Pascal's Wager is brilliant!

[FreeSpirit1983]

Free Spirit,

This is an atheist forum and an atheist world, so I will always be outnumbered

This can then make you happy as there will be far less people in heaven with you. There you will not be outnumbered and you will be

That is a very nice smile there after your quote. Perhaps it is kind of a Freudian slip? Perhaps you feel very happy within these trenches or at the least, they give your life meaning.

I don't want anyone NOT to get to heaven because the alternative is really bad.

It is a LITTLE fun being counter cultural.

When I mention I'm Christian on many forums, I get brutally attacked by people.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Free Spirit,

This is an atheist forum and an atheist world, so I will always be outnumbered

This can then make you happy as there will be far less people in heaven with you. There you will not be outnumbered and you will be

That is a very nice smile there after your quote. Perhaps it is kind of a Freudian slip? Perhaps you feel very happy within these trenches or at the least, they give your life meaning.

I don't want anyone NOT to get to heaven because the alternative is really bad.

It is a LITTLE fun being counter cultural.

When I mention I'm Christian on many forums, I get brutally attacked by people.

And that's not really fair. I think we get that. But, we do know where that comes from. Christianity has a pretty horrific history, so when someone says without detail that they are in that tradition, some significant number of people are going to feel this being a Christian is a tacit acceptance of that history or a perhaps not caring.

In a way saying one is a Christian gives very little information, so they should be cautious. What Christians believe runs an enormous range of possibilities. From deist versions, to Quaker type versions, to violent fundmantalisms, to people who take Jesus as a great teacher, as the sun of God, as the whole thing is a metaphor.

And there are many who could not believe that someone who could think that a loving God puts people in Hell for all time, could on some levels not also be hateful while presenting themselves as loving.

There is so much baggage around the major religions. And there is so much that being a Christian might mean that to many people is terrible.

[FreeSpirit1983]

[/quote]And that's not really fair. I think we get that. But, we do know where that comes from. Christianity has a pretty horrific history, so when someone says without detail that they are in that tradition, some significant number of people are going to feel this being a Christian is a tacit acceptance of that history or a perhaps not caring.

In a way saying one is a Christian gives very little information, so they should be cautious. What Christians believe runs an enormous range of possibilities. From deist versions, to Quaker type versions, to violent fundmantalisms, to people who take Jesus as a great teacher, as the sun of God, as the whole thing is a metaphor.

And there are many who could not believe that someone who could think that a loving God puts people in Hell for all time, could on some levels not also be hateful while presenting themselves as loving.

There is so much baggage around the major religions. And there is so much that being a Christian might mean that to many people is terrible.[/quote]

That's because people only judge Christianity by its abuses these days.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's because people only judge Christianity by its abuses these days.

people judge it in all sorts of ways. Some judge it just by its postive side and can't admit any problems now or then. And a whole range in between.

[FreeSpirit1983]

That's because people only judge Christianity by its abuses these days.

people judge it in all sorts of ways. Some judge it just by its postive side and can't admit any problems now or then. And a whole range in between.

Not in modern day America.

The news coverage and culture is almost entirely negative.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's because people only judge Christianity by its abuses these days.

people judge it in all sorts of ways. Some judge it just by its postive side and can't admit any problems now or then. And a whole range in between.

Not in modern day America.

The news coverage and culture is almost entirely negative.

I find that a bit hard to believe since a Presidential candidate who was not a Christian would stand almost not the slightest chance of winning. I suppose that could be an apples oranges kind of analysis on my part. How did you determine that most coverage of Chrisitianity is negative. Do they write about Christianity as a whole regularly in the media?

[FreeSpirit1983]

Yes.

Just do a Google news and put the word "Catholic" or "Christian."

The news coverage is almost entirely negative. The media constantly brings up the sex abuse scandal, even though less than 5% of Catholic clergy were ever involved and it's plummeted since 2002 because of the Dallas Charter reforms, for example.

The West only judges religion by it's abuses.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes.

Just do a Google news and put the word "Catholic" or "Christian."

I just did. I got, primarily, on the first pages, Christian websites, including Christian dating and a whole lot of neutral factual descriptions and then Christian websites.

[Arcturus Descending]

FreeSpirit1983

Just do a Google news and put the word "Catholic" or "Christian."

The news coverage is almost entirely negative

.

