King Rat

Ditto. Mine came from Rudy Ruckers book The Hacker and the Ants.

The protagonist would say "God hates ______," as an ironic expletive. I seem to have unconciously picked it up. You should see the looks on my fundy relatives faces when I calmly state "god hates democrats," they tend towards paroxysms of indecision. On the one hand they know that I'm atheist, on the other, god must hate democrats. On the one hand god is love, on the other, god must hate democrats, etc.

Fun, fun...

Philosoft

Right. Until it's time to trot out all the official little textual tidbits that prove the US is a "Christian nation" or was "founded on God" or whatever is the vague catch-phrase du jour.

Hail

I don't think people should arrogantly impinge on the freedom of other peaceful people so as to get them to believe what they do.

Still if the description that you have been given of how the universe is set up doesn't seem plausible to you does that mean there is no more accurate description possible?

If the concepts humans have come up with so far reflects their figurative abridged form of expression should we expect this understanding to be expanded in our time?
We have expanded our understanding, especially scientifically. It is this same understanding that has been expanded to what you now know and/or think you know. In times past it existed more in the form of questions and now much of that has turned into answers or knowledge or technology.

To anthropomorphize the energy of the Universes and give it name X, Y or Z in itself apparently is not the problem. There is something else turning people off, some to the point of making them scorn any concept of it's recognition.
I say "What is, is" and we don't doubt that. All is energy "orchestrated" and exists. Some like it generic and some like it labeled.
That is how I see it.

Haylow

The god people are talking to you about, he sounds like he's all around you, to me

Barcode

[quote]Why are the police/law enforcement not investigating churches for abuse? Of children at least!? How many times have you seen on the news a horrible incident stemming from faith? MANY in the last 5 years!/quote]

Oh I agree 100%.

It's just people get it into their head that the church is not even a factor in such events.

My girlfriend seems convinced it's 100% down to the individual, and the fact the Catholic church enforces the unnatural state of celibacy upon its priests, or the way in which it is structured has absolutely nothing to do with the abuse.

How anybody can fail not to relate the two things is beyond me. Yes, of course anybody that goes around doing such things to children is evidently disturbed to begin with -- but such people need psychiatric help, and not a religion to masquerade behind and provide cover for their crimes.

The Church needs to be accountable to other agencies; it needs to stop assuming it has the absolute authority. The only reason it seems action is being taken now is because so many victims complained and it came to the media attention -- unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more pressure before we see some real reforms.

Bede

Could we see some statistics from a nuetral agancy that shows child abuse is higher in Catholic countries than protestant/secular ones? Could we see some statistics that show abuse by priests is more prevalent than by other professionals with access to children? Have you forgotten the terrrible scandals in council care homes in the UK? What was the religious connection there?

The Church did not come clean about priests that were abusing but that does not mean they were abusing because they were priests. Councils also tried to cover up evidence of abuse until they had to come clean.

You last point may be true but the religion should not have been covering for them, just like every other case of bureaucratic corruption in the history of the world. Like the cover up of the Guildford four's evidence - was that religious?

You are trying to make religion into a convenient scapegoat. Given you come from the UK where religion is practically a non-issue to 99% of people this shows you are seriously muddled up. Why not deal with the real world instead of imagining easy institutions to accuse.

What reforms do you want to see? The UK catholic church has a review squad on abuse cases headed deliberately by an agnostic. Isn't that good enough for you? Do you want to see the situation we now have in schools where everyone is vetted at vast expense and teachers are wrongly accused the whole time so they can't do their job. I expect you do as it would hamstring the church from doing its pastoral work.

Unless you live in the inner cites and regularly minister to poor immigrant people who are fucked over by the state and have no one else to turn to, unless you spend half your time helping complete strangers with their problems, unless you regularly visit the housebound, you can shut up about what the Church should and should not be doing.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Barcode

For gawd's sake ...

i) I've never stated Priests were abusing children *because* they were priests. So don't try and spin my words around. I'm arguing that the secretive nature of the Church (in the past) has been a factor in some of the events that have transpired.

ii) Your last paragraph was tantamount to saying " the church does some good so you have no right saying how things should be run."

As far as I'm concerned, that's has no relation to the issue at hand -- so yes, I can voice my thoughts on what the Church should (ideally) do regarding the issue of abuse and the clergy.

iii) I've not stated that the Catholic church has a higher incidence of abuse. Stop claiming I've said things that I haven't even posted. The problem relates to organized religion as a whole (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/may02/in...ft=agency.html).

Bede

Well barcode, as you don't think the church is any worse than any other institution, and admit it does good work, your ranting and railing against it is rather irrational, don't you think?

Anyway, if you stop making silly statements about how being celibate is connected to paedophilia (the clear implication for your previous post) and now accept that it is down to the individual, like your other half says, we have no disagreement. Let's be clear, we do agree the church was far, far too slow to put its house in order like many other institutions in the past and present (the Metropolitan and NYC and LA police, many council care homes, the General Medical Council protecting crap doctors etc).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: The Freedom from Religion Foundation is a bigotted hate group. I said neutral sources. If you desist from pointing me to the atheist toilet when I ask for evidence, I'll not present Josh McDowell as objective either.

Barcode

Oh sure, enforcing an unnatural state upon Priests has *nothing* to with abuse. There's no need to dimiss things as " silly " merely because you disagree.

I'd agree in the vast majority of cases it's unlikely; but it does make one wonder what would have happened in certain instances, if the Catholic Church had allowed it's Priests to form healthy, fulfilling relationships and marry.

Although you would think any reasonably sane individual knows what they are signing up for when they decide to join the church.

Like I've said ... anybody that abuses children is clearly a few apples short of a barrel ... it's just a great pity the church has been a refuge for paedophiles, and done nothing to stop it until too much damage has been done.

It's one factor out of many ... so no, I don't think the Church can be excommunicated from blame. If it hadn't had moved paedophile Priests around to preserve its " reputation " and done something when the first victim decided to come forward -- then it wouldn't be in such a state today.

Sure, a child abuser will abuse children no matter where they are, or what they are a part of ... I just question whether or not it would have been so easy for them if they were not part of the Church. And if something would have been done sooner.

EDIT: Isn't this going off topic? If you want to carry it on in another thread/forum then feel free to do so, otherwise I think I'll leave it here rather than derail the thread further.

Bede

Barcode,

just because it seems logical to you that celibacy might have that effect does not make it true. You are not the font of all knowledge. That is why I asked for neutral statistics so you could back up your claim. If it is based on ahunch (or a ffrf hate tract) that means you are just mouthing off. I thought you considered yourself sceptical. So lets have some evidence and some critical thinking....

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason