Prayer -- split from Catholic rant

[yorkshirelad]

well come on, I see it as staying bread too. and the wine stays....well as you said. I agree with you. My belief system is the same. But its nice to question and understand and learn how different people think. and why they believe what they do. Its called openminded ness...you should try it sometime, its nice

The thing is, I actually do understand how Catholics think. I was named after the patron saint of the rosary. I remember my Grandmother endlessly reciting the rosary. I remember being forced to take communion and being forced to be confirmed, which kind of defeats the purpose. The forcing was done by my Mother through our parish priest. My Mother and Grandmother were supernaturally cohersed by that guy, who I refused to call Father by the way (I would refer to him as Mr. McSweeney). I incurred the wrath of my Mother, teachers and Mr. McSweeney himself for this action and regulary got "six of the best" across the palms of my hands. The bastard knew he had lost the battle when I would look at him with indifference, when I learned how to block the pain.

I understand how Catholics think. I come from generations of Catholics. I was told to stop being bold when I mentioned Constantine being the true founder of the Catholic Church. Ehen I asked one of my "History" teachers why we pray to Mary (knowing full well that it was a throw back to Roman Paganism) he said that it was because Mary could intervene on our behalf. I then asked him if God loved Mary more than us, and listened to Mary because she was somehow more important. He actually gave me the answer that mary has God's ear constantly and therefore her prayers would have more of an impact. I then asked him something along the lines of, "If mary is asked to intercede by all the faithful, then wouldn't my prayers to her for intercession just be drowned out?" At this point I was told to shut up. I later thought how annoying it would be for the catholic anthropomorphic God, to have a woman constantly nagging in his ear. This is a constant in the Catholic world, as an example, just look at how Bill began the Catholic rant thread, the words Shut up were in the title.

I am no longer open minded to Catholic doctrine. There was once a time when I took it all as a given. After a while in my childhood, I realized that it was all an elaborate, cruel sham. Then in the 90s, when the abuse and cover ups were exposed, I realized that it was a dangerous, elaborate, cruel sham.

 

[yorkshirelad]

You can be open-minded and understand the who, what, why, when where, why and how of something and still fundamentally disagree with it. Being open minded does not mean you accept the opposing point of view as valid, it means you allowed yourself to look at their evidence and have considered it. How you choose to express your consideration of that evidence is now an opinion.

Religious and political discussions aren’t meant for those that are involved in the discussion, it’s meant for those who are sitting on the sidelines, nodding or shaking their heads at each point and counter point. Generally those involved in the discussions have their opinions so firmly entrenched that little will sway them.

As to this discussion? Whatever. Believe what you want, worship however you want, just do not ask me to pay for it, do not ask my government to pay for it, do not in anyway interfere in my life or the life of any other citizen, if you are going to say or do anything in the public forum, expect opposition and do not ask for special treatment to be free of outside criticism because you believe in X, Y or Z.

Outstanding post!! The one thing I would like to add is, if your religious organization harms society, than you have to accept a backlash. God knows I've spoken out about Islam in the past. Catholics don't get a pass. You have to understand, that this thread was begun by an able bodied man telling all who weren't Catholic to shut up. It wasn't started by a sweet, pious Grandmother asking me to consider Catholicism as a valid means to attain salvation.
I have been told that I'm rude in refering to the current Pope as Ratzinger. This guy is responsible for the suffering of an untold numbers of innocents (personally). This guy truly believes that his precious church is far more important than the children it has infected with it's dirt bag clergy. The guy is evil, pure and simple. He does not deserve respect, he deserves condemnation. If God has entrusted his Earthly kingdom to this guy, he deserves condemnation also.

 

[Blade96]

Whoa! Believe me, I know how you feel. I was forced to be confirmed too, at age 11 in the anglican church. No matter how much i said no i was forced to do it.

When I and my good friend Adrian was 15, and in grade 9, he passed away from colon cancer. His parents were jehovah witnesses who refused the transfusion to try and save his life. Had a profound impact on me, that someone would pick a god and his teaching of a god that may or may not exist, over their own son.

