HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » What went wrong in the Ca...

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:23 AM

What went wrong in the Catholic Church?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dantonio-catholic-priest-molestations-20130210,0,188114.story


Why have its leaders been unable to deal with the priest sex abuse scandal in an honest and convincing way?

By Michael D'Antonio

February 10, 2013

The files released last week by America's largest Catholic archdiocese revealed new and disturbing details about how church officials schemed to protect priests accused of molesting children. But was the scandal in Los Angeles really so much worse than in other places?

Sadly, no. The details emerging from the documents mirror what happened in archdioceses across the country, as church officials time and again put their own concerns above the needs of victims.

One of the earliest cases to draw nationwide attention involved Gilbert Gauthe, a priest who raped dozens of boys in rural Louisiana. By 1984, when Gauthe was indicted on 34 counts of sex crimes against children, church officials had been aware he was abusing children for at least a decade. But instead of reporting his crimes, they transferred him to another parish, where he continued to have sex with the children in his charge. He was stopped only after a boy he raped wound up in the hospital due to his injuries.

~big snip


Sex and power. These are two factors that Catholic leaders have failed to confront, even as the church falls down around them. Any recovery from the great scandal will require change in both areas. Thirty years on, even under the threat of criminal prosecution, they seem incapable of the kind of self-examination that would allow such change. Instead they fight against truth-telling and suffer further ignominy. No wonder this is a scandal without end



It just seems the Catholic Church feels that anyone bringing these faults to their eyes is attacking them.

127 replies, 7794 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 127 replies Author Time Post
Reply What went wrong in the Catholic Church? (Original post)
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 OP
SharonAnn Feb 2013 #1
riqster Feb 2013 #2
SharonAnn Feb 2013 #6
Squinch Feb 2013 #76
rug Feb 2013 #3
SharonAnn Feb 2013 #7
rug Feb 2013 #11
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #16
rug Feb 2013 #21
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #28
rug Feb 2013 #29
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #35
rug Feb 2013 #38
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #43
rug Feb 2013 #66
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #10
rug Feb 2013 #12
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #13
rug Feb 2013 #22
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #25
rug Feb 2013 #27
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #31
rug Feb 2013 #40
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #44
rug Feb 2013 #47
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #64
rug Feb 2013 #67
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #69
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #14
rug Feb 2013 #24
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #30
rug Feb 2013 #41
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #45
rug Feb 2013 #46
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #49
rug Feb 2013 #52
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #53
rug Feb 2013 #54
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #55
rug Feb 2013 #56
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #57
rug Feb 2013 #58
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #62
rug Feb 2013 #68
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #70
rug Feb 2013 #73
intaglio Feb 2013 #48
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #50
rug Feb 2013 #75
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #84
rug Feb 2013 #85
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #86
rug Feb 2013 #87
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #88
rug Feb 2013 #89
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #90
rug Feb 2013 #91
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #92
rug Feb 2013 #51
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #63
rug Feb 2013 #65
intaglio Feb 2013 #98
rug Feb 2013 #99
intaglio Feb 2013 #104
rug Feb 2013 #105
intaglio Feb 2013 #107
rug Feb 2013 #109
intaglio Feb 2013 #112
rug Feb 2013 #113
intaglio Feb 2013 #114
rug Feb 2013 #115
intaglio Feb 2013 #118
rug Feb 2013 #119
intaglio Feb 2013 #120
rug Feb 2013 #121
intaglio Feb 2013 #123
rug Feb 2013 #124
intaglio Feb 2013 #125
rug Feb 2013 #126
intaglio Feb 2013 #127
Squinch Feb 2013 #77
rug Feb 2013 #78
Squinch Feb 2013 #79
rug Feb 2013 #80
Squinch Feb 2013 #81
rug Feb 2013 #82
Squinch Feb 2013 #93
rug Feb 2013 #94
Squinch Feb 2013 #95
rug Feb 2013 #101
Squinch Feb 2013 #106
rug Feb 2013 #108
Squinch Feb 2013 #110
cbayer Feb 2013 #4
SharonAnn Feb 2013 #8
cbayer Feb 2013 #59
skepticscott Feb 2013 #83
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #5
Moonwalk Feb 2013 #9
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #18
rug Feb 2013 #26
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #34
rug Feb 2013 #39
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #42
rug Feb 2013 #74
2pooped2pop Feb 2013 #15
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #17
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #19
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #23
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #33
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #36
2pooped2pop Feb 2013 #20
mr blur Feb 2013 #32
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #37
Freddie Feb 2013 #60
cbayer Feb 2013 #61
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #72
dimbear Feb 2013 #71
Marrah_G Feb 2013 #96
Bad Thoughts Feb 2013 #97
Dorian Gray Feb 2013 #100
madrchsod Feb 2013 #102
Bradical79 Feb 2013 #103
Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #111
cbayer Feb 2013 #117
gcomeau Feb 2013 #116
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #122

Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:29 AM

1. "Insular groups of men do bad things"

A Woman’s Place Is in the Church

The cause of the Catholic clergy's sex-abuse scandal is no mystery: insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?


Studies show what we intuitively know: without checks and balances, insular groups of men do bad things. History professor Nicholas Syrett, author of The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities, says studies suggest that 70 to 90 percent of gang rapes on college campuses are committed by men in fraternities. Obviously, he adds, important differences exist between the Roman Catholic hierarchy and college frats—”fraternity men are encouraged to have sex with lots of women. Clearly priests are not.” But in both cases, “men are encouraged to believe that they are in positions of power for a reason…I do think if the hierarchy of the Catholic Church doesn’t discipline these people because they are concerned about reputation, they create a space where those are led to believe that whatever they do is OK.”

Newsweek, April 2, 2010
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-i...

Original piece at The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-church.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:36 AM

2. The notion of papal infallibility.

When you have that much ego on the line, and institutional inertia to boot, it is nearly impossible to admit error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:41 AM

6. Gary Wills' very readable book "Papal Sin" is about this Doctrine of Infallibilty

and how it corrupted the Church.

Lord Acton was a Catholic layman and theologian who strongly object to this doctrine with the words "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Bet you didn't know where this saying came from. It was from the battles over the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Gary Wills also said in this book that Church had to get over it's "pelvic issues."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:19 AM

76. Papal infallibility wasn't even an officially stated doctrine till the late 1800's.

So one day he wasn't infallible and the next day he was. Hmmmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to rug (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:43 AM

7. Proves that "Insular groups of men" don't confront their wrongs. Outsiders, however, do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:46 AM

11. Most institutional elites are composed of insular groups of men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:04 PM

16. Does that somehow diminish the fact that in THIS case, her point is valid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:17 PM

21. It clarifies that this is not unique.

Do you oppose clarification?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:34 PM

28. Was that ever in question? Did she make that claim? Nope.

But now that it's clarified anyway, her point remains quite valid, agreed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:35 PM

29. Certainly it's a valid point, clarified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:48 PM

35. Well I guess she should be thankful for that tangent clarification.

I'm sure her point would have somehow been less valid had you not clarified that irrelevant matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:55 PM

38. In fact, the statement itself underscores its validity.

I do understand that you consider irrelevant any fact that disputes your assertion that the RCC is no more than an association of pedophiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:07 PM

43. What a wonder it must be to live in a world where you get to make it up as you go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:41 PM

66. Don't forget to send me a postcard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:45 AM

10. I have read that article and found it a lot of bunk when I read it and still do

Actions speak a lot lot louder than a bunch of empty words

When I read where they strip all the leaders that knew of the abuse of their power and kick them out of the church then I will change my position

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:47 AM

12. You think acknowledging the role of the media is "a lot of bunk"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:54 AM

13. No

I found the statement self serving of the church
'Oh, thank you for pointing out our criminal activities so we could finally address them'


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:18 PM

22. I must have missed that quote.

I find your inferences interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:27 PM

25. Priests abused children for a hundred years and the church covered up the crimes

that is criminal activity

So it backs up my point that the statement is self serving .........

