It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 24
7
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   


If there are cases of such a high degree of speciation happening under a witnessed scenario (lab or nature) that interbreeding is no longer fruitfull, would that be enough to establish the principle of kind evolving from kind?


your point?




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
It might be interesting to study how this thread evolved into a discussion of evolution.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Saint-
I used to attend Church but one day I thought, What am I doing here? There was no proof God actually exists but yet I am supposed to just" have faith". I decided to leave it up to God to reveal himself( seeing as he is all powerful), instead of believing corrupted, child molestors.



Hehe, yeah, when God 'says' something I stand there with a blank look going "what the?" Anywho, sure, I'm crazy whatever. What I do know is what I hear is also already written down in that Book so don't think I'm going off on my own here. Also, there must be a lot of 'crazies' like me who can describe these things letter-by-letter and talk of similar experiences. Sometimes the message is clear as a bell, sometimes it takes a few days to figure out. The longest one I couldn't figure out on my own so I went around saying "if someone said to you (this), what do you think it means?" Blammo, got the answer, it fits, it makes sense, and thankfully can apply it now. Life is easier when you're getting info on what you're supposed to be doing. I'm starting to carry on here. If you want to know specifically what was said, I can quote it to you on a U2U. I don't want to throw myself in-front of the butcher knives here. Nothing earth-shattering for mankind, but very very important for me and those around me.


I don't hear, or sense God in anyway, but I don't think there's anything wrong with me.



Sometimes you just have to scrap the whole fraekin' thing and start over. Why are scientists so bent on the idea that you can't change the fundamentals. Panspermia, lead to gold, phlogiston, geocentric universe, fever vs. cold, etc. C'mon, for crying out loud science prides itself on being right so why hold on to bad foundations?

Maybe the scientists in the day of phlogiston weren't to bright, but people like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein were smart and their discoveries are very important. I know the some laws will change because of new discoveries but until then, the fundamentals our accepted as fact.



I don't understand. I'm not sure how life on Mars changes anything. I guess because I've never written the chapter in my book as to what's there so all I have to do is pen it in. *shrug*

I think it'd be kinda cool if God created a bunch of other planets and interacted with them in His way then eventually invites them in on a meeting whether by 'chance' or His arrangement. We'll find out I guess.


You don't see how the discovery of Alien life is extremely important in mankinds future?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
It might be interesting to study how this thread evolved into a discussion of evolution.


It always comes down to it, doesn't it? Eventually any conversation about Christianity turns into a battle of religions, evo v Chr. Very strange.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
You don't see how the discovery of Alien life is extremely important in mankinds future?


I could see how the discovery of intelligent life would shake mankind to its very foundations as it stands today. However, single celled bacteria being discovered on another planet would be met with a kind of, "wow, cool" type of attitude. There are so many theories out there right now about bacteria living in space, on meteors, on Titan, on Europa, on Mars, etc. that the discovery would really only be confirmation of a theory, not a revolution. The discovery would, however, set us further on the path to reacting in a similar way to the discovery of intelligent life out there.

Just thought I'd chime in on that point
Hope you don't mind I answered a question posed to Saint4God, Charlie
He can still answer, too.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999



If there are cases of such a high degree of speciation happening under a witnessed scenario (lab or nature) that interbreeding is no longer fruitfull, would that be enough to establish the principle of kind evolving from kind?


your point?


It isn't a point, it's a question upon which all further discussion is contingient.

But I have induced your answer from the fact that the question itself made you uneasy.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Saint-
I used to attend Church but one day I thought, What am I doing here? There was no proof God actually exists but yet I am supposed to just" have faith". I decided to leave it up to God to reveal himself( seeing as he is all powerful), instead of believing corrupted, child molestors.


Hey whoa, easy on using less than 1% of the population to represent an entire group. I've gone through how I arrived at this percentage on another thread but will go through it again if it's not convincing. In fact, I'm thinking it's closer to .01%

I understand your position in leaving church and candidly if a church was not helping me connect with God, then I'd leave too....er...make that - I left too when it was not helping. This does not mean though, that all churches fall short of activating its people. If you like, I can do the legwork on finding one in your area that does believe in reaching out to help. Totally up to you though. I'd have to do some research, talk to people, etc. Most churches don't mind answering a few questions.



