Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4793ba0d$0$7238$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4793059c$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
...
Why do you have such a problem
understanding that you can't make assumptions about the beliefs of a
whole community based upon a handful of fuckwits within it.
You CAN take it as fact that his pronouncements for his people are
like
that
of the Pope for Catholics.
Who elected him?
What the Pope says goes for the church! The fact that millions never
even
knew him before his election and never voted for him is beside the
point.
If the pope said tomorrow that you should marry off your nione-year old
daughter, would you?
This type of question is CENTRAL to what the Pope recently stated in Germany
and over which therer was outcry from Muslims!
The Pope pointed out that God would not act outside reason or morality and
to a Middle Age Muslim who stated that allah could even redefine the laws of
reason or morality if he saw fit!
Here is the quote:
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this:
not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The
editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped
by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim
teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any
of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of
the noted French Muslim R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so
far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing
would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would
even have to practice idolatry.
[end quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy
Thank you for pointing this out.
I am reminded that Blaise Pascal once said: "God is not perfect because
he cannot build a wall that he cannot jump over"
For his trouble, Pascal was sentenced to death by the RC church
anonymously, that is they didn't know who wrote it so they called him
"Mr X" and sentenced "Mr X" to death.
Glad to see that the RC church has reformed somewhat.
Anyway - good quote, I'll have to think about it.
It's all mumbo-jumbo written by witchdoctors and corrupted by
tribal
customs for paternalistic tribesmen who regarded women and kids
as
possessions.
That is you r opinion. I am asking you based not on opinion but
the
actual
FACTS of recorded literature.
Recorded literature is recorded opinion
No it isnt but so what?
Don't be ridiculous. Do you sincerely believe that sex with nine old
girls is God's word?
No but I don't think Islam or christianity is mumbo jumbo written by
witch
doctors.
Good grief, do you seriously believe that God would condone sex with a
nine year old?
No but I don't think Islam or christianity is mumbo jumbo written by
witch
doctors. Please STOP trying to change the issue into a personal attack
on
me.
Okay, say I accept for a moment that scripture has some relevance. Start
at the other end:
It makes no difference what YOU accept personally as regards your own
belief. what we must BOTH accept is that Muslims accept Hadity and
Christians accept the New Testament! You CANT deny that!
Do you believe that God would condone sex with a nine year old?
(this is not a personal attack - you simply have to take a stand)
I don't believe God would do anything Immoral. I also don't think he would
redefine morality. Please look at the above quote on that.
What do you mean by 'moral'?
If I claim that sex with nine year old girls is okay, what is your basis
for saying that this view is immoral?
Do you really think that God didn't want women to
enter the priesthood?
Seperate issue but quite probably yes. it is a valid argument . I dont
have
anything against women priests however. the arguments against women
priests
is much stronger than that of married priests.
Oh what rot. What possible argument could there be for not having women
priests?
Seperate issue. the standard answer is that Christ didn't have any or at
least none are mentioned.
Women were not allowed to study (or write) the Talmud. Consequently
scripture was biased from day one. Consequently, when I read it, I have
to keep in mind that it was written by people (men) who used it to
subvert religion for their own tribal objectives.
Christ changed the old ways and Jewish Laws and customs and STILL isnt
recorded as having priestessess.
In fact, according to the Gnostics, Jesus *did* have a female disciple.
I know he had female disciples. Mary Magdelene was one. She was the only one
apart from Peter to attend the crusifiction. But she was not at the Last
supper and she was not recorded as being asked to perform religious rites
e.g. the Eucharist in memory of Christ.
The problem is that anyone who said so got burned at the stake or
similar. As it happens the evidence was hidden away by monks (gosh, I'm
glad that *someone* has some credibility in this industry!) until it was
discovered in 1945.
You know little of this. Please check your facts before you state something
which is in error. Gnostic gospels have existed since ancient times.
