The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Northern Davincia]

2. The Holy Spirit guided the formation of the Church after the ascension. There are plenty of miracles which demonstrate this.

Care to give any examples?

3. You're not making sense with your ISIS analogy. Assuming that Catholicism is correct, all non-Catholic Christians would rightly be deemed as heretics, and their fate self-imposed.

IF Catholics killed all non-Catholic Christians, their fates would have been imposed by the Catholic Church, not self-imposed - when Stalin sent millions of political opponents to gulags, their fates were imposed by Stalin, not self-imposed.

The Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak in tongues, Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, things of that nature.
Also, I'm not referring to an earthly fate.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Care to give any examples?

IF Catholics killed all non-Catholic Christians, their fates would have been imposed by the Catholic Church, not self-imposed - when Stalin sent millions of political opponents to gulags, their fates were imposed by Stalin, not self-imposed.

The Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak in tongues, Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, things of that nature.
Also, I'm not referring to an earthly fate.

Oh, I thought you were referring to earthly religious genocide. My bad.

[Northern Davincia]

1. The Church is the avenue through which man can come closer to God.
2. The Holy Spirit guided the formation of the Church after the ascension. There are plenty of miracles which demonstrate this.
3. You're not making sense with your ISIS analogy. Assuming that Catholicism is correct, all non-Catholic Christians would rightly be deemed as heretics, and their fate self-imposed.

The ISIS analogy was merely me pointing out that despite what Hakons said, there are actual times where there is a legitimate reason to leave the church. Outliers and extreme points, yes, but he said never, so I felt that current events were a thing.

As for those miracles, I assume you have proof of those. And no, one eyewitness with nothing but their word does not count as proof.

Your standards for proof remain unclear to me.

The Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak in tongues, Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, things of that nature.
Also, I'm not referring to an earthly fate.

Oh, I thought you were referring to earthly religious genocide. My bad.

No worries. :^)

[Kowani]

Care to give any examples?

IF Catholics killed all non-Catholic Christians, their fates would have been imposed by the Catholic Church, not self-imposed - when Stalin sent millions of political opponents to gulags, their fates were imposed by Stalin, not self-imposed.

The Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak in tongues, Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, things of that nature.
Also, I'm not referring to an earthly fate.

I’m going to use Occam’s Razor here and point out that in a society like Roman Israel, one would have had to speak multiple languages. At the very least, Aramaic, Latin, and possibly Greek and Hebrew, although all in ancient varieties.

As for Jesus’s reveal, I believe I’ve debated this somewhere before, but absolutely no other religions have had believers claim that their god appeared before them...or converts for that matter.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Care to give any examples?

IF Catholics killed all non-Catholic Christians, their fates would have been imposed by the Catholic Church, not self-imposed - when Stalin sent millions of political opponents to gulags, their fates were imposed by Stalin, not self-imposed.

The Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak in tongues, Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, things of that nature.
Also, I'm not referring to an earthly fate.

About the supposed miracles...
. Speaking in tongues - There is a medical name for that (glossolalia), and some non-Christian groups practice glossolalia. In fact, Christian theologians debate whether glossolalia is caused by the Holy Spirit or a naturalistic folk practice.
. Paul's vision of the resurrected Jesus - Such visions can be caused by an altered state of consciousness, which can be caused by meditation, trauma, food, water and/or sleep deprivation, oxygen deficiency in the brain, infection etc.

[Kowani]

The ISIS analogy was merely me pointing out that despite what Hakons said, there are actual times where there is a legitimate reason to leave the church. Outliers and extreme points, yes, but he said never, so I felt that current events were a thing.

As for those miracles, I assume you have proof of those. And no, one eyewitness with nothing but their word does not count as proof.

Your standards for proof remain unclear to me.

Oh, I thought you were referring to earthly religious genocide. My bad.

No worries. :^)

Well, things considered actual historically valid sources would be a good start. So, the Bible’s out.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Your standards for proof remain unclear to me.

No worries. :^)

Well, things considered actual historically valid sources would be a good start. So, the Bible’s out.

You realise that the Bible, or more accurately a number of books within the Bible, are considered to be historically valid sources, because they recount an event, or a series of events, in history? As for their reliability in recounting those events, that’s another question entirely.

[Grenartia]

So status update: Bit of a mixed bag. Interview felt like it went well. But I hydroplaned on my way back skidding into the guard rail of I-93. I’m fine but my car has a bit of a bloody nose.

I know this is like a week late, but I'm glad you weren't hurt.