Is it possible that you are finding what you are looking for - picking and choosing.
I tend to agree with Karpel Tunnel.

The media constantly brings up the sex abuse scandal, even though less than 5% of Catholic clergy were ever involved and it's plummeted since 2002 because of the Dallas Charter reforms, for example.

Even though less than 5%?!!!!!!!
I wonder if that would be your sentiment if you had been sexually abused by a priest.
Do not disregard the abuse children have been receiving from pedophile priests because you feel the need to be a staunch supporter of christianity/catholicism.
I wonder what your Christ would have to say about the Church for so long a time hiding pedophile priests. "In The Name of the Church"! The Church needs to be saved.
Would he have condemned its secrecy or praised it?

I'll quote two things from the bible. SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME. How do they do that when they have been spiritually and emotionally crippled by men who believe in god and think they are doing His will.
AND
THE SINS OF THE FATHERS SHALL BE VISITED UPON THE CHILDREN. I know "fathers" did not mean priests or ministers or rabbis when those words were written down but psychologically speaking - the words are true. Abuse repeats abuse.

Next time do not be so free and easy to disregard that 4 or 5 percent.

The West only judges religion by it's abuses.

Stop putting us all in the same pot. One size does not fit all.

[Karpel Tunnel]

FreeSpirit1983

The media constantly brings up the sex abuse scandal, even though less than 5% of Catholic clergy were ever involved and it's plummeted since 2002 because of the Dallas Charter reforms, for example.

Which entails an enormous number of children, if your number is right. The priests were protected, and if anything was done, they were often moved to wehre they still, as part of their work, had contact with children. The church covered it up, for years. And, it is pretty clear this type of abuse goes way back in history in the church. The church sat by when other Catholics demonzied the victims and their families. And this is all the while they

presented these priests as having a special expertise and relationship with God.

So people claiming the have the ear of God and having high positions in the church chose to allow more children to be put in danger, allow people who had sexually abused kids to still be in position of authority where they were supposedly the connection to God, while that same church who allowed these men to be considered the correct performers of magic, judged other people as workign with the devil if they performed certain rights.

This being a church claiming to want to save the lives of unborn children while acting like the suffering of children means less than the reputation of certain priests and their superiors.

It was systematic evil. And it is recent. Not from the Middle AGes.

And, frankly, some members of the church get just how evil it was.

[FreeSpirit1983]

FreeSpirit1983

Just do a Google news and put the word "Catholic" or "Christian."

The news coverage is almost entirely negative

.

Is it possible that you are finding what you are looking for - picking and choosing.
I tend to agree with Karpel Tunnel.

The media constantly brings up the sex abuse scandal, even though less than 5% of Catholic clergy were ever involved and it's plummeted since 2002 because of the Dallas Charter reforms, for example.

Even though less than 5%?!!!!!!!
I wonder if that would be your sentiment if you had been sexually abused by a priest.
Do not disregard the abuse children have been receiving from pedophile priests because you feel the need to be a staunch supporter of christianity/catholicism.
I wonder what your Christ would have to say about the Church for so long a time hiding pedophile priests. "In The Name of the Church"! The Church needs to be saved.
Would he have condemned its secrecy or praised it?

I'll quote two things from the bible. SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME. How do they do that when they have been spiritually and emotionally crippled by men who believe in god and think they are doing His will.
AND
THE SINS OF THE FATHERS SHALL BE VISITED UPON THE CHILDREN. I know "fathers" did not mean priests or ministers or rabbis when those words were written down but psychologically speaking - the words are true. Abuse repeats abuse.

Next time do not be so free and easy to disregard that 4 or 5 percent.

The West only judges religion by it's abuses.

Stop putting us all in the same pot. One size does not fit all.

I'm not disregarding any abuse. I hope every pedophile gets sentenced to life in prison. But, I do believe that the Catholic Church is unfairly stereotyped by the culture.

By the way, the amount of actual pedophilia in the Church was way lower than 5%. The vast majority of victims were teenage boys, not prepubescent children. That's not to excuse any abuse, but just to clarify things.

My point is that our atheist culture in America doesn't like Christianity or especially the Catholic Church, so they attack and stereotype it.

It's the same as stereotyping Muslims as ISIS supporters, except, it's politically correct to stereotype Christianity.

