[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Click170 

This is an internet forum. As far as I recall, the only prerequisites to participating in this debate was providing my email address, a login name, and a password. I didn't see any mention of a "Philosophy 101" prerequisite anywhere, not even in the General Forum Rules section.. can you point it out to me?

At the risk of an infract, I'll educate you.

Most participants in this forum are extremely well versed in their subjects and extremely intelligent. What you've done here is to walk into a university with a high school debate under your arm. You appear, to my eyes at least, to be way below the game level. You're going to need to level up fast if you want to hang without being hit with a smackdown on a regular basis.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Click170 

You show me a single person on here (or anywhere for that matter) that claims they know absolutely everything there is to know about one of the large religions, and I'll show you someone who's full of shit.
I happily admit that I don't know everything about any one subject but I'm willing to learn more, and if you've got a problem with that then well I bet you had a pretty tough time getting through school.

That's disingenuous. The problem isn't your lack of knowledge, it's your aggressive condemnation based on your lack of knowledge. You're not expected to be an expert on anything, but you are expected to not make yourself a pest on topics you know you're not an expert on.

[Click170]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

At the risk of an infract, I'll educate you.

Most participants in this forum are extremely well versed in their subjects and extremely intelligent. What you've done here is to walk into a university with a high school debate under your arm. You appear, to my eyes at least, to be way below the game level. You're going to need to level up fast if you want to hang without being hit with a smackdown on a regular basis.

That's rich, coming from someone who won't present references to prove his own points.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Click170 

That's rich, coming from someone who won't present references to prove his own points.

MacNN Forums - Announcements in Forum : Political/War Lounge

General Forum Rules
Step 1: Search and Research

It's already in this forum somewhere. Go look for it.

[stumblinmike]

I like this Click170 cat, he/she is a breath of fresh air...My moneys on him/her...

[Click170]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you saying we should ignore the good things because of the sex abuse? Here's a novel idea, why don't you not ignore anything? :gasp:

No, I'm saying the good (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless) is outweighed by the negative (abuse of power for the purpose of sexually exploiting those who trust them, causing pain in families around the world by discriminating against homosexuals, condemning people to death by instructing them and their partners not to use condoms even when it might save their partner from contracting HIV [see Africa]).
It's pretty subjective though, apparently.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What's more striking is that you think "free software" is in the same league as feeding the hungry to the homeless. But really, it's not that you can't think of anything comparable, it's just that you can't think of anything comparable that holds up to your unrealistic standards. If that's what you mean by "loaded," then guilty as charged, because that was exactly my point.

Maybe you misread my post, but I did state that I did not think that they were comparable, and I stated why I thought that.
If you can think of something comparable, present it.

That is what you asked me to do, find a comparable organization that lived up to my standards. It's not my problem if you consider my standards unrealistic, I certainly don't. And as I've already said, I don't think that they are comparable, and I've stated why. Somehow I get the feeling that your going to ignore that part though.

[Click170]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's disingenuous. The problem isn't your lack of knowledge, it's your aggressive condemnation based on your lack of knowledge. You're not expected to be an expert on anything, but you are expected to not make yourself a pest on topics you know you're not an expert on.

You quote me saying I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong as if it's proof that I am.
I'm not condemning them based on a lack of knowledge, though I can see why you would claim that. I'm saying that based on the things I already know. Thing is, your just waving your hands in the air saying I'm wrong, your not actually presenting anything to show why I'm wrong.

If you consider asking for information on something that your being told you don't know enough about to be 'being a pest', then why are you participating in a forum on the internet?
I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong, but so far you haven't presented any convincing evidence, all you've done is wave your hands around claiming that I am wrong.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you saying we should ignore the good things because of the sex abuse? Here's a novel idea, why don't you not ignore anything? :gasp:

Does a Judge let a pedophile go because for the last 30 years he gave to the community and helped thousands of people? I mean lets weigh this a bit, only 5 or 6 kids got molested. Only 5 or 6 lives ruined for life. The 300 people that have been helped surely out weigh this. I mean seriously the good of the many out weigh the bad to the few.

The message you give

ITS OK TO ABUSE A FEW OF THESE AS LONG AS YOU DO GOOD AND HELP HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE. ITS OK.

I call BS. Negative actions will always out weigh the good period.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

At the risk of an infract, I'll educate you.

Most participants in this forum are extremely well versed in their subjects and extremely intelligent. What you've done here is to walk into a university with a high school debate under your arm. You appear, to my eyes at least, to be way below the game level. You're going to need to level up fast if you want to hang without being hit with a smackdown on a regular basis.

At least he is leveling up, how many years have you been stagnating at base level

At the risk of my own infract, sometimes 2 wrongs do make a right

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's disingenuous. The problem isn't your lack of knowledge, it's your aggressive condemnation based on your lack of knowledge. You're not expected to be an expert on anything, but you are expected to not make yourself a pest on topics you know you're not an expert on.

So complete and total acceptance is better?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Click170 

Maybe you misread my post, but I did state that I did not think that they were comparable, and I stated why I thought that.
If you can think of something comparable, present it.

