# Pope says that "child rape isnt that bad"



## thedarkoceans (Nov 25, 2011)

hey guys.so,the pope has said another great thing today.FUCK OFF.

Vatican Christmas Shocker! Pope says child rape isn't that bad, was normal back in his day -- Society's Child -- Sott.net


really cant get this,i just hope that people will wake up for this and understand that this is the humanity's cancer.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 25, 2011)

Dog haven't you been watching world news... Pizza is a vegetable. This comes as no surprise. Everyone is losing their fucking minds. Plus, don't Catholic priests just get transfered for fucking children?

... "There are no children in THIS church..." right...


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 25, 2011)

What an awful human being.

You're right, organized Christianity and Catholicism is a cancer on humanity... we need some major spiritual chemotherapy IMO.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 25, 2011)

^ Like genocide? Brainwashing, perhaps? Careful...


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 25, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ Like genocide? Brainwashing, perhaps? Careful...



I didn't mean it like that! 

I'm not advocating genocide against Christians. I'd never say that.

It's not the believers who are to blame, not even so much the faith itself (the Bible is great if you just take it as a book of teachings (love thy neighbour, do unto others etc), instead of following it as a faith). 

It's the corrupt and sometimes even genuinely insane priests, bishops and sect/cult leaders who spoil it all.

I know there's no real way of making this next thing happen, but IMO it's a religion that's best quietly forgotten. 
The world would be a better place without it.

That doesn't mean brainwashing either. There's no way of losing it as a religion, as I've said. I just wish it would go away.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

I kind of don't see at all how he said "child rape isn't that bad", or anything even similar... Believe me, I almost despise the church, so I would be delighted if he said that.. But that's not even the point he was getting at, seemingly. Maybe I'm misreading something.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 25, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I kind of don't see at all how he said "child rape isn't that bad", or anything even similar... Believe me, I almost despise the church, so I would be delighted if he said that.. But that's not even the point he was getting at.



I think it's awful that he even hinted that it didn't used to be as much of an issue.

Even if that's true (which I doubt it is) it still reeks of him attempting to justify paedophilia in the church.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 25, 2011)

The Christian faith isn't to blame in this instance, since 'God' states in the Bible that paedophilia is an abomination. Rather, the Pope's twisted view of matters is at fault. Either way, paedophilia is abuse of children's rights and the Pope's almost condoning of it is despicable.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 25, 2011)

NatG said:


> *The Christian faith isn't to blame in this instance,* since 'God' states in the Bible that paedophilia is an abomination. Rather, the Pope's twisted view of matters is at fault. Either way, paedophilia is abuse of children's rights and the Pope's almost condoning of it is despicable.



Maybe not in this instance. But in most others 

Agree with the rest of your post though.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 25, 2011)

Well my dad was really old...born in the 30s. Even though he marched on Washington he used to refer to black people as "coloreds". He was the least racist person I know but at the same point it was due to the racial zeitgeist of his era....

Soooo... I can totally agree with the Pope... I mean don't we all remember back in the day when child rape was cool? No? Oh wait nevermind I was thinking of something else... I'm pretty sure child rape has always been bad... except, you know, in the bible:

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) _If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. _

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) _As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you._

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) _Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished._ 

(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB) _Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives _[plural]_ while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'_
_Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die_."


----------



## Randy (Nov 25, 2011)

The terms "child rape" and "shocker" both appearing in that headline made me double-take.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 25, 2011)

Hmmm.
Even if pedophilia would be normal, the priests are still not allow to have sex, let have gay sex. And, it's not sex with a kid, it's rape. It has no similarity to the old greek or roman "practices".
What he does is making everything worse, and prooving the "opinion" that him and other high animals protect their priests, even stop police from investigating it.

This scum is a burden to the earth.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Nov 25, 2011)

Randy said:


> The terms "child rape" and "shocker" both appearing in that headline made me double-take.











Wait isn't this the pope who was a Nazi? Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

But it probably is


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

Yeah, I really, really dislike the pope, and I don't support this speech of his.. But, I'm just saying, he didn't say child rape was ok.


----------



## Randy (Nov 25, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Yeah, I really, really dislike the pope, and I don't support this speech of his.. But, I'm just saying, he didn't say child rape was ok.



Yep.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

Once again sensationalism is the order of the day. The Pope didn't say that abusing kids was alright or condoned. That wasn't what he was saying.

Furthermore, it could be argued that since sexuality is still rather mysterious, we don't in fact know what's normal or not. Is it right? Of course not..is it "normal"? Define normal. Something may be odd when considering the cultural rules of the given land, but not exactly abnormal.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

Well, when something seems to be occurring frequently amongst a particular society, it is technically, relatively normal. That is what the pope is saying. People are just sensitive.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, when something seems to be occurring frequently amongst a particular society, it is technically, relatively normal. That is what the pope is saying. People are just sensitive.



It's the Pope. It makes a much more fun story to say "The Pope says Pedophilia is A-OK!" Than the actual truth. I'm starting to notice that more and more with news threads.




BucketheadRules said:


> What an awful human being.
> 
> You're right, organized Christianity and Catholicism is a cancer on humanity... we need some major spiritual chemotherapy IMO.



You ARE aware that you sound just as bad as the lunatic Crosstitutes who think that everything non-Christian is a plague unto humanity right? The issue isn't religion, it's people. If religion never existed this would still be going on in some other form. Don't blame a system that other people benefit from just because others pervert it for their own ignorant purposes.


----------



## murakami (Nov 25, 2011)

i feel that all religion has lost touch with it's intial, principal standards.

i know a lot of buddhist at my former temple that prayed for superficial
things like winning the lottery, getting a good job. cars etc...
it's retarded.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 25, 2011)

Pope should be the last person to talk about it in this way. He didn't say it was ok, be he implied it was actually not that bad before. He even tries to say "nothing is just evil". So his priests where doing something bad maybe, which was not that bad anyway, but god loves them all since they are good people.

If the POPE, who and his coworkers are in trouble with pedophilia, try to show it as somethig less "evil" than it is, I'm sorry but I see it as an attemp to make it easier to save their asses. Pope should shut up and cooperate with the police, not tell bullshit to the "sheep".


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Nov 25, 2011)

Since people already have the notion that Catholic officials condone sex abuse, they are taking the word "normal" to mean "condoneable." It's a classic example of how expectations color interpretations of ambiguous situations.

(I still think the Church isn't doing enough regarding child abuse, but that doesn't affect my interpretation of the Pope's message)


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Pope should be the last person to talk about it in this way. He didn't say it was ok, be he implied it was actually not that bad before. He even tries to say "nothing is just evil". So his priests where doing something bad maybe, which was not that bad anyway, but god loves them all since they are good people.
> 
> If the POPE, who and his coworkers are in trouble with pedophilia, try to show it as somethig less "evil" than it is, I'm sorry but I see it as an attemp to make it easier to save their asses. Pope should shut up and cooperate with the police, not tell bullshit to the "sheep".



I think you missed his point. He wasn't saying it was fine..he's saying it isn't "evil". Pedophiles are wired to find children attractive just like you find a hot woman attractive. It's not some sinister urge to purposely wait in the shadows for a golden opportunity to hurt a child for the purpose of just making it suffer. In such an instance "evil" isn't an appropriate term. Sure it's wrong but since the psychology behind sexual arousal/interests aren't completely known, we can't say anything is good or evil. We don't yet understand it


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> You ARE aware that you sound just as bad as the lunatic Crosstitutes who think that everything non-Christian is a plague unto humanity right? The issue isn't religion, it's people. If religion never existed this would still be going on in some other form. Don't blame a system that other people benefit from just because others pervert it for their own ignorant purposes.


 
Obviously we'd still have conflict going on in some form, regardless of religion's existence. 

Both religion and believers are to blame when faith causes harm. The religion is to be blamed since that being where the harm originates, and the believers for actually accepting it and going through with harm. 