I don't hear, or sense God in anyway, but I don't think there's anything wrong with me.


I don't think there's anything wrong with either of us. If you want it, ask. I wouldn't expect God to stop by for tea and crumpets, but you'll get your answer. Please also be patient. We're working on His timetable, not ours. I'll help however I can if you like.



Maybe the scientists in the day of phlogiston weren't to bright, but people like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein were smart and their discoveries are very important. I know the some laws will change because of new discoveries but until then, the fundamentals our accepted as fact.


What about Eudoxus and Aristotle? Brilliant scientists. Wrong, but brilliant nonetheless. Who knows, if we end up going faster than the speed of light, Einstein will be wrong too. That doesn't make them useless or unintelligent.



You don't see how the discovery of Alien life is extremely important in mankinds future?


Sure, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering news....unless of course they were seeking to shatter earth
. Either way, it doesn't have much to do with infinity. Eternity I think is a big deal. Much bigger than any events in our 80 +- here in this life.

JJ! I'm ALWAYS interested in hearing what you have to say. Please do add or answer anytime.


[edit on 30-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Hey whoa, easy on using less than 1% of the population to represent an entire group. I've gone through how I arrived at this percentage on another thread but will go through it again if it's not convincing. In fact, I'm thinking it's closer to .01%

That would be convicted child molestors.. and as only 15% of all sexual assaults get reported the number you have given would not be accurate.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by saint4God
Hey whoa, easy on using less than 1% of the population to represent an entire group. I've gone through how I arrived at this percentage on another thread but will go through it again if it's not convincing. In fact, I'm thinking it's closer to .01%

That would be convicted child molestors..


Right, but our country goes by innocent until proven guilty right? I'm not naive in thinking they're all innocent, but seriously doubt all guilty. You're always going to have legal bandwagoners because they look like this ---> $_$



and as only 15% of all sexual assaults get reported the number you have given would not be accurate.


How do you know only 15% of all sexual assault (which I will submit that is mostly domestic abuse, just from my own friends & family) is reported if it's not reported? It may have been recorded but not reported but I don't know where. Could you help me out here?

Fortunately I have not been involved in domestic abuse more than sibling rivalries as a kid.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Right, but our country goes by innocent until proven guilty right?

Yeah- we have that in Aus too.


I'm not naive in thinking they're all innocent, but seriously doubt all guilty. You're always going to have legal bandwagoners because they look like this ---> $_$

What does that mean Saint? I think someone wanting justice for being violated would be reason enough to take legal action.

How do you know only 15% of all sexual assault (which I will submit that is mostly domestic abuse, just from my own friends & family) is reported if it's not reported?

I'm not talking about domestic abuse but sexual abuse and assault.. though yes some of the stats would include incest and spousal rape.

It may have been recorded but not reported but I don't know where. Could you help me out here?

I guess if you look up the rape sites and sexual abuse sites [I think R.A.I.N is a US one] it will give you an idea of how common it is.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Yeah- we have that in Aus too.


I was hoping so. I'm a big fan of it.


Originally posted by riley
What does that mean Saint? I think someone wanting justice for being violated would be reason enough to take legal action.


I agree. The problem isn't the one valid case that begins in the courtroom but all the invalid one's that are just chasing the



or



I guess it's the international language that links us all.



I'm not talking about domestic abuse but sexual abuse and assault.. though yes some of the stats would include incest and spousal rape.


I think that's a fair statement.




I guess if you look up the rape sites and sexual abuse sites [I think R.A.I.N is a US one] it will give you an idea of how common it is.


The tricky part is figuring out how much of the 85% unreported sexual abuses involve priests. I haven't seen any convictions yet, so that's a 0% until we find otherwise. I should look up the sites though, so that it'd give me background. I was hoping you had one already being that you're reporting the number.

I think per Paul in Corinthians, church leaders should marry if they have that desire.

Here's the funny part. When we discuss homosexuality outside the church it's genetic, but when we talk about priest's homosexual acts, it's social (since they're not allowed to marry, date, etc.). Will someone please make up our minds and stick with it? This back and forth is unreasonable.



[edit on 30-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I agree. The problem isn't the one valid case that begins in the courtroom but all the invalid one's that are just chasing the

[$image]

I guess it's the international language that links us all.