And everything I ever learned about religions since then.

Of course I feel the same as you do. I also dont think babies should be baptized. Let them decide for themselves what they want when they get older.

Believe me, I know what you mean. I also had the stuff in my life too. I hate religion too. If I need one like I said I'll go worship tetley tea I'd have no problem, for example, telling someone, like Bobby Franklin (i made a thread about that politician btw) to go eff a hornet, and i hope it would sting him up so far where the sun dont shine that stingers come shooting outta his mouth.

Of course I don't agree with Bill Mattocks that non catholics should shut up about Confession or Catholicism. (of course maybe thats because I have no objection to Confession, lol. If it was abortion well...... lol)

But my moral code doesnt include being mean and rude to people who are nice and friendly (and much more reasonable) like Bill Mattocks and JKS and Chris.

 

[yorkshirelad]

But my moral code doesnt include being mean and rude to people who are nice and friendly (and much more reasonable) like Bill Mattocks and JKS and Chris.

Nice and friendly.:rofl:. I suppose the title of Bill's thread went over your head. The passive, aggressive nature of some people here amuses me, but only slightly. The Australian thread is another example of his handy work.

 

[Blade96]

Idk. I didnt get offended by it. But then again, since it was about confession its more like a meh for me. Like I said if it was about something else.....

 

[yorkshirelad]

When I and my good friend Adrian was 15, and in grade 9, he passed away from colon cancer. His parents were jehovah witnesses who refused the transfusion to try and save his life. Had a profound impact on me, that someone would pick a god and his teaching of a god that may or may not exist, over their own son.

Yes, they're off their rockers also!!

Of course I feel the same as you do. I also dont think babies should be baptized. Let them decide for themselves what they want when they get older.

I'm glad we agree on this!

I'll go worship tetley tea

Now you're talking! I have a box of Brit blend Tetley at home. I might just buy a box of double chocolate brownies and a tub of whipped cream to compliment it this evening. Yummy!!

 

[girlbug2]

But what about the people who are allergic to grapes?
Should all people switch to water because of the teensy minority who cannot -for one reason or another- drink the real stuff?

Recovering alcoholics are really a marginal percentage of people, just like the people who are allergic to grapes. Ok the latter are an even smaller percentage, but they're both really tiny.

Interesting. I googled it: About one percent of the population is estimated to have an allergic reaction to grapes. The statistics on alcoholics in America OTOH range anywhere from 8 % to 40%, which I don't consider marginal or tiny.

Yes I suppose it would be possible to go to a ridiculous extreme and use water instead, but at some point you have to make a judgement call. My church has made a judgement call that grape juice is OK.

 

[Blade96]

Now you're talking! I have a box of Brit blend Tetley at home. I might just buy a box of double chocolate brownies and a tub of whipped cream to compliment it this evening. Yummy!!

I also got some nice muffins to add to that too

 

[chrispillertkd]

Yet, that's exactly what happened. All 3 conclaves were valid IIRC.

Um, no by definition two of them were not valid. You just don't get to call a conclave if you feel like it because you don't like the guy you just elected, regardless of how many Cardinals get together and do it. That's like saying a bunch of people can start casting votes for a new President because they just realized that they think Obama is a bad President. Sorry, you made your choice now deal with it.

Indeed, that would be why the Council of Constance was called to resolve the dispute, and did so by making all 3 Popes step down. If only one Pope was clearly valid, then he would not have been asked to step down, yes?

Constance was called to settle the dispute, but not because there were three valid conclaves. It was called because there were three men claiming to be pope. And technically, the pope didn't have to resign but he did it for the good of the Church (i.e., to get the other two anti-popes to also resign).

Well, that's part of the problem, because no one at the time knew which was the Pope and which were the claimants.

That's debatable.