The Bible, while it does have some good ideas coming mostly from Jesus, proposes that Christians do some very unsavoury things and contains very unsavoury things. Including but not limited to killing homosexuals, male domination in society, condemnation of unbelievers to hell, misogyny, homophobia, killing unbelievers, and forcible conversion to Christianity. 

This Biblical scripture being the inspiration for crusades, inquisitions, aswell as more recent issues such as supression of homosexual and women's rights. 

If religion helps people and gives hope, that is great. Just when it causes people to do harmful things they wouldn't otherwise do I have a problem with it. They hardly pervert it for their own use considering their actions can be traced back to Biblical commands.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I think you missed his point. He wasn't saying it was fine..he's saying it isn't "evil". Pedophiles are wired to find children attractive just like you find a hot woman attractive. It's not some sinister urge to purposely wait in the shadows for a golden opportunity to hurt a child for the purpose of just making it suffer. In such an instance "evil" isn't an appropriate term. Sure it's wrong but since the psychology behind sexual arousal/interests aren't completely known, we can't say anything is good or evil. We don't yet understand it



Well, it's "evil". The difference between mature sexuality and pedophilia is, you have sex with someone who is not an adult, can't protect him/herself, and carry lifelong psychological and sometimes physical damages. Knowing this and still "abusing" children is evil. Damaging a kid is evil, period!

It is also a crime to have sex with adult women or men under "authority" advantages like the priests do. It's called sexual harrasment.

He can't color it nicer no matter how much he tries. Is it evil to "want to have sex with kids"? Maybe not. Is it evil to do it? Absolutely!


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

NatG said:


> Obviously we'd still have conflict going on in some form, regardless of religion's existence.
> 
> Both religion and believers are to blame when faith causes harm. The religion is to be blamed since that being where the harm originates, and the believers for actually accepting it and going through with harm.
> 
> ...



People don't need God to hate races, abuse children, commit genocide, etc etc..we make reasons. What better reason that "God wants me to"? You honestly think that people who do these things do them because the pages of a book told them to? I'd agree if everyone in that religion did it, but seeing as though they don't, that argument holds little weight.

I've never sat well with the idea of blaming a general for something specific. Music isn't the reason kids kill each other, religion isn't the reason people become lunatics, porn doesn't turn people into rapists. Sure these things can be argued but they hold little weight when you take into consideration that results vary, and vary drastically.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well, it's "evil". The difference between mature sexuality and pedophilia is, you have sex with someone who is not an adult, can't protect him/herself, and carry lifelong psychological and sometimes physical damahges. Knowing this and still "abusing" children is evil. Damaging a kid is evil, period!
> 
> It is also a crime to have sex with ature women or men under "authority" advantages like the priests do. It's called sexual harrasment, and it's a crime.
> 
> He can't color it nicer no matter how much he tries. Is it evil to "want to have sex with kids"? Maybe not. Is it evil to do it? Absolutely!



Evil is a relative term. What's evil to you may not be evil to the next person. I agree that it's definitely wrong for obvious reasons. Do I think the offending person is "evil"..meh..not right off the bat. Do I think the act/urge is "evil", there are a lot of factors involved, some we have yet to actually understand so I wouldn't want to throw a damning blanket term like "evil" on it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Evil is a relative term. What's evil to you may not be evil to the next person. I agree that it's definitely wrong for obvious reasons. Do I think the offending person is "evil"..meh..not right off the bat. Do I think the act/urge is "evil", there are a lot of factors involved, some we have yet to actually understand so I wouldn't want to throw a damning blanket term like "evil" on it.



I see your point. But every sexual predatorism causing harm to anyone is evil. The person "knows" the harm, and the lifelong scars of that harm. 
For instance the Priests
a) Shouldn't have sex at all but they do
b) They have sex in the worst form, homosexuality
c)They do it with a minor male who can't protect himself. Child abuse and predatorism
d) They also use their "higher" position, use god's name and maybe other methods to keep the kid silent.

The first 2 parts do not interest me. But the last 2 are definetly evil.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> People don't need God to hate races, abuse children, commit genocide, etc etc..we make reasons. What better reason that "God wants me to"? You honestly think that people who do these things do them because the pages of a book told them to? I'd agree if everyone in that religion did it, but seeing as though they don't, that argument holds little weight.
> 
> I've never sat well with the idea of blaming a general for something specific. Music isn't the reason kids kill each other, religion isn't the reason people become lunatics, porn doesn't turn people into rapists. Sure these things can be argued but they hold little weight when you take into consideration that results vary, and vary drastically.


 
Like I said, child abuse, racism and genocide are ever present regardless of religion and due to the flaws of man. 

Seeing as religious homophobia, for example, stems from the belief that God made men and women to be heterosexual and therefore homosexuality is sinful. Take away the faith in God, they've got no reason to be against gay people because they are no longer commiting acts of sin. 

Likewise if Christianity had never existed, witches would never have been burnt and Christian crusades would have never happened. Since witches wouldn't have been accused of devil worship and there would not be a religion to forcibly convert people to. 

Most often religious people aren't like that, and thank goodness for that. Their reason being that "we've moved on" or "I don't believe that part". 

You can see that societies with less religion, such as the Scandinavian countries, have much more developed rights for women and homosexuals. This is because there is no reason for people to want to curb homosexuality and give women less rights.

I agree with the Steven Weinberg quote "with or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I see your point. But every sexual predatorism causing harm to anyone is evil. The person "knows" the harm, and the lifelong scars of that harm.
> For instance the Priests
> a) Shouldn't have sex at all but they do
> b) They have sex in the worst form, homosexuality
> ...



I'd argue that for some it's not easy to just snuff out sexual urges..much like men who marry women and spend decades sleeping with men in secrecy because they realized they couldn't fight the urges. They are aware of the harm it could cause but that "mating urge" no matter how mis-wired it may be, is still not easy to just turn off.

If one is honestly attracted to children, the urge won't go away. Some try to take on roles within a church because they hope it'll help..clearly it doesn't. Social stigma regarding pedophiles, needing to hide it to avoid isolation and embarassment, unable to have fulfilling relationships due to his true desires, yadda yadda..it's not completely beyond belief how these situations occur.

I know it may sound weird that I'm playing Devil's advocate for such a thing but honestly I just prefer to see both sides of the situation. It's easy to say "it's wrong and people who do it are horrible" as a knee jerk reaction but when you consider the other side of things, it's not as "evil" as it seems. This was a topic of debate in a college philosophy/ethics class one time and it was a very interesting conversation when one tried to see all sides of it.

Honestly I wonder why so many of them are part of the Catholic priesthood. I understand some feel God will help kill the urges but in this day and age it should be obvious that a little more is needed, yet we've been hearing about these issues for over 20 years now.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

NatG said:


> Like I said, child abuse, racism and genocide are ever present regardless of religion and due to the flaws of man.
> 
> Seeing as religious homophobia, for example, stems from the belief that God made men and women to be heterosexual and therefore homosexuality is sinful. Take away the faith in God, they've got no reason to be against gay people because they are no longer commiting acts of sin.
> 
> ...



I think we could argue this for a million pages. I think the issue is more human mindset than religion..that being said I certainly wouldn't mind a land without the guidelines of Christianity. By the way..did you look at your post count? I'll be sure to send Westboro your way


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I'd argue that for some it's not easy to just snuff out sexual urges..much like men who marry women and spend decades sleeping with men in secrecy because they realized they couldn't fight the urges. They are aware of the harm it could cause but that "mating urge" no matter how mis-wired it may be, is still not easy to just turn off.
> 
> If one is honestly attracted to children, the urge won't go away. Some try to take on roles within a church because they hope it'll help..clearly it doesn't. Social stigma regarding pedophiles, needing to hide it to avoid isolation and embarassment, unable to have fulfilling relationships due to his true desires, yadda yadda..it's not completely beyond belief how these situations occur.
> 
> ...