I thought that was what you meant.. however this statement:


isn't the one valid case that begins in the courtroom but all the invalid one's

Going by your language [and imagry] you are suggesting most reports may be fraudulent by using the word 'one valid' amognst 'invalid ones' [plural]? The problem isn't money.. it's assuming most reports are fake.. the result being that most victims are assumed to be liars so won't bother coming forward.

The tricky part is figuring out how much of the 85% unreported sexual abuses involve priests.

The figure is across the board.. and I'm more enclined to think it would be higher among priests as positions of power attract people who want to abuse it.

I haven't seen any convictions yet, so that's a 0% until we find otherwise.

They are kept out of the courts [most corporations handle things 'inhouse'].

I should look up the sites though, so that it'd give me background. I was hoping you had one already being that you're reporting the number.

Tommorow I'll dig them up.. those sites usually depress and disgust me so I want to be in a better frame of mind.

I think per Paul in Corinthians, church leaders should marry if they have that desire.

I don't think celebacy is the problem [in regards to pedophelia] it might prevent them having affairs with their female congregation though.


Here's the funny part. When we discuss homosexuality in society it's genetic, but when we talk about priests homosexual acts, it's social (since they're not allowed to marry, date, etc.). Will someone please make up our minds and stick with it? This back and forth is unreasonable.

If priests have affairs with other priests.. yeah I'd say it's a homosexual issue.. but pedophelia is not a homosexual act [even if it is the same gender] so allowing or not allowing gays would not prevent them abusing children.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Going by your language [and imagry] you are suggesting most reports may be fraudulent by using the word 'one valid' amognst 'invalid ones' [plural]?


Yep. I think there's a number of invalid ones for every valid one.


Originally posted by riley
The problem isn't money.. it's assuming most reports are fake.. the result being that most victims are assumed to be liars so won't bother coming forward.


No assumptions needed. We can see when a conviction happens and when it doesn't. Our society has countless money motivated cases whereas the 'incidents' were found not to have happened. Make no financial compensation for the plantiff and we'll see how many cases come up. I'm sure there are some who are afraid to come forward...though they should not if they are in fact living according to the Book as Christians.


Originally posted by riley
The figure is across the board.. and I'm more enclined to think it would be higher among priests as positions of power attract people who want to abuse it.


Ah, so you're saying people with prior motivation use the priesthood as a tool to meet their ends?


Originally posted by riley
They are kept out of the courts most corporations handle things 'inhouse'.


That sucks. If the church is not resolving the situation to prevent future occurences, more action should be taken I think.


Originally posted by riley
Tommorow I'll dig them up.. those sites usually depress and disgust me so I want to be in a better frame of mind.


No need, my request for statistical back-up is not worth you getting depressed and disgusted. I'd feel pretty bad if I were the cause of that.


Originally posted by riley
I don't think celebacy is the problem [in regards to pedophelia] it might prevent them having affairs with their female congregation though.


I haven't heard cases of that, but the reasoning is sound in my opinion. Funny thing about that though, they're both adults. "Takes two to tango" as they say. Unless of course one believes women do not have the will to say no.


Originally posted by riley
If priests have affairs with other priests.. yeah I'd say it's a homosexual issue.. but pedophelia is not a homosexual act [even if it is the same gender] so allowing or not allowing gays would not prevent them abusing children.


I'm confused. Homosexuality is genetic but pedophelia is social? How are priests who engage in sexual acts with boys not homosexual? Maybe I'm losing perspective on definitions here. Any clarification is appreciated. I don't believe that homosexuality leads to pedophelia, that I'm clear on, but the other two questions have me puzzled.



[edit on 30-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   


I used to attend Church but one day I thought, What am I doing here? There was no proof God actually exists but yet I am supposed to just" have faith". I decided to leave it up to God to reveal himself( seeing as he is all powerful), instead of believing corrupted, child molestors.


God said to not put him to the test. you cant expect to be like brue almighty...



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999

God said to not put him to the test. you cant expect to be like brue almighty...


The context of that was Jesus' temptation by the devil. Expecting some form of proof before blindly believing is not the same as putting god to the test.

The Bereans were honored by Paul because they would not simply take his word, but demanded verification. Other passages talk about the blind following the blind, indicating that belief without an effort to ascertain the truth of that belief is foolish.

