just wondering if anyone out there can justify the predigious of cathlolic church

r@t

just wanted to know how the church actually came up with the rule that:

1. women can't hold high positions in the church( if any at all)

2. Priest can't marry
3. homosexuals are evil

4. blasphmey is illegal, so you can objectively critizise anything you want so long as it isn't the church.

5. sex before marraige and contraceptives

all theories and facts are welcome

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

which we all know causes sexual frustration and sometimes leads to child molestation

WTF?

The whole notion that men are so overwhelmingly at the mercy of sexual urges that if for one reason or another they can't get laid they'll find themselves forcing themselves on whatever victim they can get their hands on is utter bollocks, insulting to every man that doesn't commit rape or sexual assault and denies the moral responsibility of those that do.

While some perpetrators may have joined the priesthood because they had no sexual attraction to adult women and the celibate priesthood offered a way to be socially respectable without marrying, the fact is that the molestation cases happened because people were given power over children without any checks put on those powers. There have certainly been all to many cases of lay child-workers of various types molesting children too.

Why do bank-robbers rob banks? "Because that's where the money is."
Why do paedophiles seek jobs that give them a position of power over and trust with children? Because that's where the children are.

utopian

r@t wrote:

just wanted to know how the church actually came up with the rule that:

etc.
etc.

But you don't want to know, do you?

And I guarantee that you will never find anyone who "can justify the predigious of christian mythology".

abccormac

I know it's off topic, but every time I see a thread fom christianity on the latest thread page, it's an obvious troll. I'm not a christian, and don't take much interest in religion at all so I don't post here. Therefore, I'm not particularly put out by this. What I don't understand is why people who do believe in christianity rise to the bait? Just ignore the little muppets and they will eventually go away.

Steven

Ahhhh, I get it now. Prejudice. It's like one of those magic eye puzzles.

Talliesin

utopian wrote:

But you don't want to know, do you?

And I guarantee that you will never find anyone who "can justify the predigious of christian mythology".

"predigious" not appearing in any dictionary I could find won't help

Talliesin

Steven wrote:

Ahhhh, I get it now. Prejudice. It's like one of those magic eye puzzles.

Ah. I see.
He still doesn't know the different between mythology and ethics.

Talliesin

abccormac wrote:

I'm not a christian, and don't take much interest in religion at all so I don't post here.

I'm not either, but there have been some interesting threads here.

abccormac wrote:

Just ignore the little muppets and they will eventually go away.

Swatting idiocies can be fun though.

r@t

Talliesin wrote:

WTF?

The whole notion that men are so overwhelmingly at the mercy of sexual urges that if for one reason or another they can't get laid they'll find themselves forcing themselves on whatever victim they can get their hands on is utter bollocks, insulting to every man that doesn't commit rape or sexual assault and denies the moral responsibility of those that do.

While some perpetrators may have joined the priesthood because they had no sexual attraction to adult women and the celibate priesthood offered a way to be socially respectable without marrying, the fact is that the molestation cases happened because people were given power over children without any checks put on those powers. There have certainly been all to many cases of lay child-workers of various types molesting children too.

Why do bank-robbers rob banks? "Because that's where the money is."
Why do paedophiles seek jobs that give them a position of power over and trust with children? Because that's where the children are.

so you are blaming the leaders of the church then for appointing priests??

is_that_so

1. women can't hold high positions in the church( if any at all)

The original apostles were men, plain and simple. And then there was Mary magdalene

2. Priest can't marry (which we all know causes sexual frustration and sometimes leads to child molestation)

They used to once upon a time , but rumour has it that the church changed the rules in the 14th century or so because they found priests leaving the church, doing a runner, and leaving the Church to pick up the tab for families
I am open to correction on this .

3. homosexuals are evil

Sodom and Gomorrah and of course Adam and Eve are quite naturally the only type of partnership allowed, because the Bible says so.

4. blasphmey is illegal, so you can objectively critizise anything you want so long as it isn't the church.

Pure politics and often used to get people taken care of by the Inquisition. It originally comes from The First Commandment.

5. sex before marraige and contraceptives

Fornication, think we're in Sodom and Gomorrah territory. The only reason for sex in the eyes of the Church is to go forth and multiply. Anything that prevent or subverts this therefore is wrong.
It most likely was originally used to discourage bastard children who might possibly have caused political problems for the gentry, most of whom would have paid for the Church.

StupidLikeAFox

r@t wrote:

so you are blaming the leaders of the church then for appointing priests??

How the hell could you make that claim from his post?

utopian

Talliesin wrote:

"predigious" not appearing in any dictionary I could find won't help

And even if it did, it probably wouldn't be a noun.

This is the point at which someone points out that it's actually pre-digious, relating to the Digi (sing. Diga), a group of heretics active in 13th-century Provence.

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

so you are blaming the leaders of the church then for appointing priests??

Hmm.
If you're trolling you aren't trying very hard. I've clearly said nothing about the leaders of the church in the post you quoted either attacking or defending them. Please troll better.

On the other hand its possible that you really don't understand putting the brunt of my condemnation for rape and sexual abuse against rapists and sexual abusers. There are many morons who have difficulty with this concept, though I would suggest that you think about it a bit before condemning any ethical codes.

Either way, you should also look up the words mythology and ethics in a dictionary.

r@t

Talliesin wrote:

Ah. I see.
He still doesn't know the different between mythology and ethics.

i stated facts so if i offended you i am sorry, but i truly am looking for answers to these quesions. i am not trying to rise people for kicks, i am not a child im 25. and i think you'll find the term for all religions is mythology.

are people no longer willing to quesion there leaders.

you talk of ethics?!?!! so you think its better to discrimiate women and gays????

is_that_so

Talliesin wrote:

Either way, you should also look up the words mythology and ethics in a dictionary.

I suspect Traditions may be a more suitable term here in the thread title.

r@t

what is trolling?!?!


how do i come to that conclusion? this is how

"the fact is that the molestation cases happened because people were given power over children without any checks put on those powers. There have certainly been all to many cases of lay child-workers of various types molesting children too."

who appoints priests
theres your answer.
listen to you condeming me without question, i only asked a question i never said you wear evil

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

i stated facts so if i offended you i am sorry,

What evidence do you have that celibacy leads to child molestation?

r@t wrote:

i am not a child im 25.

Going by your grammar and spelling I'd have placed you at about 7.

r@t wrote:

and i think you'll find the term for all religions is mythology.

The term for all religions is "religions".
Mythology is the body of myths, that is to say stories held to be significant, associated with a religion or culture. That there was a big flood and Noah built a boat to escape it is a Christian myth (whether or not Christians literally believe it, or for that matter whether or not it's actually true). That you shouldn't kill people isn't a myth, though that God gave a commandment to that effect is.

r@t wrote:

are people no longer willing to quesion there leaders.

They aren't my leaders, I'm not Christian.

r@t wrote:

you talk of ethics

Yes, I often talk of ethics.

r@t wrote:

?!?!!

I think your keyboard might be stuck.

r@t wrote:

so you think its better to discrimiate women and gays?

No, I think it's deeply wrong to do so, and have taken action upto and including acts of civil disobedience to fight this. You will note that at no time have I said otherwise.

r@t

why are you abusing me.

my spelling is bad because i am dyslexic so please forgive me.

i didn't post saying everything you believe in is nonsense, you are being rather uncompassioate with me i have not abused anyone.