"The persecuted primitive Church of the second century was to become in
the fourth century itself the persecutor, and whereas in the earlier
period Gnostics had been able to engage in theological dispute with the
orthodox, later they were sought out, excommunicated, and sometimes
burnt alive for their heresy."
(Stuart Holroyd, The Elements of Gnosticism, p.22, pub. A.D. 1994)
"... Christians burned down one of the world's greatest libraries in
Alexandria, said to have housed 700,000 rolls. All the books of the
Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's 36 volumes, papyrus rolls of 27 schools of
the Mysteries, and 270,000 ancient documents gathered by Ptolemy
Philadelphus were burned. Ancient academies of learning were closed.
Education for anyone outside of the Church came to an end..."
(Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History, p. 46, pub. 1995)
This is the best evidence that the church is really just a remnant of
tribal practices.
coming from someone who stated (awas that you) they dont think men
should be
put in charge of girls I dont think that is a strong argument.
There are a lot of leaps between 'scripture is a men only zone' and 'men
shouldn't be put in charge of girls'.
Yes you want YOUR oppinion to be foisted on Men but not that of a 2000 year
old surviving Church.
I never said that I "dont think men should be put in charge of girls".
What nonsense.
I said that scripture was a "men only zone" and thus from day one, it
was biased. As it happens, we had the gospel according to Mary. As it
happens, it was suppressed, burned and destroyed. It's followers were
burned at the stake.
So much for scripture.
What do you mean?
These people made it up as they went along. They are tribal
witchdoctors
- nothing more.
Eh no you would be quite wrong about that! they didnt make it up as
they
went along. Hermenutics suggests not in the Case of christians anyway.
For a start, the tribal practice of those days was that women should
never study the Talmud - so scripture is stuffed from the outset.
Christ put aside the Mosaic practices. But he didnt have women
pristessess.
How do you know?
Sorry I meant He is not recorded as having any. He might have had. But there
isnt any evidence.
If the local mullah/rabbi/priest got HIS grubby hands on the scripture
and purged any attempts to involve women, then you DON'T know.
There are many stories of christ being homosexual having wives etc. these
are gnostic.
The Church met and decided what they believed were the true scriptures. That
was 1800 years ago. People in the church believe that to be the correct
story. Just as they believe in God. you may not but you CANT deny that this
is the accepted belief!
No it isn't. Accepted by whom?
"When the great library at Alexandria was ransacked by Christian
fanatics in 387... an inestimable wealth of gnostic literature must have
been destroyed. Until the nineteenth century the main source of
knowledge of Gnosticism was, ironically, in the writings of the Church
Fathers, who in their refutations summarised gnostic texts and often
quoted at length from them.
In the nineteenth and present centuries a number of original gnostic
texts came to light, the most sensational find being an entire library
of fifty-two texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1946.
These, scholars later ascertained, had belonged to an ascetic Christian
community which, fearing discovery by the ecclesiastical authorities and
the consequences of being charged with heresy, had sealed up their
forbidden library in a large jar and buried it in the sand beneath a
cliff near their monastery in about the year 360"
(Stuart Holroyd, The Elements of Gnosticism)
A scientific paper about an experiment is recorded literatire. It
may
contain opinion but in the main it is about a FACT which you can
test
to
be
true. Similaraly if a historian records something and another who
never
met
him recorded the same thing but with a differnt slant it is
difficult
to
claim some event didnt happen.
Precisely. If you want the genuine word of God, ask an historian -
don't
ask a priest/mullah/rabbi.
Some priests ARE historians, and astronomers and doctors. The Jesuits
usually have one of everything. In fact they teach historians!
Hope for your sake, you never get a Jehovah's witness as a doctor
JW are not mainstream christians. Indeed they are fringe theoloogians!
That's not the point.
Yes it is! Jesuit theologians will NOT preach what JW's do!
Billions of Muslim women don't have that choice: they are 'mainstream',
so according to you, they adhere to fuckwit Khomein's beliefs.
You are IGNORANT of the fact that Khomeini - being a shia- is a MINORITY
representative. Please try to keep up!