Another passage says that the majesty of god is revealed by nature, implying that it is legitimate to look for natural proof of the existence of god.

No-where does the Bible tell you to abandon skepticism and believe without investigation.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
No-where does the Bible tell you to abandon skepticism and believe without investigation.


Amen! A lot of people fall into that trap, both believers and non. It is not a sin to question. Christ Himself questioned the Father at the very end, crying out, "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?" (looking forward to the conversation that's probably going to come about Christ questioning Himself, I've looked into that a lot because it didn't used to make sense to me)

The context of Christ saying not to test God was when Satan told Him that God had made a promise, so prove that God keeps His Word.

...This is actually kind of interesting. There are a lot of correlations between that and Job, with the opposite being done in Job. If anyone can shed some light on that, I'd be very interested to read it. Satan came to God in Job and said to God, essensially, "oh yeah? Prove it!" and God did, whereas when Satan said the same thing to Him many years later in the desert, he simply replied that you're not to test the Lord our God. Not a contradiction (ready to defend that statement, too
), but interesting none the less. If anyone has any light to shed on this, please do!

...Heh, that was totally unintentional, but really works to make the point. If I didn't question God, or question things in the Bible, I wouldn't continually be trying to learn the Word, I'd be content with what knowlege I have. Would my questioning this issue in Job upset God? I doubt it, I want to learn more about Him. Besides, it was through questioning that I learned about Christ crying, "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me". Then, someone who's not a believer and can question God, could bring that up and I would have nothing to say and no way to defend my faith.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by riley
Going by your language [and imagry] you are suggesting most reports may be fraudulent by using the word 'one valid' amognst 'invalid ones' [plural]?

Yep. I think there's a number of invalid ones for every valid one.

So you think most reports of rape and pedophelia are false? Thats a pretty callous attitude.. it's also the same one most of the legal system has.. hence lack of convictions.


Originally posted by riley
The problem isn't money.. it's assuming most reports are fake.. the result being that most victims are assumed to be liars so won't bother coming forward.


No assumptions needed. We can see when a conviction happens and when it doesn't. Our society has countless money motivated cases whereas the 'incidents' were found not to have happened.

Or couldn't be proven because of lack of evidence.. lack of evidence means resonable doubt. The amount of evidence needed to make a conviction stick is quite substantial.. which is why most rapists go free because it comes down to 'he said 'she said'.

Make no financial compensation for the plantiff and we'll see how many cases come up. I'm sure there are some who are afraid to come forward...though they should not if they are in fact living according to the Book as Christians.

Saint.. why do you think christians are more likely to report? That doesn't make any sense.. they'd probably be more likely to think it was their own fault [bad things happening are punnishments for 'sinning'].


Originally posted by riley
The figure is across the board.. and I'm more enclined to think it would be higher among priests as positions of power attract people who want to abuse it.



Ah, so you're saying people with prior motivation use the priesthood as a tool to meet their ends?

Some would.. just like some would use the boy scouts, the education system, police, child care.. anything with power and opportunity.


Originally posted by riley
They are kept out of the courts most corporations handle things 'inhouse'.

That sucks. If the church is not resolving the situation to prevent future occurences, more action should be taken I think.

The catholic church transfer and transfer.. it has happened alot in Aus where they've been sent to other churches with the knowledge that they would reoffend.


Originally posted by riley
I don't think celebacy is the problem [in regards to pedophelia] it might prevent them having affairs with their female congregation though.

I haven't heard cases of that, but the reasoning is sound in my opinion. Funny thing about that though, they're both adults. "Takes two to tango" as they say. Unless of course one believes women do not have the will to say no.

I've heared of a couple of cases where priests actually fell in love with parishioners.. and others that took advantage of his position [his 'spirit' was holier..
].


Originally posted by riley
If priests have affairs with other priests.. yeah I'd say it's a homosexual issue.. but pedophelia is not a homosexual act [even if it is the same gender] so allowing or not allowing gays would not prevent them abusing children.

I'm confused. Homosexuality is genetic but pedophelia is social?

Apparently molesters have usually been molested as children.. some grow up to fight against pedophelia.. others grown up to become offenders.