As I say, I don't label pedophiles who have the urge to have sex with the kids as evil. I label the ones who take action, although they know the damge they are inflicting. I am an atheist, so the word "evil" is more bound with doing damage on purpose, and those priests action is definetly in this cathegory.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I think we could argue this for a million pages. I think the issue is more human mindset than religion..that being said I certainly wouldn't mind a land without the guidelines of Christianity. By the way..did you look at your post count? I'll be sure to send Westboro your way


 
It is certainly a topic which can be argued. I agree that humans are predisposed to prejudice against things which are 'different'. This is due to the tribal instinct telling us that foreign things may be dangerous, and is the main reason for racism and homophobia. Sexism is down to men wanting sexual domination over women... they want women to have 'submissive' places in society. 

So clearly from this you can see why religion contains these things. For it was created by men. 

Ah yes, my 666th post was an argument against Christianity


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

NatG said:


> It is certainly a topic which can be argued. I agree that humans are predisposed to prejudice against things which are 'different'. This is due to the tribal instinct telling us that foreign things may be dangerous, and is the main reason for racism and homophobia. Sexism is down to men wanting sexual domination over women... they want women to have 'submissive' places in society.
> 
> So clearly from this you can see why religion contains these things. For it was created by men.
> 
> Ah yes, my 666th post was an argument against Christianity



I envy your metalness


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

Haha, for real


----------



## thedarkoceans (Nov 25, 2011)

i'm still pretty far from the 666th post,but i'm raging enough here in italy since vatican doesnt pay taxes


----------



## Deadnightshade (Nov 25, 2011)

This is the only thing that comes to mind:


"Doesn't matter, had sex"


----------



## Xaios (Nov 25, 2011)

Yup, it's official. I'd go gay for Drak.

And I'm a Christian. 

I can see what the article is saying, that everything is relative. It's true. Child abuse is "evil" in the context of modern society, because modern society's values include the protection of children from sexually exploitation. I certainly won't argue that, and I believe its correct.

But a little perspective goes a long way. Societal views of homosexuality and pedophelia have swayed back and forth like a pendulum since... well, since Christ was around. It's a cycle that takes many, many decades to come around, but it's ultimately cyclical. Society slowly becomes more tolerant of homosexuality and pedophelia, then the puritans finally take notice and things start shifting back the other way.

For better or worse, I think globalization and the advent of the technological age may have finally broken the cycle, but it's only just starting to happen, which means the older generations can still remember a time that had a lot more in common with "the way things were" than we do now.

Someone mentioned that being attracted to a child isn't "evil," but acting on that attraction is. My personal view of homosexuality, shaped by my Christian background, is relatively similar. I don't believe it's a sin to be attracted to other men. I do, however, believe it's a sin to act on that attraction, because it runs contrary to God's intended design.

Here's the thing though. I've said it many times and I will continue to say it. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I'm not fit to judge anyone who's committed the "sin" of homosexuality because, God knows, I've committed countless sins myself. No human being alive today will ever to be able to claim perfection. But there's no sin that can't be washed away if a person is truly repentant. Punishment must be handed out accordingly, but so too must forgiveness.

That, of course, doesn't mean that these priests who've committed these acts shouldn't be subject to the rule of law, which is where I definitely disagree with the Pope and the actions the Catholic church has taken to "protect it's own." These men have committed a serious crime, for which they must pay.

(If I've said anything here that comes off as ambiguous, please say so.)


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

Jesus actually said that thinking adulterously of another man's wife is the same as committing adultery, so, really, if you're a Christian, there's no difference between being sexually attracted to children and acting on that attraction. 

Either way, I'm not sharing my opinion.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> You ARE aware that you sound just as bad as the lunatic Crosstitutes who think that everything non-Christian is a plague unto humanity right? The issue isn't religion, it's people. If religion never existed this would still be going on in some other form. Don't blame a system that other people benefit from just because others pervert it for their own ignorant purposes.



I know. I was coming on a bit strong in that first post... my second post ITT is a bit more detailed and clearer.

I'm not a hardline anti-Christian who thinks that every believer should be shot on sight, I merely dislike it a great deal as a religion and genuinely believe the world would be better off without it. I don't plan to take my beliefs any further into extremism.

Obviously there are more good Christians than bad ones, by a significant margin, but sadly it's the bad ones that gain all the publicity.

That said, I find evangelism UNBELIEVABLY irritating. One of my Facebook friends is an evangelical Christian and whenever she posts a status about how great Jesus is, I have to hold back every fibre of my being from trolling the living fuck out of her.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

Unfriend her.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 25, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Unfriend her.



Nah, I sometimes find it quite amusing. Plus, it'd make me look (and feel) like a total arsehole.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 25, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Jesus actually said that thinking adulterously of another man's wife is the same as committing adultery, so, really, if you're a Christian, there's no difference between being sexually attracted to children and acting on that attraction.
> 
> Either way, I'm not sharing my opinion.



You are absolutely correct, but you're also missing the point. The point that Jesus was trying to make was that no man could attain salvation through perfection, because perfection is impossible for a man to achieve. The very thoughts in our head are sinful. Thus, the only way for us to achieve salvation was through repenting our sins and accepting Christ's gift.

(Also, I'm not using the same for Sin and Evil. All men are sinful, very few are truly evil, if you catch my drift.)


----------



## Explorer (Nov 25, 2011)

First off, this forum is for current events. Why are you posting a story from 2010?

----

ISKCON (the Hare Krishna group) reacted strongly when allegations of child abuse first surfaced. They removed everyone who participated from positions of trust and power, paid for counselling and damages to those who were harmed by it, and did everything they could to prevent it happening again.

Apparently Krishna is more inspiring regarding keeping children safe than Christ. The Catholic church, the various Krazed Kristian Kult leaders (yes, all those words start with a capital "K"), and so on are a huge danger, more so than gay Scout troop leaders.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 25, 2011)

BucketheadRules said:


> That said, I find evangelism UNBELIEVABLY irritating. One of my Facebook friends is an evangelical Christian and whenever she posts a status about how great Jesus is, I have to hold back every fibre of my being from trolling the living fuck out of her.



Two points:

1) I agree, prosthelytyzing is extremely distateful.

2) I'd say don't hold back. One of two things will happen. You'll give her the opportunity to find out whether she's truly firm in her beliefs, which could help her grow as a person. Either that, or you'll get some epic lulz. Either way, everyone wins, at least from a certain point of view (as Obiwan would put it).


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Nov 25, 2011)

lol the pope was touched as a child and is trying to make it seem like its ok


----------



## Necky379 (Nov 25, 2011)

drak you're a homosexual satanist right? if i'm right then i think you're position in this is very cool.  i would imagine most people with your beliefs/preferences would be quick to jump on the "fuck the pope" bandwagon. even if you're just in it to debate you made a lot of good points.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 25, 2011)

Satanism is not in opposition with Christianity or any other religion in particular, so I don't know why it would be unexpected for a Satanist to take a logically sound position on this subject.


----------



## technomancer (Nov 25, 2011)

Out of curiosity does anybody have a translation of the speech in question from a remotely credible news source? Perhaps something without adds for 9/11 conspiracy theory books on the sidebars?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 25, 2011)

Necky379 said:


> drak you're a homosexual satanist right? if i'm right then i think you're position in this is very cool.  i would imagine most people with your beliefs/preferences would be quick to jump on the "fuck the pope" bandwagon. even if you're just in it to debate you made a lot of good points.



Honestly..Satanists believe in "third side politics". We believe there's left, right, and a middle ground and usually that's where most of the truth lies. In this instance I'm not with those condoning the demise of Christianity/pedophiles, or supporting them..I'm just giving a third option since I understand both sides and think both have valid points but there's a bit missing from each side.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Nov 25, 2011)

The title was sensationalized, but there isn't evidence that he dismisses it and allows it to go on.



ArkaneDemon said:


> Wait isn't this the pope who was a Nazi? Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
> 
> But it probably is



Funny thing, the stupid white girls in my school's SGA made that the symbol of our class(2012).