As a Christian in the western world, I take extreme issue with being told that I'm being persecuted similarly to Christians in Africa because some media outlets here are anti-fundamentalist, and said outlets think its silly that people are trying to make discrimination an issue of religious liberty. Jesus never said "Do not bakest for thine gay neighbors a wedding cake".

I have not seen any hostility to "the Christian point of view" from even the most liberal of media outlets. Unless the Religious Right has some kind of monopoly on "the Christian point of view", but even then, most of said outlets seem to actively pussyfoot around certain controversial issues out of fear of pissing those types of people off by covering those issues with any degree of depth. Certainly not anything like every outlet being a 24/7 Richard Dawkins mouthpiece, which is what you seem to be implying.

Jesus also never advocated for a victim mentality.

I never claimed he did.

Okay, let's do the wedding cake example. That's a perfect example. Because everyone in that situation was a victim. Everyone had a persecution complex. Everyone was a bad guy. Everyone wanted justice. Everyone was wrong.

That's pretty gaslighty of you. Everyone in 'that situation' was NOT a victim.

I can sum up the wedding cake situation with one word: Immaturity. Immaturity is what happens when a free society can't handle being free.

I'm sure what you're saying here makes sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.

The Christian baker is in the business to make money. Why does he care what other people are doing in the bedroom as long as he's getting paid?
And as for the gay couple, why didn't they just take their business somewhere else?

There's numerous reasons, ranging from reputation of the place in question for doing good cakes, to general principle, etc.

The evil Christian baker was persecuting the poor gay couple who just wanted a wedding cake (even though he lives in a free country where one is free to make risky business decisions).

Yes, he has the right to make risky business decisions, but he does not have the right to infringe on others' rights. Which discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.) inherently is.

The gays in this situation could have decided to go to another bakery but instead they decided to have a persecution complex.

Why should they have had to go to another bakery? If that bakery has a reputation for providing the best baked goods in the locality, and they have the money to pay for it, then why should they have to go somewhere that has an inferior product or service?

And the evil gay couple with their evil gay agenda was persecuting the poor Christian family bakery (even though it's possible to be gay and Christian). Many Christians throughout the country saw this as an attack on their religious rights. Instead of living a live-and-let-live philosophy, the Christians at that bakery decided to have a persecution complex.

See, you're being really confusing. One minute, you're defending one side, the next minute, you're defending the other. Make up your mind. Get off the fence.

Because both of these sides had a persecution complex in this situation, both sides experienced persecution. (Surprise!)

But what if they had a healthy attitude about persecution from the start? If this was the case then the gay couple would have had a wedding cake from a willing baker and a Christian family bakery wouldn't have had to lose business from boycotts and negative publicity. Everyone would have been happy and the entire drama never would have had to happen.

So you agree that the bakers were entirely in the wrong here. Good.

On the topic of the Assumption of Mary, I would like to hear the opinions of the CDT. Do you believe the Virgin Mary died before her assumption, or do you believe she was assumed into heaven alive?

I, for instance, believe she died before her assumption.

I would presume she died before her assumption, but I claim no certainty.

Assumptionception.

There is no 'assumption'.

There is only the Dormition of the Theotokos; or, if you prefer, the Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.

We both know that the Assumption is part of the Dormition belief; the relevant Catholic dogma simply doesn't define whether the Dormition occurred before the Assumption.

See, us Protestants settled this issue by not really venerating any particular believers as more holy than anyone else.

Well, in shitty news, we got the Pennsylvania Grand Jury calling out the Catholic Church for the 70 year pattern of sexual assault and subsequent coverups.

https://cbspittsburgh.files.wordpress.c ... ponses.pdf

And by shitty, I mean both the fact that the abuse happened, and the really deep systemic corruption built into the church. See, this sort of thing is why the Catholic Church isn’t the most trusted organization in the West. Now, these abusive priests are obviously not representative of all Catholics. However, they do show quite a few problems within the Church, as well as its hierarchy.

The Grand Jury also wants to release the names of the abusers, despite the statute of limitations having expired. Now, personally, I’m all for it. You abused children, and although you can’t be charged because it happened years ago, that’s no reason why you should get off scot-free. Personally, I believe that for sexual abuse against minors, there should be no statute of limitations, but I feel like that’d be a whole other debate.

This is why we need to allow priests to marry

Overall, I agree that they need to, and that it would cut down on a lot of these cases, but I don't think it would eliminate the problem (after all, plenty of married individuals molest children, too). Society as a whole needs to change how it handles pedophiles and child molesters.

Quite ironically, I think the Catholic teaching on homosexuality, while totally invalid with regards to homosexuality itself, is quite applicable to pedophilia. The way society treats pedophiles prevents them from actually seeking help for it, which undoubtedly contributes to the problem of child molestation. The Catholic church itself also needs to change its procedures regarding how it handles these situations.

