Someone explain how.....

LFCFan

.....2 Bishops can be Excommunicated from the Church for performing an unapproved ordination yet hundreds of priests can sexually abuse children and still be a part of the Church????

Zombrex

LFCFan wrote:

.....2 Bishops can be Excommunicated from the Church for performing an unapproved ordination yet hundreds of priests can sexually abuse children and still be a part of the Church????

Because sexually abusing childern isn't heresy, and therefore not a reason to excommunicate someone from the church

LFCFan

Wicknight wrote:

Because sexually abusing childern isn't heresy, and therefore not a reason to excommunicate someone from the church

Heresy is being at odds with the authority of the Church so is abusing children something the Vatican is ok with?

robindch

> Heresy is being at odds with the authority of the Church so is
> abusing children something the Vatican is ok with?

Frequent appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, it's a bit strong to say that the Vatican these days is ok with child abuse which the Curia seems to view as a crime against humans only, and therefore forgivable. Questioning or ignoring the infallibility of the Vatican's own institutional authority, though, seems to be understood to be a crime against god, and attracts the church's most severe censure - cutting off the possibility of any contact with god, which is what excommunication is.

LFCFan's well-made point shows that when it comes to itself, the Vatican's interest in the public morality it preaches seems to evaporate frightfully quickly!

Zombrex

LFCFan wrote:

Heresy is being at odds with the authority of the Church so is abusing children something the Vatican is ok with?

No, you are not understanding what heresy is.

Abusing children is a crime. The church is not about crime and punishment. The church doesn't punishment criminals by removing them from the church. If they did everyone who has been conviced of a crime would be excommunicated. The church is about forgiveness. Even a serial killer can still seek forgiveness from the church.

Heresy on the other hand is an act of abuse against the faith, against the church itself. You are removed from the church if you attack the church itself.

The fact that the church does not excommunicate criminals is no reflection on the church condoning the criminal act itself. You are talking about two seperate things.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this logic, just explaining it to.

LFCFan

Wicknight, I agree completely with what you're saying but my point is that it's a sick joke the way the Vatican runs it's affairs. We've heard of countless instances of priests being transferred when abuse comes to light but bishops being ordained without the permission of the Church leads to Excommunication. If a priest is capable of abusing a child, not only should he be locked up and castrated (Chemically) but the Church should be showing a strong stance against it and excommunicating them. 'God' didn't make these rules, Men did, so it's about time these men brought the Church into the 21st century and changed the rules.

Asiaprod

LFCFan wrote:

Wicknight, I agree completely with what you're saying but my point is that it's a sick joke the way the Vatican runs it's affairs.

I think we can all agree with you and punishment for the guilty is needed, but Wicknight is correct. The fact that the church does not excommunicate criminals is no reflection on the church condoning the criminal act itself.
The problem for me is not that what happened, but that the church appears to have been complicate in its handling of these priests. I have friends who are priests and I cannot begin to describe the hurt and betrayal they feel. One in particular comes from a large family and loves kids. He worked with the travelers. Now he is even afraid to talk to a kid in case someone misunderstands his intent. He is a great guy and is now suffering. His opinion is the same, yes the guilty must be punished in some way, but excommunication is not on the cards right now.

BrianCalgary

The problem of excommunicating priests for their child abuse crime is that the church should be viewed as a place where sinners can go to be spiritually healed with the help of the congregation. The affluent churches in North Aerica could be criticized for not welcoming those form the same socio-economic status.

Any one who abuses a child should be tried as a criminal relieved of their duties that has them in a position of trust with children. Serve thei rdebt to society, but still be welcome in the church.

I work with the youth at our church as well as coaching a U16 girls and a U14 boys soccer team. Last year I was in a tough position where I had to drive one of the girls home. It is too bad that I had to think about the possible ramafications of the girl stating that I tried something in the car, instead of just helping the family out and driving her home.

pbsuxok1znja4r

LFCFan wrote:

Wicknight, I agree completely with what you're saying but my point is that it's a sick joke the way the Vatican runs it's affairs. We've heard of countless instances of priests being transferred when abuse comes to light but bishops being ordained without the permission of the Church leads to Excommunication. If a priest is capable of abusing a child, not only should he be locked up and castrated (Chemically) but the Church should be showing a strong stance against it and excommunicating them. 'God' didn't make these rules, Men did, so it's about time these men brought the Church into the 21st century and changed the rules.

