Catholic church and child abuse.

You've already placed yourself in the position of my intellectual superior, so please, be happy with that

Well, if I had and am, I might be if I was in an ego-polishing mood. However I think it would be more accurate to say that I placed my argument in a superior position to yours – assuming that it was following the usual reason/faith arc, as you seem to imply:

Because, as you've already inferred with that last statement, there cannot be a 'convincing argument' based purely on faith

IRMC.

PS:

leave me the **** alone

By all means.

For being born into a Western Catholic Family I pretty much seem to be responsible for every evil in the world. Oh well Im not going to worry about it too much.

Is this a new form of the Nuremburg Defence….. I was only follwing Gods order as given on Earth by his appointed representative Der Pope?

You've totally missed my point here one of the key words was "Western" which am I meant to be fixing first the horrors of colonialism ? The situation on the Middle East ? The problems with the catholic church ?

Get real man, the simple fact is that the all western nations* are morally bankrupt organsiations, and to choose to continue to passively support their unbelievable evils is to actively engage in the commission of those self same evils. Or do you think millions of Europeans/Americans turning their back on their nation publically stating their reasons would have no impact on the way the franchise is run ?

Or would they just go to war with who ever they fancied because there was oil there ? Which is what they did despite all the protests.

* or put in which ever organisation/nation you fancy because none is perfect.

Nick the child molesting clergy and get them on the sex offenders register.

Should keep them from abusing any more vunerable kids that are dragged along to a place of worship

Unfortunately like all paedophiles they are very devious and no doubt use fear to keep their victims from reporting them

Tijuana Taxi – Member

Nick the child molesting clergy and get them on the sex offenders register.

Should keep them from abusing any more vunerable kids that are dragged along to a place of worship

Staring with Ratzinger the second he steps off the plane in September.

* or put in which ever organisation/nation you fancy because none is perfect.

But no sovereign nation claims to be infallible.

I have never preached intolerance of religion. Quote me, I dare you.

"The indoctrination of children into religious dogma, is a form of child abuse" – Richard Dawkins.
Religion is filth.
I find your equating of a free and balanced upbringing where children are allowed to see all sides of the argument and are allowed to make up their own minds, with the sort of disgusting brainwashing that happens in religious cults like yours, to be an exact product of the indoctrination that I am talking about.

If you accept the Dawkins quote, then unless you're advocating child abuse, it follows that you're being intolerant.

FWIW, Catholicism is one of the most passive Christian faiths- it seems to demand little of it's followers, and makes little impact on their lives, in comparison to say, one of the Pentacostal churches. Certainly, followers seem less excited by it than your average football fan does about their team.
Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

*I was raised a Catholic, dabbled with 'born again Christianity as a pubescent teenager, then came out the other side as a staunch atheist. There are fairly reasonable arguments for the existence of God, the historical existence of Jesus, and the veracity of the Bible as a historical document, but any stance beyond neutral will always require a leap of faith. 8)

whether that's because of their religion or despite of it

It's not because of religion. Nice people are nice, bad people are bad, it's got nothing (in my experience) to do with what religion they are 🙂

As for Mr Woppit – your tone has been very confrontational. You are rubbishing other people's very personal beliefs (and pressing your own) quite agressively. This really is't on, from a social point of view. The Christians on this thread have behaved far more decently than you.

From a philosophical one though, your position seems no different to me to that of the catholics. So you are no different to a Christian Evangelist in many ways. After all, you can no more prove that there is no supreme being watching all this with a big smirk on his face than Christans can prove there is one with an expression of divine love. We might all be lab rats in a cage on drugs, for all we know.

When my daughter asks me if God exists, I won't say "No". I'll say "well it's hard to say, some folk believe so and some don't". Then when she goes on to ask more questions I'll answer them honestly and she can make her own mind up.

What would you say to your kids Wopster?

When my daughter asks me if God exists, I won't say "No". I'll say "well it's hard to say, some folk believe so and some don't". Then when she goes on to ask more questions I'll answer them honestly and she can make her own mind up.

