOPHILE PRIESTS buggering innocent children, going back to RATzinger being the impetus of the coverups in the 1960s!

Prove it.

The Washington Post article pointed out that Ratzinger's involvement is a myth. You have cited no evidence for your claim.

QuoteThe Catholic fact of priests buggering kids, and their subsequent coverups, will never leave your division of Christianity, no matter how you try in vain to be apart from it!  Disgusting!

Perhaps. The Church has endured survived in the past and, sadly, will probably have to do so again in the future.

However, attempting to smear the entire Catholic Church with this scandal is an unthinking and inappropriate response. Do you honestly believe 1.2 billion Catholics are supportive of any of this? If not, then why attempt to besmirch the entire Church because of a few bad individuals? However, those priests and bishops are responsible for their sins.

See, you commit the fallacy of composition - assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

You have issues with God, and you hate the Catholic Church. I get it.

But, of course, you began this post proclaiming that I was the one with poor logic and reasoning skills. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

QuoteRandy, do a visual for us of your pedophile priests, under the name of Yahweh's doctrine, screwing little kids as Yahweh watched in disgust! "For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens." (Job 28:24)

Most of the victims were male and the average age was 12.6 years old. This was not true pedophilia. This was homosexuality.

And the peak year was 1970.

So, while the victims are still coming forward, the tide has turned, and the Church is taking appropriate actions to deal with the problems created when it permitted gay men to enter the priesthood.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 13, 2016, 03:36:49 PM

Randy,

Why the selective outrage?! Are you kidding? Because it is done under the auspices of the Catholic Church where innocent children are to be in a safe haven, and that preaches how ungodly an act of pedophilia is and how it should be punished! Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L? Sure you can.

Are you equally upset about the instances of this occurring in public schools where the kids are supposed to be learning in a safe, nurturing environment?

Quote"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)  Correct me if I am wrong, but has the Catholic Church drown any pedophile priests with millstones around their neck lately? Huh?

If we had, wouldn't you atheists be screaming about that? Just today, someone threw Giordano Bruno in my face because he was executed as a heretic in the 1500's.

And you're actually calling Catholic hypocrites because we haven't drowned anyone lately?

Do you have any idea how unhinged you sound?

QuoteGranted, your primitive Yahweh god has a myriad of examples of pedophilia in his Bronze and Iron Age bible, but that is for another discussion. In the meantime, you're to do everything that you can to prevent any further molestations by your priests, or other attendees, in the church that you hang out at, promise?

And you will do the same, I hope, to ensure that predators posing as "transgenders" do not molest little girls in their bathrooms and locker rooms at school or at Target.

Promise?

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 13, 2016, 03:36:49 PM

Randy,

Why the selective outrage?! Are you kidding? Because it is done under the auspices of the Catholic Church that allegedly gives a moral foundation to its followers, where innocent children are to be in a safe haven at their church, and that preaches how ungodly an act of pedophilia is and how it should be punished! Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L? Sure you can.

I always hear the comparison of catholic clergy to school teachers, it comes up every time the subject is brought up. Let's dissect that little morsel of un-wisdom.
As mentioned before religious clergy have drummed into us that they are on an errand of god and therefore have the moral superiority to simple mortals. If they claim that status than they should be held to it!!!!
The vast majority of abused never come forward because of shame and humiliation. Even parents covered up the abuse of their children in order not to shake the tree.
Many clergy have had the given 'opportunity' to molest and rape dozens, some hundreds of children because of that AND because the culprits have been covered and moved by the church hirarchy to new parishes where the abuse continued for years.
One can only imagine what the outcry would be if one in 50 teachers would be raping his pupils! (That number is acknowledged by papa Frank). First of all, there would be no hesitation by parents to go after the school board, and secondly there would not be such a cover up. Thirdly, the abusers would face criminal charges, jail time and would never be allowed to teach again. None of these consequences are applied to the vast majority of clergy abusers. A handful of priests went to jail, the conviction rate is roughly 1 in 250. All on the internet.
Last but not least, I don't know anybody who worships, prays and defends school teachers or boards. Only the flock can keep finding lame excuses and comparisons to keep groveling and adoring this death cult.

Quote from: reasonist on May 13, 2016, 04:11:13 PM
I always hear the comparison of catholic clergy to school teachers, it comes up every time the subject is brought up.

With good reason.

QuoteLet's dissect that little morsel of un-wisdom.

Oh, goodie.

QuoteAs mentioned before religious clergy have drummed into us that they are on an errand of god and therefore have the moral superiority to simple mortals. If they claim that status than they should be held to it!!!!

Catholic priests may be called by God and doing His work, but that does not make them morally superior to anyone.

Having begun with a false premise, the rest of this can be ignored. However, let's continue.

QuoteThe vast majority of abused never come forward because of shame and humiliation. Even parents covered up the abuse of their children in order not to shake the tree.

This is undoubtedly true. Of course, it's true of ALL victims and parents of victims of this type of abuse. So, nothing unique to Catholicism in these two sentences.

QuoteMany clergy have had the given 'opportunity' to molest and rape dozens, some hundreds of children because of that AND because the culprits have been covered and moved by the church hirarchy to new parishes where the abuse continued for years.

This is true, sadly. It is inexcusable, and the priests and bishops need to be held responsible.

But now we need to ask another question or two. Is it actually a fundamental doctrine of Christianity or Catholicism that young people should be molested and raped? Is this something that the Church wants to encourage? Does it serve some purpose or benefit the Church in any way?

Or was all of this the result of the implementation of an agenda by homosexual priests and bishops?

QuoteOne can only imagine what the outcry would be if one in 50 teachers would be raping his pupils! (That number is acknowledged by papa Frank).

2%? Wow. The very number that I quoted earlier. But what does the secular media acknowledge? Here's just one example from Newsweek:

PRIESTS COMMIT NO MORE ABUSE THAN OTHER MALES
BY PAT WINGERT ON 4/7/10 AT 8:00 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

QuoteFirst of all, there would be no hesitation by parents to go after the school board, and secondly there would not be such a cover up.

This was last month:

IPS officials accused of hiding sexual abuse allegations
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2016/04/13/did-ips-officials-try-hide-abuse-allegations/82974760/

And another news outlet reported:

Thursday April 1, 2010
Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2484819/posts

"According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, 'the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.'"

QuoteThirdly, the abusers would face criminal charges, jail time and would never be allowed to teach again. None of these consequences are applied to the vast majority of clergy abusers. A handful of priests went to jail, the conviction rate is roughly 1 in 250. All on the internet.

I'm all for jailing anyone who is convicted of committing these crimes.

QuoteLast but not least, I don't know anybody who worships, prays and defends school teachers or boards. Only the flock can keep finding lame excuses and comparisons to keep groveling and adoring this death cult.

Heh...yeah, but only angry atheists keep looking at the Catholic Church while ignoring the greater problem in schools, the Boy Scouts, swim teams and their own neighborhoods.

There are far more sexual predators who do not wear a Roman collar than there are Catholic priests.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 03:50:35 PM
Then it should be relatively easy for you to dispatch my arguments. Let's see how you do...

Randy, you don't have the sense to feel embarrassed over your weak and comical circular reasoning as you assume as a premise the conclusion in which you wish to reach to save face upon the topic at hand rather than address it fully relative to within the church.

If I have used circular reasoning in this discussion, please quote my posts and PROVE this assertion.

Prove it.

The Washington Post article pointed out that Ratzinger's involvement is a myth. You have cited no evidence for your claim.

Perhaps. The Church has endured survived in the past and, sadly, will probably have to do so again in the future.

However, attempting to smear the entire Catholic Church with this scandal is an unthinking and inappropriate response. Do you honestly believe 1.2 billion Catholics are supportive of any of this? If not, then why attempt to besmirch the entire Church because of a few bad individuals? However, those priests and bishops are responsible for their sins.

See, you commit the fallacy of composition - assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

You have issues with God, and you hate the Catholic Church. I get it.

But, of course, you began this post proclaiming that I was the one with poor logic and reasoning skills. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

Most of the victims were male and the average age was 12.6 years old. This was not true pedophilia. This was homosexuality.

And the peak year was 1970.

So, while the victims are still coming forward, the tide has turned, and the Church is taking appropriate actions to deal with the problems created when it permitted gay men to enter the priesthood.