The fact that you are standing up for a good cause like child protection is no excuse for being ignorant. The RC church is about forgiveness. Yes, priests who have molested children should be prevented from remaining in any position of trust, i.e. from remaining priests.
Child sexual abuse is not objectively worse than adult sexual abuse, nor is it worse than just plain old violence or racism or animal cruelty or whatever other 'evil' **** people do. Generally I think it depends on the choices the perpetrator was given. So what you're saying begs the question, if excommunication and castration is warranted for child molestation, why not for some very slightly less "heinous" crime? Where does the punishment begin and end to be applicable? Who decides that? You? If you really believe God (in inverted commas as you put it) did not make these "rules" then why would you even care about excommunication? Like I said, the RC Catholic church is about forgiveness, which means giving second chances. That applies to priests every bit as much as it does to laypeople. For Christ's sake at least have some clue of the church's principles before you come here all outraged saying what you think they should do. Maybe one day you'll be fortunate enough to get a taste of the very heavy-handed justice you yourself preach, due to your making a mistake or being perverted in some way, perhaps through no fault of your own. Castration :rolleyes: Get a grip.
Your posts make baby Bill Shankly cry.

It is a horrible situation for all the other priests out there (and anyone in a situation of trust with youths), to be potentially tarred with the same brush as the minority perverted priests. I remember in secondary school all of our teachers (many of whom were priests) were all adamant that they simply couldn't ever be in a one to one situation with any student outside of school, i.e. giving someone a lift home etc. You could see their fear and it wasn't pretty. The atmosphere of distrust is very unfortunate. As it's often said; when you do not trust the people, they will soon begin to become untrustworthy.

Well, here's hoping that paedophiles somehow just stop turning up around the place, or that when they do; they get the help, recovery and forgiveness they need.

LFCFan

scouser.tommy wrote:

Child sexual abuse is not objectively worse than adult sexual abuse, nor is it worse than just plain old violence or racism or animal cruelty or whatever other 'evil' **** people do.

Ok, this is the greatest load of bullcrap I've ever heard. You seriously think that someone starting a fight and beating the crap out of someone is just the same as an adult abusing a child?

For Christ's sake at least have some clue of the church's principles before you come here all outraged saying what you think they should do.

Outraged? I asked a question and it was answered. The RC Church is an organisation just like any other. Just because they say they have the backing of God doesn't mean they actually do. I think the Church have gotten away with too much over the years because they are so big and powerful and nobody has been able to take them on. They can protect Paedophiles and get away with it. Do you think if the Boy Scouts of America starting protecting paedophile organisers they'd get away with it?

Maybe one day you'll be fortunate enough to get a taste of the very heavy-handed justice you yourself preach, due to your making a mistake or being perverted in some way, perhaps through no fault of your own.

What? I'm going to accidentally abuse a child or shoot someone in the head? And if I did go down the road that led to me doing something evil then I would deserve whatever punishment came my way. I wouldn't like it but I'd deserve it.

Castration :rolleyes: Get a grip.

Chemical Castration is a very valid option for someone who is obviously past the point of being 'cured' of a perversion like abusing children or rape. Maybe if potential paedophiles or rapists knew this might happen they'd think twice about what they were going to do.

Your posts make baby Bill Shankly cry.

So, you think Bill was a bleeding heart liberalist like yourself then? Do you think he'd condone child abuse etc and seek forgiveness for the abusers? It's people like you that have led to the problems in society today. The same people who fight for the rights of prisoners and scream from the treetops that Paedophiles are struck down with an illness and it's not their fault. The same people who have virtually destroyed any chance of diciplining children for fear of being sued.

Well, here's hoping that paedophiles somehow just stop turning up around the place, or that when they do; they get the help, recovery and forgiveness they need.

So you're saying that if someone does abuse a child they should be mollycoddled and forgiven? Would you say the same if it was your child who was abused? And don't say you would because nobody knows how they'd react until it's them in the situation. You'd probably be the first in line with the shears to cut the balls off the b$stard.

Zombrex

LFCFan wrote:

Chemical Castration is a very valid option for someone who is obviously past the point of being 'cured' of a perversion like abusing children or rape. Maybe if potential paedophiles or rapists knew this might happen they'd think twice about what they were going to do.

Getting off topic, but it actually isn't a valid option since it doesn't work. A paedophilie who is going to abuse a child will abuse a child even if they are castrated.

pbsuxok1znja4r

My point about violence vs. child abuse is that violence of the 'garden-variety', so to speak, happens week-in, week-out in this country on a far more widespread basis. It simply affects a far greater number of people, however less severely you might think, and, as such, should be treated no less severely than sexual abuse. There's an attitude out there that sickens me; that "ordinary decent criminal" mentality that's applied to the perpetrators of straight-up violence as opposed to sexual violence/crime.

Just clarify, I'm not defending the church or anything here. I don't think anyone should have protection from the law of the state. But by no means are your opinions - less still the thinking behind them - correct.