Any national government would be comparable. Or international "government" (like the UN). Any other organized world religion. The Catholic Church is not unique, and it's certainly not the only organization that has members that are pedophiles. Even the Boy Scouts would be comparable; they certainly have an image problem, pedophilia-wise. Do you think the Boy Scouts do more harm than good, all told?

What is your actionable argument anyway? What do you propose should be done based on your conclusion?

It's not my problem if you consider my standards unrealistic

No, but you will have a problem in not too long if your standards actually are unrealistic. You can't live in your own fantasy land forever.

Originally Posted by Click170 

You quote me saying I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong as if it's proof that I am.

That's rich. Here's your own words:

Originally Posted by Click170 

Ok, granted, The Vatican doesn't represent Christianity. I got that part wrong.

Backpedal much?

[Hawkeye_a]

lpkmckenna,
I'm a Catholic. And in my personal opinion most of the thinly veiled insults at the Catholic Church's dogma and the man-made institution/organization is just a way to try and justify laxer laws and different(possibly more convenient) interpretations of those laws. Would you agree ?

On your remark on the Catholic church selling it's art and resources to feed the poor.... i never thought of it your way, and i do agree with you. But i have to admit that i have some fundamental questions/issues with the effectiveness of charity, but that's another discussion.

On Topic:
Nothing is perfect, not even man's religion/institutions. Every one is flawed. Do a relative comparison of different religions and their benefit to their societies. Many of the modern world's laws are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs (possibly due to the democratic process of ratifying laws), If you do not see value or good in the laws of predominantly Christian countries, i suggest one present a different religion which has done more good via it's influence(direct or indirect) on the societies which follow them.

Cheers

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Are you saying we should ignore the good things because of the sex abuse? Here's a novel idea, why don't you not ignore anything? :gasp:

Does a Judge let a pedophile go because for the last 30 years he gave to the community and helped thousands of people?

Oh jesus*, try reading it again. I bolded the part that makes you look foolish.

BTW, Judges do consider mitigating factors when determining punishment. It's not "let them go," because that would be black-or-white, and you and Click170 are the only people trying to cast the world as black-or-white.
*does this count as a pun just because it's in a thread about christianity?

I mean lets weigh this a bit, only 5 or 6 kids got molested. Only 5 or 6 lives ruined for life. The 300 people that have been helped surely out weigh this. I mean seriously the good of the many out weigh the bad to the few.

Ok, let's weight this a bit, only 5 or 6 priests were molesters. Only 5 or 6 individuals are damnable villains. The 300 other innocent do-gooders who have devoted their entire lives to the service of the needy, they should all be lumped together with the pedos right? I mean, we are incapable of taking the time to identify individuals, so we have no choice but to cast the widest possible net and decide all Catholics are guilty until proven innocent. No wait, that's not a wide enough net! All Christians! Why not all Deists? Why not all humans? Heck, why not all mammals, or all animals? The only fair way to punish the guilty is by eradicating all carbon-based life. Right Athens?

Ok, back to reality. You do realize the children were Christians too right? (Catholics even). Now see if you can follow this logic: the innocent kids would still be innocent if they weren't Catholic. AND.... the guilty child molesters would still be child molesters if they weren't Catholics either. If you stereotype all Christians based on the exceptional few monsters, you're blaming the victims for their own rapes!

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

ITS OK TO ABUSE A FEW OF THESE AS LONG AS YOU DO GOOD AND HELP HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE. ITS OK.

I call BS. Negative actions will always out weigh the good period.

Oh boy, you totally didn't read Mr. Skeleton's post. He's advocating looking at the WHOLE picture, not just the good or the bad.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, back to reality. You do realize the children were Christians too right? (Catholics even). Now see if you can follow this logic: the innocent kids would still be innocent if they weren't Catholic. AND.... the guilty child molesters would still be child molesters if they weren't Catholics either. If you stereotype all Christians based on the exceptional few monsters, you're blaming the victims for their own rapes!

Bingo. Meaning that, in the end, Christians are human after all.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Oh boy, you totally didn't read Mr. Skeleton's post. He's advocating looking at the WHOLE picture, not just the good or the bad.

Oh I did, I just had to make sure my point was very clear how I see it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh jesus*, try reading it again. I bolded the part that makes you look foolish.

BTW, Judges do consider mitigating factors when determining punishment. It's not "let them go," because that would be black-or-white, and you and Click170 are the only people trying to cast the world as black-or-white.
*does this count as a pun just because it's in a thread about christianity?


Ok, let's weight this a bit, only 5 or 6 priests were molesters. Only 5 or 6 individuals are damnable villains. The 300 other innocent do-gooders who have devoted their entire lives to the service of the needy, they should all be lumped together with the pedos right? I mean, we are incapable of taking the time to identify individuals, so we have no choice but to cast the widest possible net and decide all Catholics are guilty until proven innocent. No wait, that's not a wide enough net! All Christians! Why not all Deists? Why not all humans? Heck, why not all mammals, or all animals? The only fair way to punish the guilty is by eradicating all carbon-based life. Right Athens?

