Child abuse not in 10 commandments ??

Tomk1

I suddenly realised that priest's that rape children are not breaking the commandments:
Exodus 20:2–17
C1}2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
C1}3 Do not have any other gods before me.
C1}4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
C1}5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
C1}6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
C2}7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
C3}8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
C3}9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
C3}10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
C3}11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
C4}12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
C5}13 You shall not kill
C6}14 You shall not commit adultery.
C7}15 You shall not steal.
C8}16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
C9}17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife,C10} or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Now I realise some will say C10 means children along with slaves and shed.
Covet
1 : to wish for earnestly <covet an award>
2 : to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive verb
: to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another
cov·et (kvt)
1. To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's). See Synonyms at envy.
2. To wish for longingly. See Synonyms at desire.
v.intr.
To feel immoderate desire for that which is another's

Now before someone start Quoting bits of the bible from here and there, these are the LAWS right here from the mouth of GOD (???). These laws say nothing about sexually abusing/raping children, only dont worship statues or desire someones ox, if you do then your children will suffer for four generations:
So no wonder "some" priests do feel indifferent to common law & real moral views.
Deliver Us from Evil Part 1
The Whistleblower Priest

Rb

Is the bible not rife with child abuse?

shqipshume

Thats just sick :mad:
I think basic instincts of an adult would not have to be in the ten commandments to protect all children.

Rb

shqipshume wrote: »

Thats just sick :mad:
I think basic instincts of an adult would not have to be in the ten commandments to protect all children.

Define "basic instincts".

shqipshume

Rb wrote: »

Define "basic instincts".

To see a child and know you should protect them.To feel need to be protector and nurturer.
I don't know i go with my gut instinct and i would have to protect its human instinct i feel.
A man or woman who goes out and commits adultery knows its wrong,So therefore make a decision against their gut when they decide to go ahead.
Pedo's know its wrong and still do it.
i am getting tired so sorry if i am not making it clear:o

I dont follow bible words i do how i feel.

sionnach

Rb wrote: »

Is the bible not rife with child abuse?

The God of the bible had no problem sending an angel to kill the innocent firstborn sons of Egypt, I doubt he'd have a problem with child abuse.

Jehovah wrote:

I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents

Those priests might have just been doing the Lord's work...

But seriously, the ten commandments are obviously flawed to anyone with a brain as an absolute moral code. Jesus trumped all ten later on with "Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself". While you can still nitpick this line it's nearly spot on as a code of behaviour.

Red Hand

OP, just because something is not in the 10 commandments, doesn't mean anything. Religions do not hold a monopoly on morality. IMO people have a certain degree of morality built into them-like the Golden Rule.

sionnach

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

people have a certain degree of morality built into them

Except some priests...

shqipshume

sionnach wrote: »

Except some priests...

edit sorry didnt see some lol

mickeydevine

Are you Fritzl's lawyer or something.

sukikettle

What ignorance I see before me. Girls were given in marriage at the onset of puberty. And yes it is written in the bible under the law of God it is forbidden to have sexual relations with various family members and there were consequences...you need to read the full story of Moses before you make a comment such as the above

philologos

The Ten Commandments are not the only commandments binding on Christians, the Moral Torah in it's entirety is, and the laws of the Prophets, and the Laws of Jesus and the Apostles. Child abuse would definitely fall as a violation to laws such as "Love your neighbour as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have done onto you", as well as regulations in the book of Ephesians for how one should deal with their children. Considering that any sexual relations outside of marriage is deemed an act of fornication, this would also give credence to child abuse also being forbidden.

Red Hand

sionnach wrote: »

Except some priests...

I meant to say "most people". There are certain people, due to their environmen or genes or both, that are going to be the exception.

And you may wish to add "some people" to your above quotation-"some priests" do not have a monopoly on paedophilia.

sukikettle

I'd recommend in two thousand years if we all survive...we who live in the noughties will have little to brag about without slinging mud at those who lived another two thousand years ago. We're a right Sodom and Gomorrah bunch and look how they ended up

PDN

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

OP, just because something is not in the 10 commandments, doesn't mean anything. Religions do not hold a monopoly on morality. IMO people have a certain degree of morality built into them-like the Golden Rule.