This is why we need to allow priests to marry

Why? Celibacy doesn't make one a pedophile.

No. However, it does increase the psycho-physiological need for sex, which reduces the resolve one might have for resisting sexual taboos (such as, you know, the taboo against sexual contact with minors). Exterior celibacy (by that, I mean celibacy that is socially expected, rather than exhibited as an effect of one simply not desiring sex) is an unhealthy attitude towards sex. Surely, those of us who are Christians here remember Jesus' parable about the house built on sand, and the house built on rock. If you base your sex life on unhealthy sexual attitudes (i.e., build your house on sand), you will quickly slip into harmful and immoral actions (i.e., the house will collapse). Those actions may not necessarily be rape or child molestation, though they certainly qualify as such (and contrary to what some will undoubtedly claim, homosexual activity is not one of them). So we have to encourage people to develop healthier attitudes towards sex, and this will reduce the risk of rape or child molestation.

For one thing, if the 301 priests really did do it, and we have reason to believe so, that's an enormous fraction of the priests in the state of Pennsylvania. And not only is it a massive amount, but we have Catholic hierarchy covering up and approving of the abuse.

Yes, it's horrendous. I can't imagine how priests, well knowledged in the faith, committed such aggregious sins. I can't imagine how bishops and other officials could ignore these obvious corruptions in their flock.

Its certainly easier to wrap your head around when you realize that the Catholic organization isn't the One True Church. Its simply a very widespread organization of believers, run by sinful people like any and every other religious organization. I've seen some Catholics here (on the site, not just in this thread) claim that the organization is directly lead by Christ, with the Pope as His spokesperson (essentially speaking). I personally think this arrogance (which, from what I have seen, isn't discouraged by the organization, and is probably even encouraged by it) directly contributes to corruption like we have seen here.

Why? Celibacy doesn't make one a pedophile.

True. And Catholic priests seldomn are pedophiles - just sadists on a powertrip who enjoy the weakness of their prey. They do not want to fuck kids because they are overcome with lust of love for them - but because they can.

Something in the church attracts those people.

While, psychologically speaking, there is a distinction between child molesters who are attracted to children, and those who do it to exploit the power dynamics, I see no reason to believe that many, if not most, of the priests involved aren't attracted to children. In short, the organization's teachings and the structure of the priesthood themselves are the root of the problem. Pedophiles join the ranks of the clergy for much of the same reason gay people do.

And before somebody tells me I'm conflating homosexuality and pedophilia, no, I am not. I'm saying the Catholic organization says similar things about two different phenomena, and people affected by those phenomena join its ranks for similar reasons.

The church teaches that it is morally wrong to act on one's sexual attractions to individuals of the same sex/gender, and some gay young man who cannot reconcile his sexuality with his faith in God, or cannot be a 'bad Catholic' and reject the organization's teachings on the matter, decides to join the priesthood because he thinks it'll "fix" him, or at least keep him from 'sinning', and therefore, he'll go to heaven.

In much the same way, a man with sexual inclinations towards children joins the clergy in the hopes that it will keep him on the right path. All too often, however, the organization places him in positions where he will be given immense power over children, and trusted with them. And the foundation that his resolve not to molest is based on erodes away, just like a house built on sand, until it collapses, and he harms a child.

Tbh I think part of why things have gotten so bad is due to how sexualized culture has become.

Doubtful. The Catholic Church has been a hotbed of powerabuse and rape throughout its entire history.

Indeed. Besides, sexual repression is an unhealthy sexual attitude.

It's hard to discern how it compares from then to now.

I actually think it is BETTER now. But nowadays people dare to speak out against the church and media dares to report on it - so it seems worse.

Really, this. Its the same with crime in general. The trend has been decreasing ever since '92, but the popular perception is that it is increasing.

True. And Catholic priests seldomn are pedophiles - just sadists on a powertrip who enjoy the weakness of their prey. They do not want to fuck kids because they are overcome with lust of love for them - but because they can.

Something in the church attracts those people.

I imagine such is true of many institutions that work directly with children.

Sure, that plays a part as well. But I strongly suspect that most pedophiles actually do realize that harming children is bad, and don't want to do it. Its just that they think that the church can fix them to where they won't harm children.

however there was a requirement that these married priests would have to abstain from sex the night before doing Mass.

Which was an inherently stupid idea. Not even hardcore conservative evangelical Protestant denominations require that. Honestly, the Catholic church should've listened to Martin Luther from the beginning. Would've saved a lot of unnecessary bloodshed, too.