Randy,

I’ll just include one example of your circular reasoning which leads to you begging the question.

YOUR QUOTE: “Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?”

Barring the FACT that you spelled “homeshooler” wrong in your post to me, and you question whether I went to High School or not, is priceless.

Circular Reasoning:
(1) You assume that I was a “homeschooler” emphasizing it with a MUST!
(2) Whatever you say is true, in this case, to save face
(3) Therefore I was a “homeschooler”

Randy, I am not here to school you on fallacies, because I take my time to show you and other pseudo-christians in how outwardly hypocritical they are in following a primitive belief system called Christianity. You're no exception to my quest.


YOUR QUOTE: “Prove it. The Washington Post article pointed out that Ratzinger's involvement is a myth. You have cited no evidence for your claim.”

Conversely, you didn’t cite your reference material in opposition other than to give the Washington Post. Cite the actual material from this newspaper. Are you the “pot” or “kettle” today? :)


YOUR QUOTE: “However, attempting to smear the entire Catholic Church with this scandal is an unthinking and inappropriate response. Do you honestly believe 1.2 billion Catholics are supportive of any of this? If not, then why attempt to besmirch the entire Church because of a few bad individuals? However, those priests and bishops are responsible for their sins.”

Wow, I feel so much better now that the buggering priests, that were caught, are responsible for their sins, that just made my day! I hope that the innocent kids that were screwed by your godly priests feel as good as I do about this great news! 

Its easy to continue to smear the Catholic Church because of the fact that not only did they have priests molesting innocent kids, but your ungodly church covered up your pedophile priest problems for years! Barring the fact that your ungodly church has paid out 4 BILLION plus in reparations from the collection plates on Sunday morning!  2+2=4, get it?


YOUR QUOTE: “But, of course, you began this post proclaiming that I was the one with poor logic and reasoning skills.”

Yes, I subjectively proclaimed that your logic is skewed all the way around, pertaining to the questions at hand, and in other areas as well relative to your primitive faith. This goes without question as explicitly shown.


YOUR QUOTE: “Most of the victims were male and the average age was 12.6 years old. This was not true pedophilia. This was homosexuality.”

WHAT???  Anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be child abuse and rape, and in either case, there was a victim! Pedophilia and Homosexuality are two mutually exclusive concepts! Your job now, in trying in vain to squiggle out of your pathetic church harboring pedophiles and their subsequent coverups, is to cite independent peer reviewed facts to your assertions above!

Oh, Randy, you were saved on our discussion about Yahweh and the Great Flood, by turning yourself into another pretzel, because the thread in question has been unfortunately "locked!"  You owe your Yahweh god a thank you in prayer tonight!  But, the FACT remains that within said thread, it was biblically shown that you committed the Unpardonable Sin, sorry.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 13, 2016, 05:21:17 PM
Randy,

I’ll just include one example of your circular reasoning which leads to you begging the question.

YOUR QUOTE: “Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?”

Barring the FACT that you spelled “homeshooler” wrong in your post to me, and you question whether I went to High School or not, is priceless.

Circular Reasoning:
(1) You assume that I was a “homeschooler” emphasizing it with a MUST!
(2) Whatever you say is true, in this case, to save face
(3) Therefore I was a “homeschooler”

No, you idiot. I was being sarcastic. You're reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into that. My point is that anyone who sends their kids to public schools has MORE to be concerned about than the average Catholic parent. So, if you are NOT worried about predators in the school system, you MUST be a homeschooler. Or selectively outraged.

Can you understand the sarcasm, NOW?

Oh, and sorry for the typo. I proof most of my posts, but only when the discussion is meaningful to me.

QuoteRandy, I am not here to school you on fallacies, because I take my time to show you and other pseudo-christians in how outwardly hypocritical they are in following a primitive belief system called Christianity. You're no exception to my quest.

Hey, if you think I'm a false Christian, explain how you arrive at this conclusion. (Or did you begin with the end in mind?)

QuoteYOUR QUOTE: “Prove it. The Washington Post article pointed out that Ratzinger's involvement is a myth. You have cited no evidence for your claim.”

Conversely, you didn’t cite your reference material in opposition other than to give the Washington Post. Cite the actual material from this newspaper. Are you the “pot” or “kettle” today? :)

So, because I didn't personally research the material which was previously vetted by the Post, I'm the one without supporting material?

(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)

QuoteYOUR QUOTE: “However, attempting to smear the entire Catholic Church with this scandal is an unthinking and inappropriate response. Do you honestly believe 1.2 billion Catholics are supportive of any of this? If not, then why attempt to besmirch the entire Church because of a few bad individuals? However, those priests and bishops are responsible for their sins.”

Wow, I feel so much better now that the buggering priests, that were caught, are responsible for their sins, that just made my day! I hope that the innocent kids that were screwed by your godly priests feel as good as I do about this great news!

Why is this a problem? Individuals commit sins and crimes...not institutions. And that just pisses you off, doesn't it? Because you hate the Catholic Church and you want to see it disappear. Unfortunately, the entire Church (which is me and a billion other people) are innocent of the things you want to pin on all of us collectively.

QuoteIts easy to continue to smear the Catholic Church because of the fact that not only did they have priests molesting innocent kids, but your ungodly church covered up your pedophile priest problems for years! Barring the fact that your ungodly church has paid out 4 BILLION plus in reparations from the collection plates on Sunday morning!  2+2=4, get it?

And here you undermine your own position by admitting that innocent Catholics are willingly paying restitution to the victims of a few sick priests. We are not shirking our responsibility in this regard, we are stepping up to the collection plate and doing what needs to be done.

That sucks, doesn't it? That we are taking responsibility and continuing to remain faithful to God and His Church rather than running away like you have.

QuoteYOUR QUOTE: “But, of course, you began this post proclaiming that I was the one with poor logic and reasoning skills.”

Yes, I subjectively proclaimed that your logic is skewed all the way around, pertaining to the questions at hand, and in other areas as well relative to your primitive faith. This goes without question as explicitly shown.

Yeah, I'm the one committing the fallacy of composition...oh, wait...that was you.

(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif) (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)

QuoteYOUR QUOTE: “Most of the victims were male and the average age was 12.6 years old. This was not true pedophilia. This was homosexuality.”

WHAT???  Anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be child abuse and rape, and in either case, there was a victim! Pedophilia and Homosexuality are two mutually exclusive concepts! Your job now, in trying in vain to squiggle out of your pathetic church harboring pedophiles and their subsequent coverups, is to cite independent peer reviewed facts to your assertions above!

If you bother to do any reading (and this is unlikely) you can learn how psychologists distinguish between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia.

QuoteFrom Wikipedia:
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Hebephilia is the strong and persistent adult sexual interest in pubescent (early adolescent) individuals, typically ages 11â€"14.

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

IOW, a large portion of the victims were OLDER than the cut-off point for diagnosis of pedophilia. A large number of the victims were young men...not little boys. THAT was homosexuality.

Now, I understand that not everyone is familiar with the terms...it's sad that anyone has to be. But if you're going to make blanket statements against the Catholic Church, try not to look ignorant when doing it, okay?

QuoteOh, Randy, you were saved on our discussion about Yahweh and the Great Flood, by turning yourself into another pretzel, because the thread in question has been unfortunately "locked!"  You owe your Yahweh god a thank you in prayer tonight!  But, the FACT remains that within said thread, it was biblically shown that you committed the Unpardonable Sin, sorry.

Yeah, I saw what you wrote, and I'm glad you mentioned it here because I wanted to point out that you are clearly ignorant of how formal debates are conducted.

First, the two sides agree on what is called the "resolution", and it is a positive statement of the position to be discussed. One side defends the statement (this is called "taking the affirmative") while the other side attacks the position (this is called "taking the negative").

Now, for the purposes of the proposed debate, I offered a resolution that I thought you would like; namely, that God is a moral monster.

I disagree with that statement, and I would have taken the negative and attacked your ridiculous proposition. Proposing a resolution that YOU would like does not mean that I have committed the unpardonable sin. Moreover, that is NOT even what the unpardonable sin is. However, as a truly ignorant former Christian, I do not expect you to know that, either.

Finally, given how poorly you have argued in this thread, I am EXTREMELY happy that I was "saved" from having to endure further exchange with you. You argue like a stay-at-home mom.

