The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Diopolis]

Who don’t abuse at the same rate as (generally married)scoutmasters.
This is why we should’ve cracked down on homosexuality in the clergy long ago.

Except for, you know, that having nothing to do with pedophilia.

Technically speaking, the bulk of the abuse seems to continue the pattern of abuse recently revealed in seminaries- homosexual grooming of younger, but postpubescent victims. It’s the gay lobby.

[Tarsonis]

Except for, you know, that having nothing to do with pedophilia.

Technically speaking, the bulk of the abuse seems to continue the pattern of abuse recently revealed in seminaries- homosexual grooming of younger, but postpubescent victims. It’s the gay lobby.

Alright, assuming that's accurate, it's still not the "gay lobby", it's predators. Your position stems from a predisposed belief that homosexuals are natural sex offenders which is just baseless ignorance. Females have been victims of priests as well, and not at completely disproportionate rate: 1-2. The fact is this is a result of a culture that allowed predatory men to operate with impunity, taking advantage of the implicit trust that comes with the position of priest.


All this "Velvet Mafia" blame comes from the rad-trad right flexing its anti-gay bigotry, and isn't even close to being rooted in fact.

[Diopolis]

Technically speaking, the bulk of the abuse seems to continue the pattern of abuse recently revealed in seminaries- homosexual grooming of younger, but postpubescent victims. It’s the gay lobby.

Alright, assuming that's accurate, it's still not the "gay lobby", it's predators. Your position stems from a predisposed belief that homosexuals are natural sex offenders which is just baseless ignorance. Females have been victims of priests as well, and not at completely disproportionate rate: 1-2. The fact is this is a result of a culture that allowed predatory men to operate with impunity, taking advantage of the implicit trust that comes with the position of priest.


All this "Velvet Mafia" blame comes from the rad-trad right flexing its anti-gay bigotry, and isn't even close to being rooted in fact.

I don’t think that you can separate this crisis from the seminary abuse crisis, Tars. You know they’re connected when it’s a pattern of the exact same behavior, by essentially the same people. I don’t argue that abusers are necessarily homosexual- don’t forget I’m technically bi- but it would be foolhardy to ignore that the lavender mafia created a culture in which a continued pattern of abuse was normalized and imprinted on seminarians. I wanted to become a priest and cannot because of my SSA; do you think I’m happy about it? But I recognize the reason for the rule- the culture of homosexuality socializes potential priests into normatizing predatory behavior.

[The Alma Mater]

Except for, you know, that having nothing to do with pedophilia.

Technically speaking, the bulk of the abuse seems to continue the pattern of abuse recently revealed in seminaries- homosexual grooming of younger, but postpubescent victims. It’s the gay lobby.

?

I see. And if it were priests molesting little girls, would it be the straight lobby or the pedophile lobby ? Back a few centuries ago when it was prostitutes and poor girls, it was the pimp and business lobby ? Back when it was unmarried ladies, it was the wedding lobby ?

Or perhaps it is the culture of the Catholic Church itself that attracts and creates powerhungry sadists that do not really care who the victims are as long as they are easy prey and readily available - like little boys nowadays are for priests.

And perhaps it is Catholics who respond to that through downplaying, finding excuses and pointing at other groups who are facilitating and validating them.

[Luminesa]

Technically speaking, the bulk of the abuse seems to continue the pattern of abuse recently revealed in seminaries- homosexual grooming of younger, but postpubescent victims. It’s the gay lobby.

?

I see. And if it were priests molesting little girls, would it be the straight lobby or the pedophile lobby ? Back a few centuries ago when it was prostitutes and poor girls, it was the pimp and business lobby ? Back when it was unmarried ladies, it was the wedding lobby ?

Or perhaps it is the culture of the Catholic Church itself that attracts and creates powerhungry sadists that do not really care who the victims are as long as they are easy prey and readily available - like little boys nowadays are for priests.