This is why I think the Church needs to let more diocesan priests live in community. The scandal has really opened the eyes of many people to the modernist and Lavender Mafia takeover of parts of the Church.

What.

The catholic obsession with guilt and strict opposition to homosexuality probably goes some way to explaining why so many gay catholics end up as clergymen molesting choirboys.

Which, in turn, led to the unfortunate correlation of pedophilia and homosexuality in popular perception.

If vocations directors and seminaries actually were in strict opposition to homosexuality, then Catholics with a history of same-sex attractions and actions would never be admitted to the priesthood.

What even is being in the closet?

The only problem of course being, that it’s completely unrelated to pedaphilia.

Homosexuality and Pedophila are not the same thing #1. #2 both girls and boys were molested. Meaning this isn’t limited to same-sex incidents.

Fucking thank you.

Because the church is more or less inherently corrupt. You've got an institution who's credibility lies upon it being the infallible instrument of Gods will, that is filled with people who've been horribly fucked up by catholic upbringings, so when they inevitably behave badly nobody wants to expose or reprimand them because it makes the church look bad.

Precisely.

It doesn’t help that they present themselves that way. Note that although the Pope is the only one who can claim infallibility (and only under certain circumstances), the Church doesn’t spend a lot of time addressing the fact that the institution can fail. Instead, when it does get called out, the blame is always pushed onto individual offenders, and the pattern remains.

Honestly, the fine print on Papal Infalibility reads like "Ok, he's infallible, but only under these really convenient circumstances".

Still doesn’t change the fact that homosexual is not the tautological equivalent of pedophile.

Say it louder for the people in the back.

Put pedophiles in solitary confinement AND hard and prayerful labor? I like it.

I'm against torture. I'd also like to point out that "pedophile" and "child molester" are not, strictly speaking, synonymous. One can struggle with the mental illness of sexually desiring children without actually committing the act. I would prefer to help such people, than to punish them despite not having done anything wrong.

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 very much resent the implication that I, and the rest of "the gay lobby" are sexually targeting underage persons. Mere mortals cannot comprehend the outrage I'm currently experiencing because of this terrible implication. The only reason my words are not more adequately conveying my emotions are due to site rules. Suffice it to say, I am more than pissed off.

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.

Tars, I know we've had beef lately, but I very much appreciate you being a voice of reason here. Mere words cannot convey my respect for you for standing up against that bile. Thank you.

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.

Question, but aren't seminaries basically for people who have already reached the age of majority (and are thus actually able to give informed consent to sexual activity)? How can it be abuse if informed consent is given?

Also, I hate that you feel the need to self-hate. You need to learn how to love yourself enough to realize that Catholic teaching on the subject is wrong, and that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. There cannot be a "lavender mafia" (at least, certainly not an effective one that can enforce any desired changes it wants) in an organization which continues to consistently turn so many LGBT believers into broken shells of their former selves.

There seems to be some confusion as to what lust and and anger actually are in biblical context, Lust is not simply sexual attraction or even unconscious desire. But rather a deep seated sexual desire beyond all reason. David lusted after Bathsheba and killed her husband for it. A man who lusts after a (key word) married woman, has committed adultary in his heart.

Essentially wanting to sin, is just as bad as actually sinning.


Anger isn’t merely being irate, but wrathful. Anger to such levels that you would willingly harm other people.

And here is where we have to disagree.

I cannot agree that the temptation of sin is as bad as actually doing it. Christ himself was tempted by Satan, and yet clearly did not sin.

And again with anger (this is more to UMN than to you, Tars, to be fair). Christ was clearly angry when he chased the moneychangers out of the temple and trashed it (both of which could easily have harmed others, especially if done by the rest of us), and yet, again, He did not sin.

Yeah, that really sucks for those people who were so unlucky as to be born in a part of the world that wasn’t touched by Christianity. I mean, they totally sinned by believing in Ahura Mazda because they were born in Iran and not Germany. And of course, everyone who committed minor Old Testament sins like eating shellfish and mixing fabrics up until Jesus’s birth. Screw them, they get to sit in hell for a very, very long time, because they drew the wrong cards in the genetic lottery.

And then there’s the omniscient/ Free Will argument, which, and I’m simplifying here, is basically, “If God knows everything, than would include the future, and therefore, he knows any and all actions before they ever happen. Therefore, he knows exactly who will commit sins and their lifetime, and knowing exactly what would happen, allows it to happen anyway and then punishes the sinner for going through with their predetermined behavior.

【ＵＮＩＶＥＲＳＡＬＩＳＭ】

This thread is rightful Vatican soil.