Which is how we get into this logical conundrum if you insist that there is only one real Pope, which leads to all sorts of uncomfortable implications because there is no way to tell who it is. The "real" Pope was forced to step down like the rest.

On the contrary, it's not at all a logical conundrum if you know what a conclave is in the first place and the requirements to hold one. The real pope was the first to resign (fairly willingly, all things considered). Constance didn't actually depose any of the claimants; it simply recommended that they all abdicate so there would be a cessation of the confusion that the two possers caused.

Of course, this is only really a problem because Apostolic Succession is treated like a logic game or a computer program. If there were no Pope or 50 of them, I'm sure the Creator of the Universe would have no trouble assigning that power in a just and reasonable way over the long term. People tend to treat that Creator like a computer program though, which doesn't make much sense if you think of God as a thinking creature. Another reason why Pascal's Wager makes no sense.

Actually, if you think of God as a thinking person (not, by any means, a creature) then you have no choice but to try to discern his will in times of difficulty. This is especially true when matters such as who is a validly ordained priest, or who was legitimately elected pope come up since these are things that are handed on to the hurch in Divine Revelation.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Given the history of the RCC (which is no blame to current believers obviously) I would be greatly surprised if God hadn't withdrawn his favor and authority from the RCC somewhere around the dark ages with the inquisition, the crusades and the witch burning.

Interesting question.

If he had done so he would be a liar.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

The Church condemned fornication, yet tolerated widespread fornication at the highest levels of its leadership. The Church preached mercy and justice, and also burned men like Tyndale at the stake for translating the Bible. The Church preached peace, yet Popes like Julius II waged war. Of course the Church can be visibly responsible for that which it condemns, hence hypocrisy. To have you deny that this occurred at points in Church history is mind boggling, especially considering your obvious religious historical education.

Actually, you're missing my point. Perhaps purposefully, I don't know. There is absolutely no evidence that the Church is responsible for the actions of priests that homosexually raped boys. Individual priests are responsible for their own actions. Bishops - if they are complicit in covering things up - are responsible for their actions. The popes have actually been trying to deal with this problem for years. Despite the fact that they're the head of the Church they can't actually force anyone to do anything.

And it's my obvious religious historical education that has led me to come to this conclusion. You can no more say that the Church is responsible for the sex abuse scandal than you can say public schools are responsible for pedaphilia since the rate of homosexual abuse of public school students is something like ten times higher than the rate of abuse when the scandal was at its height years ago. I mean, obviously you're not going to do that, right, even though there have been plenty of public school teachers who have abused students and school and union officials that have worked to cover up abuse and get guilty teachers transferred.

If the Church is not visibly responsible for the widespread actions of its leadership because the dogma says otherwise, then the US government can never be responsible for injustice because the Constitution promises fairness and freedom. Spurious logic.

It's not a dogmatic issue. It's an issue of logic. Some priest who homosexually abuses a boy despite the fact that the Church teaches such behavior is a sin is the one responsible for the act. If the Church had somehow taught that such behavior was morally licit, or even morally neutral, or didn't have a system set up to deal with such horrible priests when they come to the attention of the Vatican, or hadn't done any number of other things to try to combat this behavior inthe first place then you might have a case. But she did, and you don't.

Yes, and I've explained why. It should be pretty obvious to you too. After all, you yourself said that the criminal actions of the priests were worse than tying a millstone around their necks and throwing themselves into the sea. Because they are corrupting the message with their actions. So, you know, you already get it, but for some reason are being incredulous now.

What I am incredulous of now is the fact that people can't get over the moral failings of others and so lose faith in a message they claim to have believed in the first place, especially when people being sinners - and that includes being hypocrits - is part and parcel of the message she has preached since the time of Christ. The message that people are sinners and need redemption is part of the actual gospel (lit. "good news"). Is it possible for people to become great saints? Yes, obviously (and I know some personally). But the converse is also true; it's possible that anyone can engage in any sort of depravity.