And perhaps it is Catholics who respond to that through downplaying, finding excuses and pointing at other groups who are facilitating and validating them.

Ow, oof, the edge.

Also:
> Multiple pages now of Catholics and Christians showing horror at the scandals.
> “Durrr you’re just downplaying it and making excuses!”

And so then you have something productive to give to the thread then?

[Tarsonis]

?

I see. And if it were priests molesting little girls, would it be the straight lobby or the pedophile lobby ? Back a few centuries ago when it was prostitutes and poor girls, it was the pimp and business lobby ? Back when it was unmarried ladies, it was the wedding lobby ?

Or perhaps it is the culture of the Catholic Church itself that attracts and creates powerhungry sadists that do not really care who the victims are as long as they are easy prey and readily available - like little boys nowadays are for priests.

And perhaps it is Catholics who respond to that through downplaying, finding excuses and pointing at other groups who are facilitating and validating them.

Ow, oof, the edge.

Also:
> Multiple pages now of Catholics and Christians showing horror at the scandals.
> “Durrr you’re just downplaying it and making excuses!”

And so then you have something productive to give to the thread then?

He might have an edge but he’s right. People are trying to point at different groups based on innate qualities but the fact of the matter is that for decades perhaps even centuries the Catholic Church let a problem like this fester.

It’s important to also realize that the PA thing is a blast from the past rather than a current issue. None of the cases happened after 2002. What these priests did was disgusting and demonic, but the Church is making progress.

[Luminesa]

Ow, oof, the edge.

Also:
> Multiple pages now of Catholics and Christians showing horror at the scandals.
> “Durrr you’re just downplaying it and making excuses!”

And so then you have something productive to give to the thread then?

He might have an edge but he’s right. People are trying to point at different groups based on innate qualities but the fact of the matter is that for decades perhaps even centuries the Catholic Church let a problem like this fester.

It’s important to also realize that the PA thing is a blast from the past rather than a current issue. None of the cases happened after 2002. What these priests did was disgusting and demonic, but the Church is making progress.

I agree, and Lord do I hope we keep making progress. Maybe this will push people to take making that progress seriously.

[The Alma Mater]

?

I see. And if it were priests molesting little girls, would it be the straight lobby or the pedophile lobby ? Back a few centuries ago when it was prostitutes and poor girls, it was the pimp and business lobby ? Back when it was unmarried ladies, it was the wedding lobby ?

Or perhaps it is the culture of the Catholic Church itself that attracts and creates powerhungry sadists that do not really care who the victims are as long as they are easy prey and readily available - like little boys nowadays are for priests.

And perhaps it is Catholics who respond to that through downplaying, finding excuses and pointing at other groups who are facilitating and validating them.

Ow, oof, the edge.

Also:
> Multiple pages now of Catholics and Christians showing horror at the scandals.
> “Durrr you’re just downplaying it and making excuses!”

And so then you have something productive to give to the thread then?

I am directly responding to someone who is blaming others for the flaws of the Church, as several people have been doing for the past few pages.
If you feel you have not, do not try to fit in their shoes.

But, out of genuine interest: how many Cardinals have been punished for aiding in the coverups sofar ? How many Popes have been put into the hall of shame ?
And if you want something productive to be added to the thread: I think the tone of my posts makes it clear how an actual victim of abuse by multiple Catholic priests feels about it. Ponder it.

[Lost Memories]

But, out of genuine interest: how many Cardinals have been punished for aiding in the coverups sofar ?

Can you count/name how many were actually involved ? (i can't, can you?)
Why are you giving the feel you're assuming it's all of them? Is that some kind of mentality of "guilty until proved innocent" ?

It's not a matter of blaming others, but about identifying the actual causes, the actual culprits, and dealing with them in a definitive way to avoid anything similar to ever happen again.
Though, this whole talk is all an huge gossip banter, 99,999% of the people talking on this don't have a say in how things are managed, in the end it's up to the church to fix their own problems, an to the state(s) to verify any criminal cases, as a bystander it's just a matter of trust, you either trust they'll improve or not. Everything else is gossip (or political agenda).