But I was prepared to do so with victory in mind.

"Last but not least, I don't know anybody who worships, prays and defends school teachers or boards. Only the flock can keep finding lame excuses and comparisons to keep groveling and adoring this death cult."

That was the last sentence of my previous post. How prophetic that was...

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
By Agostino Bono
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.

The pope already reduced that number by 50%. How credible.

During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.
Sex-abuse related costs totaled $573 million, with $219 million covered by insurance companies, said the study done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

That makes almost 4,400 catholic predators! (acknowledged!)

For the entire 52-year period "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities," said the study.

This from a catholic study. Really nothing further to add.

Quote from: reasonist on May 13, 2016, 07:02:50 PM
"Last but not least, I don't know anybody who worships, prays and defends school teachers or boards. Only the flock can keep finding lame excuses and comparisons to keep groveling and adoring this death cult."

That was the last sentence of my previous post. How prophetic that was...

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
By Agostino Bono
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.

The pope already reduced that number by 50%. How credible.

During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.
Sex-abuse related costs totaled $573 million, with $219 million covered by insurance companies, said the study done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

That makes almost 4,400 catholic predators! (acknowledged!)

For the entire 52-year period "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities," said the study.

This from a catholic study. Really nothing further to add.

So, let's review: If the numbers above are accurate, then 105,000 Catholic priests were innocent.

In the US. During that same time period.

Therefore, attempts to smear the entire Catholic Church and all priests because of the actions of a few are driven by prejudice rather than fact.

+++

And one other point that needs to be made: The problems in the Catholic priesthood are the direct result of admitting homosexuals into the seminaries in the 50's and 60's. The Church tried to care for these troubled gay men, and this is the result.

Thankfully, we have learned a valuable lesson, and men are screened more carefully today.

If the Pope would let most priests marry, like all Orthodox priests are required to do (except the ambitious ones who want to be bishops) ... then this would be much less a problem.

School teachers aren't required to maintain an unmaintainable celibacy.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 06:36:21 PM
No, you idiot. I was being sarcastic. You're reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into that. My point is that anyone who sends their kids to public schools has MORE to be concerned about than the average Catholic parent. So, if you are NOT worried about predators in the school system, you MUST be a homeschooler. Or selectively outraged.

Can you understand the sarcasm, NOW?

Oh, and sorry for the typo. I proof most of my posts, but only when the discussion is meaningful to me.

Hey, if you think I'm a false Christian, explain how you arrive at this conclusion. (Or did you begin with the end in mind?)

So, because I didn't personally research the material which was previously vetted by the Post, I'm the one without supporting material?

(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)

Why is this a problem? Individuals commit sins and crimes...not institutions. And that just pisses you off, doesn't it? Because you hate the Catholic Church and you want to see it disappear. Unfortunately, the entire Church (which is me and a billion other people) are innocent of the things you want to pin on all of us collectively.

And here you undermine your own position by admitting that innocent Catholics are willingly paying restitution to the victims of a few sick priests. We are not shirking our responsibility in this regard, we are stepping up to the collection plate and doing what needs to be done.

That sucks, doesn't it? That we are taking responsibility and continuing to remain faithful to God and His Church rather than running away like you have.

Yeah, I'm the one committing the fallacy of composition...oh, wait...that was you.

(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif) (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)

If you bother to do any reading (and this is unlikely) you can learn how psychologists distinguish between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia.

IOW, a large portion of the victims were OLDER than the cut-off point for diagnosis of pedophilia. A large number of the victims were young men...not little boys. THAT was homosexuality.

Now, I understand that not everyone is familiar with the terms...it's sad that anyone has to be. But if you're going to make blanket statements against the Catholic Church, try not to look ignorant when doing it, okay?

Yeah, I saw what you wrote, and I'm glad you mentioned it here because I wanted to point out that you are clearly ignorant of how formal debates are conducted.

First, the two sides agree on what is called the "resolution", and it is a positive statement of the position to be discussed. One side defends the statement (this is called "taking the affirmative") while the other side attacks the position (this is called "taking the negative").

Now, for the purposes of the proposed debate, I offered a resolution that I thought you would like; namely, that God is a moral monster.

I disagree with that statement, and I would have taken the negative and attacked your ridiculous proposition. Proposing a resolution that YOU would like does not mean that I have committed the unpardonable sin. Moreover, that is NOT even what the unpardonable sin is. However, as a truly ignorant former Christian, I do not expect you to know that, either.

Finally, given how poorly you have argued in this thread, I am EXTREMELY happy that I was "saved" from having to endure further exchange with you. You argue like a stay-at-home mom.

But I was prepared to do so with victory in mind.

Randy,

The other topics that were discussed, and your ever so wanting refutations, are really getting tiring to say the least. You easily move the goal posts at will, use the child like ruse of “its just sarcasm”, and the other running away statements of yours that all pseudo-christians like you must do to save face. I'll let you stew in your own juices of grasping for those proverbial last straws that just aren't there anymore, sorry. 

Whats all this mumbo jumbo of “formal debates, taking the affirmative, a resolution, taking the negative,  yada, yada, yada?”  I don't need any of that formal stuff in a "discussion" of your embarrassing Bronze and Iron Age Christian faith, as I've explicitly shown you, and to the point of you running away now!

Randy, you sure have a lot of bluster when you give up, like you've done on the Unpardonable Sin scenario, by using the tried and true pseudo-christian excuses to run from the topic at hand, and you've done this in front of everyone!  Randy, you throw in the towel too easily relative to committing the Unpardonable Sin discussion, and I don’t blame you!

YOUR PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN EXCUSE # 496264629 REGARDING YOU FACTUALLY AND BIBLICALLY COMMITTING THE UNPARDONABLE SIN AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DEFEND THIS FACT: "I am EXTREMELY happy that I was "saved" from having to endure further exchange with you. You argue like a stay-at-home mom."

Randy, if I can be frank, and you still can be Randy, I would suggest that you start wearing asbestos suits from now on for your preparation of where you’re headed upon your demise as specifically stated in Matthew 12:31-32. Seriously, are you starting to smell sulfur?

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 14, 2016, 12:10:17 AM
Randy,

The other topics that were discussed, and your ever so wanting refutations, are really getting tiring to say the least. You easily move the goal posts at will, use the child like ruse of “its just sarcasm”, and the other running away statements of yours that all pseudo-christians like you must do to save face. I'll let you stew in your own juices of grasping for those proverbial last straws that just aren't there anymore, sorry. 

Empty rhetoric. Big whoop

QuoteWhats all this mumbo jumbo of “formal debates, taking the affirmative, a resolution, taking the negative,  yada, yada, yada?”  I don't need any of that formal stuff in a "discussion" of your embarrassing Bronze and Iron Age Christian faith, as I've explicitly shown you, and to the point of you running away now!

You asked for a one-on-one discussion of whether the God of the OT is evil...a "moral monster" as I described him in the resolution I proposed. In a formal debate, one side defends the resolution, the other attacks it. You did not know any of this, did you?

QuoteRandy, you sure have a lot of bluster when you give up, like you've done on the Unpardonable Sin scenario, by using the tried and true pseudo-christian excuses to run from the topic at hand, and you've done this in front of everyone!  Randy, you throw in the towel too easily relative to committing the Unpardonable Sin discussion, and I don’t blame you!

YOUR PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN EXCUSE # 496264629 REGARDING YOU FACTUALLY AND BIBLICALLY COMMITTING THE UNPARDONABLE SIN AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DEFEND THIS FACT: "I am EXTREMELY happy that I was "saved" from having to endure further exchange with you. You argue like a stay-at-home mom."

Merely proposing a resolution for debate purposes hard constitutes committing the "unpardonable sin". Do you even know what that sin is? What verses refer to it? And what they mean?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Committing the unpardonable sin is not something one can do in an instant. Rather, it is the persistent, life-long rejection of the mercy of God and the promptings of the Holy Spirit to repentance.

This is common among atheists.

QuoteRandy, if I can be frank, and you still can be Randy, I would suggest that you start wearing asbestos suits from now on for your preparation of where you’re headed upon your demise as specifically stated in Matthew 12:31-32. Seriously, are you starting to smell sulfur?