Ok, back to reality. You do realize the children were Christians too right? (Catholics even). Now see if you can follow this logic: the innocent kids would still be innocent if they weren't Catholic. AND.... the guilty child molesters would still be child molesters if they weren't Catholics either. If you stereotype all Christians based on the exceptional few monsters, you're blaming the victims for their own rapes!

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Oh boy, you totally didn't read Mr. Skeleton's post. He's advocating looking at the WHOLE picture, not just the good or the bad.

How many part of the coverup. They to become accessory after the fact. That makes those 5 - 6 balloon to much higher numbers. And like the CEO of a organization or in this case the Church, guy at the top is ultimately responsible and until held accountable its going continue to be a issue.


Its not the actions of the church followers, its the lack of actions from the Church itself.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Ok, back to reality. You do realize the children were Christians too right? (Catholics even). Now see if you can follow this logic: the innocent kids would still be innocent if they weren't Catholic. AND.... the guilty child molesters would still be child molesters if they weren't Catholics either. If you stereotype all Christians based on the exceptional few monsters, you're blaming the victims for their own rapes!

Well its not like the kids had a choice for being Christians. If anything im sure the experiences made them un-christian themselves quickly so no I don't see it as blaming them.

[Click170]

This was a tough one, well played sir.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Any national government would be comparable.

Objection.
Not ANY. Neither Canada nor the United States has been around for as long as the Christian religion. Britain has been around for quite some time now, but off the top of my head, I don't think they've got the same numbers as the church.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or international "government" (like the UN)

The UN hasn't been around for as long as the church either, though arguably, it does beat the numbers that the church has.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Any other organized world religion.

My mistake, I thought we were implicitly excluding the other world religions in that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The Catholic Church is not unique, and it's certainly not the only organization that has members that are pedophiles.

Granted, but we're not talking about other organizations, we're talking about the church. And I actually cited sources before pointing out that the church does have a higher rate of abuse than the general population.
Or would you care to refute that?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Even the Boy Scouts would be comparable; they certainly have an image problem, pedophilia-wise. Do you think the Boy Scouts do more harm than good, all told?

I'm really glad you brought up the Boy Scouts.
That's a tougher question, the Boy Scouts have done FAR fewer dark deeds than the church has, but then again they haven't been around for as long as the church has either. That said, they are not innocent.

The Boy Scouts actively discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to join, and continue that practice to this day. Their reasons are largely religious, and yet for some reason, they still receive tax benefits from the American government. Hows that for separation of church and state for you.

Furthermore, Boy Scouts in the states is beginning to turn into a very Mormon-esque institution.
The Mormon Curtain - BOY SCOUTS

No, I don't think the Boy Scouts have done more harm than good than good yet, given they don't have anything on the scale of The Crusades under their belt and haven't had the same time frame the church has.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What is your actionable argument anyway? What do you propose should be done based on your conclusion?

No actionable argument. Just enjoying the discussion/debate.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, but you will have a problem in not too long if your standards actually are unrealistic. You can't live in your own fantasy land forever.

I see what your saying, but I prefer to live by the motto "Be the change that you want to see in the world."
I really don't think its too uncommon for people to want large corporations and governments to _not_ be corrupt.
Did I misread or are you implying that is unrealistic?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's rich. Here's your own words:

Backpedal much?

Hehe. I was wondering if you'd catch that, had the feeling it would come back to bite me in the ass.
I wasn't sure if you would go through the ostensibly immense trouble of citing what I said just to prove your point or not.
Aaah, change is nice. I guess its just a matter of motivating you properly.

Sure, I've admitted that I was wrong on that one point. Are you going to dismiss everything else that I've said because I was demonstrably wrong on one point, and admitted to it?
Why did you quote me saying 'I'm willing to admit I was wrong' instead of just quoting me saying 'I was wrong' anyway?
A for effort, B for accuracy.

By the way, if you consider asking for information on something that your being told you don't know enough about to be 'being a pest', then why are you participating in a forum on the internet?

And if by 'backpedal', you mean learning that you were wrong, admitting to it, and correcting it, then sure. I backpedal all the time. I like how you tried to word it as if it is a bad thing.
Finding out your wrong and pushing on anyway is laughably indefensible.

[Click170]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Many of the modern world's laws are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs (possibly due to the democratic process of ratifying laws), If you do not see value or good in the laws of predominantly Christian countries, i suggest one present a different religion which has done more good via it's influence(direct or indirect) on the societies which follow them.

Just curious, but your not implying that morals such as don't kill come from the Judeo-Christian beliefs are you?
Because if you are, don't you think it's more likely that instead of there suddenly and magically being a set of morals, humanity already had a set or morals and that they were codified into the various religions as they were being born?

[Click170]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, let's weight this a bit, only 5 or 6 priests were molesters. Only 5 or 6 individuals are damnable villains.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that Pope Ratzinger himself is directly implicated with the sex abuse cover up, or are you just consistently forgetting it?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The 300 other innocent do-gooders who have devoted their entire lives to the service of the needy, they should all be lumped together with the pedos right?