[Kowani]

But, out of genuine interest: how many Cardinals have been punished for aiding in the coverups sofar ?

Can you count/name how many were actually involved ? (i can't, can you?)
Why are you giving the feel you're assuming it's all of them? Is that some kind of mentality of "guilty until proved innocent" ?

It's not a matter of blaming others, but about identifying the actual causes, the actual culprits, and dealing with them in a definitive way to avoid anything similar to ever happen again.
Though, this whole talk is all an huge gossip banter, 99,999% of the people talking on this don't have a say in how things are managed, in the end it's up to the church to fix their own problems, an to the state(s) to verify any criminal cases, as a bystander it's just a matter of trust, you either trust they'll improve or not. Everything else is gossip (or political agenda).

Meh, in this case, I feel even a politician pushing for reform would be a helpful ally. I mean, besides the obvious “protecting kids” standpoint, the Church has a vested interest not to reform. That takes time, money, changing long-held practices and mentalities, but more importantly, submission to secular authority, at least when it comes to reporting the abusers. I think we’ve all heard about how pedophile priests are transferred and maybe, maybe, defrocked, if they piss off enough people, but actual punishment? If I have to choose between moving my house, and going to jail, I’m moving my damn house. However, what you say about trusting that they’ll improve or not, and that that’s all we can do...not really. None of us are priests, but most of the people here are Christian, and as such priests will eventually be chosen from the next generation. If they hear others talking about this, and condemning it, that alone is already changing something. And if we can convince one lurker who becomes a priest that the system needs to be changed, or one victim to speak out, I say that is a pretty large thing we have done. And if we can convince enough people to talk about this, eventually, it should spread to the point where it is no longer ignorable. We can push back against Church abuse of power. We may no longer need to nail Thesis’s on the doors of a Cathedral in Wittenberg, but we still need to criticize the Church when it becomes too comfortable stepping outside what it should dedicate itself to. If we do not, then things will never change. Perhaps this is just an online forum, and the messages here are doomed to remain here. But spreading the words, bringing the issue to light...that is an endeavor worth undertaking.

[Lost Memories]

None of us are priests, but most of the people here are Christian, and as such priests will eventually be chosen from the next generation. If they hear others talking about this, and condemning it, that alone is already changing something. And if we can convince one lurker who becomes a priest that the system needs to be changed, or one victim to speak out, I say that is a pretty large thing we have done.

The fact everyone has already condemned this shouldn't point that what you're proposing to achieve is already achieved?

But spreading the words, bringing the issue to light...that is an endeavor worth undertaking.

I'm talking about the present, not the past, hasn't this issue already been brought to light comprehensively? Do you believe there is still someone who hasn't heard about this?

Given the last case, as already noted, is from 2002. Where is the line between bringing something to light, asking for justice as it's right, and blowing things out of proportion and past their due? If there is a line at all.

[Lost Memories]

If there is something I feel christians of any branch should be doing less silently (specifically in the west) it's questioning the world and society more.
Not on the basis of victimism, nor by taking a stance only when there is a position to defend.
Only reacting, and not acting, seems lazy or uninspired, or maybe it's a sign of tiredness.

[Salus Maior]

If there is something I feel christians of any branch should be doing less silently (specifically in the west) it's questioning the world and society more.
Not on the basis of victimism, nor by taking a stance only when there is a position to defend.
Only reacting, and not acting, seems lazy or uninspired, or maybe it's a sign of tiredness.

....Where have you been looking?

Because that's something we do a lot of.

[Lost Memories]

that's something we do a lot of.

Maybe with a lot of modesty. As much to be rarely heard of?