Quite right too!

Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

Interesting view. The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on… Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

it seems to demand little of it's followers, and makes little impact on their lives

It demands that they belive that a ridiculous and stupid numbskull in a silly hat is the earthly representative of the will of an allegedly all powerful "god".

Who would not wish for it's followers to be free of that particular psychological choking entramellment?

There are fairly reasonable arguments for the existence of God,

Name one.

he historical existence of Jesus

Disputed. No evidence.

the veracity of the Bible as a historical document

A huge misrepresentation. You will few other documents of such internal innacuracies, impossibilities and self-contradictions. One example:

If "jesus" was alone in the garden of gethsemane during his conversation with his "god", who was able to report it?

There are many others, geographical, historical and just plain impossible.

the sort of disgusting brainwashing that happens in religious cults like yours, to be an exact product of the indoctrination that I am talking about.

Any type of upbringing is brainwashing. Surely you could argue any ideas you put in the mind of a child could be viewed as evil ?

Personally I could see labeling a child as an english child would evil, both the first and second world wars were partially caused by nationalism and this was encouraged in the 19th century during the raising of children. It is still something which is encouraged to a more or lesser extent in most countries in the world.

If you raised a child with out any influence you would nt be raising them at all.

The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on… Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

Yes this is an extreme version of what the Church stands for and is as accurate a decription of them as Genesis is of how the world was created.
No thanks i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible

It's not because of religion. Nice people are nice, bad people are bad, it's got nothing (in my experience) to do with what religion they are

9/11. Good people will usually do good things. Bad people will usually do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

As for Mr Woppit – your tone has been very confrontational.

Value judgement based, as far as I can tell, on projection.

You are rubbishing other people's very personal beliefs (and pressing your own) quite agressively.

I disagree, I feel "assertive" would be more accurate. As to rubbishing – if you mean treating them as rubbish then yes, but so what? Would you complain if I was discussing the merits of various football teams? Of course not. Why should religion demand special consideration?

The Christians on this thread have behaved far more decently than you.

On the contrary, they are generally obfuscatory, snide, resentful, misrepresentative and sneeringly rude. But that really doesn't bother me.

After all, you can no more prove that there is no supreme being watching all this with a big smirk on his face than Christans can prove there is one with an expression of divine love

The burden of proof rests with the proposer, not the opposer. I am constantly surprised at how this needs to be reiterated, it's simple enough to understand. I can certainly say that there remains not the slightest bit of evidence that such a thing as a god exists – fact. Otherwise, why would the argument always end up with the religious saying "Oh well, it needs a leap of faith"? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If I were to say that an invisible giant green snail lives on the roof of the National Gallery, would it be reasonable to suggest that someone who disagrees (for obvious reasons) should "prove" that it does not? Of course not.

What would you say to your kids Wopster?

If I had any – having explained a selection of the supposed natures of some of these gods – that many people propose the existence of a god, or gods. That there is no agreement between different groups of proposers as to what form or forms this "god" or these "gods" take, but when the universe is examined, no evidence can be found to support the assertions of these widely different and contradictory groups of believers in these non-evidential things.

If you raised a child with out any influence you would nt be raising them at all.

I refer you to my previous response.

Yes this is an extreme version of what the Church stands for and is as accurate a decription of them as Genesis is of how the world was created.

Not so. The catholic church has been documented as being responsible, through it's "theology", for all the events that I describe.

The book of genesis is a myth tale written by ignorant Bronze-age sheepherders.

No thanks i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible

I haven't the slightest idea what this is supposed to mean.

The Pope is never going to say; "Sorry, it was all our collective fault" for one very simple and very Secular reason…If he does, it opens up a whole bunch of lawsuits aimed at the Vatican, and there goes the Church, and all it's money…

Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

Interesting view. The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on… Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

'Extreme' is taken out of context by yourself. As I'm sure you're aware. Though like you, I find all these things deplorable. The aids argument has of course been discussed endlessly, and proves my point regarding the impact of Catholicism on it's followers' lives- the Pope advocated abstinence, which would have been at least as effective as condoms at controlling the spread of the disease.
Why do you find Mother T execrable, out of curiosity. Surely she did a lot of good for people?