I've said it once and I'll say it again to anyone who has a problem with the fact that there are hypocrits in the Church: There's always room for one more, I'll see in Mass on Sunday.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

Actually, you're missing my point. Perhaps purposefully, I don't know. There is absolutely no evidence that the Church is responsible for the actions of priests that homosexually raped boys.

Well then you have no idea what my point is, because I've never made an argument here about the abuse scandal. You put forth an argument that the Church was not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, and I responded with a list of crimes that the Church as a whole was unambiguously responsible for over its history. I never mentioned the abuse scandal, nor did your point that I responded to.

By the way, what's with the need to compulsively label every mention of the rape or abuse of children with the adjective "homosexual"? It's not even accurate, since plenty of little girls were raped too. One gets the distinct impression from such a usage that you might consider the rape of little girls as less sinful or less disturbing somehow.

What I am incredulous of now is the fact that people can't get over the moral failings of others and so lose faith in a message they claim to have believed in the first place, especially when people being sinners - and that includes being hypocrits - is part and parcel of the message she has preached since the time of Christ.

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand people - at all. When those claiming to be arbiters of morality and the will of God show themselves to be nothing of the sort, many will lose faith. People are not logic machines, they are emotional creatures.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Well then you have no idea what my point is, because I've never made an argument here about the abuse scandal. You put forth an argument that the Church was not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, and I responded with a list of crimes that the Church as a whole was unambiguously responsible for over its history. I never mentioned the abuse scandal, nor did your point that I responded to.

My apologies for thinking you were referring to the scandal since the example of the Spanish Inquisition I used earlier pretty much precludes the Church being responsible for the actiions of the Spanish Crown. You'd have to have ignored all the facts of the case to even make an argument otherwise. I gues sin that sense I did not understand you.

By the way, what's with the need to compulsively label every mention of the rape or abuse of children with the adjective "homosexual"? It's not even accurate, since plenty of little girls were raped too. One gets the distinct impression from such a usage that you might consider the rape of little girls as less sinful or less disturbing somehow.

It's not every mention of rape. It's just as it relates to the sex abuse scandal since something like 81% of the cases involved the homosexually rape of pre-teens and teens by priests. Most people mis-label the scandal as having to do with pedaphelia, but that isn't accurate. Using the term homosexual rape is an attempt to use a clearer label for what happened.

If you draw the conclusion from my posts that I consider the rape of girls as less sinful or disturbing you're very sadly mistaken.

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand people - at all. When those claiming to be arbiters of morality and the will of God show themselves to be nothing of the sort, many will lose faith. People are not logic machines, they are emotional creatures.

Again, people's personal moral failings have nothing to do with whether or not what they proclaim is true. If you don't get that, well then you just don't understand people - at all.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

Most people mis-label the scandal as having to do with pedaphelia, but that isn't accurate. Using the term homosexual rape is an attempt to use a clearer label for what happened.

Except it's not clearer, to the tune of 19% by your own numbers. In any case, pedophilia is a perfectly accurate descriptor, since people that do not suffer from it are uninterested in having sex with children, homosexually or otherwise.

Again, people's personal moral failings have nothing to do with whether or not what they proclaim is true. If you don't get that, well then you just don't understand people - at all.

My point is that is perfectly true logically, but people do not react to that situation in the perfectly logical fashion. Your barb at the end is just wrong, since people do not always react logically to a situation, particularly one as emotional and deeply-held as religious faith.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Actually, you're missing my point. Perhaps purposefully, I don't know. There is absolutely no evidence that the Church is responsible for the actions of priests that homosexually raped boys.

Yes there is Chris. We know that the powers that be in the Catholic church moved pedo priests away from the seat of their crimes when said priests were outed. The problem was that instead of turning these scumbags over to the authorities, the Catholic church decided that its image was more important than its children and moved these pedos to other parishes, where they continued abusing children. The powers that be, including Ratzinger only began caring when society found out about their dark, little secret. Cardinal Law and Ratzinger are as guily as the pedo perpetrators!