Nor do the 10 commandments claim to encompass all the moral guidelines for Christians, or even for Jews.

The OP is a classic piece of muppetry that takes a little slice of the Old Testament Jewish law and then somehow tries to apply that to Catholic priests as if it were the only moral code that applies to them. Such a ham-fisted and ineffectual attempt to construct an argument against religion must have an intelligent atheist like Bertrand Russell spinning in his godless grave.

eoin5

The poll seems loaded, going just by whats in the brackets I would pick both.

God says children are to be loved n' protected

AND

God says honouring him is more important than children.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The OP is a classic piece of muppetry that takes a little slice of the Old Testament Jewish law and then somehow tries to apply that to Catholic priests as if it were the only moral code that applies to them. Such a ham-fisted and ineffectual attempt to construct an argument against religion must have an intelligent atheist like Bertrand Russell spinning in his godless grave.

I am inexorably compelled to agree with PDN.

I considered closing this thread on the basis of it's FAIL quotient, but sure now it's in play we might as well leave it as an example. Unless you guys want it in Christianity?

I have to say, for once, I agree with PDN. It's a very weak argument with no grounding at all. The 10 commandments aren't the only Christian laws to abide by.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

I am inexorably compelled to agree with PDN.

I considered closing this thread on the basis of it's FAIL quotient, but sure now it's in play we might as well leave it as an example. Unless you guys want it in Christianity?

No, no! This thread will get mod-sticked from behind and buried in a shallow virtual grave if it comes crashing into the Christianity forum.

studiorat

Dades wrote: »

I considered closing this thread on the basis of it's FAIL quotient, but sure now it's in play we might as well leave it as an example. Unless you guys want it in Christianity?

Throw him to the lions centurion...

Dades

Thwow him wuffly?

studiorat

yef! stwike him to the flaw!

The Mad Hatter

I'm quite amused that now about half this thread is discussing whether this thread is going enough to leave open...

Red Hand

Before you tie a knot in this thread, can I use it to afix a button to my shirt?

The Mad Hatter

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Before you tie a knot in this thread, can I use it to afix a button to my shirt?

It's posts like this that make me wish there was a 'Huh?' button next to the 'Thanks' button...

Zombrex

These are the types of threads that give atheism a bad name ... we should vote whether or not to send him to the gulags .. ahem ...

lostexpectation

certainly nought to do with atheism

bnt

One important point that I think is being missed here: the Commandments were a reflection of their time and circumstances, not some kind of universal law. You have a leader of a tribe who's struggling to keep control, so he has to put a divine "spin" on the rules he wants people to follow. Perfectly logical: "you won't listen to me, so now 'God' is laying down the law". Off up the misty mountain goes Moses, to come back down with a couple of tablets with laws carved on them. Who did that? "'God' did it."

If I lay it out like that, it reads like something out of The Lord Of The Rings - or vice versa? Tolkien was very well-acquainted with the Bible, though he didn't take it as seriously as his colleague C.S. Lewis did. :rolleyes:

philologos

bnt wrote: »

One important point that I think is being missed here: the Commandments were a reflection of their time and circumstances, not some kind of universal law.

Christians would assert that they are an integral part of the universal law of mankind.

bnt wrote: »

You have a leader of a tribe who's struggling to keep control, so he has to put a divine "spin" on the rules he wants people to follow. Perfectly logical: "you won't listen to me, so now 'God' is laying down the law". Off up the misty mountain goes Moses, to come back down with a couple of tablets with laws carved on them. Who did that? "'God' did it."

What are you basing this view of the revelation of the Torah from? Speculation? If so I think if one was to refute the divine based on the teachings of Moses one would have to provide more than mere speculation.

bnt wrote: »

If I lay it out like that, it reads like something out of The Lord Of The Rings - or vice versa? Tolkien was very well-acquainted with the Bible, though he didn't take it as seriously as his colleague C.S. Lewis did. :rolleyes:

Tolkien was actually a key player in bringing the former atheist Lewis to the Christian faith in his 30's.