----------



## Atomshipped (Nov 26, 2011)

If you think child rape or any rape is ever okay in any situation, you're not a Christian at all.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 26, 2011)

Atomshipped said:


> If you think child rape or any rape is ever okay in any situation, you're not human at all.



fixed


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 26, 2011)

Wait, homosexuality is the "worst" form of sex? So the loving relationship that my boyfriend and I have is an abomination and we are worthy of burning in hell? Get the s'mores.....


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 26, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> Wait, homosexuality is the "worst" form of sex? So the loving relationship that my boyfriend and I have is an abomination and we are worthy of burning in hell? Get the s'mores.....



Nah man , it's "christian" view of things, not mine. I just demonstrate how twisted and dishonest the Pope's and other "life saver's" logic is. I don't care who does what as long as both sides are adults and both agree to have fun, in whatever form. I am also pro gay marriage, and think it has positive effects on humanity, not negative.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 26, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> Wait, homosexuality is the "worst" form of sex? So the loving relationship that my boyfriend and I have is an abomination and we are worthy of burning in hell? Get the s'mores.....



I can't see how they can call it worst if they haven't tried it.  Might be really fun.


----------



## Zugster (Nov 26, 2011)

When we uniformly sentence people who rape children to long jail terms, and when we do so regardless of whether they or not they are religious leaders, teachers, elected officials, football coaches or daycare providers, etc., and when we also jail those who hide the rapists and obstruct this justice - then we will have done some real good, and rendered the religious question moot. It won't matter what the high and mightly fools have to say.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Nov 26, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I can't see how they can call it worst if they haven't tried it.  Might be really fun.



Which is why I'm starting the program..buttsex across America


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

Ooh Drakk...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 26, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Which is why I'm starting the program..buttsex across America



Anal Specialist Society sounds better.


----------



## Don Vito (Nov 26, 2011)

This makes me feel really bad since I am Catholic. The two Catholic priest that have been through my Church are really nice and have given me lots of great advice. One of them is helping me get into college right now. The Church isn't the problem; it's the people who are twisted enough to do things like this. Putting pressure on Catholics because of the mistakes of individual persons, is no different than thinking every Muslim is a terrorist.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

I don't know that many people are putting pressure on Catholics because of what some priests have done. I think some are just reminded that they don't like the church, though.


----------



## Don Vito (Nov 26, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't know that many people are putting pressure on Catholics because of what some priests have done. I think some are just reminded that they don't like the church, though.


Yeah, but it's going to vary of course. All my Church does(outside of mass/services) is throw community get togethers,weddings, and charities.

Churches do a lot of good behind the scenes. Is it in the name of God? Yes.
But that doesn't matter, because that homeless guy just got a warm meal,medication, and a place to stay. I can definitely see how the outside world mite be paranoid though. Just like Christian Americans are paranoid of Mosque, aka "terrorist training facilities" being built in their communities.

I'm not mad or trying to start an argument, but bullshit like this hits me close to home. I have to be opinionated on these issues.

edit: for the record I respect everyone's opinion on this. You are allowed to be disgusted at this(as am I)


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school from pre-school until high-school graduation. I don't support the church any more. I agree that a lot of good can be done by people of the church, but those are people that shouldn't need the church or their desire to please God to help others. People can do a lot of good, period. 

Just the same, the pope, the cardinals, and every catholic priest are just people, and they're entitled to their opinions. Their thoughts should have little or no influence over what somebody else thinks is right or wrong.


----------



## Stealthtastic (Nov 26, 2011)

In other news, god hates us, blacks never were slaves, up is down, and black is white.

But in all seriousness, child rape being ok never has, and never will be. For a person in the political eye such as the pope to say it is, is completely absurd. I'm not really sure how the pope comes to power, or how he loses it, or even if he can. Either way this man needs to be removed from the public view.


----------



## The Somberlain (Nov 26, 2011)

Well, one advantage of having "the uncontested voice of God" as your job description is that you can say stupid shit and not get fired, but in all seriousness, we need to invent time travel so we can get Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine to pimp slap some sense into this bitch ass pope.

As a disciple of the great Michel Foucault, I believe that sexuality has been far too anthropologized and become too much of a normative thing. I don't give two shits about what two consenting individuals do in the bedroom, but a child is not experienced (heh) enough in life to make informed decisions about his/her sex life.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 26, 2011)

There is no denying that individuals do good works, whether by themselves, or in groups as churches, soup kitchens, Save the Children, the Peace Corp, and so on.

The question is, if an organization's leadership doesn't actively do enough to root out bad people, and actively shields people who do bad things, that reflects on that organization, regardless of how wonderful the members are.

So, if the Pope is doing bad things, or protecting those who are doing bad things, then although there are innocent priests, the Pope's actions (and/or lack thereof) and words will affect how those innocent priests are viewed, as they have pledged obedience to that organization. I don't know if the Pope has ever spoken ex cathedra about child molestation, whether about clergy specifically or about molestation in general, but even if it's just as a layman, there'd be a lot of pressure to not criticize the Pontiff.


----------



## The Somberlain (Nov 26, 2011)

The Church is so centralized that the Pope IS effectively the organization


----------



## flint757 (Nov 28, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> The title was sensationalized, but there isn't evidence that he dismisses it and allows it to go on.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, the stupid white girls in my school's SGA made that the symbol of our class(2012).





That is my universities symbol. University of Houston

GO COOG's!!!


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 30, 2011)

In response to the person who neg-repped me for my first comment in this thread, I'd like to apologise/retract my statement. The more I've seen the post, the more I've realised that I looked/look like a total douchenozzle by posting it. By "spiritual chemotherapy" I guess it looked like I was calling for genocide, which is absolutely not something I would ever advocate. I didn't write it with that in mind, it just looked like it because I worded it stupidly. It makes my views seem a lot more extreme than they really are. If anyone else read it and was offended or just thought I looked like a tosser, I'm sorry. I don't stand behind that comment at all, not any more.

If for whatever reason you are actually interested in my views on the subject, you may enjoy my other posts in this thread, which I do stand behind. They're much more eloquent and less "OMG CHRISTIANITY SUXXORZ BURN DEM BURN DEM AAAAWWLLLLLLL!!!11!!!!"

Sorry folks. Also, reading through this response again, it looks sort of as though I've been prompted to write it 

I haven't. I've just realised it was a fucking stupid thing to say and felt I should try my best to clear things up.


----------



## nojyeloot (Nov 30, 2011)

This is why I rely on what God says vs. man.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Nov 30, 2011)

BucketheadRules said:


> I didn't mean it like that!
> 
> I'm not advocating genocide against Christians. I'd never say that.
> 
> ...



I'm sad priests have such a reputation. 
I'm also sad organised religion has such an image.
My father is a priest in the church of England, and as far as I've experienced, organised religion has an incredibly positive effect on society. Nutters are nutters. Paedophiles are paedophiles. Organised religion doesn't change nor amplify this. I would say the main problem is not just the terrible acts themselves, but also the apparent lack of condemnation of offenders from within the clergy itself. 
Fanatics are the real problem with organised religion, but that's getting OT.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 30, 2011)

anthonyferguson said:


> I'm sad priests have such a reputation.
> I'm also sad organised religion has such an image.
> My father is a priest in the church of England, and as far as I've experienced, organised religion has an incredibly positive effect on society. Nutters are nutters. Paedophiles are paedophiles. Organised religion doesn't change nor amplify this. I would say the main problem is not just the terrible acts themselves, but also the apparent lack of condemnation of offenders from within the clergy itself.
> Fanatics are the real problem with organised religion, but that's getting OT.



No that's perfectly on-topic.
The Catholic Church for instance, ha sthe right to "investugate" the problems themselves, keeping out the Police. We never know how many priests where saved, who would end up in Jail. The problem here is the Organization, how it is set up and how it's run.

Who keeps those pedophiles in their rosters? Are they nutters too? Not really, they only have the right to be the voice of god, and taking things in their hands. They do whatever saves their asses. That's why the organized religion is a problem. Neither Logic, nor Law can stop the nutters, who are a part of it.