When the pope and others come clean then I will start believing that they are sorry

I also find interesting that you posted this article in a safe haven and have very few responses and you do not post the article that you posted in response to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:33 PM

27. I find your selective facts to be self-serving.

Yes I posted the article there before you did here.

I didn't post the Reuters article because nobody there made an idiotic comment about the story. I had, however, previously posted the Reuters article there.

Since you frequently peruse that safe have group (which I also find interesting), I'm surprised you were unaware of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:40 PM

31. Please explain what selective facts are self-serving

And what was idiotic about my comment??

Am I not allowed to peruse any group or forum on this website??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:02 PM

40. What was idiotic about your comment is that it had just released a statement thanking the press.

And you cn peruse anything you want, as can I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:09 PM

44. So you are saying that the Church had no idea that they were engaging in criminal activities??

I will return a little later because now I need to go see Michele Bachmann and listen to her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:22 PM

47. Again, the inferences you make are a wonder to behold.

The answer is no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #47)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:37 PM

64. My inferences may be miracles

So he is saying that the Church knew they were participating in criminal activities but because the media
would not let up the Church finally had to do something about it


and if this is wrong then you state what the Church is saying because it seems they say something different the next day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #64)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:42 PM

67. That's better. A few more exchanges and I think you'll get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #67)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:27 PM

69. Snark

now only if the Catholic Church can come forward into the 21st

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:01 PM

14. When he says "thanks for doing that", I think he means...

Thanks for doing that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:20 PM

24. I know. It's terrible when a convenient narrative is interrupted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:39 PM

30. His sentiment of thanks to the media would seem more genuine if the church followed with

action, by coming clean about the atrocities it covered up and dealing with all those involved.

But that is probably asking too much. I mean, no one would ever think that an institution based on the most honest, most loving person/god ever would be honest about such a thing.

I'm sure that, were jesus/god real, jesus/god would be very impressed with what this institution has done in his name, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:03 PM

41. Do you think that God can "be very impressed"?

How anthropomorphic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:10 PM

45. Going by the Catholic idea of what god is, I would say yes.

I didn't give that idea any anthropomorphic qualities, that is your area of expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:20 PM

46. Once again, you display an ignorance of what you're attacking.

I'll fix it for you.

"Going by what I thik is the Catholic idea of what god is, I would say yes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:24 PM

49. You are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how wrong it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:27 PM

52. As are you. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:32 PM

53. I hope you remember your own advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #53)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:33 PM

54. Always. You should stick to posting facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:39 PM

55. I hope you remember your own advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:40 PM

56. Always. You should too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #56)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:42 PM

57. I hope you remember your own advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #56)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:48 PM

58. 54

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:31 PM

62. There are facts about "god"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #62)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:46 PM

68. Pay attention. He made a factual statement.

Going by the Catholic idea of what god is, I would say yes.


To help you, the factual statement is "the Catholic idea of what God is".

He, of course, has it wrong.

You should get along well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #68)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:41 PM

70. So you agree that there are no facts about god?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:33 PM

73. I agree that various religions have made statements about God.

Those statements should be understood before critiquing them.

Do you agree that there are no beliefs in science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:23 PM

48. Errr - Wasn't Jesus an anthropomorphism of God?

You know, the three in one; what the Catholic Church insists is the reality of the deity who became human by being born to a woman herself born by an immaculate conception. Of course God could not give birth because for some reason "He" has a gender unless he is the (genderless) Holy Ghost.