Wrong.
But those evil ones need to be weeded out and prosecuted for their crimes, not hidden and shuffled around to hurt more children. And no, I don't care if one of the evil ones is the Pope himself, he needs to be tried and prosecuted if guilty. Granting the Pope immunity as George W Bush did was the wrong move.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I mean, we are incapable of taking the time to identify individuals, so we have no choice but to cast the widest possible net and decide all Catholics are guilty until proven innocent. No wait, that's not a wide enough net! All Christians! Why not all Deists? Why not all humans? Heck, why not all mammals, or all animals? The only fair way to punish the guilty is by eradicating all carbon-based life. Right Athens?

Ladies and gentlemen, Reductio ad absurdum.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, back to reality.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You do realize the children were Christians too right? (Catholics even). Now see if you can follow this logic: the innocent kids would still be innocent if they weren't Catholic. AND.... the guilty child molesters would still be child molesters if they weren't Catholics either.

This is true.
It's also true that many of those generous kind people who are attracted to the preachings of the church would still be kind and generous people if the church didn't exist.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Click170 

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that Pope Ratzinger himself is directly implicated with the sex abuse cover up, or are you just consistently forgetting it?

Its like how Religion selectively picks and choses which scientific discoveries and facts to support and which ones they don't. Sex abuse is selective too. Hide, Deep Hide, Pretend it never happened.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its not the actions of the church followers, its the lack of actions from the Church itself.

The church is the people. Without no people, there is no church.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Click170 

Objection.
Not ANY. Neither Canada nor the United States has been around for as long as the Christian religion. Britain has been around for quite some time now, but off the top of my head, I don't think they've got the same numbers as the church.

Yet they've already surpassed the Catholic church in corruption, per capita per annum. This supports my point, corruption is part of human nature, and no human institution is immune. You can't point out corruption as a flaw of any one human institution, because the institution is not the source of the corruption, human nature is. And it's your choice to count misdeeds cumulatively, instead of relatively. If you ignore the good and simply sum the bad going back through history, the team with the longest history will win. It doesn't inform us about their inherent worth. It's a lazy, immature analysis.

My mistake, I thought we were implicitly excluding the other world religions in that.

And which are "without sin?" None. It's an unrealistic yardstick.

Granted, but we're not talking about other organizations, we're talking about the church.

Because doing so is the only way for you to hold onto your childish, lazy, uninformative conclusion.

And I actually cited sources before pointing out that the church does have a higher rate of abuse than the general population.

Your source said "may," was not authoritative, and even if true it does not imply causation. Irrelevant.

I'm really glad you brought up the Boy Scouts.
That's a tougher question, the Boy Scouts have done FAR fewer dark deeds than the church has, but then again they haven't been around for as long as the church has either. That said, they are not innocent.

No, I don't think the Boy Scouts have done more harm than good than good yet, given they don't have anything on the scale of The Crusades under their belt and haven't had the same time frame the church has.

The scale of both good and bad is smaller. Your reluctance to balance a smaller "bad" against a smaller "good" betrays a double-standard.

You are simply choosing to ignore the good and focus only on the bad. I say again, stop ignoring either. The inability to consider both sides without ignoring one is a sign of a feeble mind.

No actionable argument. Just enjoying the discussion/debate.

I see what your saying, but I prefer to live by the motto "Be the change that you want to see in the world."

These two (consecutive) sentences are contradictory.

Hehe. I was wondering if you'd catch that, had the feeling it would come back to bite me in the ass.

Do you or do you not know what "protestants" are? This is important. It's not semantics. If you're nearly 500 years(!) out of date, that is a serious problem.
And by the way, it also bothers me that you don't use "you're" correctly. "You're" really not coming off in an intelligent manner.

Sure, I've admitted that I was wrong on that one point. Are you going to dismiss everything else that I've said because I was demonstrably wrong on one point, and admitted to it?

Admitting that the crux of your (abrasive) accusation was in err while failing to withdraw the accusation itself, even continuing to perpetuate it, is not something to brag about.

By the way, if you consider asking for information on something that your being told you don't know enough about to be 'being a pest', then why are you participating in a forum on the internet?

Amending your accusation with the new information (s/Christian/Catholic/) would be a start
Ceasing to repeat your error in future posts would be a start
Apologizing to the people you erroneously accused would be a start

But you haven't done any of these, in fact you do the opposite. That's a pest, plain and simple. You even admit you are trying to get a rise out of people, that's what we call a troll.

And if by 'backpedal', you mean learning that you were wrong, admitting to it, and correcting it

Hold it right there, son. What correction? I've checked the thread again, and I see no correction.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Well its not like the kids had a choice for being Christians. If anything im sure the experiences made them un-christian themselves quickly so no I don't see it as blaming them.

Reaching. "If anything?" "Im sure"<sic>? Be honest, you have no idea. Is it so hard for you to treat individuals as individuals? You're being a religious bigot.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The church is the people. Without no people, there is no church.