This is the Christian Discussion Thread, not the Catholic Discussion Thread.

The Catholic Church is more than its earthly leadership.

This is the exact attitude I mentioned earlier that directly contributes to the Catholic organization's problems.

The people are not the Church. The Church is not just an organization of people. The Church is wedded to Christ and led by the Holy Spirit. If everyone in the Church decided for whatever reason to create a different church, the copy would not be the Church. The Church is not man made, but divinely made. The same Creator that gave breath to you and I is the One that created the Church. The Church is perfect because God is perfect. The clergy and laymen, on the other hand, are imperfect and corrupted, because humanity is corrupted. No amount of human corruption within the Church can make the Church imperfect. No amount of sin within the members of the Church makes it justifiable to leave the Church. There is certainly justification to try to reform the members of the Church so that they more adequately follow Christ's teachings, but there is never a justification to leave the Church that God calls us to be part of. Leaving the Church is leaving the Christian community, the teachings of Christ, and the path of life given to us by Christ. There is no justification for this.

This, too, is the problematic attitude. With a heaping helping of the arrogance I've previously referred to.

[Lost Memories]

but the Church draws quite a bit of authority from the claim that they are doing God’s work.

(little note, church has multiple meanings: church=building, church=clergy, church=believers)
The Catholic clergy draws its authority from being the continuation in the present of the same institution Christ himself founded with the apostles.
Were the apostles perfect beings? No. Seriously go read back about the apostles, they were pretty average persons who eventually gave their all for the cause of Jesus. Are any person being part of the current church perfect beings? No. They are by declaration the successors of those same average persons.
Sure, they must do their best to be upstanding and good examples, but that's an extra for what concerns their authority, that's not from where their authority comes from, their main role is being holders of an united religious knowledge, to promote unity among all christians, and to carry on the role the apostles were entrusted with.

Catholics aren't christians because they believe in the clergy to be divine beings, the clergy have to be good administrators to manage well the Church of Christ.
Some of them failed, but it isn't the church to have failed, it's the individuals to have failed in the face of the church. And they must face consequences both toward the lay justice and toward the roles they have abdicated with their actions.

Hakons already said it better than me:

And people wonder why I left?

Your Catholicism should not be dependent on the actions of others. People aren't Catholic because of priests and bishops or the moral conduct of the clergy, but because they believe the Church has been instituted by God. I do not see the immoral actions of others as grounds for leaving the community Christ calls us to take part in.

...
I'll be honest, the only problem seems to be nobody is talking about having a new poll. Well, that and the fact that is still a bit more dominated by Catholics than is optimal.

Catholics in USA are about 25% of the total christians, Catholics globally are about 50% of total christians, so this thread is becoming more global
But agree it would be nice to hear more frequently from other branches.

[Angleter]

Well? You also have people like this guy.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/17/catholic- ... t-scandal/

And people wonder why I left?

To be fair the Catholic League does not speak for the Church and this statement is contradictory to what’s coming out of the Vatican.

Ultra-Conservatives can’t cope with scandal and don’t know what do with the situation. They are grasping at anything they can smash to try to come out ahead of the situation. Church screwed up. The only thing to do is embrace the pain and penance, and come out of this time better and stronger .

The Catholic League shares an office block with the Archdiocese of New York and reportedly receives personal donations and endorsements from several US bishops. It's no surprise that Bill Donohue has decided to come out to bat for the USCCB. In fairness to the trads who aren't in that situation, they've been very strong on this most recent crisis.

As for the Vatican, it would be nice if the Pope could accept Cardinal Wuerl's resignation. I don't think that's too much to ask as a first step.

[Lost Memories]

When they're following Christian morality, yeah that's true.

And yet, all this institutional corruption, a pattern going back centuries, mind you, is definitely not Christian Morality, and as such, the Church is either incompetent or, they have a vested interest in not reporting such abuses to secular authorities.

Math isn't an opinion.

300 priest, 1000 victims, over 70 years.
How many corrupted priests there were per year? 4 corrupted priests per year, 14 victims per year. (assuming all the cases gets confirmed in front of justice)
How many high ranking figures were involved in the cover up? No idea here, at least one from the Pittsburgh diocese and one from the vatican, surely more. A precise number would make things more clear.

How many priests has the catholic church in entirety?

Statistics for 2015 also indicate that the number of clerics in the world amounted to 466,215, with 5,304 bishops, 415,656 priests and 45,255 permanent deacons.

How many in Pittsburgh, where the numbers for this case come from?

Pittsburgh (2017)
Number of Archbishops: 1
Number of Residential Bishops: 6
Number of Auxiliary Bishops: 5
Total Priests in Diocese: 2,509
Extern Priests in Diocese: 97
Priests Active Within Their Diocese: 1,091

Corrupted priests: 4 over 1091 = 0,36%
(if you want a more precise estimate, you should find how many priests lived and operated in Pittsburg over 70 years, surely more than the present number of 1091, only then you can use the full 300 number of the reported culprits in the calculations)

So can we avoid to continue this absurd generalization that 0,36% of corrupted priests in Pittsburgh suddently make the whole church an hellhole?
Pittsburgh did manage its issue in a shitty way, same did some high ranking persons both in the diocese and in the vatican, but generalizing what is by size a sad incident(both the single abuse cases, and the single persons acting to cover them up), to a systemic crisis, is blowing things out of proportion.

There is a lack of understanding of the scope. Either by overestimating the case, or by not understanding the size of the catholic church.

it’s better for the Church in the long run to just fess up, kick the abusers out, and lose in the short term, only to come off looking like even better people.

Isn't that what they're doing?

Isn't pedophilia a problem with all of humanity regardless of whether they happen to be a member of a church? Mental illness doesn't care if you believe in God. Christianity is just low hanging fruit.

That's the case, add to it also how the media likes to cater to the most morbid interests of humanity because it sells better, and how the irreligious love to be told what they like to hear.

[Tarsonis]

The Holy Spirit taught the disciples to speak in tongues, Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, things of that nature.
Also, I'm not referring to an earthly fate.

About the supposed miracles...
. Speaking in tongues - There is a medical name for that (glossolalia), and some non-Christian groups practice glossolalia. In fact, Christian theologians debate whether glossolalia is caused by the Holy Spirit or a naturalistic folk practice.

Not talking about the stupid crap Pentacostals do. Speaking in tounges means being able to be understood by all people. Essentially the universal translator from Star Trek.

. Paul's vision of the resurrected Jesus - Such visions can be caused by an altered state of consciousness, which can be caused by meditation, trauma, food, water and/or sleep deprivation, oxygen deficiency in the brain, infection etc.

“Could be” is not a refutation. It’s not a trial, reasonable doubt is not the standard.

[Salus Maior]

About the supposed miracles...
. Speaking in tongues - There is a medical name for that (glossolalia), and some non-Christian groups practice glossolalia. In fact, Christian theologians debate whether glossolalia is caused by the Holy Spirit or a naturalistic folk practice.

Not talking about the stupid crap Pentacostals do. Speaking in tounges means being able to be understood by all people. Essentially the universal translator from Star Trek.

I'm glad someone agrees with me.

[Lost Memories]

Not talking about the stupid crap Pentacostals do. Speaking in tounges means being able to be understood by all people. Essentially the universal translator from Star Trek.

I'm glad someone agrees with me.

That's the abc, something which sadly is severely lacking in the 'civilized' west.

Makes me wonder how much time it'll take for Africa to send missionaries to re-evangelize Europe and America.

[Forestavia]

1. Lust is absolutely a sin, Scripture is pretty damn clear about that multiple times over. Lust being a want to veer into sexual immorality and the immorality itself. As for "hurting others" being the only indicator for sin that's not a Christian point of view, it's not just what hurts others in a physical/emotional/etc sense but what damages your own soul. The "it's not immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone physically/emotionally/etc" shtick comes from liberal ideology, not Christianity.

2. There are certain cases where anger is justified, but it's not right to just be angry. Christ is being pretty damn clear about that.

The problem with your interpretation both times is that it blatantly ignores what Christ actually said and was trying to get across for the sake of your preconceived notions brought about by liberal culture. Both times Christ is getting across that both lust and anger are severely sinful, by accentuates this by comparing them with the extremes (adultery and murder). Christ doesn't care if there are girls that want to be ogled at, it's wrong for you to do it. Consent doesn't make a sin a not sin.

Wow, that argument went definitional real fast! First we have to get a handle on the definitions. Since the Bible has been translated into English and since the dictionary is the standard-bearer of the English language, we are going to use that definition.

Well, look at that! We've got three definitions of lust.

Definition #1:
"Sexual appetite."
Looks like you're wrong! Lust is absolutely NOT a sin.

Definition #2:
"excessive sexual appetite especially that seeking immediate or ruthless satisfaction."
Looks like you're right! Lust absolutely IS a sin.

Definition #3:
"An overwhelming desire, to have passionate or inordinate desire especially sexual desire."
Looks like you're right! Lust absolutely IS a sin.