Zombrex

bnt wrote: »

One important point that I think is being missed here: the Commandments were a reflection of their time and circumstances, not some kind of universal law.

That isn't really the point that is being missed, the point that is being missed is that the Ten Commandments were not the be all and end all of Jewish law. In fact there were whole books of the Old Testament giving over to Jewish law, chapters and chapters of the stuff.

Now these laws were nonsense, and by modern standards rather barbaric, and the idea that they came from a super powerful deity rather than simply tribal elders, stretches plausibility to the point ridiculousness.

But there is little point in someone attacking a religion for something it doesn't actually teach. The fact that the Ten Commandments doesn't mention child abuse doesn't mean anything because lots of things were not mentioned in the Ten Commandments that were outlawed or regulated.

UU

sukikettle wrote: »

I'd recommend in two thousand years if we all survive...we who live in the noughties will have little to brag about without slinging mud at those who lived another two thousand years ago. We're a right Sodom and Gomorrah bunch and look how they ended up

Well no Sodom and Gomorrah is a load of bull**** because it questions the whole "loving and kind benevolent God" who is in fact more like a sexed up Hitler tbh and most of us have the ability to think for ourselves about morality at least we don't need to derive it from some messed up book thank you very much but please I don't wish to be insulted missus! :rolleyes:

philologos

Well, actually UU, many people in geology amongst other things have entertained the notion that Sodom and Gomorrah actually took place.
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/1/133
http://www.archaeology.org/9607/newsbriefs/sodom.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2942059

I wouldn't be so easy to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as nonsense when many people in academia are entertaining the notion and actually are insisting that it is likely that the two cities were destroyed.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't be so easy to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as nonsense when many people in academia are entertaining the notion and actually are insisting that it is likely that the two cities were destroyed.

They aren't entertaining the notion, they are trying to find the real world source of the myths, which is the exact opposite of entertaining the notion.

UU

Yeah well even if in fact people 3000 years ago or whatever perished in some disaster that doesn't necessarily imply a pseudo-God killed them, it could have been nature or something non-supernatural you know. And perhaps they didn't understand it back then and attributed it to a divine power which as you know was (and still is) a very common thing to do. Just because something mysterious and seemingly out-of-the-ordinary occurs, it seems ridiculous jumping on the bandwagon and claiming "Oh it must be God/Allah/Zeus/Satan, whatever!"

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't be so easy to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as nonsense when many people in academia are entertaining the notion and actually are insisting that it is likely that the two cities were destroyed.

I suspect that should read "entertained by the notion."

Tomk1

PDN wrote: »

Nor do the 10 commandments claim to encompass all the moral guidelines for Christians, or even for Jews.

The OP is a classic piece of muppetry that takes a little slice of the Old Testament Jewish law and then somehow tries to apply that to Catholic priests as if it were the only moral code that applies to them. Such a ham-fisted and ineffectual attempt to construct an argument against religion must have an intelligent atheist like Bertrand Russell spinning in his godless grave.

Fine there are up to 603 other commandments, my main point is that if you hold the laws of God up rigidly above Humanic laws/civil laws then there is a conundrum. This leading to the RC having separate laws to Government, which as we have seen when one of their members committed civil crimes the belief in internal punishment seemed applicable. If the RC was a company say a private school then instinctively the board would abide by civil law, if the company didn't then the company would also be punishable by law.

eoin5 wrote: »

The poll seems loaded, going just by whats in the brackets I would pick both.

God says children are to be loved n' protected

AND

God says honouring him is more important than children.

studiorat wrote: »

yef! stwike him to the flaw!

True it is loaded, by mistake, the bracket point was more in relation to not carving images of god to worship having high priority and not that the God didn't care about the welfare of children, so an over emotional error.

studiorat wrote: »

Throw him to the lions centurion...

Throw me to God's sheep even??
It is strange that no one quoted the parts of the bible that says to protect children, as isn't that what religion is Quoting and living by the written Bible. Instead the debate against this trend is semantics or personal opinion that

shqipshume wrote: »

I think basic instincts of an adult would not have to be in the ten commandments to protect all children.

ie basic instincts do not have to be covered in the laws of God.