[FreeSpirit1983]

FreeSpirit1983

The media constantly brings up the sex abuse scandal, even though less than 5% of Catholic clergy were ever involved and it's plummeted since 2002 because of the Dallas Charter reforms, for example.

Which entails an enormous number of children, if your number is right. The priests were protected, and if anything was done, they were often moved to wehre they still, as part of their work, had contact with children. The church covered it up, for years. And, it is pretty clear this type of abuse goes way back in history in the church. The church sat by when other Catholics demonzied the victims and their families. And this is all the while they

presented these priests as having a special expertise and relationship with God.

So people claiming the have the ear of God and having high positions in the church chose to allow more children to be put in danger, allow people who had sexually abused kids to still be in position of authority where they were supposedly the connection to God, while that same church who allowed these men to be considered the correct performers of magic, judged other people as workign with the devil if they performed certain rights.

This being a church claiming to want to save the lives of unborn children while acting like the suffering of children means less than the reputation of certain priests and their superiors.

It was systematic evil. And it is recent. Not from the Middle AGes.

And, frankly, some members of the church get just how evil it was.

Abusive Priests were moved around, that is very true. One reason is that sexual abuse wasn't as understood back in the 1970's the way it is today. There was the idea that sexual abusers could be reformed with a little therapy, which we now know is not true.

That all stopped in 2002 in the Catholic Church with the Dallas Charter. Since those reforms, the amount of abuse cases has been tiny.

Sadly, sexual abuse is widespread in America. At least 25% of women are abused during their lifetimes. Most of the abuse takes place in families.

https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit ... ales-70625

[Karpel Tunnel]

Abusive Priests were moved around, that is very true. One reason is that sexual abuse wasn't as understood back in the 1970's the way it is today. There was the idea that sexual abusers could be reformed with a little therapy, which we now know is not true.

It didn't stop in the 70s, the moving them around. How can an organization that considers itself having the, not a, but the direct line to God not understand something so fundamental about human nature and something that priests but also other adults have done since the church was formed.

That all stopped in 2002 in the Catholic Church with the Dallas Charter. Since those reforms, the amount of abuse cases has been tiny.

That's 2002. Even if you are correct, what does that have to do with the main point of my post. Bishops, the ones, running the administration of the charter are for no logical reason exempt from it. And this response from the Church only happened after incredible pressure from victims, journalists and others who faced ridicule, denial, evidence suppression, secrecy and pressure from powerful Catholics and others not to challenge the church. I am sure many in the church did not realize the extent of the problem. I am sure there are good people in there. But the church only buckled after incredible efforts by victims and journalists made it obvious to everyone the system was corrupt as a whole on this issue.

Sadly, sexual abuse is widespread in America. At least 25% of women are abused during their lifetimes. Most of the abuse takes place in families.

Sure, but families are not presenting themselves as the only route to God and having special powers in relation to divinity, absolution and so on. The Catholic church has heartily condemned the sins of others while at the same time hiding, protecting, suppressing evidence around the abuse of the members of its organization who kept the rite to act as representatives of the church and of God.

https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit ... ales-70625[/quote]

this means that the process of selecting for priests, the training, the mentorship in all the facets of leading rituals, prayer, contemplation, the authority granted these people, the special connection to God their training is supposed to lead to, the Bible study

did not reduce their behavior from the average.

How could the people who are focusing more energy than anyone else on scripture, God, practices, rituals
not have improved? And why should we believe, then, that these practices, scriptures, rituals, really go to the heart of spiritual matters? SAying that they commit the same amount of these crimes should make every Catholic have a crisis of faith.

And then, given what they are supposed to be, the betrayal is even greater. And it was much harder to prosecute them and confront them because they had a very powerful system to protect them and/or hide their crimes.

And since women are much less likely to abuse children, one has to wonder how long a church with deep insight into God, supposedly, would continue a sexist exclusion.

[FreeSpirit1983]

Abusive Priests were moved around, that is very true. One reason is that sexual abuse wasn't as understood back in the 1970's the way it is today. There was the idea that sexual abusers could be reformed with a little therapy, which we now know is not true.

It didn't stop in the 70s, the moving them around. How can an organization that considers itself having the, not a, but the direct line to God not understand something so fundamental about human nature and something that priests but also other adults have done since the church was formed.

That all stopped in 2002 in the Catholic Church with the Dallas Charter. Since those reforms, the amount of abuse cases has been tiny.