LFCFan wrote:

It's people like you that have led to the problems in society today. The same people who fight for the rights of prisoners and scream from the treetops that Paedophiles are struck down with an illness and it's not their fault. The same people who have virtually destroyed any chance of diciplining children for fear of being sued.

Oh dear lord...I ain't the bleeding heart here mate. It's clear you've got a few chips on yer shoulder, because I never mentioned the issue of disciplining children. You wanna know how wrong you are about 'people like me'? I believe there's nothing wrong with disciplining your kid with the odd clip on the ear. I think it's one of the few punitive measures that can be taken without any adverse psychological effects on them.
So if you're afraid to discipline your children that's your business man, but just be aware that if anyone's screaming from the treetops here, it's you.

wrote:

So, you think Bill was a bleeding heart liberalist like yourself then? Do you think he'd condone child abuse etc and seek forgiveness for the abusers? It's people like you that have led to the problems in society today.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up just a minute there, partner. Who is condoning child abuse here? If you're trying to imply that I am then I could only inform you that you're an absolute chancer for trying to twist what I'm saying like that.

Don't make the foolish mistake of thinking I'm so liberal as you claim I am. I'd like nothing more than to see some long mandatory minimum sentences for perpetrators of violent crime in this country. You know why? Not as some kind of vindictive punishment, but as a preventative measure against reoffense.

wrote:

So you're saying that if someone does abuse a child they should be mollycoddled and forgiven?

At what point did I say anything that equates to mollycoddled? Don't get cute, bub; twisting my words. I believe all paedophiles should be removed from society and imprisoned, possibly for life, if they can't be cured. Clear?

wrote:

Do you think he'd condone child abuse etc and seek forgiveness for the abusers?

I'm disappointed that you seem to have not been able to disinguish in what I said between plain old "forgiven" and "forgiven by god". I believe everyone deserves the chance to be forgiven by God. I get the impression (and you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong here ) that you don't believe in God in any case, so it would hardly matter to you.
Whether you, an ordinary layman are a strong enough person to forgive them or not is your business and will probably only be of any consequence to you.

wrote:

Would you say the same if it was your child who was abused? And don't say you would because nobody knows how they'd react until it's them in the situation. You'd probably be the first in line with the shears to cut the balls off the b$stard.

And what basis have you for presuming me to be such a hypocrite? Is it just because you don't agree with or like what I'm saying? Paedophiles are sick, sick, messed-up individuals whom I would no more seek revenge against than I would a dog that had bitten my child. As wicknight pointed out, your bright idea of castration doesn't work, so no, I would never condone it. I believe punishment should only be a preventative measure or a deterrant.

It seems to me that it is in fact people like you who are the cause of what's wrong with society. It's the eye for an eye type that have perpetuated the troubles and violence in this country for too many years. Same goes for everyone who believes in revenge. They're potentially as much a danger to society as any other criminal scumbag out there. Come what may, I'll never retract that statement and I'll never apologise for it.

Bottom line, I think your attitude toward paedophiles in particular is all wrong. Hate the sin and not the sinner.

LFCFan

scouser.tommy wrote:

Oh dear lord...I ain't the bleeding heart here mate. It's clear you've got a few chips on yer shoulder, because I never mentioned the issue of disciplining children. You wanna know how wrong you are about 'people like me'? I believe there's nothing wrong with disciplining your kid with the odd clip on the ear. I think it's one of the few punitive measures that can be taken without any adverse psychological effects on them.
So if you're afraid to discipline your children that's your business man, but just be aware that if anyone's screaming from the treetops here, it's you.

I'm not screaming from any treetop. I asked a question about the church and now they can excommunicate someone for performing an unsanctioned ceremony yet they can protect child abusers. You're the one who came at me with all this forgiveness . I'm sorry, but if someone sexually abuses a child the last thing they deserve is forgiveness. We're too quick in society to label anything that can't be explained 'a disease'. It makes it too easy for people to do these things and then scream that they are sick and need to be cured.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up just a minute there, partner. Who is condoning child abuse here? If you're trying to imply that I am then I could only inform you that you're an absolute chancer for trying to twist what I'm saying like that.

Ok, so you're not a bleed heart liberalist but you can see where I might get that idea when you go on about forgiveness and about all crimes being just as bad as each other etc. I listned in disgust to a radio show a few months back when one of these types tried to say that paedophiles and rapists were just an unfortunate by-product of society and that they should be forgiven and given the chance to walk among us again and show that our forgiveness has 'cured' them.

Don't make the foolish mistake of thinking I'm so liberal as you claim I am. I'd like nothing more than to see some long mandatory minimum sentences for perpetrators of violent crime in this country. You know why? Not as some kind of vindictive punishment, but as a preventative measure against reoffense.