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

who appoints priests

Who gives people access to children just because they're priests.
I don't particularly condemn the Church for its appointing paedophiles as priests, I imagine if someone applied to a seminary and said "oh, I want to be a priest so I can bugger children" they'd have probably caught that one.
I do strongly condemn the Church for its aiding and abetting paedophile priests after the fact, and I find it disappointing that there have been so few criminal prosecutions of bishops who did so.
I also strongly condemn the authorities, both ecclestiastic and civil, for not having better measures to ensure that nobody, priest or laity, would be in a position where it would be so easy for them to molest children.
Primarily though, I blame the actual perpetrators.

r@t wrote:

i only asked a question i never said you wear evil

Well, actually you did. I'm a man. While I'm currently a happily married man, maybe something would happen which would lead to my not having sexual relations for an extended period. According to you I might then go off and look for a child to molest. Sounds pretty evil to me.

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

i have not abused anyone.

Yes you have. I'm sick of this crap where the moral responsibility for sexual assault is deflected from the perpetrators. I find it deeply offensive and abusive.

r@t

hold on there if you look at my post i actually said:
"which we all know causes sexual frustration and sometimes leads to child molestation"
which mean not all case but sum- i wasnt implying that all people are abusers that would be ubsurd

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

hold on there if you look at my post i actually said:
"which we all know causes sexual frustration and sometimes leads to child molestation"
which mean not all case but sum- i wasnt implying that all people are abusers that would be ubsurd

It's still morally bankrupt and deeply offensive.
I'm sorry but nobody can become sexually frustrated to the point whereby they involuntarily assault someone. Even if they could, nobody could become sexually frustrated to the point where they involutarily assualt someone and then involutarily cover their tracks, threaten witnesses, and deny their actions.

Rape is caused by rapists.

FWIW, I do think celibacy being the only option for priests (as opposed to something they may choose to do as a devotion) is unwise given the wider ministerial rôle they perform. Beyond that I think it's just a matter of Catholic Doctrine and Canon Law, that (unlike some of the other points you mention) doesn't affect the rest of us. As such it's something I have an interest in (religion is interesting) but don't have any strong opinions on.

r@t

Talliesin wrote:

I'm sorry but nobody can become sexually frustrated to the point whereby they involuntarily assault someone. Even if they could, nobody could become sexually frustrated to the point where they involutarily assualt someone and then involutarily cover their tracks, threaten witnesses, and deny their actions.

Rape is caused by rapists.

actualy some people do commit rape because of sexually frustration.

Talliesin wrote:

Yes you have. I'm sick of this crap where the moral responsibility for sexual assault is deflected from the perpetrators. I find it deeply offensive and abusive.

who are the perpetrators, what exactly is offenive and abusive?

r@t

you see the thing is its not that i dont believe in god, i do
but the laws laid down by man to govern the church are perplexing- in short where do they come from?

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

actualy some people do commit rape because of sexually frustration.

Some people commit battery-assault with theft because they want money. No degree of poverty would lead you to involuntarily do so though.

r@t

Talliesin wrote:

Some people commit battery-assault with theft because they want money. No degree of poverty would lead you to involuntarily do so though.

were not talking voluntary or involuntary just admitting that it happens.
it cannot be denied.
i wouldn't do it, you wouldn't do it- but other would.
can you see my point?

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

were not talking voluntary or involuntary just admitting that it happens.
it cannot be denied.

Well actually it can be denied. If you are suffering from sexual frustration you can either put up with it, masterbate, or go and find someone to have sex with. In the case of someone who has taken a vow of chastity that means either keeping or breaking that vow.
Meanwhile, men with active sex lives will commit rape. Men will even rape their lovers. Men will rape people they've had consensual sex with less than an hour previously.
Your blaming rape on sexual frustration is unsupportable.

r@t

why do you keep generalising? i didn't say everyone just some people. do you think everyone does things for the same reason???


anyway that aside what is the point of forced chastity?

and that isn't the only question i asked- and more over it is one of the less frightening ones.

StupidLikeAFox

And what are ya coming here looking for answers for? Shouldnt your personal faith/beliefs or lack of be just that, personal?

Talliesin

r@t wrote:

why do you keep generalising? i didn't say everyone just some people.