Frank, I appreciate the warning which I'm sure you have offered out of concern my eternal soul. Thank you.

I, too, would like to offer a verse taken from Matthew...just a few chapters earlier:

QuoteMatthew 7:1
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If you have judged me deserving of hell, have you not brought the same measure upon yourself?

Randy,


Seriously, I am truly sorry that you stepped over the line by committing the Unpardonable Sin. You slapped Jesus right in the face with a cold mackerel when you called him a moral monster!  Such insolence to your Jesus character will not be condoned as the passage below so states;

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32)

Key phrase; "…but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit…"  As you're aware, the holy spirit is a part of the Jesus triune, and you called Jesus' holy spirit a moral monster, case closed.

Randy, but guess what?  You don't have to be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of Hell upon your demise if you come to terms with reality and leave your Catholic faith behind where it belongs, in the era where it was created, the primitive Bronze and Iron Age!  Enter the 21st century and leave your "faith" behind and you won't be laughed at anymore as well!

In a clandestine way, your own bible even tells you to leave it behind where it belongs, to wit: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

The perils of swallowing the Catholic Kool Aide ruse continues into the 21st century, truly sad.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 14, 2016, 01:43:39 PM

Randy,


Seriously, I am truly sorry that you stepped over the line by committing the Unpardonable Sin. You slapped Jesus right in the face with a cold mackerel when you called him a moral monster!  Such insolence to your Jesus character will not be condoned as the passage below so states;

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32)

Key phrase; "…but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit…"  As you're aware, the holy spirit is a part of the Jesus triune, and you called Jesus' holy spirit a moral monster, case closed.

Randy, but guess what?  You don't have to be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of Hell upon your demise if you come to terms with reality and leave your Catholic faith behind where it belongs, in the era where it was created, the primitive Bronze and Iron Age!  Enter the 21st century and leave your "faith" behind and you won't be laughed at anymore as well!

In a clandestine way, your own bible even tells you to leave it behind where it belongs, to wit: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

The perils of swallowing the Catholic Kool Aide ruse continues into the 21st century, truly sad.

As you have already been told, I merely proposed a resolution that you could argue. Further, I have provided correction of your own theological misunderstanding.

Do you think you can frighten me by repeating a false belief that you hold in ignorance? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)

Perhaps you are channeling your own sad childhood memories.

Why do Christians not obey the Old Testament's commands to kill homosexuals and disobedient children?
by Matt Slick
https://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

Critics of the Bible often cite Old Testament instances of slavery, violence against homosexuals, wiping out nations, etc., as evidence of a morally inadequate set of rules. They will also often ask why present-day Christians don't follow these "barbaric" teachings today. They complain that Christians are inconsistent and say that if we really follow the Bible then why don't we advocate such things as killing both homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21).

The reason we don't is that the Old Covenantal system that involved such harsh punishments has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15, and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is that first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1, 14, Col. 2:9).

Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult, and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde was constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah to, therefore, prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering His people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times and that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation and that helped to maintain social structure and also reflected the harshness of the law.

The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to "be at peace with one another," (Mark 9:50) and "with all men," (Rom. 12:18). Rom. 14:19 says, "pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." After all, "God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15).

However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing. We are to not participate in the sins of the world. Instead, we are to avoid them. We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13). Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14, 2 Cor. 5:14). But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands--as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1:26-28.

So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers is that we're no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13).

What right do you have to judge?

In order for someone to raise a valid objection against the moral statutes of the Old Testament, he or she must provide a standard by which such judgments can be made. While people may not agree with the moral judgments of the Old Testament, not agreeing does not invalidate them or mean they are wrong, nor does simply saying "they were obviously barbaric rules" mean that they were. Likewise, saying that "society has evolved" is a meaningless statement. By what standard does the critic offer morally objective criteria by which he or she can judge another culture's morals?

We have to ask what right does a person in a present-day culture have to judge any ancient culture which existed in a completely different economic, militaristic, judicial, and geographical configuration? Of course, people are entitled to their opinions, and they don't have to like what the Bible teaches, but not liking it has no bearing on whether or not it is good. So, those critics who insist that the Old Testament laws were wrong need to provide an objective standard (not their own opinions) by which they can make moral judgments.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 14, 2016, 01:47:45 PM
As you have already been told, I merely proposed a resolution that you could argue. Further, I have provided correction of your own theological misunderstanding.

Do you think you can frighten me by repeating a false belief that you hold in ignorance? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/rotfl.gif)

Perhaps you are channeling your own sad childhood memories.

Randy,

I am truly sorry once again, as I plainly see you grasping for that last proverbial straw as you come to terms by using the logic that your Yahweh god has given you, in that you're seeing the handwriting upon the wall subsequent to your demise.  Your blatant action against Jesus by calling him a "moral monster" as god incarnate, the verse in question showing you of your offense against him will land you in the depths of Hell, and your denial to these biblical facts is the first step that you have to go through.

1. Denial (This is the stage that you're at now)
2. Anger  (Your next step where you're mad that you made such a mistake)
3. Bargaining (This step is where you try to pray for forgiveness, but Matthew 12:31-32 is quite specific with no wiggle room)
4. Depression (This is where you see that there is no way out to the Yahweh's word, therefore you medicate)
5. Acceptance (This is where you'll come to terms with your fate and start wearing asbestos suits full time)

Randy, take your time left on planet earth and enjoy yourself to the fullest, because Yahweh didn't create a Hell if he didn't plan to use it.

With believing in the primitive religions of the past, the chickens always come home to roost. :(

QuoteRandy,

I am truly sorry once again, as I plainly see you grasping for that last proverbial straw as you come to terms by using the logic that your Yahweh god has given you, in that you're seeing the handwriting upon the wall subsequent to your demise.  Your blatant action against Jesus by calling him a "moral monster" as god incarnate, the verse in question showing you of your offense against him will land you in the depths of Hell, and your denial to these biblical facts is the first step that you have to go through.

1. Denial (This is the stage that you're at now)
2. Anger  (Your next step where you're mad that you made such a mistake)
3. Bargaining (This step is where you try to pray for forgiveness, but Matthew 12:31-32 is quite specific with no wiggle room)
4. Depression (This is where you see that there is no way out to the Yahweh's word, therefore you medicate)
5. Acceptance (This is where you'll come to terms with your fate and start wearing asbestos suits full time)

Randy, take your time left on planet earth and enjoy yourself to the fullest, because Yahweh didn't create a Hell if he didn't plan to use it.

With believing in the primitive religions of the past, the chickens always come home to roost. :(

Thank you for giving me an additional opportunity to post Catholic truths in a forum frequented by skeptics. Your continued participation in this thread is such a blessing, and I am sure that other forum members will not soon forget your efforts which make this possible.

In case anyone is unsure of the theological error in your post and of their own salvation, here is a great article with a couple of key sentences highlighted in red:


THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN
James Akin
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/UNFORGIV.HTM

"[A] blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, 'Can this be the Son of David?' But when the Pharisees heard it they said, 'It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.'
"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, 'Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

"'And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

"'Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

"'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:22-32).

The unforgivable sin is a scary thing. It is so scary that in the Summa Theologiae Aquinas devoted a special question with four articles to this form of blasphemy alone. Today virtually every Christian counseling manual contains a chapter on the sin to help counselors deal with patients who are terrified that they have already or might sometime commit this sin.

Unfortunately, much of the things one reads in Protestant literature on this subject is way off base. My favorite idiotic reading of Jesus' discussion of the unforgivable sin is one which says that no one today can commit the unforgivable sin because this sin was to attribute the work of Jesus to demons and no Christian can do this since Jesus is no longer on earth. Aside from the fact that Jesus explicitly says in the very same verse that every blasphemy against him will be forgiven (Matt. 12:32a). However, it is more obviously false because Jesus does not have to be on earth to attribute his work to demons.

While most interpretations of the passage do not go to the extreme of saying that nobody today can commit the sin, many American Protestant readings (at least those written by Calvinists and Baptists) make the mistake of assuming that no Christian can commit the sin. This is because the authors of these interpretations are theologically boxed in to saying that no true Christian can lose his salvation. This is, of course, a grotesquely unbiblical view. However, this need not detain us because even though they have mistakenly assumed no Christian can commit the unforgivable sin, they have correctly identified its natureâ€"final impenitence.