Rationality - lacking from Christianity since around the year 790 AUC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:25 PM

50. Shhhhh, why get in the way of a perfectly good irrational response?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:04 AM

75. Somebody should get you a dictionary for Christmas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #75)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:50 PM

84. Somebody should get you a clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #84)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:12 PM

85. If I do, it won't be from you.

Although I do enjoy your attributing human traits to God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #85)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:22 PM

86. Wouldn't expect you to.

Human traits to god? Aren't we made in his image?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #86)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:26 PM

87. As to your two questions,

get a clue. Or a better Google. You'll find your answer sooner if you filter out the cartoons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #87)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:38 PM

88. Thats it? Thats all you have?



Go ahead and feed your compulsion to have the last word if you need to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #88)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:39 PM

89. No, I have lots more, but you know the saying.

Matthew 7:6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #89)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:41 PM

90. Bwahahahahaha! A Bible verse! He threw a bible verse at me!




Man, that compulsion to have the last word is the real deal, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #90)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:44 PM

91. Yes, I think of you when I read it.

You should too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #91)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:48 PM

92. Thats weird. Thanks, I guess?



I can only imagine what that compulsion to have the last word must feel like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:26 PM

51. Errr - no.

Google Incarnation after you google anthroporphism.

Confusion - being sowed since precisesly August 17, 2006.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:36 PM

63. Err yes.

Incarnation of a deity as a human being is a specific form of the more general anthropomorphism of a deity. Human like is a super set of human.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:39 PM

65. Err - no.

ANTHROPOMORPHISM

an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism


INCARNATION

the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form (2)capitalized: the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incarnation


I'm beginning to understand why your posts are so confusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:20 AM

98. Whereas yours are merely confusing because of lack of clarity about terms used

The whole point is that Jesus was supposedly an interpretation of what is not human (God) into personal and human characteristics (Jesus). Interpretation does not only refer to language it can refer to many endeavors. Yes Jesus was also supposedly an incarnation but an incarnation could be anything of flesh from mollusk to mammal.

Do keep up, Bond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #98)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:38 AM

99. The difference is quite simple.

In one, God comes down and becomes man.

In the other, various people look up and cast various attributes on God, depending on their own conception of what God might be like.

Simple and entirely different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #99)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:37 PM

104. In incarnation a god comes down and becomes flesh

Not man but flesh; check Zeus and Leda. When Zeus became golden rain and when El Adonai became fire was manifestation. The order is therefore that a god is made manifest by incarnating and taking the form of a man; literally anthropomorphisng or if you wish to phrase it another way the Christian God becomes an anthropomorphic shape.

Look at the roots of the word:
Anthrop - Man;
Morphos - Form.

Even Webster admits that about adjective anthropmorphic:
Definition of ANTHROPOMORPHIC
1: described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes

and all I am doing is using the noun - correctly.

You may not like to admit that the Christian myth follows a similar narrative to other faiths based upon elemental deities - but it does. Example - Zeus fathered Heracles who despite his demigod status was fully human. Hercules achieved miracles (based not just on strength but also wisdom) and upon death was raised to the rank of deity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #104)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:30 PM

105. You left out the capital.

Incarnation - God became man (not some unspecified flesh).

The difference between the Incarnation and anthropomorphism is the difference betwen the actors. In the former, it is God acting. In the later it is man attempting to relate to an ineffable concept in terms he can understand. The Greek and Roman myths are but two examples.

You may not like the precision of language but it's important when trotting out tired old attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #105)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:06 PM

107. Many deities become incarnate

You may find it convenient to use it as a shorthand indicator that you are talking about the specific incarnation of Jesus but that is just your habit and it is not a habit that I need to wear.

To put it another way, I was describing a process that is used by many gods and described in many religions. Where I named the deity I used a capital as is proper in English with proper names. It is only Christians who insist upon the magical use of capitals to describe what happened to their deity. Incarnate is not a title or part of the name of Jesus; this makes it unlike the term Christ which is a title meaning "anointed" (applying equally to Horus) and so should be capitalised in English. I am not a Christian and so do not need to capitalise in your manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #107)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:11 PM

109. So it's said. But that would still not be anthropormorhism.

The use of the capital has nothing to do with your religion, or lack thereof. It's a prope noun referring to something specific, not generic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #109)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:40 AM

112. Stop denying what is inconvenient to you

Athrop - man
Morphos - form

Athropomorphic - adjective
Anthropomorphism - noun

Your specific complaint that started this nonsense was that applying emotions to a god was anthropomorphic, I pointed out that Jesus was the anthropomorphism of Yahweh. I did not add that your faith insists that not only was Jesus an aspect of the triune but also fully human and therefore fully aware of human emotions and subject to them - because I thought you knew that.