I say no people. Nobody molested a child because they took a vow of chastity. 0. Zero. Zilch.

r@t wrote:

and more over it is one of the less frightening ones.

It's very frightening that someone could think like that.

Excelsior

1. Christianity is the system of beliefs that directly relate to the claims of the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, to be the Christ. It is not Catholicism.

2. According to the charter of this board, you should not be coming in here saying "You are stupid (explain yourself)", which is what you do when you say "Prejudices... mythology... sexual assaults... (I really want to know the truth".

3. I will respond to your five points now. Thanks to Talliesin for tackling you but as moderator of the board, I'll have the arrogance to claim to represent orthodoxy.

women can't hold high positions in the church( if any at all)

In many Christian churches women can assume the same positions as men. In the mainline Protestant denominations this is universally the case.

In Roman Catholicism, as in all Christian churches, based on the Biblical principle of leadership being nothing but servanthood, women are entirely equal to men. When you say they are being oppressed, the RC Church would say you are just applying your understanding of the situation without trying to consider the consistency of their own position. Many (the vast majority globally I'd wager) Catholic women do not feel oppressed. All this is irrelevant since Christianity, which is the thing you referenced in the thread title, does not keep any position from women.

Priest can't marry

They can in the Orthodox Church. Priests don't apply in the reformed churches which hold to the principle of the priesthood of all believers. Where they have ministers in their place, they can marry. So in Christianity, it is not as you have presented.

In the RC Church, priests can't marry because Jesus didn't marry. Priests choose to be celibate. It is not oppression.

which we all know causes sexual frustration and sometimes leads to child molestation

This is simply untrue. If it is not backed up or withdrawn, I will close this thread and any like it down. Celibate people (for whatever reason) are not more likely to commit sexual crimes. It is doubly offensive since, as Talliesin has pointed out, it dilutes the responsibility of the sexual criminal. Back it up, take it down or face the consequences.

homosexuals are evil

This is neither a position supported by the Bible, nor by any true Christian church I have ever heard of (whereby I claim that Phelps and his like are not practicing Christianity).

The Christian belief is that all have sinned. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Sex outside of marriage is sinful. Homosexual sex is sinful. That does not make homosexuals evil. I can't apologise for things that actually don't exist. Your claim does not exist in reality.

blasphmey is illegal, so you can objectively critizise anything you want so long as it isn't the church

The church meaning what? The theological idea of the invisible gathering of the pilgrimaging people of God? The Roman Catholic church? The Christian churches? The church down the road from you? All religious institutions? All monotheistic religious institutions? What exactly do you mean by this sentence.

If the government passes a law, then that is not a part of Christian belief, since the Bible, explicitly through the words of Christ, support a seperation of Church and state. This is a political problem and not a Christian one.

I am not familiar with the specifics of this alleged blasphemy law. I have certainly never heard of anyone being convicted by it. And yet I have heard much criticism of the church you refer to, the Roman Catholic Church. I myself, criticise the Roman Catholic church and yet am never taken away by the Gardaí on the grounds of blasphemy.

Like everything else here, this is not a myth.

sex before marraige and contraceptives

The Bible, which is held as authority by all the Christian churches, clearly teaches that sex outside of a marriage union is a sin. Therefore, the churches teach that sex should be kept within marriages.

Once again, one church has an issue with contraceptives but as a Presbyterian I may not be the best person to explain that problem. Furthermore, as your post refers to Christianity, I feel no need to tackle it here since Christianity has no problem with contraceptives.

You may be a muppet troll and if you are, thanks for taking 13 minutes of my Sunday away from me. If you are not, please either substantiate or withdraw your claims about sexual frustration being a motivation to sexual attacks.

And in future, please have a little more respect for the beliefs of the Christians on Boards.ie. I will have no hesitance in banning any further threads after this one started by you that come to attack. We want friendly debate and dialogue here, not muppetry.