Fine forget the poll, deleate it if you like but I see no dedate, as how can you dispute the basic and most important laws that we all learnt as children. By getting personnel

PDN wrote: »

muppetry

is the reason I didn't post this in the christian arena.

cavedave

Does anyone else find the story of Isaac weird?

It says that if god instructs you to kill your son you should. If you believe in one of the religions of the book and would not do this it seems you do not really believe in scripture. If you would you are crazy(Penn discusses this at the end).

Armin_Tamzarian

Rb wrote: »

Is the bible not rife with child abuse?

I think I remember hearing somewhere before that Mary was 12 when she became pregnant with Jesus, a source would be good.
Virgin birth or not, she still had a husband.

The Mad Hatter

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I think I remember hearing somewhere before that Mary was 12 when she became pregnant with Jesus, a source would be good.
Virgin birth or not, she still had a husband.

Think early- to mid-teens was pretty standard for marriage age at the time.

MatthewVII

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Think early- to mid-teens was pretty standard for marriage age at the time.

Yes, I remember reading somewhere that women got married starting from age 12 and men got married starting from age 13, reflecting the different stages of sexual maturity and capability to recreate. God clearly wanted them to get multiplying and filling the four corners of the earth as soon as possible.

The Mad Hatter

MatthewVII wrote: »

Yes, I remember reading somewhere that women got married starting from age 12 and men got married starting from age 13, reflecting the different stages of sexual maturity and capability to recreate. God clearly wanted them to get multiplying and filling the four corners of the earth as soon as possible.

I do remember a nice line in Rome where the father said to the daughter in astonished tones 'You're fourteen and still unmarried?!' or something similar. I think people forget when they're reading the Bible and other similar texts that the societies that produced them were very primitive in many ways.

DARKIZE

Both the OP's argument and the poll are somewhat ingenuous. Any (supposedly christian) person conducting such a gross violation of a child is breaking the very first commandment, ie "Honour thy God"; after all, isn't God considered our Father ?

I hope Sean Fitzpatrick isn't reading this thread......doesn't say anything in the 10 C's either about hiding your director's loans from the auditors.:D

Húrin

I think that the child abuse crisis has more to do with the fact that men who didn't really want to be priests were pressured into joining the celibate priesthood, as an alternative to emigrating for work in the 1950s.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the child abuse crisis has more to do with the fact that men who didn't really want to be priests were pressured into joining the celibate priesthood, as an alternative to emigrating

Personally, I suspect that it's got far more to do with men who were institutionally denied a legitimate means of having sex instead choosing an illegitimate one.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Personally, I suspect that it's got far more to do with men who were institutionally denied a legitimate means of having sex instead choosing an illegitimate one.

That's what I was getting at. Men who couldn't handle it were getting into the celibate game.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Personally, I suspect that it's got far more to do with men who were institutionally denied a legitimate means of having sex instead choosing an illegitimate one.

Not sure I would agree with that. I don't think the lack of sexual contact drove them to sexual contact with boys (or people they had access to), if that is what you mean.

Think it is more likely that paedophiles hid in the priesthood. With little or no interest in adult sexual relationships the priesthood allowed them a socially acceptable way to not have a wife (something that would have drawn attention if they had not been a priest), and allowed them access to young boys and girls.

bnt

The priesthood is supposed to be a vocation, not a prison sentence, I thought? If a priest can't hack the rules, he can always leave, as some do... but then he wouldn't receive the protection of the Vatican, would he?

Child abuse is a serious crime. There are no acceptable excuses. :mad:

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure I would agree with that. I don't think the lack of sexual contact drove them to sexual contact with boys (or people they had access to)

I believe the figures in the USA are around 75% boys/25% girls, though I suspect that may not be completely accurate for a variety of reasons. It is possible that pedophiles targeted the priesthood, but I've never heard any evidence to corroborate this.

It seems more likely to me that the abuse was initially opportunistic or almost accidental. I also suspect that quite a few gay men joined the priesthood for the social reason you give. But I don't believe that many of them were pedophiles, at least not to start with anyway. And the high percentage of gay priests may help to explain the male/female asymmetry above, if pedophiles are preferentially attracted to one sex in the same way that adults are.