How are priests who engage in sexual acts with boys not homosexual?

Because they are abusing non consenting children.. not having sex with consenting grown men.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The context of Christ saying not to test God was when Satan told Him that God had made a promise, so prove that God keeps His Word.


Not exactly. The words Jesus used "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" are a reference to Deuteronomy 6:16 "do not test the Lord your God as you did at Massah".

To understand this, we need to know what this test at Massah is referring to, which is in Exodus 17:7 when the Israelites were demanding Moses provide them water (the water from a stone trick).

And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"

"Test" in the sense used here is not questioning whether he exists, it's a test of his patience. According to the story, these were people who had directly witnessed the hand of god at work, and still wouldn't trust him.

That's a far cry from questioning the veracity of scripture, or even the existence of god himself, when you have not witnessed such irrefutable wonders.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
So you think most reports of rape and pedophelia are false?


I don't know the percentage, we can only assess by conviction and the price-tag the plantiffs are seeking as compensation. Artistic reinactment: "Well little Johnny, our case wasn't convincing...but I do remember you visiting Michael Jackson's Neverland a few years ago. Hmm...c'mon son, we've got work to do."


Originally posted by riley
Thats a pretty callous attitude.. it's also the same one most of the legal system has.. hence lack of convictions.


I think every case should start neutral, but when we're looking at history, that's when we can say what is and is not a bogus case. Believe it or not, there are bogus cases for reason previously mentioned.


Originally posted by riley
Or couldn't be proven because of lack of evidence.. lack of evidence means resonable doubt. The amount of evidence needed to make a conviction stick is quite substantial.. which is why most rapists go free because it comes down to 'he said 'she said'.


Evidence should be quite substantial, should it not? Or are you suggesting we jail someone because they are charged? Or that all charged are guilty even if the courts say otherwise? I'm not sure what you're saying here.


Originally posted by riley
Saint.. why do you think christians are more likely to report? That doesn't make any sense.. they'd probably be more likely to think it was their own fault [bad things happening are punnishments for 'sinning'].


I've not run into this guilt-trippy Christian attitude that gets waived around so much here so I'll have to take your word on it. Christians are required to help others avoid danger. If any person is leading someone to danger, it's our job to not let that happen. I can quote, but people here don't like it when I do that unless I'm directly asked for it. Course, for those who just call themselves "Christians" who don't read their Book, they wouldn't know that so I think you have a point in your corner for those people.


Originally posted by riley
Some would.. just like some would use the boy scouts, the education system, police, child care.. anything with power and opportunity.


I think this was a well stated assessment
. So then the problem isn't the religion's teachings, rather what perpetrators are doing to abuse any power or priviledge offered. Solution? 1.) Make the requirements for priesthood firmer and 2.) Make the priest's private life more public. What on earth does a priest need privacy for? Is he not continually in the sight of God? Then why could he not also be continually be in the sight of those he teaches? It's an 'elect' job so I don't think I'm being unfair here.


Originally posted by riley
The catholic church transfer and transfer.. it has happened alot in Aus where they've been sent to other churches with the knowledge that they would reoffend.


That's sad. I don't know anything about the workings of the Catholic church and would think that the vast majority of them don't do this but again, I've no background to speak on it. Mayhaps someone who does could address.


Originally posted by riley
I've heared of a couple of cases where priests actually fell in love with parishioners.. and others that took advantage of his position [his 'spirit' was holier..
].


I've heard of one. Still, both adults, both should be reading their Book, and it doesn't sound like "rape" in any definition I've read.


Originally posted by riley
Apparently molesters have usually been molested as children.. some grow up to fight against pedophelia.. others grown up to become offenders.


Usually? So not all are social, some are genetic? *scratches head* Still confused.


Originally posted by riley
Because they are abusing non consenting children.. not having sex with consenting grown men.


So adult homosexual rape is social, but adult consentual homosexuality is genetic? The litmus test is breaking down. I'm not sure what consent has to do with anything biological. Consent is a legal right.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by riley
So you think most reports of rape and pedophelia are false?


I don't know the percentage, we can only assess by conviction and the price-tag the plantiffs are seeking as compensation.
Artistic reinactment: "Well little Johnny, our case wasn't convincing...but I do remember you visiting Michael Jackson's Neverland a few years ago. Hmm...c'mon son, we've got work to do."

I suspected you were refferring to that nutter.. that is not reflective of the usual cases and shouldn't influence judgements on other casee.. but if you want to get caught up in the media hype.. my personal opinion: Yes I believe he probably has molested children [sexually mature man shares bed with children that are not his own- what.. they were having pillow fights?].. but then again that peticular child's parents should have been charged with soliciting their own children. Michael being found 'not guilty' seemed to be in spite of the kid's mother being after money.. I agree she was. . but I also think she deliberately hoared her own child.



Originally posted by riley
Thats a pretty callous attitude.. it's also the same one most of the legal system has.. hence lack of convictions.


I think every case should start neutral, but when we're looking at history, that's when we can say what is and is not a bogus case. Believe it or not, there are bogus cases for reason previously mentioned.

You chose a very high profile case.. there is no reason to believe that MOST cases are fraudualent based in the ONE that you've mentioned.

Evidence should be quite substantial, should it not? Or are you suggesting we jail someone because they are charged? Or that all charged are guilty even if the courts say otherwise? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Keep in mind also that what women [I use them as an example because it's easier] are still asked what they were wearing.. thus it becomes 'evidence against the victim.. this is relevent as it shows the sexist attitude of the court system.. it's already geared against the victim. Most women won't report if there are no bruises.. [no outward evidence of force even if she did say no] usually after an assault that has needed hospitalisation.. a rape kit is done so most cases that a reported have some evidence.. but it is how that eveidence is interprited [apparently some lawyers argue that it was 'rough sex'] Lately.. there is a trend of drink spiking.. either the drug causes her [or him] not to remember who raped her- or if she was drugged in a bar she can be accused in court of just being a tart and drinking too much. Just some scenarios as to how faking rape would be pointless.. if women are going to be immediately classed as sluts before it even sees a court room there's not much point in reporting and putting themselves up foor more humilation.

I've not run into this guilt-trippy Christian attitude that gets waived around so much here so I'll have to take your word on it. Christians are required to help others avoid danger. If any person is leading someone to danger, it's our job to not let that happen.

I thought you were refferring to the victims themselves being christian.. if a christian girl [teenager] got raped.. her sexuality would be scutinised by her church as they are more conservative about sexuality and there is much stigma associated with it [Eve caused adam to sin etc].


Originally posted by riley
Some would.. just like some would use the boy scouts, the education system, police, child care.. anything with power and opportunity.


I think this was a well stated assessment
. So then the problem isn't the religion's teachings, rather what perpetrators are doing to abuse any power or priviledge offered. Solution? 1.) Make the requirements for priesthood firmer

They should be forced to undergo psychiatric tests.. and if they offend should be immediately kicked out of the church and thown in jail. Unfortuantly they are caught by their superiors they can quickly 'confess' to them.. meaning they are obligated [by church law] cover their arses. This loophole needs to be addressed and removed as it is in opposition to the law of the land and churches should not be excempt from it.

and 2.) Make the priest's private life more public. What on earth does a priest need privacy for? Is he not continually in the sight of God? Then why could he not also be continually be in the sight of those he teaches? It's an 'elect' job so I don't think I'm being unfair here.

Sounds reasonable [I'm wondering if priest masturbate and if they feel really guilty for it now.. thanks alot!!
.]

That's sad. I don't know anything about the workings of the Catholic church and would think that the vast majority of them don't do this but again, I've no background to speak on it. Mayhaps someone who does could address.

A couple of examples:
ttp://www.azcentral.com/specials/special16/articles/0210Churchabuse.html
www.telegram.com...


Originally posted by riley
Apparently molesters have usually been molested as children.. some grow up to fight against pedophelia.. others grown up to become offenders.


Usually? So not all are social, some are genetic? *scratches head* Still confused.

Actually ALL the cases I've heared of.. the offender has at one time been a victim.. though I cannot say definitively that ALL rapists/predetors have been.

So adult homosexual rape is social, but adult consentual homosexuality is genetic?

Yes [In most cases]. Sexual orientation has little to do with sexual abuse. Rape and molestation are based on power and the degredation another human being.. though what causes it can become blurry sometimes as 'mob metality' with the heightened testosterone can also influence the way some men behave.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join