----------



## pink freud (Dec 1, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> The Christian faith isn't to blame in this instance, since 'God' states in the Bible that paedophilia is an abomination. Rather, the Pope's twisted view of matters is at fault. Either way, paedophilia is abuse of children's rights and the Pope's almost condoning of it is despicable.



The Bible was written when 12 year olds were getting married. I highly doubt the biblical definition of pedophilia is valid in today's society.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Dec 1, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> No that's perfectly on-topic.
> The Catholic Church for instance, ha sthe right to "investugate" the problems themselves, keeping out the Police. We never know how many priests where saved, who would end up in Jail. The problem here is the Organization, how it is set up and how it's run.
> 
> Who keeps those pedophiles in their rosters? Are they nutters too? Not really, they only have the right to be the voice of god, and taking things in their hands. They do whatever saves their asses. That's why the organized religion is a problem. Neither Logic, nor Law can stop the nutters, who are a part of it.



It's a very difficult situation. Permeating the front and actually finding out what the real deal is is a near impossible task. The same principal could apply to most worldwide/nationwide organisations, the police for example. I can imagine fuckups in the force are covered with whatever means possible, with the exclusion of really atrocious things of course. Maybe it's that the line between the need for the public to know and their knowing making no difference (or so it might be predicted) gets blurred, of course in the organisation's favour. I suppose, from within, the big problem is bias and ignorance. What a frickin mess eh. Don't suppose much will change either.

The notion that organised religion is evil and should be abolished, however, I cannot view with agreement. I can see the appeal, as yes, it can breed arrogance and incite hatred, and none of us want to see that. Then again, however, moral normality in the Western world appears to be derived more or less directly from religious scripture. I dare say that if it weren't for the tradition and the time we've had to evolve society, I think the human race would be a lot less..... er..... humane. 

Having said that it does fucking suck in places like Afghanistan and Palestine where women and children are persecuted for the sole reason they are female. That is the flip side of the coin and it makes my blood fucking boil. 

TL;DR: I don't really have that strong an opinion, but I have a lot of shit to spout about the subject.

Also for the record I'm agnostic but have been brought up in a tolerant, super awesome and supportive Christian environment... Which is probably why I blow the trumpet of Christian culture in the UK so fervently.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 1, 2011)

nojyeloot said:


> This is why I rely on what God says vs. man.



Did God say something?


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 1, 2011)

pink freud said:


> The Bible was written when 12 year olds were getting married. I highly doubt the biblical definition of pedophilia is valid in today's society.


 
I was rather asserting that considering the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, shouldn't he be following Biblical principles? 

As an atheist, I believe paedophilia, or at least acting upon paedophilic impluses and raping children, to be wrong. This conclusion can be come to using humanitarian reasoning.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 1, 2011)

anthonyferguson said:


> It's a very difficult situation. Permeating the front and actually finding out what the real deal is is a near impossible task. The same principal could apply to most worldwide/nationwide organisations, the police for example. I can imagine fuckups in the force are covered with whatever means possible, with the exclusion of really atrocious things of course. Maybe it's that the line between the need for the public to know and their knowing making no difference (or so it might be predicted) gets blurred, of course in the organisation's favour. I suppose, from within, the big problem is bias and ignorance. What a frickin mess eh. Don't suppose much will change either.
> 
> The notion that organised religion is evil and should be abolished, however, I cannot view with agreement. I can see the appeal, as yes, it can breed arrogance and incite hatred, and none of us want to see that. Then again, however, moral normality in the Western world appears to be derived more or less directly from religious scripture. I dare say that if it weren't for the tradition and the time we've had to evolve society, I think the human race would be a lot less..... er..... humane.
> 
> ...



It has been proven time and time again that religion does not define morality.

I have taken several classes on morality and ethics and the origins of it and maybe even the future of how it could be (like utilitarianism).

Here is why the theory doesn't work from a deity point of view. If God dictates what is right or wrong then he could easily dictate that committing heinous acts as okay. Now, if he simply agrees with a set of principles that already existed and believes should be followed then you don't need religion to follow those morals. The second is the obvious answer from a religious point of view since cultures of no faith or different faith follow very similar morals.

It could be said more accurately I'm sure because I'm just paraphrasing from the book elements of philosophy, but the main point is if you were right then people who have never heard of religion would be murderous heathens who just rape and pillage which you find more so in religious cultures like old school vikings.

tl;dr
My only point was that morality was not and is not dictated by any religion. Religion adopted said beliefs from the outside. I would have to right a book to go into any more detail than that.

On topic never liked the vatican anyways just because they don't play by the same rules as the rest of the world. ie no taxes, protection, but also not a country similar to DC I suppose. Except DC has to play by the rules, well theoretically it least, it seems like they are trying to change that.


----------



## SirMyghin (Dec 1, 2011)

technomancer said:


> Out of curiosity does anybody have a translation of the speech in question from a remotely credible news source? Perhaps something without adds for 9/11 conspiracy theory books on the sidebars?



Everyone knows the Pope was obviously speaking english and trascribed at the time, flawlessly at that


----------



## daemon barbeque (Dec 1, 2011)

anthonyferguson said:


> It's a very difficult situation. Permeating the front and actually finding out what the real deal is is a near impossible task. The same principal could apply to most worldwide/nationwide organisations, the police for example. I can imagine fuckups in the force are covered with whatever means possible, with the exclusion of really atrocious things of course. Maybe it's that the line between the need for the public to know and their knowing making no difference (or so it might be predicted) gets blurred, of course in the organisation's favour. I suppose, from within, the big problem is bias and ignorance. What a frickin mess eh. Don't suppose much will change either.
> 
> The notion that organised religion is evil and should be abolished, however, I cannot view with agreement. I can see the appeal, as yes, it can breed arrogance and incite hatred, and none of us want to see that. Then again, however, moral normality in the Western world appears to be derived more or less directly from religious scripture. I dare say that if it weren't for the tradition and the time we've had to evolve society, I think the human race would be a lot less..... er..... humane.
> 
> ...



As long as Religion is the culture wrapped around common belief, bad people cannot be "singled out" to keep the religion's reputation clean, since all actions define that religion, not just good ones. And if one of those religions is an organisation as huge as Chatolicism, and the head of that religion causes damage to the human kind with statements about sex, marriage, history, technology, pedophily etc, the organisation has just 2 options. Either the members see that as wrong and try to get a new leader, like Luther in his time, or go on with it. The problem is, everyone that accepts the leader's actions and carry on with that leader also get to be the part of the problem or even crime, like in inquisition. 
That makes the organized religion a problem. Good people are good no matter what, and your envoirnment would be as cool as it is even without that organization. But Inquisition, Djihad etc... they wouldn't happen! They wouldn't happen with all the money, exploitation, compassion and brainwashing that the huge organization delivers.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Dec 4, 2011)

God wouldn't have given us penises if he didn't want creepy old men to fuck little boys with them...right?


----------



## Aevolve (Dec 6, 2011)

Faith is great. Honestly.

But fuck religion.
That is all.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 6, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> The Bible, while it does have some good ideas coming mostly from Jesus, proposes that Christians do some very unsavoury things and contains very unsavoury things. Including but not limited to killing homosexuals, male domination in society, condemnation of unbelievers to hell, misogyny, homophobia, killing unbelievers, and forcible conversion to Christianity.



Not completely on topic, but there's inaccuracies in there I think are worth addressing. 

A - The Bible, doesn't suggest that _Christians_ should do much of that stuff. In fact, it doesn't suggest they should do any, because it doesn't acknowledge they exist. As far as it's concerned, there are only Jews (and then very much later also Gentile followers of "The Way") being addressed. Paul considers himself still to be a Jew (specifically a Pharisee) even though he is a follower of Jesus and "The Way". Furthermore, other than dietary laws, fornication and idolatry - NONE of the Law applies to Gentiles, it's stated very plainly at the council of Jerusalem. So you can be a Christian and happily ignore almost all of the 613 commandments (of course, you can be a Christian and also embrace the horrible stuff, but that's not the book or the faith's fault, you're instructed not to).