I agree. I want longer sentences as a deterrant. Prevention is always better then cure. But it is also a punishment, no matter what way you try to spin it. If you do something wrong you should pay for it by losing your freedom. The idea of this removal of freedom should act as a deterrant but once someone is does wrong and is caught, it becomes a punishment.

At what point did I say anything that equates to mollycoddled? Don't get cute, bub; twisting my words. I believe all paedophiles should be removed from society and imprisoned, possibly for life, if they can't be cured. Clear?

You said you hoped paedophiles get the help, recovery and forgiveness they need? That sounds like mollycoddling to me

I'm disappointed that you seem to have not been able to disinguish in what I said between plain old "forgiven" and "forgiven by god". I believe everyone deserves the chance to be forgiven by God. I get the impression (and you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong here ) that you don't believe in God in any case, so it would hardly matter to you.
Whether you, an ordinary layman are a strong enough person to forgive them or not is your business and will probably only be of any consequence to you.

You're right, I don't believe in God, at least not in the God the Church would have us believe exists. I'm an agnostic. Surely though if as a catholic you admit that someone should be forgiven by God then as a good catholic you should also be able to forgive? Do you believe the likes of Hitler should have been forgiven by God? If God forgives everyone then why is there a hell? (if we're to believe everything the Church tells us?)

As wicknight pointed out, your bright idea of castration doesn't work, so no, I would never condone it. I believe punishment should only be a preventative measure or a deterrant.

Firsty, is there any proof that it doesn't work? And secondly, do you not think it could act as a deterrant? Anyway, castration was just something I threw into the mix as an example of a deterrant. Ok, if it doesn't work then it's not a valid option.

It seems to me that it is in fact people like you who are the cause of what's wrong with society. It's the eye for an eye type that have perpetuated the troubles and violence in this country for too many years. I really don't care if I'm being rude or crass in saying this Same goes for everyone who believes in revenge. They're potentially as much a danger to society as any other criminal scumbag out there. Come what may, I'll never retract that statement and I'll never apologise for it.

I've never said revenge was the answer. I mentioned going after someone if they harmed your child but in fairness, it would take some serious willpower or faith in God not to have some feelings of revenge if someone did do it. I don't condone it either as it solves nothing but you can't deny the feeling would be there in a lot of cases. Sure, if some toerag smashed my car up I'd love nothing better then to beat of him but it's just a feeling. It's not something I would ever follow through on because I know it's wrong, it wouldn't fix my car and the consequences wouldn't be worth it.

Bottom line, I think your attitude toward paedophiles in particular is all wrong. Hate the sin and not the sinner.

It's got nothing to do with Sin. Sin is a word made up by the Church to keep the masses in line. Sin doesn't exist. What does exist is morality. It's something that transcends all religions and I for one know that child abuse is about as bad as it gets short of killing someone.

pbsuxok1znja4r

LFCFan wrote:

If God forgives everyone then why is there a hell? (if we're to believe everything the Church tells us?)

Put simply, because not everyone forgives God. Ultimately it's down to the person themselves. It's always more important to be able to forgive than to be forgiven. Much harder, too.

wrote:

It's got nothing to do with Sin. Sin is a word made up by the Church to keep the masses in line. Sin doesn't exist. What does exist is morality. It's something that transcends all religions and I for one know that child abuse is about as bad as it gets short of killing someone.

I didn't necessarily mean sin specifically, I was just using that phrase to try to illustrate my point. Other less unfortunate phrases I might have used would be; "Don't hate the player hate the game", or "Hate the crime, not the criminal", etc etc

I'm glad you think morality does objectively exist. I agree; it does transcend all religions and all cultures. But that's opening up a whole other can o' worms.

LFCFan

LFCFan wrote:

If God forgives everyone then why is there a hell? (if we're to believe everything the Church tells us?)

Just passing through here - the usual answer is that god will forgive anyone, but first they have to ask for it. If they don't, and instead turn their backs on god and god's forgiveness, then they get what they wanted - hell, which is supposed to be hell because it's seperation from god.

Talliesin

If the bishops in question do not seek redemption they will not be allowed back into the Church, and will continue to not be recognised as part of its heirarchy.

If the priests in question do not seek redemption they will go to hell.

Granted I don't believe in hell myself, but it seems logical enough from the Pope's position, since he does.

Excelsior

LFCFan wrote:

I'm sorry, but if someone sexually abuses a child the last thing they deserve is forgiveness.

The position of Christianity is that for anyone who sins at all, the last thing they deserve is forgiveness. But God is a person who gives gifts, not wages. He loves each person more than can be conceived and so he offers all of us forgiveness. The paedophile and the self-rightous right wing reactionary. You both can be forgiven. (The smug psuedo-intellectuals can get it too so I'll see you in heaven as well )

LFCfan wrote:

Do you believe the likes of Hitler should have been forgiven by God?