That's 2002. Even if you are correct, what does that have to do with the main point of my post. Bishops, the ones, running the administration of the charter are for no logical reason exempt from it. And this response from the Church only happened after incredible pressure from victims, journalists and others who faced ridicule, denial, evidence suppression, secrecy and pressure from powerful Catholics and others not to challenge the church. I am sure many in the church did not realize the extent of the problem. I am sure there are good people in there. But the church only buckled after incredible efforts by victims and journalists made it obvious to everyone the system was corrupt as a whole on this issue.

Sadly, sexual abuse is widespread in America. At least 25% of women are abused during their lifetimes. Most of the abuse takes place in families.

Sure, but families are not presenting themselves as the only route to God and having special powers in relation to divinity, absolution and so on. The Catholic church has heartily condemned the sins of others while at the same time hiding, protecting, suppressing evidence around the abuse of the members of its organization who kept the rite to act as representatives of the church and of God.

https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit ... ales-70625

this means that the process of selecting for priests, the training, the mentorship in all the facets of leading rituals, prayer, contemplation, the authority granted these people, the special connection to God their training is supposed to lead to, the Bible study

did not reduce their behavior from the average.

How could the people who are focusing more energy than anyone else on scripture, God, practices, rituals
not have improved? And why should we believe, then, that these practices, scriptures, rituals, really go to the heart of spiritual matters? SAying that they commit the same amount of these crimes should make every Catholic have a crisis of faith.

And then, given what they are supposed to be, the betrayal is even greater. And it was much harder to prosecute them and confront them because they had a very powerful system to protect them and/or hide their crimes.

And since women are much less likely to abuse children, one has to wonder how long a church with deep insight into God, supposedly, would continue a sexist exclusion.[/quote]




The answer is that the Church is full of humans and humans are flawed because of original sin. Humans will always sin. The Church has perfect doctrine but not perfect members. Churches are hospitals for sinners and they are not museums for saints.

The Church has never claimed to have perfect members. Remember, Jesus had Judas as one of his twelve Apostles. He was betrayed by one of his own.

The process of choosing Priests was flawed for a very long time. There were thousands of Priests that should never have been ordained. That has drastically changed since 2002.

The bottom line is that the reason to join a Church is because one believes in the teachings and not because 5-10% of the members will perform evil acts.

[promethean75]

There's only one person of the catholic church that I've ever trusted... and that's father vivian o'blivion...

[Karpel Tunnel]

The answer is that the Church is full of humans and humans are flawed because of original sin. Humans will always sin. The Church has perfect doctrine but not perfect members. Churches are hospitals for sinners and they are not museums for saints.

Of course, they are human. But you are not responding to the points I raised. The priests are not just members of the church, they have gone through a rigorous process of selection and training, and are considered to be able to serve as a connection between the members of the church and God. And as I said above, but which you chose not to respond to, they have intensely interacted with scritpture with other priests and with the practices of Catholicism more than all but the most religious of other members of the church
and
this had no effect on them
in preventing them from committing horrendous crimes.

Nor did it keep their supervisers (bishops for example) from committing crimes of suppression, denial and reexposure of children to these men. Bishops of course having gone through even more rigorous selection and having spent even more time with the practices and scriptures of Catholicism.

The Church has never claimed to have perfect members.

But it absolutely claims special powers and special responsibilty for its priests. And the Church does claim special powers in their scriptures and practices, that these will lead to people being closer to God, better people, etc.

The process of choosing Priests was flawed for a very long time. There were thousands of Priests that should never have been ordained. That has drastically changed since 2002.

Yes, a very recent date and as I said above, only after tremendous external pressure, the loss of members and the revealing to the world of what the church has systematically been doing.

The bottom line is that the reason to join a Church is because one believes in the teachings and not because 5-10% of the members will perform evil acts.

And as a I said above one should wonder about the teachings it the most rigorously trained members of the church were still capable and willing of committing those crimes, at the same percentages, as you said, as the regulat population.

I'm sorry. There's a pattern in your responding. You don't really respond to points made. So I am put in a position of repeating those points. This happened before and it is happening again. I leave you to others who don't mind that sort of thing. You could perhaps contemplate the reasons you do this. It certainly doesn't imply faith.