B - I'd argue the Hebrew Bible is just as full of good ideas as the message of Jesus in the New Testament. The Psalter and the Wisdom literature are full of good stuff, sure there's terrible things in there too, but it needs to be considered in the time it was written. Bronze age Greece and Persia weren't exactly bastions of tolerance and humanitarianism either.

That said, you can only make that observation if you don't believe it to be the word of YHWH. If it is, then it must be objective, and the apologists have a task on their hands, in my book.



USMarine75 said:


> Well my dad was really old...born in the 30s. Even though he marched on Washington he used to refer to black people as "coloreds". He was the least racist person I know but at the same point it was due to the racial zeitgeist of his era....
> 
> Soooo... I can totally agree with the Pope... I mean don't we all remember back in the day when child rape was cool? No? Oh wait nevermind I was thinking of something else... I'm pretty sure child rape has always been bad... except, you know, in the bible:
> 
> ...



None of those things are statements about _child_ rape. Of course, child rape (as we would define it now, they'd have considered it consensual) WAS cool throughout the ancient world.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 7, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Not completely on topic, but there's inaccuracies in there I think are worth addressing.
> 
> A - The Bible, doesn't suggest that _Christians_ should do much of that stuff. In fact, it doesn't suggest they should do any, because it doesn't acknowledge they exist. As far as it's concerned, there are only Jews (and then very much later also Gentile followers of "The Way") being addressed. Paul considers himself still to be a Jew (specifically a Pharisee) even though he is a follower of Jesus and "The Way". Furthermore, other than dietary laws, fornication and idolatry - NONE of the Law applies to Gentiles, it's stated very plainly at the council of Jerusalem. So you can be a Christian and happily ignore almost all of the 613 commandments (of course, you can be a Christian and also embrace the horrible stuff, but that's not the book or the faith's fault, you're instructed not to).
> 
> ...


 
Irrespective of whether the Gentile are _supposed_ to behave, I would say it is more down to the example being set and in turn the Christians' choice of interpretation. While the Bible does not explicitly say "do not allow homosexual behaviour" or "you must kill homosexuals" for example, the consequence of the Bible's proposition that homosexuality is sinful gives way to discrimination in the form of preventing homosexuals to marry. Likewise the example set by the passage which has words to the effect of "homosexuality is a sin by which a participant should be stoned" could be used by Christians to justify killing homosexuals. 

I have read the Old Testament of the Bible, and while there are many inspiring passages, it mostly consists of killing people and sacrificing animals. I would agree that in that day and age all cultures had beliefs on a par with that of OT Christianity, so I'm not just singling out Christianity as a source of evil. 

Jesus, while clearly being a proponent of peace and compassion, also said his fair share of unsavoury things, but that is another matter altogether. It could be argued that those passages were shoehorned in by the Romans who compiled the New Testament.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 7, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> Irrespective of whether the Gentile are _supposed_ to behave, I would say it is more down to the example being set and in turn* the Christians' choice of interpretation*. While the Bible does not explicitly say "do not allow homosexual behaviour" or "you must kill homosexuals" for example, the consequence of the Bible's proposition that homosexuality is sinful gives way to discrimination in the form of preventing homosexuals to marry. Likewise the example set by the passage which has words to the effect of "homosexuality is a sin by which a participant should be stoned" could be used by Christians to justify killing homosexuals.
> 
> I have read the Old Testament of the Bible, and while there are many inspiring passages, it mostly consists of killing people and sacrificing animals. I would agree that in that day and age all cultures had beliefs on a par with that of OT Christianity, so I'm not just singling out Christianity as a source of evil.
> 
> Jesus, while clearly being a proponent of peace and compassion, also said his fair share of unsavoury things, but that is another matter altogether. It could be argued that those passages were shoehorned in by the Romans who compiled the New Testament.



The highlighted phrase is the important bit. The Hebrew Bible isn't really a guide on how to live, it's a collection of the varying oral traditions of ancient Israel and Canaan (with a fair dose of Egyptian and Babylonian bits and bobs flung in). The New Testament becomes more of a guide as to how to live, but only really once you get to Paul's letters and whilst the compiled canon was compiled for a reason, it was still compiled in ancient times and needs to be thought of in that regard.

My point is that the Bible is not at fault and should not be blamed for anyone's actions any more that the Iliad or The Odyssey, more or less contemporary (with the Hebrew Bible) works which are full of horrific examples, or Hesiod's Works and Days which is _meant_ specifically to be a guide and contains some not entirely friendly ideas. 

If clowns use them as reasoning to do horrible shit, it's the clowns' fault, not the book's.

Again, this view falls apart if you believe the Bible is the inspired work of YHWH. But if you believe that, you don't understand it's history and are in a position to discuss it sensibly anyway


----------



## Xaios (Dec 7, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> Irrespective of whether the Gentile are _supposed_ to behave, I would say it is more down to the example being set and in turn the Christians' choice of interpretation. While the Bible does not explicitly say "do not allow homosexual behaviour" or "you must kill homosexuals" for example, the consequence of the Bible's proposition that homosexuality is sinful gives way to discrimination in the form of preventing homosexuals to marry. Likewise the example set by the passage which has words to the effect of "homosexuality is a sin by which a participant should be stoned" could be used by Christians to justify killing homosexuals.



This is a really good point that you touch on. It is absolutely correct that many, MANY modern Christians tend to alienate people that they view as "living in sin." We're not as forgiving as we ought to be. However, that doesn't mean that the source material itself is unsound. Christ himself said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." One of the main points of his teachings was that we're all sinful, and thus all on a level playing field. Many Christians just can't seem to grasp that concept, however, and do tend to act with an air of holier-than-thou self righteousness.

For what it's worth, though, people who call themselves Christians only to treat others vindictively will get what's coming to them in the end.

1st John Chapter 2:


> We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. *Whoever says, I know him, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.* But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: *Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.*


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 7, 2011)

chronocide said:


> The highlighted phrase is the important bit. The Hebrew Bible isn't really a guide on how to live, it's a collection of the varying oral traditions of ancient Israel and Canaan (with a fair dose of Egyptian and Babylonian bits and bobs flung in). The New Testament becomes more of a guide as to how to live, but only really once you get to Paul's letters and whilst the compiled canon was compiled for a reason, it was still compiled in ancient times and needs to be thought of in that regard.
> 
> My point is that the Bible is not at fault and should not be blamed for anyone's actions any more that the Iliad or The Odyssey, more or less contemporary (with the Hebrew Bible) works which are full of horrific examples, or Hesiod's Works and Days which is _meant_ specifically to be a guide and contains some not entirely friendly ideas.
> 
> ...


 
I agree that the Bible certainly can't be used as a guide to morality or how to live. If one gets their morals from an ancient book, then I do question their credibility. 

Whether the book should be blamed for one's actions comes down to the question of "would they have done the action had they not been a Christian?" Now, whilst some, for example, are sexists following or not following an Abrahamic faith. Yet in the case of others, had the Bible and 'God' not given men the authority over women, they would not be sexists or misogynists. The same works for homophobia and other prejudices they may have picked up. 

In the first case, the blame falls upon the individual who holds prejudices. In the second case, the blame falls upon the religion for being the source _and_ the individual for their acceptance of the prejudice. 

Anyone with real credibility realises that the Bible is not the absolute word of God. It is fairly clear to see it is a manmade method of control and way of answering our questions as to how we came to be. Not to mention some of the more undesirable people like to hold prejudices and discriminate upon things 'different', which is one of the central reasons for those beliefs being told as the word of God in the Bible.


----------



## ZEBOV (Dec 7, 2011)

It's no wonder some people try to assassinate the pope.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 8, 2011)

You are conflating the book and the faith. They are not the same thing. Blaming the Bible for any act perpetrated by a Christian is like blaming Thus Sprach Zarathrusta for the holocaust or Helter Skelter for the Manson Family murders. The book is not to blame for people's interpretation of it. It's not like Mein Kampf which sets out specifically to encourage persecution.