I see the Church followers as customers, not the actual people running the Church. Like a Business, the guy behind the counter serving customers food is part of the business but the customer buying the burger is just a customer. So I stand by my statement, I don't blame the followers but I do blame the Church itself, the people who are authorized to speak on behalf of the church, to do things for the church, the ones that run and control the church.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yet they've already surpassed the Catholic church in corruption, per capita per annum. This supports my point, corruption is part of human nature, and no human institution is immune. You can't point out corruption as a flaw of any one human institution, because the institution is not the source of the corruption, human nature is. And it's your choice to count misdeeds cumulatively, instead of relatively. If you ignore the good and simply sum the bad going back through history, the team with the longest history will win. It doesn't inform us about their inherent worth. It's a lazy, immature analysis.

So you agree the Church is a human institution and like all human institutions has serious human flaws. Where does God and the greater power come in to play with the Church. Is it really a house of god who has had no hand in erecting it, decorating it, operating it or is it a house of man who has erected it, decorated it, operates it and occasionally because of flaws in human nature have erections in it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I see the Church followers as customers, not the actual people running the Church. Like a Business, the guy behind the counter serving customers food is part of the business but the customer buying the burger is just a customer. So I stand by my statement, I don't blame the followers but I do blame the Church itself, the people who are authorized to speak on behalf of the church, to do things for the church, the ones that run and control the church.

I'm confused. Did you change your mind since writing this?

"Any religion is what its followers make it out to be. Sadly any religion is easily corrupted for those same reasons."

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm confused. Did you change your mind since writing this?

"Any religion is what its followers make it out to be. Sadly any religion is easily corrupted for those same reasons."

Nope, I stand by that statement.

The Church is part of the religion, it is not the religion itself. The Church can be held accountable separately from the religion.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

So you agree the Church is a human institution and like all human institutions has serious human flaws. Where does God and the greater power come in to play with the Church. Is it really a house of god who has had no hand in erecting it, decorating it, operating it or is it a house of man who has erected it, decorated it, operates it and occasionally because of flaws in human nature have erections in it.

Zing! Good one

But seriously, is any of that relevant? Are you going to try to say the "good" of the church doesn't matter because the "good" is due to legitimate divine intervention, and all the church can take credit for is the "bad?" That's the only way I can see your question mattering to the thread, but it doesn't hold up well (if the church is God's preferred vehicle then we have to take it or leave it).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Nope, I stand by that statement.

The Church is part of the religion, it is not the religion itself. The Church can be held accountable separately from the religion.

In that case you (and Click170 both) have been frustratingly ambiguous in the target of your condemnation. What precisely are you against? Christians? Catholics? Clergy? Or Catholic clergy? Or specifically individuals who do bad things?

For that matter, what precisely are you for?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yet they've already surpassed the Catholic church in corruption, per capita per annum. This supports my point, corruption is part of human nature, and no human institution is immune. You can't point out corruption as a flaw of any one human institution, because the institution is not the source of the corruption, human nature is. And it's your choice to count misdeeds cumulatively, instead of relatively. If you ignore the good and simply sum the bad going back through history, the team with the longest history will win. It doesn't inform us about their inherent worth. It's a lazy, immature analysis.

!!

I thought sure this would be the thread's closing statement. meh

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I see the Church followers as customers, not the actual people running the Church. Like a Business, the guy behind the counter serving customers food is part of the business but the customer buying the burger is just a customer. So I stand by my statement, I don't blame the followers but I do blame the Church itself, the people who are authorized to speak on behalf of the church, to do things for the church, the ones that run and control the church.

Then your definition of the church is completely different than what the church is. The church is made up of followers of Christ. Whether you're the pastor or a new Christian, it makes no difference, you're a part of the church, and you're responsible for the actions of the church. The leadership of the church comes from within. It is absolutely not like a business. A business hires from the outside; you'll never see a church pick a pastor because he is a good scientologist businessman.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Zing! Good one

But seriously, is any of that relevant? Are you going to try to say the "good" of the church doesn't matter because the "good" is due to legitimate divine intervention, and all the church can take credit for is the "bad?" That's the only way I can see your question mattering to the thread, but it doesn't hold up well (if the church is God's preferred vehicle then we have to take it or leave it).

Bad things always over shadows good things. It does not make the good things less relevant, it does not discount them either. But Bad things will over shadow it. Its not the act that is the problem. All organizations have bad apples. The bad apples on there own do not define a organization nor should it. But how a organization responds to it, and deals with it does define a organization. The organization has 3 options.

One, ignore it.
Two, Actively condemn it, take measures to prevent it. Hold those involved accountable. Apologize to those that it matters. Take care of the wellbeing of those affected.
Three, is to attempt to down play it, cover it up, hide as much as possible, protect the organizations image. Discredit the claims and in doing so re-victimize the victims again.

Those 3 options define a organization. The people that did those acts define themselves. I stand by my assertion that the Church, the Organization through option 1 and option 3 has defined itself in the bad light it has in response to those that committed those terrible acts which defined those individuals.

What is your opinion of current Iran, Historical Nazi Germany and current North Korea? Short simple answer nothing drawn out. I have a point to make after I see your answer to those.