[Arcturus Descending]

Karpel Tunnel,

Free Spirit said;
The bottom line is that the reason to join a Church is because one believes in the teachings and not because 5-10% of the members will perform evil acts.

KT said: And as a I said above one should wonder about the teachings it the most rigorously trained members of the church were still capable and willing of committing those crimes, at the same percentages, as you said, as the regulat population.

I do not think that the fault is necessarily because of the teachings of the Church, Christ's teachings per se.

The Church that Christ founded did not teach that men or priests should sexually abuse children and I do not believe that Christ himself, if he was such a great, loving compassionate man, would condone or allow the sexual abuse of children. I also do not believe that Christ would, in order to preserve His Church, hide such a hideous secret and actions and protect priests.

These are all the doings of sexual predators, many of whom even became priests in order to have such access to young children just as other men gain access to young children by way of what they do for a living or for a hobby or "volunteering".

Terrible, terrible thinking on the part of these patriarchal men who believe that they have the right to protect in the name of the church, preserving the church, EVEN to the detriment and harm to the pscyhe of these poor children. They are just as guilty as the sexual predators. As the kind of man each individual one is/was, he also felt that he had the right to protect other men. These men are just as sleazy to me as the sexual predator because they allow it to happen, they abuse their power, the kind of power which might have kicked these abuses right out of the church.

I think that part of the reason that this was allowed to happen too is because believers back then were taught to always kind of worship priests, didn't realize that they are just as sinful as they, the believers, are themselves, and could never believe that God's so-called chosen ones could perform such acts. Priests were always put on pedestals.
Who could believe that many of them could live such double lives, lives of such Lies and ugliness.

[Arcturus Descending]

Karpel Tunnel,

Free Spirit said;
The bottom line is that the reason to join a Church is because one believes in the teachings and not because 5-10% of the members will perform evil acts.

KT said: And as a I said above one should wonder about the teachings it the most rigorously trained members of the church were still capable and willing of committing those crimes, at the same percentages, as you said, as the regulat population.

I do not think that the fault is necessarily because of the teachings of the Church, Christ's teachings per se.

The Church that Christ founded did not teach that men or priests should sexually abuse children and I do not believe that Christ himself, if he was such a great, loving compassionate man, would condone or allow the sexual abuse of children. I also do not believe that Christ would, in order to preserve His Church, hide such a hideous secret and actions and protect priests.

These are all the doings of sexual predators, many of whom even became priests in order to have such access to young children just as other men gain access to young children by way of what they do for a living or for a hobby or "volunteering".

Terrible, terrible thinking on the part of these patriarchal men who believe that they have the right to protect in the name of the church, preserving the church, EVEN to the detriment and harm to the pscyhe of these poor children. They are just as guilty as the sexual predators. As the kind of man each individual one is/was, he also felt that he had the right to protect other men. These men are just as sleazy to me as the sexual predator because they allow it to happen, they abuse their power, the kind of power which might have kicked these abuses right out of the church.

I think that part of the reason that this was allowed to happen too is because believers back then were taught to always kind of worship priests, didn't realize that they are just as sinful as they, the believers, are themselves, and could never believe that God's so-called chosen ones could perform such acts. Priests were always put on pedestals.
Who could believe that many of them could live such double lives, lives of such Lies and ugliness.

[FreeSpirit1983]

The answer is that the Church is full of humans and humans are flawed because of original sin. Humans will always sin. The Church has perfect doctrine but not perfect members. Churches are hospitals for sinners and they are not museums for saints.

Of course, they are human. But you are not responding to the points I raised. The priests are not just members of the church, they have gone through a rigorous process of selection and training, and are considered to be able to serve as a connection between the members of the church and God. And as I said above, but which you chose not to respond to, they have intensely interacted with scritpture with other priests and with the practices of Catholicism more than all but the most religious of other members of the church
and
this had no effect on them
in preventing them from committing horrendous crimes.

Nor did it keep their supervisers (bishops for example) from committing crimes of suppression, denial and reexposure of children to these men. Bishops of course having gone through even more rigorous selection and having spent even more time with the practices and scriptures of Catholicism.

The Church has never claimed to have perfect members.

But it absolutely claims special powers and special responsibilty for its priests. And the Church does claim special powers in their scriptures and practices, that these will lead to people being closer to God, better people, etc.