Dvaienat said:


> Not to mention some of the more undesirable people like to hold prejudices and discriminate upon things 'different', which is one of the central reasons for those beliefs being told as the word of God in the Bible.



I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the Bible presents _itself_ as the word of YHWH?


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

chronocide said:


> You are conflating the book and the faith. They are not the same thing. Blaming the Bible for any act perpetrated by a Christian is like blaming Thus Sprach Zarathrusta for the holocaust or Helter Skelter for the Manson Family murders. The book is not to blame for people's interpretation of it. It's not like Mein Kampf which sets out specifically to encourage persecution.


 
The Christian religion and what is followed by the Church is based on the teachings contained in the Bible. You can be a Christian and ignore the Bible, if you wish. That would be having faith on its own, without the religion. 

As I said, it isn't just the Bible to blame, but also the Christians' acceptance of what the Bible says. I refer back to my earlier example in the thread: "Seeing as religious homophobia, for example, stems from the belief that God made men and women to be heterosexual and therefore homosexuality is sinful. Take away the faith in God, they've got no reason to be against gay people because they are no longer commiting acts of sin." 

It's perhaps best we agree to disagree on this matter. 



> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the Bible presents _itself_ as the word of YHWH?


 
What I'm saying is that if the Bible is told to be the objective word of God, then it gives utmost validity to their teaching that homosexuality is sinful and a woman's place is below that of a man.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 8, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> The Christian religion and what is followed by the Church is based on the teachings contained in the Bible.



Yes. But that isn't the Bible's fault. Are the Beatles in part responsible for the Manson Family worldview?

Source of inspiration =/= culpable.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

ZEBOV said:


> It's no wonder some people try to assassinate the pope.


 
They assassinated MLK too. I think the moral of this thread is that fucked up ppl happen.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Yes. But that isn't the Bible's fault. Are the Beatles in part responsible for the Manson Family worldview?
> 
> Source of inspiration =/= culpable.


 
I think the example you give is a little different since the words of the Beatles aren't supposed to be the objective words of a God. The Church feels the need to implement the Bible's word because of this. Granted, they do not have to, which is why the blame in part falls upon them. But without the Bible's existence, there would be no reason for them to object to homosexual marriage, for instance.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

If the words are powerful enough to move someone to action is it the fault of the words themselves or the interpretation of person reading them? I see the parallel. Further, the Bible was written by man and first written down at a time when a lot of people couldn't read. So anything you'd want to just slip in there you could. Moreover, if it weren't for the Bible I have full confidence we'd have found other reasons to discriminate against each other. The fact that the Bible exists and it happens all the time now without using Bible references is proof enough.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 8, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> I think the example you give is a little different since the words of the Beatles aren't supposed to be the objective words of a God. The Church feels the need to implement the Bible's word because of this. Granted, they do not have to, which is why the blame in part falls upon them. But without the Bible's existence, there would be no reason for them to object to homosexual marriage, for instance.



But biblical writers didn't claim it was the word of YHWH and the Bible itself doesn't make that claim.

So if someone decides a piece of literature is the word of a deity, the piece of literature then becomes responsible for any actions it inspires? If Manson had stated the Beatles were prophets, then _Helter Skelter_ would be at fault?


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

chronocide said:


> But biblical writers didn't claim it was the word of YHWH and the Bible itself doesn't make that claim.
> 
> So if someone decides a piece of literature is the word of a deity, the piece of literature then becomes responsible for any actions it inspires? If Manson had stated the Beatles were prophets, then _Helter Skelter_ would be at fault?


 
In the end, it all comes down to whether the perpetrator would have done the action had they not been a member of the religion. If they would have done it regardless, the blame falls solely on the perpetrator. If they are doing it _because_ the religion tells them to or they feel it is their duty, then both are to blame. 

I'm not all that familiar with the Charles Manson and the Beatles link, but if he would have not commited murder had he not been influenced by _Helter Skelter_, then yes it would be at fault. As would he for his acceptance.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> In the end, it all comes down to whether the perpetrator would have done the action had they not been a member of the religion. If they would have done it regardless, the blame falls solely on the perpetrator. If they are doing it _because_ the religion tells them to or they feel it is their duty, then both are to blame.
> 
> I'm not all that familiar with the Charles Manson and the Beatles link, but if he would have not commited murder had he not been influenced by _Helter Skelter_, then yes it would be at fault. As would he for his acceptance.


 
I disagree. You can lead a horse to water. You cannot make him drink.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I disagree. You can lead a horse to water. You cannot make him drink.


 
That's exactly why I say that the perpetrator should also be blamed for their acceptance. They don't _have_ to accept what religion puts forth. But I can't imagine a religious person being against gay marriage if they weren't religious - there has to be a reason for them to want to hold such beliefs. That reason being their God objects to said gay marriage.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

I could easily see someone being against gay marriage if they weren't religious. Some ppl are just fucking ignorant regardless of the groups with which they choose to associate. 

Further, if a religious group doesn't put forth certain ideas, what's to stop any other organization from doing so? Religious groups are just the ones we see doing this mainstream. One thing I've found out about people as I've lived is that they will find any excuse to justify their means.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I could easily see someone being against gay marriage if they weren't religious. Some ppl are just fucking ignorant regardless of the groups with which they choose to associate.
> 
> Further, if a religious group doesn't put forth certain ideas, what's to stop any other organization from doing so? Religious groups are just the ones we see doing this mainstream. One thing I've found out about people as I've lived is that they will find any excuse to justify their means.


 
I have stated previously in this thread that irrespective of religion's existence, there will always be ignorant bigots and people willing to wage war in the name of anything else they can find. 

A pattern I've often noticed is that in countries where Christianity has a large following, there is always opposition to gay marriage, gay rights and women's rights. In Scandinavia, where around 85% of people are atheists, they have very developed rights for women and homosexuals. Compare that to the Bible Belt of America, where fundamentalist Christian beliefs are rife - as are homophobia and sexism. 

So you can clearly see there is a correlation between religious belief and people taking on board prejudiced ideas. 

It is perfectly fine for us to agree to disagree, however. Us rambling on about it any longer won't do much good.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

Atheism is more or less a religion too. My point was that regardless of whether or not regligion exists ppl would find reasons to discriminate against others. The fact that a large number of ppl subscribe to a religion and act a certain way is not evidence toward the contrary. You seem to have trouble seeing past what's directly in front of you. You missed my point and I believe that you're going to continue to do so. I'm going to go now. You seem to have to be right and/or have the last word. In about 30 seconds it's yours.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Atheism is more or less a religion too. My point was that regardless of whether or not regligion exists ppl would find reasons to discriminate against others. The fact that a large number of ppl subscribe to a religion and act a certain way is not evidence toward the contrary. You seem to have trouble seeing past what's directly in front of you. You missed my point and I believe that you're going to continue to do so. I'm going to go now. You seem to have to be right and/or have the last word. In about 30 seconds it's yours.


 
I'm stating my argument, and if you wish to do so in response then by all means do. By all means leave if you wish. 

Btw, atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in deities. Atheist morality comes from humanitarian reasoning, and if one is to use that they realise homosexual marriage is nothing to be opposed. It is when you have the objective word of a religion people feel the need to interfere with other people's lives.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 8, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> In the end, it all comes down to whether the perpetrator would have done the action had they not been a member of the religion. If they would have done it regardless, the blame falls solely on the perpetrator. If they are doing it _because_ the religion tells them to or they feel it is their duty, then both are to blame.
> 
> I'm not all that familiar with the Charles Manson and the Beatles link, but if he would have not commited murder had he not been influenced by _Helter Skelter_, then yes it would be at fault. As would he for his acceptance.




You keep talking about whether they'd have done something if they weren't a member of the religion. I'm talking specifically about the Bible. They can't be thought of as the same thing (well they can, but also by misunderstanding their history).