The great Swiss (Reformed) theologian Karl Barth was asked after World War II what he would have said if he had met Hitler. Without hesitating Barth answered, "Christ died for your sins".

LFCfan wrote:

It's got nothing to do with Sin. Sin is a word made up by the Church to keep the masses in line. Sin doesn't exist. What does exist is morality.

The morality of ancient Greece and Rome would have permitted plenty that we now call paedophilia. These two civilisations used a socially constructed system called morality to keep folk in line. However, as you can see, all societies do demonstrate a common broad idea of "right" and "wrong". These similar but crucially different moralities are efforts to capture the ultimate law prescribed by God. Sin actually literally means "missing the mark". So sin is the thing that is real. Morality is the thing we agree on to keep people in line. And if you miss the mark, you miss the mark. There is no "close enough" or "good effort" or "you were trying to get the mark". As such, God sees all sin for what it is- failure. He wants to redeem us from the idea of failure. It is illogical to imagine that some criminals that our morality especially demonise would be excluded from this saving love.

lostexpectation

I think your arguements about criminals is a little weak, surely the priests should have been defrocked atleast, not allowed be priest, or whatever if that is the proper for it, and this is perhaps what lfcfan meant?

LFCFan

Thank you. For the most part you get what I meant but my main argument was the complete that is the catholic church ( and every other religion). Rules they make up to govern the laws of their own society but when it comes to actual real SIN they turn a blind eye. People have been ruled by the power of the Church for so long they have given up questioning what they do. At the end of the day they are all a bunch of over paid, over zealous old men trying to preach a lie. Just because a billion or more people think they believe in God, does not give them the right to act as his voice on earth.

Scientology was created by a man who has admitted that the only way to make money on this planet is to start your own religion. Despite this admission and despite the fact that this religions creator was a science fiction writer, people still sign up to it. Why? Because people want to believe in something. The only difference between scientology and Christianity is that Christianity got in on the act 2006 years ago when people were looking for something to believe in and follow.

2000 years of war, oppression, missions, crusades and parents passing on the same philosophy has lead to Christianity. Protestantism was created because a regular 'bloke' decided he didn't like what he heard so he made up his own version of Christianity and so created a whole new breed of religion. A religion by the way that still causes conflict on our own Island because a King decided that he wanted to get married more then once. So, because 2 men (flesh and blood men) made certain choices, hatred exists between protestants and Catholics. Tell me where the sanity lies in all that?

pbsuxok1znja4r

Hatred exists between Protestants and Catholics today not because of religion, but because someone's Dad or Grandad was harmed or killed or knew someone who was harmed or killed by some Protestant/Catholic person/body of people and that person passed that story on to his son who supports Celtic/Rangers because it gives him smoething to believe in.
In the beginning, yes, maybe Protestants and Catholics hated each other because of opposing ideologies/faiths, but today, they hate each other because they have always hated each other and have harmed each other. That's human nature, I guess. Not because of religion. He hates the others because his dad hated them; because his older brother hated them. Ignorance allows this mindless hatred to be propagated over and over again.

Face it - even without any form of "religion", ideologies will form in people. Fact. Eventually, opposing ideologies form in different people. Fact. Eventually those two different peoples with their opposing ideologies will come into contact and when they do, it ain't gonna be pretty.

You should know this. It's right under your nose. You, with your anti-Toffees sig. How many people have gotten their head kicked in over the "religion" of football? Your hypocrisy is astounding, TBH. Don't blame religion. People will always have differing opinions and sooner or later they attach enough importance to those opinions so that they think harming other people is justified. Football hooliganism/violence being one of the best examples of the most utterly pointless and mindless conflicts of ideology. Christ, it doesn't even rise to the level of deserving to be called an ideology.


Even if it was not under the name of "religion", people would be fighting each other over things like this regardless. What you're crying out against is nothing more than human nature.

I think I'd better repeat this one more time because I'm genuinely worried that you might not cotton on to what I'm explaining:
Conflict is in human nature. Sooner or later, anything you believe in strongly becomes your "religion" and will potentially cause you to clash with others in the defense thereof. Please tell me you see the truth in what I'm saying...

I, for one, am glad we have sensible ideas like those of Christianity and Buddhism around to open people up to selflessness, peace, love and forgiveness, in the midst of all the violent conflict.

robindch

> ideologies will form in people. Fact. Eventually, opposing ideologies form
> in different people. Fact.

Ideologies do not somehow "form" in people. Instead, they are specifically injected, by organizations of the most blatant amorality, into the minds of children or other receptive dupes, purely to ensure that the ideology will continue to exist.