[imitchellg5]

Bait much?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In that case you (and Click170 both) have been frustratingly ambiguous in the target of your condemnation. What precisely are you against? Christians? Catholics? Clergy? Or Catholic clergy? Or specifically individuals who do bad things?

For that matter, what precisely are you for?

Im biased, I don't like religion. All religions. And I freely admit that. I hold all religions in contempt, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, all of them.

Issue one, no one has a real choice to religion. Children are indoctrinated from birth. Some choose to not be religious later in life, especially from homes that are not very religious. Some don't get introduced to it as kids because parents are not religious. But the majority of people who are religious it was because the family was religious. Very few people who are not religious at all will go and explore a religion and pick one and become religious. Some will question there religion and even join a different religion but generally those people who question and switch religions are not being spontaneous either but being indoctrinated by a spouse a friend or a cause.

Issue two, religion feeds off of emotional vulnerability. It is human nature to belong. We desire to belong to a group that we can define ourselves. Through clubs, sports, the friends we choose to spend our time with. religion builds upon a natural desire.

Issue three, its a form of control and power

Issue four, it is disruptive

Issue five, its ideologically based. Choices are not made because of proof and science or reason but because of ideologies. Example, medically speaking a safe injection house for drug addicts make sense. 1, it keeps them from doing it on the streets. They have access to immediate medical help. 2, its cleaner and reduces risk of complications like infections. 3, keeps the needles off the streets so non drug users are not harmed, 4 Prevents the spread of HIV and other sicknesses, 5 Puts users in arms reach of assistance. But NONE of that matters because drug use is bad as a ideologies. So scientific fact, and sound reasoning are discounted and continued harm is preferred to harm reduction because it conflicts with it.

Issue Six, accountability, there is none

Issue Seven, Free Thinking is discouraged, and even dangerous. Idea's are dangerous when not controlled.

Issue Eight, Its a excuse, It makes it ok because my faith says its ok.

Issue Nine, Its out right Fraud, in any other aspects of society if what is being sold can't be delivered, or verified then its fraud, and religion is the biggest and longest lasting fraud ever created.

Prove me wrong on those 9 points.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Bait much?

[imitchellg5]

Pro tip: Everything you just described applies to atheism as well.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Then your definition of the church is completely different than what the church is. The church is made up of followers of Christ. Whether you're the pastor or a new Christian, it makes no difference, you're a part of the church, and you're responsible for the actions of the church. The leadership of the church comes from within. It is absolutely not like a business. A business hires from the outside; you'll never see a church pick a pastor because he is a good scientologist businessman.

That is totally untrue. Pastors can be fired

Worship Pastor fired for not being “cool” enough | “A Little Foolishness”

And for the same reasons a business fires some one. It is in the best interest that the church grows and will seek out pastors that will full fill that growth. A empty church is basically a failed business. Religion does not need the church. The Church needs the religion. If you went on a 4 week camping, hiking out door's trip for the summer. Are you no longer religious until you return to your church at the end of it? Religion is in the head, the mind. It does not need any tangible physical object to be. Its a idea not a building.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Pro tip: Everything you just described applies to atheism as well.

And that Matters how.. I did say all of them didn't I.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Click170 

No, I'm saying the good (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless) is outweighed by the negative (abuse of power for the purpose of sexually exploiting those who trust them, causing pain in families around the world by discriminating against homosexuals, condemning people to death by instructing them and their partners not to use condoms even when it might save their partner from contracting HIV [see Africa]).
It's pretty subjective though, apparently.

They never condemned anyone to death by ordering them to not wear a condom. You make it sound like the Pope declared "go forth and ****". The actuality is that they said not to do so, don't have sex outside of marriage and control your urges. As a Roman Catholic atheist, I myself, being something of a man-slut, decided common sense prevailed over the dictates of an organization I belong to as a matter of culture and heritage (I'm a Catholic from the North of Ireland) rather than faith. If your faith in the... faith is so strong that you are going to honor the moratorium on rubbers, the reality is you shouldn't be needing them.

As for the diddling:
"The Wisconsin Psychological Association's survey found offenders distributed among the following professions: Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%."

So by your logic, the psychiatric field, which comes in at a whopping 66% of offenders between psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, is about the most heinous field of professional endeavor. Do you think that the benefits that come from psychiatric care don't outweigh the evil a small number of shrinks have perpetrated crimes against children?

And can we stop acting like the crusades are relevant. Outside of historical interest, I don't see how what happened in the 13th century has any bearing on anything being discussed. It's ancient history, and it doesn't mean a damn thing in the modern context. Worse horrors have been perpetrated in our lifetimes, let alone the last century.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

They never condemned anyone to death by ordering them to not wear a condom. You make it sound like the Pope declared "go forth and ****". The actuality is that they said not to do so, don't have sex outside of marriage and control your urges. As a Roman Catholic atheist, I myself, being something of a man-slut, decided common sense prevailed over the dictates of an organization I belong to as a matter of culture and heritage (I'm a Catholic from the North of Ireland) rather than faith. If your faith in the... faith is so strong that you are going to honor the moratorium on rubbers, the reality is you shouldn't be needing them.