The identification of the unforgivable sin as final impenitenceâ€"dying in a state of unrepentanceâ€"can be shown to go back at least to the time of Augustine. In fact, in the Summa Aquinas gives a nice little catalogue of Augustine's passages dealing with the subject:

"Augustine says . . . (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that 'he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that 'impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that 'to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost,' and in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that 'a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught,' and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost" (ST 2b:14:2, Sed Contra).

This interpretation of the text is shown by an exegesis of the text in question. Matthew's account of the saying is the longest and most detailed and, consequently, the one which elaborates this scary doctrine the most and the one which should be used as the basis for interpretation.

In Matthew 12, Jesus' opponents among the Pharisees try to refute the people's speculation that Jesus might be the Messiah (v 23) by suggesting he is casting out demons with Satan's permissionâ€"that he is doing pretend exorcisms in order to play a demonic hoax on the people and lead them to falsely believe he is the Messiah. Jesus refutes this charge in vv 25-29.

Beelzebul is another form of the name Baal-Zebul ("Prince Baal"), one of the names of the ancient pagan god Baal. Earlier, Jews had mocked Baal-Zebul by referring to him as Baal-Zebub ("Baal Fly" or, less literally, "Lord of the flies"). He is referred to in the Old Testament as the God of the city of Ekron (2Ki 1:6, 16). Here he is presented as the prince of demons. It was a common belief among Jews and Christians that pagan gods were actually demons masquerading as divinities.

In response, Jesus makes a series of statements, of which only one deals with the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. First he says:

"Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?" (12:25-26).

Jesus' first argument for why he is not casting out demons by Satan is that it would pit Satan's own forces against himself and tear apart his kingdom of darkness. Satan and his demons are psychologically incapable of voluntarily letting go a person they have possessed. Only God's grace will deliver such a person. If Satan were to order a demon to strategically remove from a person, his kingdom would be torn apart by civil war. Jesus' critics are therefore ignorant of the psychology of demons.

For his second statement, Jesus says:

"And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (12:27-28).

Here Jesus acknowledges that some Jews in his day had the power to exorcise demons, however Jesus' own exorcisms were greater since he was able to cast out spirits of dumbness, which Jews were not able to do (9:32-33) since part of the Jewish exorcism involved getting the demon's name and using it to drive him out, and of course a spirit of dumbness would not/could not give its name. Jesus, however, could do this surprising feat, as this passage indicates (12:22). Thus if Jesus' miracles are greater than those of the Jews and his opponents reject the greater miracles, they will have to reject the lesser ones also (a fortiori). Jesus' opponents are thus in the dilemma of either having to deny the validity of their sons' exorcisms or acknowledging that in Jesus and his exorcisms the kingdom of God has arrived. Thus the members of their own group will condemn them on judgment day for not recognizing the godly exorcisms performed in their midst.

For Jesus' third argument, Jesus states:

"Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house" (12:29)

Jesus presents himself as plundering the house of "the strong man" (Satan) be delivering those who are in the power of the devil. But in order to plunder Satan's house, it is first necessary to bind Satan in such a way that he cannot stop people from being delivered from his clutches. Thus, while Satan may still be active in some ways, he is bound in such a way that he cannot stop Jesus' ministry of exorcism.

Jesus thus shows he cannot be driving out demons by Satan's permission, because Satan would never permit his captives to be stolen from him if he were able to stop it. He regards them as his property and would use force to keep them from being taken from him, just as any homeowner would protect his belongings, but Jesus is too strong for him and is able to powerfully deliver them from satanic oppression.

The parable of the strong man is also applicable to evangelism, and this is the theme brought out by Jesus' next statement:

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (12:30-32)

Much of the confusion over the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is caused by the fact that people do not recognize that this statement is only one in a series that Jesus makes and because they do not recognize that it begins with the word "therefore," which connects it to the preceding statement. In fact, the connective force between 12:30 and 12:31 is stronger than "therefore." In Greek, Jesus says, dia touto or "through this." This is even more forceful in relating v. 30 to v. 31. He gives the general statement about the necessity to ally oneself with him or else be decisively separated from him and then says, "through this I tell you that you won't be forgiven . . . "

In the preceding verse, Jesus asserts (v 30) that one must ally with him or be opposed to him and "through this" he tells us (v 31) that the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Blaspheming the Spirit is thus a failure to repent and ally oneself with Jesus. Since this can always be done during one's life (cf. 20:1-15), blasphemy against the Holy Spirit must be a final refusal to repent, or final impenitence.

Thus the official stand of the Catholic Church's, following Augustine and a whole host of subsequent moral theologians, is that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is final impenitence. Pope John Paul II writes:

"Against the background of what has been said so far, certain other words of Jesus, shocking and disturbing ones, become easier to understand. . . . They are reported for us by the Synoptics in connection with a particular sin which is called 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.' . . . Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood? Saint Thomas Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is 'unforgivable by its very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which the forgiveness of sin takes place' (ST 2b:14:3). According to such an exegesis, 'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the 'convincing concerning sin' which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the power to save, he also rejects the 'coming' of the Counsellor . . . If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this 'non-forgiveness' is linked, as to its cause, to 'non-repentance', in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. . . . Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evilâ€"in any sin at all . . . [T]he Church constantly implores with the greatest fervor that there will be no increase in the world of the sin that the Gospel calls 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.' Rather, she prays that it will decrease in human souls" (Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem ["The Lord and Giver of Life"] 46-47).

With this in mind, let us look at a couple of verses in Hebrews that are often thought (wrongly) to pertain to the blasphemy against the Holy Spiritâ€"Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29.

Hebrews 10:26-27 is often translated like this: "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."

As is often pointed out, the sin being spoken of in this context is apostasy back to Judaism, and so long as one continues to sin by remaining in Judaism after having once accepted the Messiah, there is no sacrifice for one's sins besides the one Messiah offered. (Though there is also a more general truth here about apostasy from Christianity in general, such as going back to secularism, Buddhism, etc., as well as a more general truth about a continuous failure to repent, a continuous practice of mortal sin.)

However, if this is all the work done with the verse, it leaves the impression that those who go back to Judaism (or whatever) cannot be saved. This is of course false.

The verb "sin" in this verse is present tense (as are the verbs "remains" and "will consume"). Since present tense in Greek typically indicates an ongoing, continuous action, the passage can better be translated as: "For if we continuously sin deliberately, after having once received the knowledge of the truth, there continuously remains no further sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will continuously consume the adversaries."

So if one ceases to continuously sin by remaining apart from the Messiah, then Messiah's sacrifice for one's sins becomes operative again. It is now available for one since one has stopped the continuous sin of apostasy and can now be united with Christ. (Note the parallelism of the continuous sinning with the continuous remaining of no further sacrifice; when the former vanishes, the latter does as wellâ€"and the same is true of a person who continuously fails to repent of sin in general.) Thus if an apostate (to Judaism or whatever else) ceases to be an apostate, he can be saved. There is no unforgivable sin taught in this text.

(continued)

Hebrews 6:1-6 reads like this:

"1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.

"4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

The first two verses tell us about "the elementary teachings of Christ"â€"that is, the basic truths of the Christian faith. This is important because it will set us up for the discussion of apostasy.

Note that they walk us through an ordo salutisâ€"the stages of the Christian life: repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands (i.e., confirmation), resurrection, and judgment. Two truths preceding Christian initiation (repentance and faith), two truths at initiation (baptism and confirmation), and two truths at the end of the Christian life (resurrection and judgment).

The author says he won't go over the basic teachings of Christ again because it is impossible to renew to repentance those who have fallen away. This is often a very problematic verse (especially for those who believe it is impossible to lose one's salvation), and is often thought to pertain to the unforgivable sin. However, this is not the case.

To see why, we must first eliminate a dodge that is often used to render this verse a counterfactual hypothetical. As it appears in many English translations, v. 6 is often opened with the clause "if they fall away." However, this is not an accurate rendering of the Greek text, as even eternal securitists (such as Kendall) will admit. The Greek is simply kai parapesontas, which of course means "and (kai) have fallen away (parapesontas)"â€"parapesontas being an aoristâ€"just like in the other four clauses in the preceding two verses, of which this clause is the final link in the chain of parallel aorist clauses identifying the apostates. The passage, correctly translated, thus reads:

"It is impossible for those who (a) have once been enlightened, (b) have tasted the heavenly gift, (c) and have been made partakers in the Holy Spirit, (d) and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, (e) and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Or more shortly:

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened . . . and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace."