I will say it again, The catholic church is responsible for the suffering and torture of literally thousands of children. It is responsible for mental, physical and sexual torture. Many believed in another thread that waterboarding is torture and yet, the Catholic church did much more to innocents. They have raped, beaten and demeaned those they should've been protecting and shame on anyone who defends them.

You cannot separate the church from its leadership and congrigents. They are one in the same. You can't say Enron was a noble business venture, it's just that the guys who managed it were *******s. They are one in the same.

 

[cdunn]

The current institution of the RCC has some serious issues with abuse of power, whatever the worth of the nebulous body of doctrine called the 'Church' that is expounded upon in the Liturgy. Many Protestant Churches are not much better, according to the insurance companies that settle their lawsuits for sexcapades. Rates are not very well established, but secular teachers aren't doing real great either, although intra-student sexual misconduct seems to be about three times as common as teacher-student misconduct. We do not know the real rates - it is expected that many victims do not report out of shame and unwillingness to 'rock the boat'.

Perhaps the appropriate lesson here needs to be more about power, opportunity, and organizational coverup than it does about any particular religion. There are likely a lot of patriarchs, primarchs, and principals that should be removed from authority.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The current institution of the RCC has some serious issues with abuse of power, whatever the worth of the nebulous body of doctrine called the 'Church' that is expounded upon in the Liturgy. Many Protestant Churches are not much better, according to the insurance companies that settle their lawsuits for sexcapades. Rates are not very well established, but secular teachers aren't doing real great either, although intra-student sexual misconduct seems to be about three times as common as teacher-student misconduct. We do not know the real rates - it is expected that many victims do not report out of shame and unwillingness to 'rock the boat'.

Perhaps the appropriate lesson here needs to be more about power, opportunity, and organizational coverup than it does about any particular religion. There are likely a lot of patriarchs, primarchs, and principals that should be removed from authority.

One might also take a gander through the Google News for the list of martial arts instructors arrested for similar offenses on a near-daily basis. It doesn't get much comment on MT or any martial arts discussion forum; I guess because people don't want to think about it much (not that I blame them). However, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The main difference is that with martial arts, there typically isn't a central structure open to criticism based on accused coverups as their is with religious institutions; it tends to just be individual instructors.

 

[elder999]

One might also take a gander through the Google News for the list of martial arts instructors arrested for similar offenses on a near-daily basis. It doesn't get much comment on MT or any martial arts discussion forum; .

e-Budo has regular content on that very topic..........and a very select clientele :lol: .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

e-Budo has regular content on that very topic..........and a very select clientele :lol: .

I regularly go through Google News looking for interesting articles about martial arts or martial artists to post on MT, and I intentionally don't post those kinds of stories. But they are out there, and it's frankly an epidemic, and most martial artists I know would rather not know about it - might be the same as most Catholics or most Christians for that matter; head in the sand, refusing to believe the problem is all that serious.

It's a problem wherever adults are in charge of children; it attracts those who are twisted that way as well as all the good and decent people who just want to teach. Kid's camps, scouting, physical education and sports, teachers, clergy, counselors, coaches, martial arts instructors, and so on. The problem is not limited to one group. One issue that the Catholic Church must face up to is that unlike most of the others, it has a single hierarchy of authority and a recent history of covering up crimes by clergy against children. That is something that must be addressed; but the abuse happens everywhere there are kids and adults in charge of them.

 

[cdunn]

It's a problem wherever adults are in charge of children; it attracts those who are twisted that way as well as all the good and decent people who just want to teach. Kid's camps, scouting, physical education and sports, teachers, clergy, counselors, coaches, martial arts instructors, and so on. The problem is not limited to one group. One issue that the Catholic Church must face up to is that unlike most of the others, it has a single hierarchy of authority and a recent history of covering up crimes by clergy against children. That is something that must be addressed; but the abuse happens everywhere there are kids and adults in charge of them.

That's a significant portion of the point I was meandering towards.