Skyhook79;1157870 wrote:Should I judge all Gay rights advocates and anti-bullying advocates by what Dan Savage says and does?

What Catholicism has done is disgusting and it isn't an isolated thing either. It was a systematic refusal to stop, deter, or punish people who were raping children and now when people come forward and want apologies and explanations the church calls them liars and says they're "a pitiful bunch of malcontents". I don't care if it's 50 years after the event. These people were fucking raped, you don't just get over that shit. Durkie is right any other sort of institution besides a church would have gone bankrupt and be run out of every town they were in for the shit that's been pulled in the Catholic church and others but churches get a pass for some reason.

[video=youtube;9jHqndf9Kx4][/video]
These people aren't malcontents in the least.

fish82;1157862 wrote:10 years after the fact. Not a great example.

What is that supposed to mean?

I Wear Pants;1158142 wrote:What Catholicism has done is disgusting and it isn't an isolated thing either. It was a systematic refusal to stop, deter, or punish people who were raping children and now when people come forward and want apologies and explanations the church calls them liars and says they're "a pitiful bunch of malcontents". I don't care if it's 50 years after the event. These people were ****ing raped, you don't just get over that ****. Durkie is right any other sort of institution besides a church would have gone bankrupt and be run out of every town they were in for the **** that's been pulled in the Catholic church and others but churches get a pass for some reason.

[video=youtube;9jHqndf9Kx4][/video]
These people aren't malcontents in the least.


What is that supposed to mean?

Simply refuting you and Durkie's point that "any other organization would have been run out of town and bankrupted." Saying "Sandusky just showered with a kid and he got lambasted for it," is a poor example, as the institution (PSU) has suffered no measurable consequences whatsoever for a 10+ year coverup.

Several other examples posted after mine also clearly illustrate that this claim is patently false.

Perhaps we were wrong about the bankruptcy for all institutions. But at least that vermin is being tried which is more than we can say for the vast majority of the priests.

I Wear Pants;1158545 wrote:Perhaps we were wrong about the bankruptcy for all institutions. But at least that vermin is being tried which is more than we can say for the vast majority of the priests.

No one readily accepts or condones the actions that the Catholic church has taken with the priest scandal(s). It really is a moot point. Not one person on this site has applauded the Catholic church. You ask anyone in the Protestant faith, it isn't accepted. You ask most of the Catholics you come across, they don't accept it. You ask any "average Joe" about what should be done about the priest scandal(s) and I bet they would say that those vermin should be tried.

I can't change what the Pope does. You can't change what the Pope does. I don't even support the Catholic church, in general. This just goes to show that the institutionalized "religion" that Christianity has been for THOUSANDS of years isn't right.

The actions of those priests do not change the fact that Christians profess a savior in Jesus Christ. The actions of those priests do not change the words in the Holy Bible. The actions of the Catholic church does not throw the rest of the Christian faith under the bus.

And, while the crimes these priests have committed are as heinous as they come...the Catholic church does not have a squeaky-clean historical image. These crimes probably don't hold a candle to what has happened in the papacy.

OSH;1158575 wrote:No one readily accepts or condones the actions that the Catholic church has taken with the priest scandal(s). It really is a moot point. Not one person on this site has applauded the Catholic church. You ask anyone in the Protestant faith, it isn't accepted. You ask most of the Catholics you come across, they don't accept it. You ask any "average Joe" about what should be done about the priest scandal(s) and I bet they would say that those vermin should be tried.

I can't change what the Pope does. You can't change what the Pope does. I don't even support the Catholic church, in general. This just goes to show that the institutionalized "religion" that Christianity has been for THOUSANDS of years isn't right.

The actions of those priests do not change the fact that Christians profess a savior in Jesus Christ. The actions of those priests do not change the words in the Holy Bible. The actions of the Catholic church does not throw the rest of the Christian faith under the bus.

And, while the crimes these priests have committed are as heinous as they come...the Catholic church does not have a squeaky-clean historical image. These crimes probably don't hold a candle to what has happened in the papacy.

Well any religious organization that's been around for more than a few hundred years is in almost all probability guilty of horrific crimes. Witch trials, inquisitions, crusades, punishments for intellectualism, etc.

I Wear Pants;1158595 wrote:Well any religious organization that's been around for more than a few hundred years is in almost all probability guilty of horrific crimes. Witch trials, inquisitions, crusades, punishments for intellectualism, etc.

Yeah but Stalin was an atheist and he killed people...so what's your point?

I Wear Pants;1158595 wrote:Well any religious organization that's been around for more than a few hundred years is in almost all probability guilty of horrific crimes. Witch trials, inquisitions, crusades, punishments for intellectualism, etc.

What's your point?

It doesn't have to be a religious organization to be guilty of any of those.

I am not a fan of the institutionalized "religion." I've stated that before. The Bible does not outline a hierarchical structure that we have in EVERY denomination. In any organization that has this same hierarchical structure there will be ethical dilemmas. No matter who or what it may be. The NCAA. The NFHS. The OHSAA. Politics. PETA. Whatever it may be.

That said. Just because there is this structure in Christianity does not discredit Jesus Christ. Just because earthly people have organized "religion" this way does not mean that those were God's intentions. People can do anything "in the name of..." I do not condone anything the Church (that's capitalized, meaning the whole Catholic/Protestant faiths together) has allowed in terms of these heinous actions. But, just because Pope So-and-So allowed it does not mean my faith in Jesus Christ should be hindered. Just because Father Joe did something doesn't mean that the Bible is not true. Just because Reverend Bob is scum doesn't mean that Jesus didn't die on a cross for the catholic (meaning universal) church and the rest of mankind (and no, not the wrestler).

Just to clarify, he also died for Cactus Jack. No word on Mick Foley though...