Arguments for and against the existence of god, jesus, and the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document aren't difficult to find, if you choose to look for them. I'm surprised you haven't tried, if only to refute them.

it means your view is so extreme that you will not be persuaded from it by rational discourse. What you say about the Catholic church has some truth to it but it is hardly their raison d'être. Take your stance of murdering it's followers in Africa via the condom message. I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS. Given this I could equally argue that it was the inability of Africans to follow the Churchs teaching that led to the AIDS epideimc not the Catholic message per se. However my alternative view to your polemic and argument would be pointless as you are beyond persuassion hence the quote of
i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE
EDIT: must type faster not get distracted by works now looks like i plagarised poster above 😳

Why do you find Mother T execrable, out of curiosity. Surely she did a lot of good for people?

The argument put far more eloquently than I could manage here:

I reccommend you watch all 3 sections.

the Pope advocated abstinence

As Stephen Fry described him – one of a "bunch of sinister, hysterical virgins". Where is the need for abstinence. Just use condoms. It's that simple. Given that it's that simple – why doesn't Ratzinger want people to have sex with each other – as if it's any of his business anyway to say "do this, don't do that"…

Arguments for and against the existence of god, jesus, and the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document aren't difficult to find, if you choose to look for them. I'm surprised you haven't tried, if only to refute them.

Again – more detail than I can bring to hand from memory:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Well worth a read – for the glaringly obvious evidence for the "gospels" themselves being fictional, also.

Enjoy.

the Pope advocated abstinence, which would have been at least as effective as condoms at controlling the spread of the disease.

ironic given the priesthood's reaction to exactly the same strictures 🙁 Abstinence is effective, however people are not designed, either by god(s) or nature, to practice it.

Just use condoms. It's that simple.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

why doesn't Ratzinger want people to have sex with each other

You really dont know the answer to this? His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god…

I am fairly content that a jewish prophet called Jesus existed. That does not give any credence to the existence of a god. That one religious maniac persuaded others to follow him is no proof of the existence of god at all – especially given that Mohammed came along later and split a bunch of people off that faith.

Jesus however would more than likely been short, dark skinned and looking rather like the Arab he was – not a tall nordic blond as he is usually depicted

What does the Bible say about poverty?

Also:

Any type of upbringing is brainwashing. Surely you could argue any ideas you put in the mind of a child could be viewed as evil ?

Only if you assert that any idea is the absolute truth.

Junkyard – Member

it means your view is so extreme blah blah blah…
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE

A fine example of the misrepresentation I mentioned from the hysterical religious types on here.

Nowhere have I said that I hold religious people in contempt. That is simply not true and I request that you acknowledge this and retract your accusation.

It is true that I hold religion in contempt. So what? I repeat – if I am a Chelsea fan who holds Manchester United in contempt, would you be raising such a fuss? Of course not. Why should religion be any different? Although at least footbal is about something real…

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

However my alternative view to your polemic and argument would be pointless as you are beyond persuassion

Not so. I am always persuaded by cogent argument. Evidence: the recent thread re: Israel.

i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible

Despite your attempt to correct what you think may be my poor eyesight, this still does not make any sense. Perhaps you need to learn punctuation?

however people are not designed, either by god(s) or nature,

Or by anything else.

It's a crane, not a skyhook.

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

But the catholic church was formed before condoms, are you suggesting the problem is they have nt moved on with the times ? Or the original teaching was wrong ? Are you suggesting before contraception their teaching was correct ?

I love these ones, round and round we go.

It's not true, the god thing.

What I don't get is when the victim of some catastrophe says "with gods help we will get through this", the same god who caused the catastrophe in the first place one assumes..

FFS…

9/11. Good people will usually do good things. Bad people will usually do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

WTF makes you think these people were "good"?