From context I gather that the body of your text refers to "incarnate" but the casual reader would not be so aware. If incarnate was a title applied to the god/man Jesus then you might be correct but it is not. Similarly "The Incarnation" may be a unique event to Christians, but it is not to myself or others; remember I did not refer to a singular incarnation because incarnation is a popular tactic of deities, which is what I was making clear.

I owe no duty of respect to your deity because your deity does not exist. You may wish to continue with pointless formalisms and meaningless rituals but do not expect others to do the same. Ask yourself why you do certain things and why you need to write in a particular form. Why, for example, do you need to make the physical expression of subjugation by kneeling? Surely if you are truly Christian then you are entirely subject and your god is aware of it. On the other hand if you are just performing the act without being in subjection then why perform the act?

Lastly, on the use of capitals; please read "archie and mehetabel" and enjoy yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #112)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:49 AM

113. Stop denying the dictionary

I don't give a shit what you respect or disrespect but ignoring the plain meaning of words hardly encourages credence in whatever you say next.

What I have said already is plain enough and I have no need to repeat it.

BTW, the Greek word is anthropos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #113)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 07:43 AM

114. As Webster gives the roots in the form I do

I think it is pretty clear who is "denying the dictionary". In this case the noun is morphos and so keeps the suffix. The roots are given in the definition of anthropomorphize in Webster.

Next the noun is used in proper form. Quoting directly from Meriam Webster
an interpretation of what is not human (e.g. God) or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics (i.e. Jesus)

From the OED
attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal or object
which is a lot more clear.

Lastly you obviously "give a shit" because you insist that we follow your particular sect in its attribution of captalisation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #114)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:39 AM

115. Oh, the capitalization of proper nouns is rooted in religion?

Who knew?

We should do something about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #115)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:12 PM

118. I did not use incarnation as a proper noun

and it is only in your particular sect that it is used as a proper noun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #118)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:55 PM

119. While we're on the subject you should study the difference between a sect and a religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #119)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:05 PM

120. A sect is loosely a group of people with different religious beliefs and practises from others

If you prefer the more formal definition then your preferred Merriam Webster has
1a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical
b : a religious denomination
(emphasis mine) and also
3a : a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

Even 1a applies as the Roman Church began as a dissenting body from the larger Orthodox faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #120)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:07 PM

121. Now you history is off too.

Who split from whom in the Great Schism of 1054?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #121)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:02 AM

123. Please study history not fantasies from Catholic perspective

The schism was formalised in 1054 by the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by Catholic Legates (not the Pope) and the subsequent excommunication of only those Legates by the Patriarch. There had been earlier excommunications.

In actual fact the schism had begun much earlier, possibly as early as the 2nd Century. In later years there were dubious* claims of Papal preeminence and as well as the nominally earth shattering matters as the use of leavened or unleavened bread and the precise wording of the catechism, the last altered unilaterally by Rome. The only reason why this particular flounce by the Roman representatives stuck was the weakness of Constantinople following the death of Basil II.

===========================

* The "Donation of Constantine" was a forgery and a very poor one as were the Isidorean Decretials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #123)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:28 AM

124. What fantastic perspective are you coming from?

I would hope you realize that mutual anathemas were issued in 1054, an entirely unnecessary exercise had there been a prior schism.

Your claim of a schism from the second century ir rather bizarre considering the seven ecumenical councils occurred from the fourth through the eight centuries. Some schism.

As to your last paragraph, I will only say your bias is showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #124)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:45 PM

125. Study history not personal Catholic fantasies

The dispute between the Patriarchates and Rome was centuries old. There were frequent declarations by one side or the other that their opponents were schismatic or heretical.

Essentially the Bishop of Rome claimed preeminence over all other churches. See below.