OSH;1158601 wrote:What's your point?

It doesn't have to be a religious organization to be guilty of any of those.

I am not a fan of the institutionalized "religion." I've stated that before. The Bible does not outline a hierarchical structure that we have in EVERY denomination. In any organization that has this same hierarchical structure there will be ethical dilemmas. No matter who or what it may be. The NCAA. The NFHS. The OHSAA. Politics. PETA. Whatever it may be.

That said. Just because there is this structure in Christianity does not discredit Jesus Christ. Just because earthly people have organized "religion" this way does not mean that those were God's intentions. People can do anything "in the name of..." I do not condone anything the Church (that's capitalized, meaning the whole Catholic/Protestant faiths together) has allowed in terms of these heinous actions. But, just because Pope So-and-So allowed it does not mean my faith in Jesus Christ should be hindered. Just because Father Joe did something doesn't mean that the Bible is not true. Just because Reverend Bob is scum doesn't mean that Jesus didn't die on a cross for the catholic (meaning universal) church and the rest of mankind (and no, not the wrestler).

That's true.

Though there's still the problem of evidence for the claims of Christianity/the Bible about Jesus, god, etc which is something believers don't seem to want to discuss. Most of you guys in this thread have been wonderful in that regard as we've been able to discuss some things that usually result in textual shouting matches.

However we've still got to the same sticking point that happens often with this discussion in that some people say something akin to "you just have to take it on faith" or that we can't disprove the claims entirely. I'm not interested in disproving them but proving them. Priests and pastors raping boys and the church being murderous in the past doesn't make the Bible not true, you are correct. But many other things do.

I Wear Pants;1158606 wrote:...

However we've still got to the same sticking point that happens often with this discussion in that some people say something akin to "you just have to take it on faith" or that we can't disprove the claims entirely. I'm not interested in disproving them but proving them. Priests and pastors raping boys and the church being murderous in the past doesn't make the Bible not true, you are correct. But many other things do.

I hope I never avoid such a question or discussion.

There is no proof. There never will be to those looking at it from a logical and applied reason perspective. You can search and discern forever and if that's the route you choose to take it will not, ever lead you to proof.

vball10set;1158722 wrote:she's fat

/thavoice'd

Avg at best /gut

enigmaax;1158719 wrote:You suppose God's plan for her involved lots of strange men whacking it to her pics?

It must have!

I Wear Pants;1159261 wrote:

Man wasn't created with original sin. Where did you come up with that from?

God created man to have an innocent relationship with Him, without the influence of sin and evil. It is man/woman that went a stray.

Con_Alma;1159443 wrote:Man wasn't created with original sin. Where did you come up with that from?

God created man to have an innocent relationship with Him, without the influence of sin and evil. It is man/woman that went a stray.

this is a false and a contradiction - otherwise adam and eve would never have been kicked out of eden.

Raw Dawgin' it;1159451 wrote:this is a false and a contradiction - otherwise adam and eve would never have been kicked out of eden.

Not false. Adam was created without sin. So was Eve.

Con_Alma;1159443 wrote:Man wasn't created with original sin. Where did you come up with that from?

God created man to have an innocent relationship with Him, without the influence of sin and evil. It is man/woman that went a stray.

So you're saying god is either not all knowing or not all powerful. Because if he wanted man to have an "innocent relationship with him" and eating the apple or whatever undermined that in some stupid way then he would have known they were going to eat the apple and done things differently or made them stop. Or he knew they were going to do that and couldn't stop them.

I Wear Pants;1159459 wrote:So you're saying god is either not all knowing or not all powerful. Because if he wanted man to have an "innocent relationship with him" and eating the apple or whatever undermined that in some stupid way then he would have known they were going to eat the apple and done things differently or made them stop. Or he knew they were going to do that and couldn't stop them.

He could stop them. Why would he? He allows people to choose to have that innocent relationship with him or not. He created evil and lets man choose good or evil.

Con_Alma;1159458 wrote:Not false. Adam was created without sin. So was Eve.

lol way to back peddle - first it's without the influence of sin now it's they were created without sin. As sleeper would say, way to move the goal posts.

?? Sorry. I could provide the biblical explanation but folks don't tend to appreciate that on here.

They were created wihtout sin. They world was not created without evil. Adam and Eve had a choice.

Con_Alma;1159464 wrote:?? Sorry. I could provide the biblical explanation but folks don't tend to appreciate that on here.

They were created wihtout sin. They world was not created without evil. Adam and Eve had a choice.

the world? Because if it's they then you contradicted yourself again since evil is a synonym for sin.

Con_Alma;1159460 wrote:He could stop them. Why would he? He allows people to choose to have that innocent relationship with him or not. He created evil and lets man choose good or evil.

This goes back to the whole game/experiment mentality. Why create evil and make it a test of their will, then make them feel like shit for exercising that will? It is either complete bullshit or a real dickhead move.

enigmaax;1159483 wrote:This goes back to the whole game/experiment mentality. Why create evil and make it a test of their will, then make them feel like shit for exercising that will? It is either complete bullshit or a real dickhead move.

Clearly god is a manipulating dominatrix.

enigmaax;1159483 wrote:This goes back to the whole game/experiment mentality. Why create evil and make it a test of their will, then make them feel like shit for exercising that will? It is either complete bullshit or a real dickhead move.

What would be the purpose of life if no one had any choices right or wrong? Also RawDawgin it would have all of his fantasies about Kate Upton disappear if there were not choices and God made them all for us. Do you want to take that away from him?

Skyhook79;1159488 wrote:What would be the purpose of life if no one had any choices right or wrong?

I don't know, what is the purpose of heaven/eternal life? Are there right and wrong choices there?