The Greek of the passage presents the falling away as an accomplished fact, not a hypothetical possibility. (Thus an eternal securitist would have to say that they were never inwardly a Christian to begin with, only outwardly.)

Nevertheless, the passage does not pertain to the unforgivable sin. Many have misread the passage, being misled by the hypothetical ("if . . .") translation of v 6, and have argued: "If a person did fall away then they could not come back because they would have to re-crucify Christ, and that is impossible since he died only once!"

But this is simply not what the passage says. It does not say that if one tried to come back one would have to re-crucify Christ. It does not present the re-crucifixion as something that would need to happen if someone came back. It presents the re-crucifixion as a present reality. Just read the text: "because to their loss they are re-crucifying [present tense, active voice in both Greek and English] the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace." The text says that the apostates are re-crucifying Christ now, not that they would need to if they came back.

This is where understanding the Jewish context (and content) of the letter is so important. By returning to Judaism, the apostates are declaring that Jesus was a false Messiah (else they would not leave faith in him as the true Messiah). But by declaring Jesus to be a false Messiah, they are declaring that he deserved what he got when he was crucifiedâ€"because it is axiomatic that every false Messiah deserves death and public humiliation. They, like the fox in Aesop's fable "The fox and the grapes," are having an attack of sour grapes and were running around saying: "Well, he wasn't the real Messiah. He deserved what he got. He deserved to be crucified and put to public humiliation. As it says in the Torah, 'Cursed is every man who is hung upon a tree!'"

Thus the re-crucifixion and humiliation of Christ was something the apostates were doing while they were maintaining their rebellion against the Messiah they had once accepted. This indicates an enormous hardness of heart, which is why the author tells us, "It is impossible for those . . . to be brought back to repentance." The hardness of their hearts prevents it.

This is, of course, a practical rule rather than a dogmatic (absolute) rule. Because of the hardness of heart the Jewish apostates are displaying by publicly denouncing Jesus, declaring that he deserved crucifixion and humiliation, it is as a practical matter impossible to renew them to repentance and faith in Christ. This does not in any way mean it is an absolute impossibility to renew them to repentance, for "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God" (Mark. 10:27).

One must be aware in Scripture of the difference between practical and dogmatic statements. Failure to recognize this is often what generates cults. A cult will pick a statement and absolutize it, when in reality it may only be expressing a practical truth. For example, some absolutize Jesus' statements in Matthew 6 about not doing one's righteous acts in front of men, and ignore his statements in Matthew 5 about the need to let our light shine before men so they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. The fact is that neither the Matthew 5 or the Matthew 6 statements are absolute rules, but practical rules to be observed on different occasions (i.e., bearing in mind whether doing a good deed publicly would lead people to glorify or curse God or whether I would be doing it just to gain praise for myself).

In the same way, the statement "It is impossible for those . . . to be renewed to repentance" is simply a practical rule. It is only because of their hardness of their hearts that it is a waste of time to argue with them. It is more prudent, as a matter of evangelism, to talk to people who aren't that hostile toward Christ and who are more likely to give you a hearing.

This special animus against the person of Christ would not be present in those who were not Jews and who thus would not resent him as much as a false Messiah upon returning to their former religions. Thus a person today who went back to secularism, for example, would not hate Jesus as a Messianic pretender and would not say, "He deserved what he got!" the way a first century Jew would. In fact, an apostate to secularism might still even admire Jesus in a kind of nebulous way as a good and wise teacher.

Thus modern apostates are much easier to reclaim from there repudiation of the faith than first century Jewish apostates were. In fact, this has been the case throughout history. For example, those who had denied the faith during the persecutions of the early centuries often came back to the Church and were received back into membership (after a period of penance) once the persecution stopped. The practical rule that it is impossible to renew an apostate to repentance is thus a general rule only for the early Jewish apostates the book of Hebrews was discussing, not later ones (though of course an individual later apostate may be so hard of heart he will never come back, but this does not apply to later apostates as a group).

Apostasy, contrary to some interpretations, is not the unforgivable sin. Like the parallel sins against faithâ€"infidelity, schism, and heresyâ€"it only becomes an unforgivable sin if one dies in it. Until death it is always possible, God willing, for an infidel to convert, for a schismatic to return from his schism, for a heretic to renounce his heresy, and for an apostate to re-embrace the faith of Christ.

Randy,

You could have saved all of your extra frosting shown above, because I'll make it simple for you once again.

UNPARDONABLE SIN: “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32)

Key phrase; "…but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit…"  As you're aware, the holy spirit is a part of the Jesus triune, therefore you called Jesus' holy spirit a moral monster!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, you're dumbfounded about your faith, and I am not!

You're now Hell bound upon your demise because your Hebrew Christian god called Yahweh knows you called him a moral monster! “For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.” (1 John 3:20) “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:13)

See how simple that was?

Randy, I forgot, what part of this biblical passage didn't you understand relative to you leaving your primitive serial killer god faith?: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11)  Get it? Yeah, you do.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 15, 2016, 05:20:49 PM

Randy,

You could have saved all of your extra frosting shown above, because I'll make it simple for you once again.

UNPARDONABLE SIN: “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32)

Key phrase; "…but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit…"  As you're aware, the holy spirit is a part of the Jesus triune, therefore you called Jesus' holy spirit a moral monster!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, you're dumbfounded about your faith, and I am not!

You're now Hell bound upon your demise because your Hebrew Christian god called Yahweh knows you called him a moral monster! “For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.” (1 John 3:20) “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:13)

See how simple that was?

Randy, I forgot, what part of this biblical passage didn't you understand relative to you leaving your primitive serial killer god faith?: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11)  Get it? Yeah, you do.

I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying, but could you explain this more clearly?

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 07:23:24 PM
I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying, but could you explain this more clearly?

Yes, you're Hell bound.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 15, 2016, 07:34:16 PM

Yes, you're Hell bound.

As an atheist I would say more like got Jesus stuck up his, uh, you know... what you call the "altar boy" location.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 15, 2016, 07:34:16 PM

Yes, you're Hell bound.

Wow. That's troubling.

Could you provide some scriptural basis for the existence of hell?

I really appreciate all your help.

Quote from: doorknob on May 12, 2016, 09:08:41 PM
UM not defending priests or anything

but a good number of teachers were also pedophiles. Pedophiles will find jobs where they have access to children. You just don't hear about all of them. Not to mention the ones that get away with it.

Maybe, but teachers don't have an international organization with many of the rights of an independent nation-state to hide them from the law.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 11:10:42 AM
I wasn't always a Catholic. I am an adult convert.

Ladies and gentlemen, an example of a rat swimming toward a sinking ship.

Quote from: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 09:27:22 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, an example of a rat swimming toward a sinking ship.

How old were you when you left the Catholic Church?

I am quite sympathetic to the abuse survivors -- the priest that abused the girl who later founded SNAP was one of my teachers at high school.  The diocese decided it would be okay to stash him in an all boys' school since he only abused underaged girls -- you know, rather than turn him over to the police as a rapist.

I remember him, and needless to say at the time we had no idea of his history, but he definitely set off my creepy meter.  Since I was at that time a devout Catholic, I was hard pressed to say why; I was of course raised to trust priests unconditionally.

It's positively revolting that his "punishment" was to be hidden from the law and allowed to continue being a priest and a teacher.  He still tries to refer to himself as 'Father'; the order claims he was defrocked, but can't produce the paperwork.  They say it was destroyed in a fire.  Fine.  Why hasn't it been reproduced and presented, then?  If he's not a priest, then they should still be able to document it.

The Catholic church, until they quit hiding the abusers, has abdicated any moral authority they claim for themselves.

Quote from: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 10:00:16 PM
I am quite sympathetic to the abuse survivors -- the priest that abused the girl who later founded SNAP was one of my teachers at high school.  The diocese decided it would be okay to stash him in an all boys' school since he only abused underaged girls -- you know, rather than turn him over to the police as a rapist.