So Religion tells you not to use a condom, but critical thinking says you should. What does that tell you about Religion. Does it mean on that topic religion is wrong? If it can be wrong about that, what else is it wrong about.

So by your logic, the psychiatric field, which comes in at a whopping 66% of offenders between psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, is about the most heinous field of professional endeavor. Do you think that the benefits that come from psychiatric care don't outweigh the evil a small number of shrinks have perpetrated crimes against children?

LOL Im totally against shrinks to, but can you let me know how the Pope of Shrinkage handled the scandal.

And can we stop acting like the crusades are relevant. Outside of historical interest, I don't see how what happened in the 13th century has any bearing on anything being discussed. It's ancient history, and it doesn't mean a damn thing in the modern context. Worse horrors have been perpetrated in our lifetimes, let alone the last century.

Sure history does not repeat?



Christian leader sends forth Christian army to occupy the lands of Muslims. Replace wood sailing ships with Metallic Air Craft carriers, replace spears with M16 machine guns.

Seems like the Tit for Tat between religious based conflicts are still current.



Leads to




Leads to

(Stay Tuned)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Sure history does not repeat?



Christian leader sends forth Christian army to occupy the lands of Muslims. Replace wood sailing ships with Metallic Air Craft carriers, replace spears with M16 machine guns.

Seems like the Tit for Tat between religious based conflicts are still current.



Leads to




Leads to

(Stay Tuned)

See? SEE? It happens again and again, Pope or no Pope.

[Athens]

No Pope? When did we go Pope free.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

That is totally untrue. Pastors can be fired

Worship Pastor fired for not being “cool” enough | “A Little Foolishness”

And for the same reasons a business fires some one. It is in the best interest that the church grows and will seek out pastors that will full fill that growth. A empty church is basically a failed business. Religion does not need the church. The Church needs the religion. If you went on a 4 week camping, hiking out door's trip for the summer. Are you no longer religious until you return to your church at the end of it? Religion is in the head, the mind. It does not need any tangible physical object to be. Its a idea not a building.

I never said a pastor couldn't be fired, now did I? Religion doesn't need the church? I think you need to study the role of the church and Christianity a bit more. And yes, you're correct, the church is not a building. The church is the body of Christ. Regardless of whether or not you attend church in a building, you're part of the church.

And good job linking to a blog post with the tags "could be true" and "satire."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No Pope? When did we go Pope free.

Did the Pope send us to Iraq? Unless you are claiming that the Pope led us into Iraq or Afghanistan, you just lampooned your own argument.

Just FYI, Protestants are the "default" Christians in the USA, and they don't obey the Pope. It was actually something of an issue in 1960 when Kennedy became the country's only non-protestant president, before or since.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Christian leader sends forth Christian army to occupy the lands of Muslims. Replace wood sailing ships with Metallic Air Craft carriers, replace spears with M16 machine guns.

Not sure what you're on, but it must be the good stuff. Nothing about the United States Army is Christian, and there were plenty of battleships and machine guns in the Middle East before 9/11.

[ebuddy]

To Athens:

[edited to illustrate the inherent lack of reason in the post - grammatical errors and disconnected thought-processes left intact to illustrate the intellectual prowess of the mind behind the rant]

Im biased, I don't like bigots. All bigots. And I freely admit that. I hold all bigots in contempt, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Atheists, all of them.

Issue one, no one has a real choice to bigotry. Children are indoctrinated from birth. Some choose to not be bigots later in life, especially from homes that are not very bigoted. Some don't get introduced to it as kids because parents are not bigoted. But the majority of people who are bigots it was because the family was bigoted. Very few people who are not bigots at all will go and explore bigotry and pick one group to hate and become bigoted. Some will question there bigotry and even pick a different group to hate but generally those people who question and switch hate groups are not being spontaneous either but being indoctrinated by a spouse a friend or a cause.

Issue two, bigotry feeds off of ignorance and fear. This type of person might rail on the injustice of people not knowing the English language while butchering it to such a degree as to leave it almost unreadable. Anyway, it is human nature to elevate one's self by bringing others down. It feeds a desire to feel superior. We desire to belong to a group that we can define ourselves. Through clubs, sports, the friends we choose to spend our time with. bigotry builds upon a natural desire to elevate one's self.

Issue three, its a form of control and power. It abuses science to arrive at the kind of reason that would render a sect of people in gas chambers for being biologically inferior.

Issue four, it is disruptive

Issue five, its ideologically based. Choices are not made because of proof and science or reason but because of bigotry. Example, medically speaking an abortion is detrimental to a woman's mental and physical health. 1, it spawns the development of nodules less resistant to carcinogens, statistically leaving them more prone to breast cancer. 2, National statistics on abortion show that 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth were considered major. 3, more prone to cervical incompetence and related miscarriages 4, women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an unintended first pregnancy to term. But NONE of that enters the discussion because these are all the arguments of religious zealots and whackos. So scientific fact, and sound reasoning are discounted and continued harm is preferred to harm reduction because it conflicts with it.