The second paragraph I find really hard to understand (in terms of point of view, not prose). It seems completely and utterly bananas to blame a piece of writing not intended to motivate an action and in fact stating specifically that that is not its intention if someone should perform said action.

On the other point just raised, clearly atheism is not a religion under any sensible definition.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 8, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> I'm stating my argument, and if you wish to do so in response then by all means do. By all means leave if you wish.
> 
> Btw, atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in deities. Atheist morality comes from humanitarian reasoning, and if one is to use that they realise homosexual marriage is nothing to be opposed. It is when you have the objective word of a religion people feel the need to interfere with other people's lives.



Okay, you've just said something that I absolutely feel compelled to respond to. You claim that atheism is a rejection of the idea of a supernatural deity. That's fine and good. However, don't delude yourself into thinking that atheists uniformly "just want to be left alone" and are guided purely by humanist ideals.

On this very website, an atheist once posted that they believed all religions should be banned throughout the world, and that anyone who didn't comply should be executed.

That doesn't exactly sound like "live and let live" to me.

In my experience, there are two kinds of atheists. Regular *a*theists do just want to live and let live, and don't want to have their views imposed on by others. *A*theists, on the other hand, can be as crusading and preachy as religious zealots.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

Dvaienat said:


> I'm stating my argument, and if you wish to do so in response then by all means do. By all means leave if you wish.
> 
> Btw, atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in deities. Atheist morality comes from humanitarian reasoning, and if one is to use that they realise homosexual marriage is nothing to be opposed. It is when you have the objective word of a religion people feel the need to interfere with other people's lives.


 
And w/o religion it ceases to have a meaning. It's more or less the same thing no matter how you want to swing it. It's a life philosophy that a large number of people can agree on--long and short.

If religion were to have never existed neither would atheism and people would STILL find reasons to justify feeling the way they do in any given situation. Religion is just the easiest one to use bc for some reason people feel empowered by it. It's justifiable if you can find something in the Bible to say you're right. This is why people use these ideas. This isn't to say that all followers do this, but you do see it a lot--often from those who are unable to think for themselves. You can't blame the book for their incompetence.

For shits and giggles, let's say I write down a shit load of ideas that just happen to run through my head and manage to get it published and a billion people read it and decide to make a religion around it. This group goes on to commit genocide and they justify it using parallels they drew to my book. Am I now at fault bc they were exposed to an idea that they took too seriously/misinterpreted?

Now if that isn't clear then I give up.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 8, 2011)

On another note I know people who albeit are Christians they aren't "practicing christians and are homophobic.

A lot of people in the US are against gays because it creeps them out short and simple no matter how sad that actually is. Male dominance perpetuates because there is always a power grab happening and it always has. Genetically we were made to peacock so to speak thus giving us an upper hand in the beginning and honestly it just never left. Now that our minds are more valued than our brawn I think you will see the power shift to center if not even further to the right.

That being said I'm an Atheist so I just don't care 

The one thing I hate more than gay bashing Christian's are the ones who quietly hate them based on religion. They say they can do what they want, but they are not okay with it and they always feel the need to word it that way.

I see a dude riding a bike I don't say thats fine that he is doing it, but I I don't think it is okay. Maybe that's just nitpicking, but it is really annoying since they think they are being all tolerant and what not when in reality they are not. They just believe God will make them pay in the end which is more sick IMO. Plus side of that attitude I guess is you are being left alone, but it does irk me a bit.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 8, 2011)

flint757 said:


> The one thing I hate more than gay bashing Christian's are the ones who quietly hate them based on religion. They say they can do what they want, but they are not okay with it and they always feel the need to word it that way.
> 
> I see a dude riding a bike I don't say thats fine that he is doing it, but I I don't think it is okay. Maybe that's just nitpicking, but it is really annoying since they think they are being all tolerant and what not when in reality they are not. They just believe God will make them pay in the end which is more sick IMO. Plus side of that attitude I guess is you are being left alone, but it does irk me a bit.



Waitasecond...

What you're literally saying (and I mean literally, based on how you worded the first paragraph that I quoted) is that, if I find someone's actions to be reprehensible based on my religious beliefs, you would prefer that I hate them openly rather than keep it to myself?

No offense, but that's just looney.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 8, 2011)

It does sound that way... But I would hope that's not what he's aiming for but that some people get on a high horse about silently doing that which they condemn others for doing openly.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 8, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> It does sound that way... But I would hope that's not what he's aiming for but that some people get on a high horse about silently doing that which they condemn others for doing openly.



No what I was saying that people who silently hate others don't do so to keep the peace, but to make themselves seem more tolerant even though in reality they are not. I don't like open hatred, but I look at the silent ones in the same light. people should be up front with people though. IMO

It is hard to phrase what I'm trying to say. I guess I don't like it when people put up a facade of tolerance when in reality they are abhorred by someones behavior. I'm not saying I like open intolerance more I just think the quiet ones get a way with being for lack of a better word dicks.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

Xaios said:


> Okay, you've just said something that I absolutely feel compelled to respond to. You claim that atheism is a rejection of the idea of a supernatural deity. That's fine and good. However, don't delude yourself into thinking that atheists uniformly "just want to be left alone" and are guided purely by humanist ideals.
> 
> On this very website, an atheist once posted that they believed all religions should be banned throughout the world, and that anyone who didn't comply should be executed.
> 
> ...


 
I do recognise that anyone who is fanatical about a belief/idea can be very dangerous. It works in the case of Christians, atheists, Muslims etcetera. 

What was said by the poster you refer to is appalling. To take away freedom of religion from anyone is a violation of basic human rights. I'd never single out just religious people as perpetrators of hatred. 



chronocide said:


> You keep talking about whether they'd have done something if they weren't a member of the religion. I'm talking specifically about the Bible. They can't be thought of as the same thing (well they can, but also by misunderstanding their history).
> 
> The second paragraph I find really hard to understand (in terms of point of view, not prose). It seems completely and utterly bananas to blame a piece of writing not intended to motivate an action and in fact stating specifically that that is not its intention if someone should perform said action.
> 
> On the other point just raised, clearly atheism is not a religion under any sensible definition.


 


Konfyouzd said:


> And w/o religion it ceases to have a meaning. It's more or less the same thing no matter how you want to swing it. It's a life philosophy that a large number of people can agree on--long and short.
> 
> If religion were to have never existed neither would atheism and people would STILL find reasons to justify feeling the way they do in any given situation. Religion is just the easiest one to use bc for some reason people feel empowered by it. It's justifiable if you can find something in the Bible to say you're right. This is why people use these ideas. This isn't to say that all followers do this, but you do see it a lot--often from those who are unable to think for themselves. You can't blame the book for their incompetence.
> 
> ...


 
My point throughout was simply that if someone acts in a manner harmful to others because of religion _or_ the Bible, then it is to blame for being the source of harm. 

Of course, agree to disagree if you please 

It would be daft to keep going over the same argument when we have different opinions on the matter.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 8, 2011)

Perhaps, I just don't think your opinion is logically sound. It seems a very odd position to take. Lots of people state the Bible is to blame for X, Y and Z but usually only because they're misunderstanding what it is and what it says. So i tend to think it's a correct/incorrect issue rather than an opinion based one. The book isn't to blame in any way, interpretation is.


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Perhaps, I just don't think your opinion is logically sound. It seems a very odd position to take. Lots of people state the Bible is to blame for X, Y and Z but usually only because they're misunderstanding what it is and what it says.


 
I could argue my case further, but I choose not to since I feel it is an insignificant matter not to mention off the topic of the thread. Anyway, thanks for the discussion so far. 

Regardless of whether one believes the religion is at fault or not, many terrible things have been and are done in its name - that is the important fact.


----------



## chronocide (Dec 8, 2011)

Oh the religion certainly has been. Just not the book


----------



## Dvaienat (Dec 8, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Oh the religion certainly has been. Just not the book


 
Fair enough


----------