Just look at this thread as most immediate example, how much of it is:
1) an atheist or unclearly defined christian comes in, says something dumb, or drops an accuse, defences and explanations follow
2) exquisite debate over early church fathers (which i don't really mind, to be clear)
3) talking about the present and future, in a proactive way

3 seems to be the far minority, though it's not like one has to force themselves, nor be loud for the sake of noise. (on most western medias you hear only about 1)
The perceived (relative) scarcity of active questioning from christians makes me wonder if the western world is just such a good place that there is nothing major off, or if there is some complacency at work.

[Tarsonis]

Can you count/name how many were actually involved ? (i can't, can you?)
Why are you giving the feel you're assuming it's all of them? Is that some kind of mentality of "guilty until proved innocent" ?

It's not a matter of blaming others, but about identifying the actual causes, the actual culprits, and dealing with them in a definitive way to avoid anything similar to ever happen again.
Though, this whole talk is all an huge gossip banter, 99,999% of the people talking on this don't have a say in how things are managed, in the end it's up to the church to fix their own problems, an to the state(s) to verify any criminal cases, as a bystander it's just a matter of trust, you either trust they'll improve or not. Everything else is gossip (or political agenda).

Meh, in this case, I feel even a politician pushing for reform would be a helpful ally. I mean, besides the obvious “protecting kids” standpoint, the Church has a vested interest not to reform. That takes time, money, changing long-held practices and mentalities, but more importantly, submission to secular authority, at least when it comes to reporting the abusers. I think we’ve all heard about how pedophile priests are transferred and maybe, maybe, defrocked, if they piss off enough people, but actual punishment? If I have to choose between moving my house, and going to jail, I’m moving my damn house. However, what you say about trusting that they’ll improve or not, and that that’s all we can do...not really. None of us are priests, but most of the people here are Christian, and as such priests will eventually be chosen from the next generation. If they hear others talking about this, and condemning it, that alone is already changing something. And if we can convince one lurker who becomes a priest that the system needs to be changed, or one victim to speak out, I say that is a pretty large thing we have done. And if we can convince enough people to talk about this, eventually, it should spread to the point where it is no longer ignorable. We can push back against Church abuse of power. We may no longer need to nail Thesis’s on the doors of a Cathedral in Wittenberg, but we still need to criticize the Church when it becomes too comfortable stepping outside what it should dedicate itself to. If we do not, then things will never change. Perhaps this is just an online forum, and the messages here are doomed to remain here. But spreading the words, bringing the issue to light...that is an endeavor worth undertaking.

I’m inclined to agree, which is why I’m not upset about these things being public knowledge, even though they’re not current events. Yes it’s opening up old wounds and a huge black eye for the Church, but the Church needs it, just like the Church needed the reformation.

[Forestavia]

that's something we do a lot of.

Maybe with a lot of modesty. As much to be rarely heard of?

Just look at this thread as most immediate example, how much of it is:
1) an atheist or unclearly defined christian comes in, says something dumb, or drops an accuse, defences and explanations follow
2) exquisite debate over early church fathers (which i don't really mind, to be clear)
3) talking about the present and future, in a proactive way

3 seems to be the far minority, though it's not like one has to force themselves, nor be loud for the sake of noise. (on most western medias you hear only about 1)
The perceived (relative) scarcity of active questioning from christians makes me wonder if the western world is just such a good place that there is nothing major off, or if there is some complacency at work.

Are you actually suggesting Christians should practice love, break rules, challenge authority, and create a general atmosphere of hope and mayhem like Jesus?

[Salus Maior]

Are you actually suggesting Christians should practice love, break rules, challenge authority, and create a general atmosphere of hope and mayhem like Jesus?

Oh good, liberal hippy Christ interpreter has arrived.

Maybe your counterpart, the equally blinded-by-their-politics Conservative Libertarian Christ interpreter will arrive soon.

[Forestavia]

Are you actually suggesting Christians should practice love, break rules, challenge authority, and create a general atmosphere of hope and mayhem like Jesus?

Oh good, liberal hippy Christ interpreter has arrived.

