Theist officials accused of sexual predation. Prominent Theist institution implicated.

[Warren Stupidity]

Priests' trial opens with lurid tales

Stories of stalking and improper touching set an uncomfortable tone in the courtroom.

Charged with child endangerment and conspiracy, Lynn, former archdiocesan secretary for clergy, is the first church official nationwide to be tried for allegedly covering up clergy sex-abuse.

His codefendant the Rev. James J. Brennan is accused of trying to rape a 14-year-old boy in 1996, although prosecutors barely uttered his name last week. Another defendant, defrocked priest Edward Avery, pleaded guilty before trial to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20120401_Priests__trial_opens_with_lurid_tales.html

[dballance]

1. I missed that part of the Bible that says "Go thou and rape the children"

I guess that was after Leviticus.

Keep eating those shell fish right wingers and calling Gay people evil. God knows it's okay to pick and choose which Bible verses you want to obey.

[dballance]

2. Oh, and the pork too

Nothing like those forbidden animals with the cloven hoof for good eating.

[humblebum]

4. Where are Christians forbidden from eating shell fish or pork?

The fact is that they are told that there is nothing that they cannot eat. You are of course referring to the Jewish Law, which bans such things.

[skepticscott]

7. You mean the Jewish law

that Christ himself said was still in force?

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."

[humblebum]

8. Yes, the same Law that he said he was the fulfillment of. That Law.

Mathew 15:10
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

[skepticscott]

13. And hasn't fulfilled it all yet

which is why all the Xstians are still waiting. And ignoring the law that their Savior says is still in force. Unless everything in the law was fulfilled between Matthew 5 and Matthew 15.

Nice try.

[humblebum]

14. Colossians 2: 9-10

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."

Romans 10:4
"For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God."

[skepticscott]

18. Cue the apologist appeal to Paul

Who also said that wives must meekly submit to their husbands and that wearing clothes with different fiber types is a sin. Bet you consider him the valid and authoritative voice of god on those too, dontcha?

[humblebum]

19. Anyone who categorically judges ancient history by today's standards is

either foolish, or a revisionist attempting to manipulate the outcome of an argument.

[skepticscott]

23. Except that if "god" actually existed

there is nothing "ancient" about him or his pronouncements in the Bible. Your statement only holds water if you're admitting that "god" is a 100% invention of humans who ARE a product of their times. Otherwise "god" knew just as well 2000 years ago as he does today that proscriptions on fiber types were stupid and that slavery was a moral evil to be condemned and prohibited.

[humblebum]

24. Always rationalizing to shape your version of events to

fit your own very narrow view of reality.

[intaglio]

9. It's in the bit where Jesus says

Matthew Chapter 5
17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jewish law is the law that Christians must follow, according to these verses and despite the canting of apologists.

[humblebum]

11. '...one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is FULFILLED."

"I did not come to destroy but to FULFILL." Matthew Chapter 5:17

"Jewish law is the law that Christians must follow, according to these verses and despite the canting of apologists."

Sorry, but the apologists know what they are talking about.

[intaglio]

12. Comprehension weak? Or does the word "all" lack meaning?

The complete fulfillment is the return of the Christ in glory not his first appearance and it's termination in the crucifixion. I know that apologists claim Jesus really meant "as soon as I am killed" and then hurriedly turn to that non-gospel source Paul but that is just a sign of their word games.

If Jesus meant that the laws are to be ignored then why does he insist that the greatest of the commandments come from the Jewish Laws, the Mitzvot? not from the canonical 10 commandments?

[humblebum]

15. Knowledge weak?

Romans 10:4
"For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, ALL who believe in him are made right with God."

[intaglio]

16. And What did I say apologists do?

They turn hurriedly to Paul

Paul is odd, he never met Jesus and claimed a single vision upon the road to Damascus allowed him to over-rule those who had been taught directly by the God/man.

[humblebum]

17. Yes, but you also make the rules, as you go along, about how and what another

should believe, and to fabricate your argument.

In any case, there is certainly enough evidence without Paul's writings. But I do consider Paul as completely valid, for a variety of reasons, as a true follower of Christ, and a fallible human being.

"...allowed him to over-rule those who had been taught directly by the God/man" - those who "allowed" him to have any status obviously had sufficient reason to do so. And as for the over-ruling, that is purely an opinionated statement, which also allows you an easy out.

However, the existence of Paul's statements and experiences completely demolishes your argument. You are cherry-picking.

[intaglio]

20. Shiny mirror

You choose a particular fragment of Paul to justify your belief about what Jesus meant in relation to the laws. I had said that that is what apologists do because they cannot, I repeat cannot, justify their convoluted understanding of a perfectly straightforward statement about the laws/commandments/mitzvot that Jesus followed.

Paul is odd, he has no part in the original cult and may have been concerned with persecuting it (if there was a persecution, which is doubtful). He can have had no authority his pursuit in Damascus or anywhere outside of Judea as the Romans slapped down any troublemaker exporting private quarrels. Depending on the account he claimed to have been struck blind by a bright light or have had a vision and there might have been an auditory component. Depending on the account his companions saw the light, heard the voice or saw and heard nothing; as far as the disciples are concerned there is only Paul's unsupported word regarding his enlightenment and they did question his interpretation of the word being for the Gentile as much as the Jew. They also definitely questioned his views on the necessity of circumcision.

To draw a modern parallel, Paul is to Jesus as Brigham Young is to Joseph Smith.

[humblebum]

21. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but

I certainly do not share it.

[humblebum]

22. "Paul is to Jesus as Brigham Young is to Joseph Smith." - a more apt parallel would be

Paul is to Jesus as Richard Dawkins would be to C.S. Lewis, if Dawkins were to suddenly become a believer.

[longship]

3. It's in Psalms 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

A lovely verse, eh?

[cbayer]

5. That's really obscure, and it's about war and retaliation. I don't see the connection at all.

Or perhaps your point is that there is no justification in the bible for the heinous acts that have been committed by some people in the church?

I'm just not sure.

[intaglio]

10. Wrong, it is a commandment of the Lord

Yhwh commands his chosen people to perform these acts. He also gives laws that enforce the marriage of the victim to rapist and to govern sexual slavery (concubinage).

Equally nowhere in the Bible is there any word against pedophilia or property rights for women. Incest is admired (Lot's daughters, Abraham and Sarah) and children are sacrificed (Jesus and Jephthah's daughter) and women are forced to bear the child of their husband's brother.

[saras]

6. It's not even sex - they just use sex as a way to be creepy. Wow.

If we ever derive morality from neurology, deriving pleasure from another's pain is a lot more wrong than having something like autism or Down's syndrome.

It's the reason that eugenics is a failure as a concept - because if it worked, the first people you'd want to get rid of are the believers in eugenics.