His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god…

The one written by "ignorant sheepherds"?
I have nothing against people with religion, I hope that it helps them with their lives I just find some of the teachings a bit well, dogsh1t. I never knew that all catholics are homophobic. But as Barnsleymitch said, live and let live hey?

Thread summary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

But the catholic church was formed before condoms

And Aids

WTF makes you think these people were "good"?

The perpetrators of 9/11 became the people they were, who did the things they did, by the influence of Wahabbi-ist Islam.

EDIT: must type faster not get distracted by works now looks like i plagarised poster above

Don't worry about it, at least you admitted it, unlike others who could at least be polite enough to reference the writers who they are plagiarising.

"His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god… "

I dont know why people find this teaching so strange. Say you were not religious but you were a 6th BC official at a court of a small kingdom. You want to create a stable society you might suggest people should get married, only have sex inside of marriage and then raise their offspring together.

Now say you were a twenty first century politician you might come up with something like this
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Family.aspx
Which is not far off the same thing.

People cant seems to remember that only 50 ish years ago sex was directly linked to child birth + sexually transmitted diseases.

Well I don't see why we need 'marriage' anyway.

but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion

Rubbish. All it takes is someone more persuasive. History should tell you that.

Value judgement based, as far as I can tell, on projection.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to. Textual communication is a delicate skill that is hard to master; you need practice. Unless you WANT to hack people off. Cos you are.

Would you complain if I was discussing the merits of various football teams? Of course not. Why should religion demand special consideration?

Comparing football to religion is fatuous in the extreme mate. Seriously, that is fairly obvious. How many people would die for their team? How many wars are fought over football? Stupid argument, stop using it please.

On the contrary, they are generally obfuscatory, snide, resentful, misrepresentative and sneeringly rude. But that really doesn't bother me.

Barnsleymitch is coming over as a decent bloke, he's really not trying to tear your belief system to pieces like you seem to be doing to him.

The burden of proof rests with the proposer, not the opposer

In law, yes. In this – no. Neither is provable; the only possible conclusion is that you are allowed to believe what you want.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

Listen – I am not trying to persuade you to be a Christian. I am an atheist. I am however trying to persuade you to understand that your world view is no different to that of a religious person. They follow the ideas of a group of people interpreted through their own personalities – so do you. So you are being as bad as any religious fundamentalist. You believe you are right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

Hahaha.. yeah right. Hormones, what are they then?

Two people who want to have sex together are pefectly entitled to do so, in whatever way they want, and also to use contraception to prevent 1: childbirth as a result and 2: sexually transmitted diseases. Which would be wise.

Progress beyond Victoria.

The book of genesis is a myth tale written by ignorant Bronze-age sheepherders.

In fairness, they must have been pretty bright Bronze-age sheepherders as they could write a whole book.
I've seen plenty of Internet-age people who can't even write an ebay ad.

Two people who want to have sex together are pefectly entitled to do so

Says you…

I've just had this funny imagine of Mr Whoppit and BarnsleyMitch being born in the late Roman Empire.

I could imagine "Mr Whoppit" becoming a Christian after he realised the ignorant Pagans MUST be wrong I mean HOW can there be more than ONE god ???? I mean all the latest cleverest people are Christian its just stupid old timers who are Pagan cant they see they are doing soo much damage allowing people to get divorced think of the children !

While BarnsleyMitch would probably stay a Pagan saying the old ways also have value. He'd then probably get burned to death by Mr Whoppit for being a heretic !

Now that would be ironic 🙂

Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious – I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist – It doesnt take much on here, does it?

The perpetrators of 9/11 became the people they were, who did the things they did, by the influence of Wahabbi-ist Islam.

Just spotted this.

It obviously was NOT Islam that made them do what they did. They presumably felt upset about something and interpreted Islamic ideas through their anger and resentment. Or more likely, they were used by some more persuasive person to do their bidding. Through Islam.

The only difference between Islamic terrorism and non-islamic is that in the non-islamic case the perpetrators often don't end up killing themselves.

And there is a lot of non-islamic terrorism about. What does that tell you?