The Bishop of Rome amended the Catechism to include the Filoque a change to the catechism first outlined by Tertullian and hence before AD 220. At that time such a change was akin to the beliefs of the recently abjured sect if the Arians. The Filoque henceforward only appeared in the Latin versions of the Catechism.

The Bishop of Rome moved to have Easter so that it could precede of Passover, which is odd as the entry into Jerusalem coincided with the start of Passover and the Last Supper was a Passover meal. In the Eastern Churches Easter always follows Passover.

The Bishop of Rome insisted that only unleavened bread should be used for the sacrament. Not being interested in magic I have no idea why that causes dispute.

As to my last paragraph do you insist that the Donation of Constantine was not a forgery? Then argue with the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia;
Donation of Constantine
(Latin, Donatio Constantini).
By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church ...
Link to article

Do you contend that Isidorean Decretials were not forged? The same source proves you wrong;
False Decretals
The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore
False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator
Link to article


So far I have shown:
1) that your understanding of the word "Anthropomorphism" is false;
2) That you do not understand how the roots of words are discussed;
3) That you do not understand the meaning of the word "sect";
4) That you have little knowledge of the history of your chosen sect;
5) That you do not understand how general arguments about gods do not require token obeisance to your particular deity by captalisation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #125)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:54 PM

126. So far you have not show one through five.

Whast you have shown is that your antipathy against religion filters the historical record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #126)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:36 PM

127. One at a time

1) Shown by me and undisputed by yourself in post 114 http://www.democraticunderground.com/121868233#post114 . After this post you went on to make assertions about capitalisation

2) First paragraph post 114 and undisputed by you; I did commit one error, the roots are discussed in Anthropomorphic not Anthropomorphize http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic?show=0&t=1360790611

3) You merely asserted that a sect was different from a religion. I gave the correct definition of sect quoting Merriam Webster, as you seem to favour that, in post 120. You did not dispute this definition. http://www.democraticunderground.com/121868233#post120

4) Your lack of knowledge of your own sect's history was demonstrated by your previous post as:
a) you showed ignorance of the Filoque dispute (and it's early origins) which rendered the Roman Church heretical from the point of view of the Patriarchates and the Patriarchates heretical in Rome's view;
b) you remained ignorant of the changes to the calculation of Easter (and their early date) and how rendered the disputants schismatic from each other;
c) you showed total disregard for the insignificant matter of leavened/unleavened sacrament;
d) seem totally ignorant that the preeminence of Rome over the Patriarchates was claimed by Rome on the basis of the "Donation of Constantine" and the "False Decretials" both of which were forgeries;
e) you claimed I was showing bias by asserting (along with the Catholic Encyclopedia) that the 2 documents cited were dubious, argue with the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
f) You are ignorant of the anathematization of various Popes by the Patriarchate and Church councils as well as the excommunication of several Patriarchs especially in iconoclast periods.

5) On capitalisation, I pointed you in the direction of "archie and mehetabel" but you obviously did not get the reference. Please grow up and show some humour. I also pointed out that your specific niggle was actually pointless as I was referring to the class of events concerning deities not your special "Incarnation". Additionally you show a great deal of arrogance because, by your preference, devout Jews and Muslims would be asked to admit that an incarnation they deny was a real event.

I know that you will accuse me of arrogance in return but I must ask you is supplying chapter and verse and links supporting argument an example of arrogance?

Or would that word better describe someone whose only method of argument is blind and obedient assertion supported, in this instance, by one misapprehended citation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:22 AM

77. I don't understand the significance of this guy's statement.

He said that the media did the church a service by uncovering sex abuse. So what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #77)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:27 AM

78. It contradicts the OP's comment.

It just seems the Catholic Church feels that anyone bringing these faults to their eyes is attacking them."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:29 AM

79. Do you think the statement has any intrinsic significance, or are you citing it to refute the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:30 AM

80. There is value in this acknowledgement but mainly it corrects the OP.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #80)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:37 AM

81. It was said this past week. It seems clearly a token from an organization that has been knowingly

engaging in extreme criminal abuse for at least decades.