> we have sensible ideas like those of Christianity [...] to open people up
> to selflessness, peace, love and forgiveness, in the midst of all the
> violent conflict.

Have you spoken with anybody from Iraq recently about the kind of "selflessness, peace, love and forgiveness" on offer from the overtly christian fundamentalist George Bush? Are you able to see any contradiction here?

pbsuxok1znja4r

robindch wrote:

> ideologies will form in people. Fact. Eventually, opposing ideologies form
> in different people. Fact.

Ideologies do not somehow "form" in people. Instead, they are specifically injected, by organizations of the most blatant amorality, into the minds of children or other receptive dupes, purely to ensure that the ideology will continue to exist.

At some point, somewhere, one single person had to think the first part of these things up. So to your statement I would ask, where did the organisations get their ideology from?
It comes from someone/some people originally and after that, its propagation is dependent on whether people are free-thinkers.

Like, seriously, what are you talking about? Of course ideologies form on their own. Perhaps less often than they are simply passed on, but it is how they originally cam to be. Otherwise they wouldn't bethere to ever be "injected" in the first place. Are you claiming that ideologies materialize from thin air? If not, then what you're saying in no way contradicts what I'm saying, as far as I can see.

> we have sensible ideas like those of Christianity [...] to open *people up
> to selflessness, peace, love and forgiveness, in the midst of all the
> violent conflict.
*people - indefinite article, i.e. more than one person but not necessarily all people. Just to clarify.

wrote:

Have you spoken with anybody from Iraq recently about the kind of "selflessness, peace, love and forgiveness" on offer from the overtly christian fundamentalist George Bush? Are you able to see any contradiction here?

No...? Bush is more of a christianist than a christian. He's not very intelligent, also, so I doubt if he himself sees any contradiction.

I take it from your omission of the Buddhist reference in my quote that you are not in disagreement with what I have said regarding that?

LFCFan

scouser.tommy wrote:

Hatred exists between Protestants and Catholics today not because of religion, but because someone's Dad or Grandad was harmed or killed or knew someone who was harmed or killed by some Protestant/Catholic person/body of people and that person passed that story on to his son who supports Celtic/Rangers because it gives him smoething to believe in.

But if from the beginning there was no religion then where would the hatred have come from in the first place? Ok, there may have been some other factor that led to hatred but in this case it's 100% religion. Just because it has spiralled into another issue doesn't mean that it wasn't religion that started it in the first place.

You should know this. It's right under your nose. You, with your anti-Toffees sig. How many people have gotten their head kicked in over the "religion" of football? Your hypocrisy is astounding, TBH. Don't blame religion. People will always have differing opinions and sooner or later they attach enough importance to those opinions so that they think harming other people is justified. Football hooliganism/violence being one of the best examples of the most utterly pointless and mindless conflicts of ideology. Christ, it doesn't even rise to the level of deserving to be called an ideology.

Anti Toffees Sig? It's a bit of harmless banter. I don't hate Everton or their supporters. I don't hate anyone who supports Man U. I have never hit anyone because of football and I most likely never will. You are confusing harmless rivalry with hatred. Yes there are football houligans out there but they are not football fans. They are just houligans who are out for a fight. All football did was give them an arena to highlight what utter degenerates they are.

Even if it was not under the name of "religion", people would be fighting each other over things like this regardless. What you're crying out against is nothing more than human nature.

You can't just disregard the role Religion has played in all the conflicts in the world and the hatred between differing religions just because you say the hatred would have manifested itself anyway! Religion has done more harm then good in the world. Religion has led to people blowing themselves up in order to kill others. Why do people insist that Religion is good? Why should religion play any part in your faith? Why can't people just get on with worshipping their God without the need for priests and churches etc etc? I'll tell you why. Because of money. It all boils down to money. Yes, there are priests etc out there who do it for the faith but at the back of it all money plays the biggest role. You only have to look at the bible bashing TV shows in the States with the mega rich preachers, preying on the weak who are looking for answers.

I think I'd better repeat this one more time because I'm genuinely worried that you might not cotton on to what I'm explaining:
Conflict is in human nature. Sooner or later, anything you believe in strongly becomes your "religion" and will potentially cause you to clash with others in the defense thereof. Please tell me you see the truth in what I'm saying...

Of course I see the truth in what you are saying but you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that Religion is the greatest catalyst for hatred on the planet. If religion didn't exist there may be something else that would create the same hatred and if that was the case we would be blaming that.

I, for one, am glad we have sensible ideas like those of Christianity and Buddhism around to open people up to selflessness, peace, love and forgiveness, in the midst of all the violent conflict.