Maybe your counterpart, the equally blinded-by-their-politics Conservative Libertarian Christ interpreter will arrive soon.

Ooooh, "liberal hippy Christ interpreter". There's a nice label! Maybe I'll wear that hat for awhile.

[Salus Maior]

Oh good, liberal hippy Christ interpreter has arrived.

Maybe your counterpart, the equally blinded-by-their-politics Conservative Libertarian Christ interpreter will arrive soon.

Ooooh, "liberal hippy Christ interpreter". There's a nice label! Maybe I'll wear that hat for awhile.

My point is not to label you, but rather to point out that you're blinded by your politics when looking at a figure like Christ (funnily enough, for the same reason that youtube reviewer noted the conservative did, in order to back up your own worldview, rather than a sincere look at what the figure actually believed or did).

Christ said a pretty wide number of things that didn't break the rules, but escalated them, and also said a lot of rather dismal warnings that weren't exactly filling people with hope for the future.

It's an imbalanced view that ignores about as much of what Christ said as U.S Republican hardliners do when they 'read' it.

[Forestavia]

Ooooh, "liberal hippy Christ interpreter". There's a nice label! Maybe I'll wear that hat for awhile.

My point is not to label you, but rather to point out that you're blinded by your politics when looking at a figure like Christ (funnily enough, for the same reason that youtube reviewer noted the conservative did, in order to back up your own worldview, rather than a sincere look at what the figure actually believed or did).

Christ said a pretty wide number of things that didn't break the rules, but escalated them, and also said a lot of rather dismal warnings that weren't exactly filling people with hope for the future.

It's an imbalanced view that ignores about as much of what Christ said as U.S Republican hardliners do when they 'read' it.

I see. So you're assuming I haven't taken a sincere look at Jesus and his message. Therefore, my worldview is wrong and yours is right. Exactly what are my politics?

[Salus Maior]

My point is not to label you, but rather to point out that you're blinded by your politics when looking at a figure like Christ (funnily enough, for the same reason that youtube reviewer noted the conservative did, in order to back up your own worldview, rather than a sincere look at what the figure actually believed or did).

Christ said a pretty wide number of things that didn't break the rules, but escalated them, and also said a lot of rather dismal warnings that weren't exactly filling people with hope for the future.

It's an imbalanced view that ignores about as much of what Christ said as U.S Republican hardliners do when they 'read' it.

I see. So you're assuming I haven't taken a sincere look at Jesus and his message. Therefore, my worldview is wrong and yours is right. Exactly what are my politics?

I'm not saying my worldview is necessarily right. But rather my comprehension of who Jesus was and who the Bible says he was is better because I don't try to ignore the bits I'm uncomfortable with, or make blanket statements about him.

You tell me.

[Forestavia]

I see. So you're assuming I haven't taken a sincere look at Jesus and his message. Therefore, my worldview is wrong and yours is right. Exactly what are my politics?

I'm not saying my worldview is necessarily right. But rather my comprehension of who Jesus was and who the Bible says he was is better because I don't try to ignore the bits I'm uncomfortable with, or make blanket statements about him.

You tell me.

Okay, I'll tell you. Here's my blanket statement:

Matthew 5:21-28

Christ's message about lust and adultery, anger and murder has nothing to do with equating the two things. Lust is not sin. It never was and it never will be. It's a natural biological instinct that keeps the human race from going extinct. Lust doesn't hurt anyone. Adultery, however, is a sin. Adultery emotionally hurts others and is unloving.

Anger is not a sin. It's a natural emotion that all people have. (It can't hurt you unless you allow it to turn into bitterness.) Murder, however, is a sin. Murder hurts people. Murder is not loving.

So what was Jesus talking about? What was the point of the message? Simple. It was to get people to think differently about sin and where sin comes from.