(Just for the record, I was using the first definition in my previous post.)
But whatever definition you use, the real question is if some girl starts ogling you, are you going to ask her out on a date or are you going to pray for protection from her lustful desires? Let's assume for the sake of the argument she's your type.
-------------------------------------
Might as well do anger, too. Only one definition with this one.
"a feeling of sudden and strong displeasure and antagonism directed against the cause of an assumed wrong or injury, wrath, ire"

Well, look at that! Ha! You got me! My understanding of anger doesn't line up with the dictionary so apparently it was influenced by something else. Maybe it was "liberal culture".

The anger defined by the dictionary here IS a sin because loss of control is indicated and it looks like ignorance plays a role as well. I think these definitions speak for themselves. I don't have much to add. Lost Memories and Tarsonis both did a good job hitting the other important points.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold up! I think hurting others is a great way to gauge whether something is a sin or not. That idea of morality comes from the Bible not from "liberal ideology". Jesus said, "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." (Matt. 7:12) Christ himself said that the golden rule sums up everything that has been written in the law. Not hurting others is a Biblical idea! What do you have to say to that?

[Hakons]

The people are not the Church. The Church is not just an organization of people. The Church is wedded to Christ and led by the Holy Spirit. If everyone in the Church decided for whatever reason to create a different church, the copy would not be the Church. The Church is not man made, but divinely made. The same Creator that gave breath to you and I is the One that created the Church. The Church is perfect because God is perfect. The clergy and laymen, on the other hand, are imperfect and corrupted, because humanity is corrupted. No amount of human corruption within the Church can make the Church imperfect. No amount of sin within the members of the Church makes it justifiable to leave the Church. There is certainly justification to try to reform the members of the Church so that they more adequately follow Christ's teachings, but there is never a justification to leave the Church that God calls us to be part of. Leaving the Church is leaving the Christian community, the teachings of Christ, and the path of life given to us by Christ. There is no justification for this.

...That’s...quite tautological of you. I feel like I should ask if the Church is not just a body of people, what is it? (And don’t say a building.) I mean, all those martyrs who died when Christianity was just starting out, yeah, no, they did jack shit because the Church was divinely made. God, apart from being present in Jesus did literally nothing to build the Church afterwards. Yeah, he kickstarted it, but to claim that humans did absolutely nothing to build it is both disingenuous and well, wrong. Plus, all those other denominations of Christianity, y’know, the 4,200, plus all the nondenominational people? Yeah, they totally left the Christian community and the way of life taught by Jesus. And then we get to places like ISIS territory, where being a Christian is literally enough to get you killed, and in those kinds of cases, I think leaving the church is quite justified.

Yes, I use repetition a lot to get my point across and make it clear. The Church, as I apparently repeated too much but you somehow still don't understand, is not just a group of people like any other institution. The Church is the communion of Christians guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not human, but human and divine. Christ inspired the martyrs, who died for the Word. The martyrs were sustained by the Holy Spirit and they in turn built the early Church. "Jesus did literally nothing" is about as backwards and asinine an analysis as one could make. Christ did not do nothing, He did everything. Who taught the Apostles of the Church? Who sustained the martyrs and Christians through persecution? Who inspired the missionaries to spread Christianity? God, and God alone. Perhaps you are continuously trapped in your dead, materialistic view of everything, but everything people within the Church have done to do the work of Christ has been done with the express support of God.

I'm not sure why you claim that I am being disingenuous when you tramp into the CDT, rudely spout falsehoods and dodge from one question to the next, and then are surprised when we give a Christian answer. Mentioning the other denominations does virtually nothing to detract from my argument, since describing the number of schismatics or apostates does absolutely nothing to justify why someone should be in schism or apostatize. The deranged ISIS comment is the martyr "argument" rehashed. Thankfully, the Christians that were under persecution held to their faith, even to the point of death. They saw no reason to leave the faith, since God sustained them. In other words, the people that actually went through persecution find your "justification" to be unsatisfactory.

[Hakons]

1. Lust is absolutely a sin, Scripture is pretty damn clear about that multiple times over. Lust being a want to veer into sexual immorality and the immorality itself. As for "hurting others" being the only indicator for sin that's not a Christian point of view, it's not just what hurts others in a physical/emotional/etc sense but what damages your own soul. The "it's not immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone physically/emotionally/etc" shtick comes from liberal ideology, not Christianity.

2. There are certain cases where anger is justified, but it's not right to just be angry. Christ is being pretty damn clear about that.

The problem with your interpretation both times is that it blatantly ignores what Christ actually said and was trying to get across for the sake of your preconceived notions brought about by liberal culture. Both times Christ is getting across that both lust and anger are severely sinful, by accentuates this by comparing them with the extremes (adultery and murder). Christ doesn't care if there are girls that want to be ogled at, it's wrong for you to do it. Consent doesn't make a sin a not sin.