Issue Six, accountability, there is none

Issue Seven, Free Thinking is discouraged, and even dangerous. Idea's are dangerous when not controlled.

Issue Eight, Its a excuse, It makes it ok because... well, they really do suck.

Issue Nine, Its out right Fraud, in any other aspects of society if what is being sold can't be delivered, or verified then its fraud, and religion is the biggest and longest lasting fraud ever created.

This fraud has led to the first institutions of higher education in the US, with undeniable contributions to science, medicine and health care, the arts, architecture, long-term respite care, Democracy, missions work, the lion's share of charity both domestic and international, etc... Why? Because these are the capabilities of mankind which encompass everything from incredible compassion to abject cruelty. These things are not exclusive to those of faith, but are immutable aspects of human nature itself.

An atheist may believe that religion is merely a human construct, but for whatever reason must remove the human element when it is expedient for the indictments against faith. There is no philosophy, ideology, or aspect of human reason including the sciences; that cannot be a catalyst for oppression, control, power, and dominion.

Prove me wrong on those 9 points.

In every one of the 9 points you've cited against religion, tenets of that faith were abandoned to perpetuate them. Every one.

It's not about proving whether or not you're wrong. You started the entire, grammatically incorrect rant with the simple fact that you dislike religion. If you can't see how this presupposition taints every notion thereafter, you are beyond any hope of reason; scientific or otherwise.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Athens 

So Religion tells you not to use a condom, but critical thinking says you should. What does that tell you about Religion. Does it mean on that topic religion is wrong? If it can be wrong about that, what else is it wrong about.

I think there are a great many topics on which religion is wrong. I don't think that makes religion necessarily bad, i just think it's disingenuous to blame everything on religion. There many stances supported by a great many groups that I don't think make sense. That doesn't mean I think they are a threat to peace and prosperity. And is it wrong? If you practice abstinence, are you going to get HIV from a sexual encounter? Not so much. They said contraception is against the teaching of the church. If you don't want to catch a deadly disease, here is this other rule over here that will help you accomplish that goal- keep it in your pants. Do I think I'm going to hell because I bang a ridiculous number of chicks, all while wearing a condom? No, because I'm an atheist, and I don't care if anyone thinks I'm going to the land of make believe when I die just because I'm a sexual deviant. Not my problem (for the record, I don't disparage anyone's faith, unless they come ringing my door bell. Believe what you want, I don't care, just leave me alone, and that goes for other atheists as well).

LOL Im totally against shrinks to, but can you let me know how the Pope of Shrinkage handled the scandal.

From the point of view of someone that has worked in mental health for a long time, I can tell you that there is a lot of suffering shrinks help alleviate. Despite what Tom Cruise has to say, psychiatry provides some bit of respite for people that go thought things that neither you or I could ever imagine. But that's neither her nor there. So, no, no pope of psychiatry calling the shots on a cover up. But there are people like hospital administrators that will go to great pains to cover this stuff up. I tell you that with all certainly, because for over a decade I was the guy that would have to do the investigation. There has been far more sexual abuse in healthcare facilities than you will ever read about in the paper.

Sure history does not repeat?


Christian leader sends forth Christian army to occupy the lands of Muslims. Replace wood sailing ships with Metallic Air Craft carriers, replace spears with M16 machine guns.

All I keep hearing about is how the US isn't a Christian nation. Now suddenly it is, and this is the new crusade? Please. The only similarity is that one side is completely muslim. These aren't Christian soldiers marching into the middle east to reclaim the holy land under the banner of the Holy See. It's just a war, like any other. People kill other people for the same reasons they always have. Greed, power, delusions of grandeur, the list goes on and on. You do realize that for a good long while, the vatican has been decidedly anti-war, don't you? And anti-death penalty? Realms that liberal atheists like to claim as their own so the can proclaim the church (when I say "the church", I'm referring to the catholic church. We won't even get into what the heretics believe, because I wasn't raised Protestant and don't know).

I watched my father, a provo, get shot dead on the street by one of thatcher's hired proddy goons. Do I hate protestants because of it? No, because there hasn't been a "religious war" in a long, long time that was actually about religion. If I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I get a bunch of other pastafarians together and lead a crusade against the scientologists, is it because of my fundamental difference in belief with there teachings, or is it because I want their shit? More than likely, it's about gain, not belief. Or maybe just because scientologists are annoying. It certainly wouldn't be about faith. It never is. And I doubt it was in the 13th century either. Maybe, people were a bit more superstitious in those days, but I'm pretty sure if Pope Benny called for a crusade against the muslims, r pretty much anyone else for that matter, catholics the world over would scratch their heads, say wtf?, and go about there business as always.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I never said a pastor couldn't be fired, now did I? Religion doesn't need the church? I think you need to study the role of the church and Christianity a bit more. And yes, you're correct, the church is not a building. The church is the body of Christ. Regardless of whether or not you attend church in a building, you're part of the church.

And good job linking to a blog post with the tags "could be true" and "satire."

What came first, the Church or the Religion