The process of choosing Priests was flawed for a very long time. There were thousands of Priests that should never have been ordained. That has drastically changed since 2002.

Yes, a very recent date and as I said above, only after tremendous external pressure, the loss of members and the revealing to the world of what the church has systematically been doing.

The bottom line is that the reason to join a Church is because one believes in the teachings and not because 5-10% of the members will perform evil acts.

And as a I said above one should wonder about the teachings it the most rigorously trained members of the church were still capable and willing of committing those crimes, at the same percentages, as you said, as the regulat population.

I'm sorry. There's a pattern in your responding. You don't really respond to points made. So I am put in a position of repeating those points. This happened before and it is happening again. I leave you to others who don't mind that sort of thing. You could perhaps contemplate the reasons you do this. It certainly doesn't imply faith.

I did respond to your points. No offense but you clearly are not educated on this subject, which is fine, because the vast majority of people in our culture are not and are fed lies by the anti-Christ culture, which you have clearly bought into.

Before 2002, the Priests did not go through a "rigorous process of selection" as you falsely claim. As a matter of fact, many Priests were simply admitted into seminary only with one reference to their name. A Priest could become a Priest simply by being referred by their Pastor. Many Priests had no business being Priests. Some Bishops have said that hundreds or thousands of Priests should not have been ordained, not because they were sexual predators, but simply because they were not qualified.

Now, the process is entirely different and is actually rigorous which involves psychological testing and background checks. And there is a zero tolerance policy for abuse, which is working.

You are generalizing the Priesthood based on 5% of the bad Priests before 2002. You are simply not being realistic. There will ALWAYS be moral failings with human beings. Always. We see sexual abuse with Doctors, teachers, guidance counselors, boy scout leaders and even the President of the United States. Just because 5% of Priests were evil does not mean that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God because Judas betrayed Him.

Using your "logic" we should stop attending schools or seeing Doctors because 5% of them will abuse people...

You seem to think that the entire Catholic clergy are evil because 5% were abusers. This doesn't make any logical sense and I'm sure you wouldn't use that "logic" when judging other groups of people. There will ALWAYS be failings with human beings.

This is a common error in our Western culture.

[FreeSpirit1983]

Karpel Tunnel,

Free Spirit said;
The bottom line is that the reason to join a Church is because one believes in the teachings and not because 5-10% of the members will perform evil acts.

KT said: And as a I said above one should wonder about the teachings it the most rigorously trained members of the church were still capable and willing of committing those crimes, at the same percentages, as you said, as the regulat population.

I do not think that the fault is necessarily because of the teachings of the Church, Christ's teachings per se.

The Church that Christ founded did not teach that men or priests should sexually abuse children and I do not believe that Christ himself, if he was such a great, loving compassionate man, would condone or allow the sexual abuse of children. I also do not believe that Christ would, in order to preserve His Church, hide such a hideous secret and actions and protect priests.

These are all the doings of sexual predators, many of whom even became priests in order to have such access to young children just as other men gain access to young children by way of what they do for a living or for a hobby or "volunteering".

Terrible, terrible thinking on the part of these patriarchal men who believe that they have the right to protect in the name of the church, preserving the church, EVEN to the detriment and harm to the pscyhe of these poor children. They are just as guilty as the sexual predators. As the kind of man each individual one is/was, he also felt that he had the right to protect other men. These men are just as sleazy to me as the sexual predator because they allow it to happen, they abuse their power, the kind of power which might have kicked these abuses right out of the church.

I think that part of the reason that this was allowed to happen too is because believers back then were taught to always kind of worship priests, didn't realize that they are just as sinful as they, the believers, are themselves, and could never believe that God's so-called chosen ones could perform such acts. Priests were always put on pedestals.
Who could believe that many of them could live such double lives, lives of such Lies and ugliness.

Excellent post. Hopefully Karpel Tunnel is paying attention.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karpel Tunnel,
KT said: And as a I said above one should wonder about the teachings it the most rigorously trained members of the church were still capable and willing of committing those crimes, at the same percentages, as you said, as the regulat population.

I do not think that the fault is necessarily because of the teachings of the Church, Christ's teachings per se.[/quote]I did not say it was their fault. I said it failed to prevent both the direct crimes against children and the self-protective very damaging systematic response to finding out about the behavior. According to his statistics, long study of scripture, prayer, rigorous Christian training, confession, carrying out the rite of confession, Christian contemplation did not reduce the abusiveness of these people and did not help the Chruch respond in a loving way to the victims or even to put effort into reducing future harm.