Wow, that argument went definitional real fast! First we have to get a handle on the definitions. Since the Bible has been translated into English and since the dictionary is the standard-bearer of the English language, we are going to use that definition.

Well, look at that! We've got three definitions of lust.

Definition #1:
"Sexual appetite."
Looks like you're wrong! Lust is absolutely NOT a sin.

Definition #2:
"excessive sexual appetite especially that seeking immediate or ruthless satisfaction."
Looks like you're right! Lust absolutely IS a sin.

Definition #3:
"An overwhelming desire, to have passionate or inordinate desire especially sexual desire."
Looks like you're right! Lust absolutely IS a sin.

(Just for the record, I was using the first definition in my previous post.)
But whatever definition you use, the real question is if some girl starts ogling you, are you going to ask her out on a date or are you going to pray for protection from her lustful desires? Let's assume for the sake of the argument she's your type.
-------------------------------------
Might as well do anger, too. Only one definition with this one.
"a feeling of sudden and strong displeasure and antagonism directed against the cause of an assumed wrong or injury, wrath, ire"

Well, look at that! Ha! You got me! My understanding of anger doesn't line up with the dictionary so apparently it was influenced by something else. Maybe it was "liberal culture".

The anger defined by the dictionary here IS a sin because loss of control is indicated and it looks like ignorance plays a role as well. I think these definitions speak for themselves. I don't have much to add. Lost Memories and Tarsonis both did a good job hitting the other important points.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold up! I think hurting others is a great way to gauge whether something is a sin or not. That idea of morality comes from the Bible not from "liberal ideology". Jesus said, "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." (Matt. 7:12) Christ himself said that the golden rule sums up everything that has been written in the law. Not hurting others is a Biblical idea! What do you have to say to that?

Yes, the words of Christ are a pretty good way to tell if something is sinful.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

[Forestavia]

See, you're being really confusing. One minute, you're defending one side, the next minute, you're defending the other. Make up your mind. Get off the fence.

The point wasn't to take one side or the other. There is no fence! The Christian baker and the gay couple both acted immature in that neither side wanted to be the bigger person. The point was to illustrate how a persecution complex/victim mentality fuels persecution itself. They both caused each other a lot of needless drama. They both felt persecuted and so they both experienced persecution by persecuting each other.

If the gay couple would have gone to another bakery, then that would have been really big of them. Going to another bakery was the Christian thing to do. You don't take the bakery to court. You complain about the discrimination and how wrong it is to be like that, like a normal person. Get frustrated for a day and mock the Christians for their hypocrisy if it makes you feel better. But then you don't let one bad experience ruin your life or your wedding plans. You move on and go to another bakery cause it's the right thing to do.

As for the Christian baker, if he would've baked the cake then that would have been really big of him. The Christian thing to do in that situation is to set aside your personal beliefs and do your job. What do normal people in that situation do? You smirk at your coworkers, make a few gay jokes, and then what? At the end of the day, you shrug your shoulders and you say to yourself, "Well, this is America after all - it's a free country". And then you do your job. You go the extra mile. You suck it up and bake that cake for that gay couple whether you like it or not because it's the right thing to do.

[Thyerata]

Newflash: I think I have come to the view tht I may be an Orthodox Christian (or at the very least ready to convert). I find the liturgy, chanting and hymnms to be beautify and majestic to listen to.

[Tarsonis]

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

Congratulations!

Newflash: I think I have come to the view tht I may be an Orthodox Christian (or at the very least ready to convert). I find the liturgy, chanting and hymnms to be beautify and majestic to listen to.

I would recommend finding a local parish to speak to the priest of, to get recommendations. I would just say don't go into it thinking that it's easy, it's pretty difficult and a spiritual struggle.

[Stonok]

Newflash: I think I have come to the view tht I may be an Orthodox Christian (or at the very least ready to convert). I find the liturgy, chanting and hymnms to be beautify and majestic to listen to.

I hope you have more grounding than beauty. Satan can present you with beauty and passion, beautiful hymns and chants is something every religion on Earth can give you, it makes none of them true.

[Stonok]

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

Congrats, T, I hope the job brings you much enjoyment and prosperity

[Stonok]

How do Catholics defend the doctrine that people can gain Eternal Salvation by obeying their conscience in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#847) when Christ said he was the only way to God? The conscience is programmable, does not the woman who sacrifices her baby in India have a clear conscience on the matter? I'm rather certain she does since she was taught it from birth.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

Congrats.