I remember him, and needless to say at the time we had no idea of his history, but he definitely set off my creepy meter.  Since I was at that time a devout Catholic, I was hard pressed to say why; I was of course raised to trust priests unconditionally.

It's positively revolting that his "punishment" was to be hidden from the law and allowed to continue being a priest and a teacher.  He still tries to refer to himself as 'Father'; the order claims he was defrocked, but can't produce the paperwork.  They say it was destroyed in a fire.  Fine.  Why hasn't it been reproduced and presented, then?  If he's not a priest, then they should still be able to document it.

The Catholic church, until they quit hiding the abusers, has abdicated any moral authority they claim for themselves.

We should all be sympathetic to the victims, but we should not make additional victims out of the 96-97% of the priesthood which is innocent of these crimes yet is viewed with hatred by people like you.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:52:49 PM
We should all be sympathetic to the victims, but we should not make additional victims out of the 96-97% of the priesthood which is innocent of these crimes yet is viewed with hatred by people like you.

Randy,

Barring that your priests were buggering innocent kids, the hatred also stems from the FACT that your primitive and disgusting Catholic church covered up your pedophile priest problem by not going to the local police, but instead, moved them statewide where they continued to prey on innocent kids!

Ask yourself, WWJD?  Hide these priests that were buggering innocent kids, or turn them in to the authorities for the justice that these abused kids and parents deserved?

(http://i.imgur.com/bekjY.png)

Quote from: trdsf on May 15, 2016, 09:27:22 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, an example of a rat swimming toward a sinking ship.

Ask him what sinking ship he was swimming away from.

Quote from: 21CIconoclast on May 16, 2016, 02:01:59 PM
Randy,

Barring that your priests were buggering innocent kids, the hatred also stems from the FACT that your primitive and disgusting Catholic church covered up your pedophile priest problem by not going to the local police, but instead, moved them statewide where they continued to prey on innocent kids!

Just like the primitive and disgusting Boy Scouts, the primitive and disgusting public school systems, the primitive and disgusting Penn State University....

As has been shown, LOTS of groups have tried to cover up sexual abuse. But you take no notice of the others, do you?

QuoteAsk yourself, WWJD?  Hide these priests that were buggering innocent kids, or turn them in to the authorities for the justice that these abused kids and parents deserved?

Priests are being defrocked, tried, convicted and jailed.

But YOUR selective outrage is on display for all to see because while both secular groups and Protestant churches have these same issues in greater numbers, you aren't going off about these other examples, are you?

You hate the Catholic Church above all others, don't you?

Why is that exactly?

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 07:59:11 AM
I certainly hope you never admit to anyone that you graduated from high school (assuming you did which is questionable based on your logic).

Or that you placed your own children at risk by sending them to school. You MUST be a homeshooler, right?

And please tell us that none of your tax dollars go to support these schools where predators roam the halls and locker rooms looking for their next victims.

After all, given the disgusting sexual abuse of kids by public school teachers and their willing accomplices, the administrators who hid them, why would you ever admit you were a part of that or subject your own kids to the risk?

This kind of abuse is abhorrent in any context, but you're failing to make an important distinction here.

When it is done by members of an organization that claims moral authority, and whose other members upon its discovery make no effort to discipline the offenders, instead protecting them in a manner which includes threats that are of a most grievous psychological and personal nature by warping the matter to the extent where they pin blame on the victim, it is quite different.

It is the lengths they go to, driven by the terror that their supposedly flawless organization will come to harm, that is unparalleled. They have proven they will stop at nothing, save to those who are still hopelessly and helplessly staked within this organization, thus they have proven that they do not give a damn about any objective perception of morality.

I mean Jesus Christ... why the fuck do you think everyone's been making such a big deal out of all of this?!

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:52:49 PM
We should all be sympathetic to the victims, but we should not make additional victims out of the 96-97% of the priesthood which is innocent of these crimes yet is viewed with hatred by people like you.

That isn't true of me, and probably many others.  I don't blame all mankind for what Hitler did.  I certainly don't think that all priests are child molesters.  I don't have this prejudice that you accuse people of.  In fact, I am not sure in G-d's view that anyone has ever done anything wrong.  And if true ... then it isn't my problem, it is G-d's problem.

Quote from: Cocoa Beware on May 16, 2016, 09:13:45 PM
This kind of abuse is abhorrent in any context, but you're failing to make an important distinction here.

When it is done by members of an organization that claims moral authority, and whose other members upon its discovery make no effort to discipline the offenders, instead protecting them in a manner which includes threats that are of a most grievous psychological and personal nature by warping the matter to the extent where they pin blame on the victim, it is quite different.

First, while it is true that hypocrisy is a problem in this case, it is also true that none of you atheists really gives a damn about what the Catholic Church claims for itself regarding authority. Therefore, I don't think that actually impacts your animosity toward the Church at all.

Second, the articles about the schools and Boy Scouts, etc. cite evidence of cover-up just as egregious as that of the Church. No one wants to talk about THAT.

QuoteIt is the lengths they go to, driven by the terror that their supposedly flawless organization will come to harm, that is unparalleled. They have proven they will stop at nothing, save to those who are still hopelessly and helplessly staked within this organization, thus they have proven that they do not give a damn about any objective perception of morality.

Supposedly flawless? I know you haven't forgotten the Borgias...why do you think WE have???

QuoteI mean Jesus Christ... why the fuck do you think everyone's been making such a big deal out of all of this?!

In part because they hate God and desire the destruction of His Church here on earth. Satan will stop at nothing...even to the point of tempting men to rape altar boys...in order to secure the ruin of as many souls as possible.

This is a spiritual battle...a war is underway. So, you save your ammunition for use against your real enemy - God and His Church.

I do get that.

"In fact, I am not sure in G-d's view that anyone has ever done anything wrong."

Baruch-  This is an interesting perspective.  Please elaborate.

Quote from: u196533 on May 17, 2016, 11:48:20 AM
"In fact, I am not sure in G-d's view that anyone has ever done anything wrong."

Baruch-  This is an interesting perspective.  Please elaborate.

Many people on this website ... see G-d as a hypocritical puritanical asshole.  All judgmental to the point of sadism and genocide, but merciful in a twisted way.  I totally reject the judicial model of divinity, I am the opposite of Randy.  I don't worship judges or judgemental-ism.  I don't worship authority of any kind.  It would have been natural for early men to view G-d as a tribal chief, magnified to infinity and beyond!

A "G-d's" perspective is something we can only imagine, we can't experience it, unless we are G-d.  Hence my tentative suggestion, not hard conviction.  If G-d is amoral, and not judgmental .. then the idea that G-d views our actions as good or bad ... is a purely human idea, that is a result of our limited perspective ... usually dualistic.  The Abrahamic god always seems to be a prototype of Evil Santa.  This is not true from the perspective of other religions.

There are several ways one can formulate this further.  But like most people, I am dualistic, I find the idea of an amoral G-d to be horrible.  Yet I don't see any alternative ... aside from atheism.  Given an amoral G-d I am certainly not in favor of any after-life.

"A "G-d's" perspective is something we can only imagine, we can't experience it, unless we are G-d.  Hence my tentative suggestion, not hard conviction.  If G-d is amoral, and not judgmental .. then the idea that G-d views our actions as good or bad ... is a purely human idea, that is a result of our limited perspective ... usually dualistic."

Interesting.  I've always considered it to be indifferent, and never tried to consider things from G-d's perspective.  Why do you believe there is an amoral God that views our actions vs one that is unaware or indifferent?  Or do you equate those positions?

Quote from: u196533 on May 18, 2016, 02:51:13 PM
"A "G-d's" perspective is something we can only imagine, we can't experience it, unless we are G-d.  Hence my tentative suggestion, not hard conviction.  If G-d is amoral, and not judgmental .. then the idea that G-d views our actions as good or bad ... is a purely human idea, that is a result of our limited perspective ... usually dualistic."

Interesting.  I've always considered it to be indifferent, and never tried to consider things from G-d's perspective.  Why do you believe there is an amoral God that views our actions vs one that is unaware or indifferent?  Or do you equate those positions?

You speaketh like a fine theologian, methinks ;-)  IMHO .. an indifferent G-d is not necessarily the same as an unaware G-d, and neither are necessarily the same as an amoral G-d.  It might be amoral to be indifferent ... though perhaps not amoral to be unaware ... depending on "omniscience".