As I have mentioned, this reinforces the ridiculousness of attributing
Khomeini's judgements to 1.8 billion Muslims.
[snip]
If that were the case we would be seeing hundreds of convictions - not
just a handful.
How do you know? what is this based on?
Research.
What research? Care to cite it?
No.
In "The myth of the 'pedophile priest'", Jenkins estimated 0.2%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
"In 1971, psychiatrist Conrad Baars traveled to the Vatican, where he
presented the first of two studies about the US priesthood to the Synod
of Bishops, an assembly of bishops from around the world. Baars based
his research on 40 years’ experience treating 1500 priests. He found
that 20 to 25 percent of American clergy members had serious psychiatric
problems, while 60 to 70 percent suffered emotional immaturity — by
which Baars meant 'an insufficiently developed or distorted emotional
life'. According to his report, 'The Role of the Church in the
Causation, Treatment, and Prevention of the Crisis of the Priesthood',
these priests often exhibited a 'psychosexual immaturity expressed in
hetero- or homosexual activity, as well as in masturbation, sexual
impotence or frigidity ... or sexual exploits'".
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/01847612.htm
"Richard Sipe, who has formidable qualifications, reveals in the Sipe
report,and without apparent fear of contradiction, that five to seven
per cent ofUnited States Catholic priests have molested children. It is
good that 94 percent of United States Catholic priests are likely to be
okay. But if six percent of 50,000 United States Catholic priests were
to have sexually assaulted an average of 100 children over a 50-year
career span, you would be talkingabout 300,000 victims. There is no
research here to tell us what the Australian percentage is, but, on the
same figures, six per cent of the 4,500 Catholic priesthood in Australia
would mean 270 would have molested Australian children. Multiply that by
a possible 100 victims over a paedophile priest's lifespan and we would
have 27,000 Australian victims".
http://www.tfyqa.biz/index.php?id=174
Plus another 27,000 victims of Anglican priests
"...and yet the numbers of children being sexually assaulted continues
to rise to where almost 20% of children report being sexually molested
by the time they reach the age of 12"
http://www.tfyqa.biz/fairgomate
And the convictions would be sexually active 20-50 year
olds, not octogenerians.
Not if the abuse has stopped doue to the policy change! You are assuming
that the church is still as bad in this leval of abuse as ever. clearly
it
isnt!
Efforts only began less than 10 years ago.
I don't see any 40, 50 or 60 year olds getting convicted
I do! But efforts began more than ten years ago. But let us take 1995 as a
reference date then.
We would be seeing many more excommunications -
we're seeing none.
Excommunication is a different matter!
What could be worse that paedophilia?
I fail to see your point. Excommunicated or not they may still abuse.
Are you serious? Priests are amongst the most trusted members of the
community
No the churches are merely responding to public pressure with the
minimum that they can get away with. It is a P.R. exercise and little
more.
Say you. I come from the most Catholic country in the world and went to
the
christian Brothers. In the past 40 years things have changed
dramatically.
The only major change is that people are coming out of the closet and
disclosing their past experiences. This is *forcing* the RC and Anglican
churches to respond.
Yes and no. It is more complicated than that.
One would think that the church would have a mission to protect
kids -
the fact that they don't brings into question the whole raison d'etre
of
the church.
No it doesnt since your premise is in error! They DO so your
assumption
that
DONT is wrong!
Fine, so open it all up to an independent investigation.
It won't happen - and you know it, cos it's just a P.R. exercise
Actually it HAS been opened to investigation. But because of the large
NUMBER of cases and the fact that "class action" does not exist in my
juristiction they moved to resolve it more quickly by other means.
Under what jurisdiction is this happening?
I don't see paedophiles being handed to the police.
In Ireland!
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/
http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/Pressrel/19-december-2005.html
http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_202.shtml
But punishing the perp is not solving the issue.
this is probablt a better type of preventative initiave:
http://faithtrustinstitute.org/
.