Are you saying that unless you have religion you can't be selfless or show love or be a peace loving person? I hate the idea of religion and I don't believe in God but I am a good person who can be peaceful and show love and can forgive if forgiveness is warranted. And there are plenty of people who do have religion and do believe in God yet they are evil.

DublinWriter

LFCFan wrote:

.....2 Bishops can be Excommunicated from the Church for performing an unapproved ordination yet hundreds of priests can sexually abuse children and still be a part of the Church????

That would be an ecumenical matter.

pbsuxok1znja4r

LFCFan wrote:

But if from the beginning there was no religion then where would the hatred have come from in the first place? Ok, there may have been some other factor that led to hatred but in this case it's 100% religion. Just because it has spiralled into another issue doesn't mean that it wasn't religion that started it in the first place.

Well you're getting into highly hypothetical territory there, but suppose people just came up with differing schools of thought with regard to some fundamental issue, like whether or not it was right to do something, like, for example, kill animals for their meat or whatever. That escalates.

wrote:

Anti Toffees Sig? It's a bit of harmless banter. I don't hate Everton or their supporters. I don't hate anyone who supports Man U. I have never hit anyone because of football and I most likely never will. You are confusing harmless rivalry with hatred. Yes there are football houligans out there but they are not football fans. They are just houligans who are out for a fight. All football did was give them an arena to highlight what utter degenerates they are.

You may see it as harmless banter (and indeed that was what those words were when they were first spoken), but all it takes is for one person to take exception to it and the escalation begins.

Perhaps religion likewise gives degenerates a stage for conflict in the same way then, eh? And while the evils of religion may be worse than the evils of football, so too is the goodness in religion greater than the goodness of football. So - should football be abolished? Should religion be abolished?
I know what your opinion on that question is. Mine is that it shouldn't be. Outside of religion, there are good people and there are bad people. Within a religion, there are good people and there bad people. The only difference being that the bad people within a religion are highlighted for hypocrisy and are perhaps on average in a higher position of power; with a greater capacity for being bad. Maybe without religion a greater number of secular people would have the power; the power to do evil. Thus might they then become viewed as the 'bad guys'. The point I'm making is; as hypothetical as both our arguments are; is that without religion the world would still have the same sum total of 'evil' in it, if not more.

wrote:

You can't just disregard the role Religion has played in all the conflicts in the world and the hatred between differing religions just because you say the hatred would have manifested itself anyway! Religion has done more harm then good in the world.

Well you see now this is the problem between those who believe in an afterlife and those who don't. As many religious types would see it, you are not looking at the bigger picture. What if the harm done in this finite world was a mere nothing compared with the good effect it produced on an infinite, spiritual level; for the good of people's souls and all that. Of course I know your immediate response to that will be to exclaim that there are no such thing as souls or an afterlife, but you don't know that and other people do believe it, so you can't fault them for doing what seems right based on what they believe. If, somehow, you really knew there was an afterlife, you might be inclined to be less worried about people's short lives on earth and more worried about what would effect their eternal afterlife.
You're arguing on entirely different scales. If what such religious types you criticize believe is true, then what you're saying is akin to criticizing someone for cutting your chest open when they did it in an attempt to give you the heart transplant you needed.
Now I'm not saying either that anyone's beliefs vs yours are more correct, I'm simply pointing out to you that what might seem of importance to you might well mean relatively little in the grand scheme of things to someone else. It's all a question of how grand you see the grand scheme of things as actually being.
Obviously this is no justification that could apply to the likes of paedophiles, but for other cases where religious fanatics etc have cited their religion as justification for their actions, etc etc.

wrote:

Religion has led to people blowing themselves up in order to kill others. Why do people insist that Religion is good? Why should religion play any part in your faith? Why can't people just get on with worshipping their God without the need for priests and churches etc etc? I'll tell you why. Because of money. It all boils down to money. Yes, there are priests etc out there who do it for the faith but at the back of it all money plays the biggest role. You only have to look at the bible bashing TV shows in the States with the mega rich preachers, preying on the weak who are looking for answers.

TV stars in the states didn't invent religion. Perhaps they saw a money-making opportunity and jumped on it, but what's important with regard to authenticity are it's origins. This is something you'd want to do a lot of reading and historical research on before you go makeing claims like yours. In reality your theory is nothing more than a vague, half-baked notion based on your own dim view of the world.

wrote:

Of course I see the truth in what you are saying but you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that Religion is the greatest catalyst for hatred on the planet. If religion didn't exist there may be something else that would create the same hatred and if that was the case we would be blaming that.

Hatred is the greatest catalyst for hatred on the planet and unfortunately, Religion incidentally carries with it the greatest history of hatred. Perhaps it could just as easily have been something else, like Racism.

wrote:

Are you saying that unless you have religion you can't be selfless or show love or be a peace loving person? I hate the idea of religion and I don't believe in God but I am a good person who can be peaceful and show love and can forgive if forgiveness is warranted. And there are plenty of people who do have religion and do believe in God yet they are evil.

And likewise there are just as many people who don't believe in God, who don't have religion and are evil. But they are not as reviled, I suppose? Or is it just that they do not have that same moral standard of evil to be judged by? If religion preached evil to everyone would it get away more easily with practising evil?

Of course you can be selfless, loving and peaceful without religion. But why would you be? Without religion, who is there to say these are desirable things? Why is being peaceful and selfless a good things to be? Well, if you say it is something natural and objective that everyone should know, then you might not be so far from believing in an omnipotent, benevolent deity as you think. It is questions like these that created ideologies that may have developed into religion. Perhaps someone else out there is as opposed to selflessness as you are for it and would gladly harm you so that his opposing philosophy might triumph and be propagated instead of yours.

LFCFan

All very valid arguments Scouser Tommy. I just don't see how the immense riches of The Vatican can be justified if all they are trying to do is preach the word of God? Nowhere in the Bible did it say, 'yee who spread the word shall also build up as much wealth as possible and live like Kings in your castle'. Believe in God or whoever if you want, but why buy into organised religion?

pbsuxok1znja4r

LFCFan wrote:

All very valid arguments Scouser Tommy. I just don't see how the immense riches of The Vatican can be justified if all they are trying to do is preach the word of God? Nowhere in the Bible did it say, 'yee who spread the word shall also build up as much wealth as possible and live like Kings in your castle'. Believe in God or whoever if you want, but why buy into organised religion?

Well, look at it this way. You portray yourself as a very decent, essentially 'good' bloke, yeah? But here you are with money to burn on internet access, probably living in a fairly comfy house/apartment with no shortage of food on the table and maybe some luxury expenditure on top of that. To some of the world's more poor people, you live in a castle. Does that mean you are therefore a villain of some sort whose claim to being a decent guy is all part of some big deception?

Anyway, personally I'm not convinced the pope and co. lead such a luxurious lifestyle as you seem to believe. Evidence? The vatican property is valuable, of course, but I don't see how possessing valuable property constitutes hypocrisy for them. I guess it's sacred and it's their home. Should it be sold as some token gesture of poverty? Maybe. Another other way you could look at it is that the wealth equates with power, power which can be used to best achieve their goal of spreading the word of God.

You do know that there are forms of organised religion that have nothing to do with the vatican, don't you? Just because the roman catholic church comes across as somehow villainous doesn't somehow by induction prove that every organised religion is some plan to dupe people out of their money.

MeditationMom

The seriousness of child molestation, not to mention by a trusted relative, and - my God - by a priest? - is beyond what a human heart can fathom. Forgiveness for those people is a true spiritual challenge, maybe possible by thinking of the wrong done to them as children. What should be the consequence for this behavior? Punishment is the wrong idea if we want to practice forgiveness. But simple consequence would certainly have to be something equal to the damage done. This damage seems to be hugely underestimated, both to the children, the church and all the good and serving priests. Otherwise the consequenses those priests, who abuse their entrusted children, would have been far, far greater.
When you don't understand something like that, just follow the money trail. The church got a little more serious about all of this, forgiveness or not, when they saw millions of dollars vanish, and they will become more forgiving again, when the money reappears.
As far as the ordained bishops go - someone is messing with company policy -that's all. It is an undercutting of power and that will and propably should not be allowed in any organization. It is not really something to campare. If someone were to go against company policy for example, by giving one client lower advertising rates than another client, that just doesn't make sence for the company and would have nothing to do directly with the sexual harrassment suit by a secretary against her boss. If it is a lot of secretaries - big PR problem - and people will take their business elsewhere. The church, God bless her - is a very big, powerful organization and does not run on prayer alone. They have no problem with a lot of highly unethical stuff, just like any other big conglomorate.

Excommunication means forever cut off from God? That might be your first step towards God, finally. Seems like a lot of churches and religions confuse themselves with God. You are forever cut off from the church, but never from God. God is always present!

pbsuxok1znja4r

I agree. This issue of excommunication seems, on the surface, wholly irreconcilable with the message of Jesus. I think the only time I could possibly see the logic or good in it would be in a "greater good scenario, i.e. if it became necessary to excommunicate someone because with their position within the church they held the both power and inclination to damage the church enough so that it might be less able to spread the word of God and hence less able to save souls. Presumably excommunication for this individual means the damnation of his soul
So I guess it could be looked upon as the salvation of one person's sould versus the salvation of many people's souls. But to me that would seem to stray almost into Machiavellian territory.
Just a theory.