Elijah Wood says pedophilia is rampant in Hollywood
http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2016/05/23/elijah-wood-says-pedophilia-is-rampant-in-hollywood/


So, I guess all you anti-Catholics will be turning your selective outrage toward Hollywood...boycotting movies...demanding for names and justice, etc.

Nah...you hate the Catholic Church for different reasons, and pedophilia has nothing to do with it.

Carry on.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 04:39:55 PM
Elijah Wood says pedophilia is rampant in Hollywood
http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2016/05/23/elijah-wood-says-pedophilia-is-rampant-in-hollywood/


So, I guess all you anti-Catholics will be turning your selective outrage toward Hollywood...boycotting movies...demanding for names and justice, etc.

Nah...you hate the Catholic Church for different reasons, and pedophilia has nothing to do with it.

Carry on.

No.  I hate the catholic church because of the outlandish claims it makes--it will save our everlasting soul--except soul is a fictional concept.  So, pedophilia is only one small evil act your church performs--there are so many others.  Hollywood, however, only claims to entertain us and take our money.  Your church makes hundreds of claims--and takes our money, and takes our money, and takes our money.  Pedophilia needs to be stamped out no matter where it is found.  Hollywood never claimed to be the moral leader of anybody.  The pope claims to be the moral shaper and leader or the world and for all time--and then shields and lies about pedophilia.  Hollywood has no moral obligation--your church insists it is the moral fiber of the world.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 07:04:17 PM
No.  I hate the catholic church because of the outlandish claims it makes--it will save our everlasting soul--except soul is a fictional concept. So, pedophilia is only one small evil act your church performs--there are so many others.  Hollywood, however, only claims to entertain us and take our money.  Your church makes hundreds of claims--and takes our money, and takes our money, and takes our money.  Pedophilia needs to be stamped out no matter where it is found.  Hollywood never claimed to be the moral leader of anybody.  The pope claims to be the moral shaper and leader or the world and for all time--and then shields and lies about pedophilia.  Hollywood has no moral obligation--your church insists it is the moral fiber of the world.

Do you have evidence that the Pope (any pope) was directly involved with a cover-up of this scandal?

And even if there was such evidence and it proved to be true, why would the actions of that individual undermine the doctrine of the entire Church itself?

Would you say that one President completely destroys the credibility of the constitution or the entire nation itself?

Nope. This is the fallacy of composition, and it is common among atheists who love to hold up fallen leaders of Christian churches as evidence that Christianity itself is flawed.

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken apart, without any of those parts being able to be fractured. --Wikipedia

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 07:04:17 PM
No.  I hate the catholic church because of the outlandish claims it makes

Do you hate all religions equally? Or do you hate Christianity more than others?

And within Christianity, do you hate all denominations equally? Or do you hate Catholicism more?

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 07:11:32 PM
Do you have evidence that the Pope (any pope) was directly involved with a cover-up of this scandal?

And even if there was such evidence and it proved to be true, why would the actions of that individual undermine the doctrine of the entire Church itself?

Do you mean to tell me that the pope is such a poor leader that he is not even aware of the problem?????  Do you mean to tell me you know nothing of priests being moved around the world who were suspected of child abuse or even convicted of it???????

No other leader except the pope (or other leaders of other religions) states he is THE moral compass of the entire world.  That is an extraordinary claim--and extraordinary care needs to be taken the maintain that claim.  And no other man claims to be infallible.  So, we have an infallible, blind, boastful leader who fails to live up to his claims--yes, that taints the entire movement and the history of that movement.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2016, 07:24:21 PM
Do you mean to tell me that the pope is such a poor leader that he is not even aware of the problem?????  Do you mean to tell me you know nothing of priests being moved around the world who were suspected of child abuse or even convicted of it???????

Do you mean to tell me that President Obama is aware of what every local official and governor is doing with regard to individual criminals within their own jurisdictions?

QuoteNo other leader except the pope (or other leaders of other religions) states he is THE moral compass of the entire world.  That is an extraordinary claim--and extraordinary care needs to be taken the maintain that claim.  And no other man claims to be infallible. 

Infallibility is not called into question here. That's not what infallibility is, how it works or when it is operative. So, set that misunderstanding aside.

Is the pope the moral compass of the entire world? Maybe. You tell me. Does CNN go to wall-to-wall coverage whenever any other world leader dies and is replaced? Can you even name one of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church without Google?

QuoteSo, we have an infallible, blind, boastful leader who fails to live up to his claims--yes, that taints the entire movement and the history of that movement.

There have been some really bad popes during the course of the Church's 2,000 years. Generally, the agreed number is about seven. Out of 266. That's about 3%.

And while those popes have caused scandal, they did not teach false doctrine, and the Church has continued long after they have passed away. We are not the New England Patriots. When Tom Brady retires, will the Patriots continue to win as they have? We'll see. But the Church is not so dependent on one person for success or failure; it's way bigger than that.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 23, 2016, 07:52:50 PM
Do you mean to tell me that President Obama is aware of what every local official and governor is doing with regard to individual criminals within their own jurisdictions?

But Obama's appointees do not have the advantage of the holy spirit or the personal guidance of jesus.  The pope's appointees have that advantage.  And duty to maintain the 'morality' of jesus.  Apparently the holy spirit and jesus don't work all that often. 

And yes, I know that the pope is not infallible all the time--only when he waves the infallibility wand and chants three time--no place like home, no place like home, no place like home and clicks his heels with his ruby shoes.   

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:52:49 PM
We should all be sympathetic to the victims, but we should not make additional victims out of the 96-97% of the priesthood which is innocent of these crimes yet is viewed with hatred by people like you.

Ah, care to explain how you know what's going on inside my head?  I never said I hated them.  In the first place, I would have to have some respect for the RCC in order to hate it.

Why aren't you out railing against the 96-97% of church hierarchy that hid the abusive priests and protected them from the law?

Hypocrisy?  You're soaking in it.

Quote from: trdsf on May 26, 2016, 01:22:33 PM
Ah, care to explain how you know what's going on inside my head?  I never said I hated them.  In the first place, I would have to have some respect for the RCC in order to hate it.

Why aren't you out railing against the 96-97% of church hierarchy that hid the abusive priests and protected them from the law?

Hypocrisy?  You're soaking in it.

Because 96-97% of the hierarchy wasn't involved.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 26, 2016, 02:42:35 PM
Because 96-97% of the hierarchy wasn't involved.

RANDY,

Whether it is 00.1 percent of your priests buggering innocent children or 99.99 percent that do it, IT IS WRONG because of the guise of your Catholic faith is suppose to uphold moral values, GET IT??????   

The Catholic church will NEVER BE THE LEADER OF ANY MORAL STANDARD AS LONG AS IT LASTS, which it is declining in great numbers as I and others have shown. Thank god, ZEUS, for this absolute fact!

Ah, the hypocrisy.  Not only does it appear that nearly $500,000 in funds meant for a children's hospital instead went to refurbish a cardinal's luxury apartment (https://www.yahoo.com/news/vatican-investigates-claim-hospital-funds-used-refurbish-cardinals-142929500--finance.html), but also the RCC actively lobbied the New York statehouse to relax anti-child abuse and statute of limitations laws (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/catholic-church-hired-lobby-firms-block-n-y-kid-rape-laws-article-1.2655010).

Systemic evil.  That's the only way to describe it.

Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 11:10:42 AM
I wasn't always a Catholic. I am an adult convert. You weren't always an atheist. You are an adult deconvert. Naturally, we feel strongly about the positions we hold currently.

I was always an Atheist.  Never have I bought into religious nonsense

Quote from: reasonist on May 12, 2016, 07:30:58 PM
Papa Frank acknowledged that 1 in 50 priests is a (KNOWN!!!!) paedophile! There are priests that abused hundreds of children! Imagine that ratio among school teachers! It would cause a civil uprising! But not when the abuse comes from people who do god's work.
One can only guess what the REAL number within the ranks of the clergy is and what the number of victims is. So many abuses have been internally covered up and many, many children never came forward because of shame!

Really? Has he made that admission? That's a staggering statistic. Given that, it would seem as if there were a check-box on the seminary admissions application.