The Church that Christ founded did not teach that men or priests should sexually abuse children and I do not believe that Christ himself, if he was such a great, loving compassionate man, would condone or allow the sexual abuse of children. I also do not believe that Christ would, in order to preserve His Church, hide such a hideous secret and actions and protect priests.

Obviously, so what you are saying is that The Church was utterly ineffective in helping people spiritually who engaged in it more than anyone else. How could that possibly be an organization that is a good line to God?

These are all the doings of sexual predators, many of whom even became priests in order to have such access to young children just as other men gain access to young children by way of what they do for a living or for a hobby or "volunteering".

[/quote]There is no evidence that more people do that then enter other similar professions with access, like teaching. And yet, teaching, which is not aimed at getting closer to God, which focuses much more on practical than moral issues, and the education is not presented as a spiritual development including via divinely inspired texts and other men who have undergone spiritual training, show no more abuse of children then priests. This should make anyone wonder what value the Church has.

What we have here is a horrible empirical test iwth a control group. Put group A through the rigorous spiritual training of becoming a priest with all that entails in terms of Christian practices. Put group B though a mroe practical training with no spiritual component.

And see which group abuses kids more or less and see how each group of administrators deals with the reports better.

Result of the test: no difference as far as incidence of abuse. Even more defensive behavior on the part of administrators - who had even more spiritual training.

That's damning evidence the Churches practices and scriptures failed.

[phyllo]

The Church that Christ founded did not teach that men or priests should sexually abuse children and I do not believe that Christ himself, if he was such a great, loving compassionate man, would condone or allow the sexual abuse of children. I also do not believe that Christ would, in order to preserve His Church, hide such a hideous secret and actions and protect priests.

Wouldn't Jesus act in the same way as he did with the adulterous woman : "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".

That's fine if she stops sinning. But what do you do if she doesn't stop?

That's where Jesus' ethics don't seem to work.

And that's a problem that the Church administration has. How to apply Jesus' teaching to forgive 7 times 70 and also to deal with repeat offenders?

[Karpel Tunnel]

And that's a problem that the Church administration has. How to apply Jesus' teaching to forgive 7 times 70 and also to deal with repeat offenders?

And did they really forgive. To me forgiving is a real encounter. You see the remorse, you talk through it. You both sense that the person regrets their actions - not just the negative consequences for the abuser. Did this happen? I doubt it. And also, it isn't really the church's place to forgive the priest, except for whatever damage the priest did to the church. It's the victims who are to forgive and their families. And perhaps their betrayed congregations.

[phyllo]

And did they really forgive. To me forgiving is a real encounter. You see the remorse, you talk through it. You both sense that the person regrets their actions - not just the negative consequences for the abuser. Did this happen? I doubt it.

There was probably some genuine remorse, some fake and some lack of remorse. Genuine remorse does not guarantee that there won't be a recurrence.

And also, it isn't really the church's place to forgive the priest, except for whatever damage the priest did to the church. It's the victims who are to forgive and their families. And perhaps their betrayed congregations.

It's not clear from the NT what Jesus would do.

What does he do if the mob does not leave and they stone the woman?

How does he react if the adulterous woman is brought back a second time?

What do you do with the priest if the victim forgives him? Is that a second chance for him, if he shows remorse? Do you bring his actions to everyone's attention?

Or should a priest be prosecuted through the secular legal system, whether he is forgiven or not, shows remorse or not? That would indicate that Christian ethics don't work.

[barbarianhorde]

And that's a problem that the Church administration has. How to apply Jesus' teaching to forgive 7 times 70 and also to deal with repeat offenders?

And did they really forgive. To me forgiving is a real encounter. You see the remorse, you talk through it. You both sense that the person regrets their actions - not just the negative consequences for the abuser. Did this happen? I doubt it. And also, it isn't really the church's place to forgive the priest, except for whatever damage the priest did to the church. It's the victims who are to forgive and their families. And perhaps their betrayed congregations.

Yes definitely.

I can see the Blackwater CEO or Obama walking up to his genocidal posse and patting them on the shoulder, forgiving them for killing all those Iraqi children.
Very Christian that would be of them.