That's nice that this guy thanked the media. But who really cares? And who really believes that it signifies any change in the attitude of the organization?

I don't really see any significance in the statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #81)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:58 AM

82. A token?

Well, that must be how it seems to you. I care more for the impact of these statements than how it seems to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #82)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:53 PM

93. What do you think the impact will be?

And do you think the bishops and church administration did not know about the abuse before the media brought it to light?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #93)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:56 PM

94. The impact is already being felt.

Every diocese now has a clear policy on reporting.

There is no question they were aware of it. I don't think that's even an issue. What has changed is how they react to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #94)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 06:14 PM

95. The US Catholic Conference of Bishops instituted a clear policy on reporting ten years ago,

and yet the abuse, cover-ups, and non-reporting have continued. So what has changed, other than this guy saying thanks to the media?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #95)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:53 AM

101. Abuse, coverup, and nonreporting are three different things.

The first is endemic throughout society. What is pertinent is the last two. Do you have anything on those in violation of the USCCB policy in the last ten years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #101)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:03 PM

106. Last week, in fact,

after a long fight to get the Los Angeles dioscese to release documents on priest sex abuse, they finally released 10,000 heavily redacted pages. (a) it took them till last week to make the information available, even though the policy to finally get honest about this stuff was enacted in 2002, and (b) The victims say the dioscese is STILL not releasing all the information and covering up for certain priests. This is in violation of a court order, not just the bishop's own policy.

That's probably the most recent example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #106)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:08 PM

108. That's a close one but it's part of the ongoing discovery process in existing litigation.

What would be decisive is an example of abuse first coming to a diocese's attention now. If a coverup ensued, you'd be right. But I expect, whether due to fear or conscience, it would be reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #108)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:26 PM

110. Yes. But if I found that you'd make up another new rule in order to make it acceptable to you.

That's not a useful conversation, and it's not a game I want to play.

Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:37 AM

4. This is a massively deep and complex issue.

Very young men who decide to to into the the priesthood may themselves be abused when they enter their seminary. The cover up is at every level and moving around offending priests just spread the problem and allowed it to flourish.

It is a nightmare of unspeakable proportions which, were this any other organization, would most likely lead to complete replacement of the hierarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:44 AM

8. Yes, the son of a friend of mine was counseled by a serving priest that

he would have to learn to cope with the "homosexual" environment in the seminaries.

I don't know any more than that about it. That's all I was told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:56 PM

59. I think it's very important not to conflate pedophilia with homosexuality.

The abuses in the seminaries that I heard about were much more about power than sexuality. Young, relatively naive men were being subjected to some pretty horrid abuse with no recourse. As often happens, once they had power, they sometimes used it to abuse those weaker and more vulnerable than they.

The church's inability to address the bigger issues concerning sexuality within the priesthood led to more and more negligence and denial within the hierarchy.

They knew what was going on and chose not to address it. In the meantime, the problems just got worse and worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:54 PM

83. If you have knowledge that a child has been sexually abused

you report it to the police. Period. What exactly is "complex" about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:45 AM

9. Watch the HBO Documentary: Mea Maxima Culpa. It really explains "WHY"...

...the church all the way to the top has a policy of covering this up and always has had that policy. Sex, by the way has nothing to do with it. Power does. It comes down to the church not wanting to make their priests appear to be normal human beings who should be treated as normal human beings by the secular world. Priests, seen as chaste and apart from the world, offer the image of men with special powers--able to turn wine into the blood of Jesus, a wafer into the body of Jesus, able to forgive people and let them get to heaven, or not and they'll go to hell. That's a lot of power. And the fear is people won't believe priests have that power if some are exposed as common criminals.

This, in the end is all about having power over the faithful. You can't have a priest tell someone that unless they do what the church wants they'll go to hell if that priest is shown to be a child molester. Besides, the priest reflects on the church. So long as his sins are hidden, so long as he seems "angelic" the church seems angelic too.