Sin starts with our thoughts. Jesus was saying that the sin of adultery starts in the mind with a thought. And a natural thought, at that. There is nothing wrong with looking at a woman lustfully. It's biology. (And a lot of women love that kind of attention, too.) But if you walk up to her and kiss her or grope her and you're in a romantic relationship with someone else, then that's a sin called adultery (if it's not consensual then it's also a second sin called sexual assault).

There is nothing wrong with thoughts. There is nothing wrong with thinking. There is nothing wrong with emotions.

BUT the danger is that if we don't mind ourselves, those thoughts and those emotions could begin to manifest into something we call sin. That is the point that Jesus was making. Mindfulness. Sin starts in the mind. If we are aware of our thoughts, guess what? We can conquer sin, just as Jesus did.

What better way to honor Christ - what better way to worship God - what better way to love ourselves and each other, than to take up our cross and follow him? To do as he did? If we do this, then we end up breaking the biggest rule of all - the biggest rule that runs this world: Sin.

[Lost Memories]

Maybe with a lot of modesty. As much to be rarely heard of?

Just look at this thread as most immediate example, how much of it is:
1) an atheist or unclearly defined christian comes in, says something dumb, or drops an accuse, defences and explanations follow
2) exquisite debate over early church fathers (which i don't really mind, to be clear)
3) talking about the present and future, in a proactive way

3 seems to be the far minority, though it's not like one has to force themselves, nor be loud for the sake of noise. (on most western medias you hear only about 1)
The perceived (relative) scarcity of active questioning from christians makes me wonder if the western world is just such a good place that there is nothing major off, or if there is some complacency at work.

Are you actually suggesting Christians should practice love, break rules, challenge authority, and create a general atmosphere of hope and mayhem like Jesus?

That's.. an extreme opposite.
The lower extreme being to be buried in indifference and complacency, and active only by reaction.
And the upper extreme being to be unrestful, dissatisfied, more actively destructive than constructive.
Extremes are always bad, in one or the other way.

What i was wishing for was to take some distance from the lower extreme, to be less complacent, or to be less timid, if being timid means to avoid speaking what one by faith feels to be right. I think being a bit more outspoken (while obviously never forgetting the humilty in it) would be a good thing for christians all around. (and i'm not excluding myself from this wish)


In your last post, your general sentiment isn't at odds with what i think Salus was meaning. Just some parts feel roughly sketched or not developed enough.

Lust is not sin. It never was and it never will be. It's a natural biological instinct that keeps the human race from going extinct. Lust doesn't hurt anyone.

Lust, when understood as vice, like all vices it's about lacking something humane to an otherwise normal part of humanity.
The vice of lust is about lacking self control, the sexual desire is an instinct, a part of our being biologically animals, the vice is about not having control of that instict, and rather being controlled or being subservient to the instinct, which leads to be thoughtless, to downgrade others and oneself as tools of pleasure(which is dehumanizing), and to generally act indecently (which today may not be highly considered, but indecency is the opposite of dignity and selfrespect).

Anger is not a sin. It's a natural emotion that all people have.

Similarly with lust, anger is an emotion, while the vice of Wrath is about being blinded by it and becoming thoughtless, impulsive, to eventually become paranoid and losing trust in humanity.

Which goes back to your first statement to which Salus replied to, maybe you were meaning well, but the idea you gave of what Jesus was about, felt like an oversimplified caricature.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Anger is not a sin. It's a natural emotion that all people have.

Similarly with lust, anger is an emotion, while the vice of Wrath is about being blinded by it and becoming thoughtless, impulsive, to eventually become paranoid and losing trust in humanity.

Which goes back to your first statement to which Salus replied to, maybe you were meaning well, but the idea you gave of what Jesus was about, felt like an oversimplified caricature.

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

Similarly with lust, anger is an emotion, while the vice of Wrath is about being blinded by it and becoming thoughtless, impulsive, to eventually become paranoid and losing trust in humanity.

Which goes back to your first statement to which Salus replied to, maybe you were meaning well, but the idea you gave of what Jesus was about, felt like an oversimplified caricature.

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

God made SSRIs for a reason