None of this should mystify you. Religion often relies on leaders who use mystical trappings to seem above and beyond, special and supernatural rather than normal. This gives them power over people and the wealth to put forth their agenda and gain more followers. No organized religion is going risk losing that. And any organized religion (or organization period) that admits to aiding and abetting child molesters risks losing an awful lot of power and credibility. It's really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moonwalk (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:08 PM

18. EXACTLY! The church NEEDS it's clergy to be seen as above the rest of us, and immune from

the ordinary failings of humans. If not, then they are just ordinary humans, and ordinary humans have no power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:28 PM

26. No it doesn't. This is all about institutional bunker mentality, not theology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:45 PM

34. And that bunker is buttressed by theology.

To deny that the two are not intertwined is to deny reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:59 PM

39. You once again have it ass backwards.

To deny that human institutions, regardless of ideology, go to great lengths to preserve themselves is to deny reality.

To deny reality in pursuit of an agenda is . . . . well, you go fill in the blank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:05 PM

42. Your opinion is highly valued. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:03 AM

74. Sorry, can'y say the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:03 PM

15. the church is all about the money

they get enough money they can cover up this shit. So they do because they don't want that money to stop and if you find out they are fucking your chiildren, you might not want to give them 10 percent of everything you make for it.

So they will do everything they can to keep it quiet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:07 PM

17. The power is more important to them than the money

but also the two are so intertwined that it is hard to separate them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:10 PM

19. Money IS power, no?

The Vatican holds massive wealth, while a majority of its laity suffers in poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:19 PM

23. Yes it is

however one can have power without wealth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:43 PM

33. I've not seen lasting power without the wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:51 PM

36. I would think it would depend if that power was used for good or evil

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:12 PM

20. agree n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:42 PM

32. Appropriate toon:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:52 PM

37. I like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:02 PM

60. The power structure is the problem

Clergy abuse happens in non-Catholic churches too, but they can handle it locally without it going "upstairs" where they value damage control over the lives of children. For example, nearby here a Methodist youth pastor was abusing kids; the church council president called the police, and that was the end of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:17 PM

61. Agree. Local congregations tend to have a lot more control over those within their church.

This is just not possible in the same way within the RCC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:02 PM

72. And that is the way it should be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:00 PM

71. It's not as if something has recently gone wrong. Those who know their history know

that corruption and vice have been rife in the church at least since the 5th century. The only difference is publicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:05 PM

96. they have always been a corrupt organization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:54 PM

97. Xianity took over the political-religious offices of Rome

Consequently, it would always be an organization that jealously defended its imperial authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:43 AM

100. I agree with you

Human failings without an effort to at humility.

An honest assessment and apology for the church's actions would go a long way to allowing people to forgive.

Sometimes those in the power positions are more concerned with maintaining their positions. It's a travesty.

(I say that as someone who hasn't left the church. I love my parish/pastor/community, and that's what keeps me involved. But I have a strong dissatisfaction with the Diocesesan politics and the politics of Rome.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:00 AM

102. how many centuries should we look through to find the answer?

look through the history of the church and you`ll see this scandal is`t new

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:41 AM

103. The Catholic Church has a history of corruption dating back well over 1000 years.

I would ask, why should we expect anything different by now? Compared to past deeds, protecting pedophiles is pretty tame behavior, historically speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:32 PM

111. these last two posts have it exactly right.

 

how far back shall we go? and yet predictions of its immanent demise have thus far proven presumptuous.

one has to marvel at the amount of effort the rcc's child rape apologists will go, even on this forum, to blur and obfuscate. if it wasn't so stereotypical it would be comical. if it wasn't so sad it would be sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #111)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:56 PM

117. There are child rape apologists in this forum? Where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:59 AM

116. Well...

...the word "church" on the end of your subject line offers some clues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:21 PM

122. Two thousand years of the Iron Law of Oligarchy at work...

The result: a religion that started off with "Love your brother, help the poor, the power-elites are douchebags" became an institution that covered for slavery and child-molestation, engineered historical atrocities like the Inquisition, and has a strict authoritarian power structure where the leaders are said to have the red-phone to God, and are thus considered literally infallible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread