Truly religious people can't discuss/debate religion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

bells:
The title is perhaps a lil' bit inflammatory, but it is mostly PR tactics ok? So calm down...

Right off the bat, allow me to make 2 points about what's to follow.

1- I'm not an Atheist. Nor am i agnostic... these are mostly labels nowadays and they are mostly attached to either assholes who can't never "let it go" or people who don't want to take sides...

2- i have my own personal beliefs, i have ZERO problems with the concept of religion and personal faith. I Do however object strongly to the meddling of Religion into the body of the State and vice versa. I do not believe in a personal invisible god capable of human thought and rational, meddling and crafting the fate and destiny of all things. I Believe in science and i believe in Evolution and all that's entailed in these groups.

With that being said, what i would ask you is that you argue the point. Not the person. I will write mostly in absolutes as to simply make the idea clear and firmly visible to grasp, it doesn't necessarily mean i think in absolutes. It is for argument's sake. As i'm posting here not to "shove truth" but to open the conversation under this idea...

Ok? Alright then...

So, as said in the Thread title... If you are a truly religious person, you cannot debate religion. Specially with people who are not. By doing so you automatically doubt your own faith or try to manipulate others into accepting your belief system.

The point here is that.. if you argue Civil Discourse, if you claim you can have an open minded conversation or debate about religion, if you truly think you can engage in conversation about a personal topic and be open minded be respectful and accepting... then you must allow doubt.

Anybody that enters in a conversation with 0% possibility to accept being wrong or mistaken, is not having a conversation. That person is just trying to win.

Anybody that enters a debate not accepting any possibility of being wrong, is not having a debate, they are just trying to shove their beliefs on others.

To actually have a conversation, to allow yourself to communicate openly, you must accept the possibility of being wrong. Doesn't matter if it's 10% or 0,01% it must be there. Or else, you are not interested in having a conversation, you just want to bend the other person to your own school of thought.

Here is the divide...

When you come from science, if you have rational and critical thinking with you... you are allowed that. The greatest minds in our time that don't have a personal religion have stated so... it's not about "Do you believe in god? Even if there is the slightest chance of he being real?" and a man of science and common sense will tell you... "If given evidence, if proven to me... i'll believe. None has, so i don't".

Some go further... They state their proof "When i have proof that X is real, then i'll allow myself to believe." Evidence. Proven fact.

A Religious person, cannot allow themselves that.

Because, a truly religious person must live in faith. Doubt in god is not an option. That is stated clearly in the Holy books of all major religions... You must give yourself fully and without regret. Accept god as it's whole and only then you'll be by his side.

Therefore... when talking about religion, you must allow yourself a modicum of doubt. "What if you're wrong? What if god doesn't exist?". That Question mostly goes unanswered...

Or we go into the God of Gaps argument. Stating that God resides on what we don't know, and we can't know everything, therefore we can't never truly know god, so we must believe. Which Crumbles onto itself, cause a mere 200 years ago we didn't knew much that we do now. So under that argument, God would be a forever shrinking force...

Most try to dodge and run around the issue "Then in the final days we'll know who is right"... Cryptic stuff that never solves anything. A Simple cop out for someone who entered a discussion and now must flee behind smoke and mirrors.

Some try to reverse the God of Gaps saying "What if he is real, what then? You won't be saved... you won't be spared..." which, again... falls onto itself, for it's flawed human logic... as it means you believe only to be saved. Faith by Fear. Self interest. Human Arrogance.

If you argue Religion, if you want to discuss it, if you want to debate it... there are 2 camps where you must reside... you either can accept the possibility of God not being real, and therefore your faith is flawed. Because you are not 100% Committed to your own god (you doubt him, even if it's 0,01%) and therefore... you can't be saved, cause you never 100% truly believed...

OR... you don't allow it. You just cannot accept that your personal god cannot exist. And therefore, you are not trying to discuss or argue... you're just trying to impose your belief onto others.

So, that's the crude thought at hand... sorry if it's lenghty. Have at it!

i must respectfully disagree it's fine to debate about religion. it helps people understand where everyone is coming from.

NuclearShadow:

renegade7:
I see this a lot in religious people arguing against atheism in the "Atheism is a religion" argument. It isn't, it is the LACK of a religion.

Basically, they apply their own schema to everyone else....not everyone sees the world the way they do, and their inability to grasp that makes their ability to acknowledge the opposition (a critical part to a persuasive argument, as any high school English teacher will tell you) nonexistant, and therefore they can only argue from ignorance, not that the average atheist basher has any trouble with that.

I've never understood this argument. If I typed something derogatory here towards you and your reply was simply "you are too". That doesn't defend your position any if anything it's a admittance of defeat while trying to take me down with you. For a theist to classify atheism as a religion would only mean listing it as just as credible as religion and since they classify atheism without credibility they are declaring their own religion to be the same whether they realize it or not.

I just tell them that they win. What reason is there for debate besides the fact they want to be right and let you know you're wrong? After that what can they say? Not much.

Kendarik:

bells:
Yep... you have no idea of what Dogma actually is.

I think you accidentally typed "you" instead of "I".

[spoiler=No where in the definition of dogma (except in your head) is dogma unchangable]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially: a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets [pedagogical dogma] c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma
noun, plural dog·mas or ( Rare ) dog·ma·ta  [dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA.
1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

No where in there does it say "unchangable". Dogma can and does change. The only way you can define dogma as unchanable is if you define it as a word that has no meaning because it never applies to anything.

You can look at any set of religious or non religious beliefs over centuries and you will see that they can and do shift.

Your whole argument is in fact silly considering you have defined religious as something pretty much no one on the planet is either. You have a corrupted understanding of religion.[/quote]

So it's UNQUESTIONABLE but you can change it... got it.

Try to change something you can't question. C'mon... go on...

You can create a NEW dogma, you can REPLACE an old Dogma, you can crate a NEW system based on the Old system (that's the entire BASIS of the segregation of Christianity) But you cannot CHANGE IT, Because for it to be a Dogma you cannot QUESTION it.

Really not that hard to understand...

I think as people have pointed out that if the OP's description of "truly religious" is basically a stereotype fundamentalist... then yeah. But we've known that for years now that fundamentalists are only worth ignoring, only to be acknowledged by being made fun of and beat down logically if they ever try to influence politics.

I'm religious, and i can talk about my religion, and i don't doubt or try to win as far as i'm aware, because its not as black and white as you make it out to be its a million shades of gray, i love talking about religion because it gives me stuff to think about and to contemplate, it helps in the shaping of my own ideas, and that doesn't fall into either category, and as for the doubting in god, I've come too far to start doubting, when faced with a question that i have trouble answering or strikes a cord i don't doubt my belief in the existence of god, but it does make me consider the views that i'm holding about god as true or false, to me its never a battle of "is he real? is he not?" its about "whats he want from me? what does he truly believe? am i doing okay by him?"

sorry if its too long, and see i'm talking about it right now =P

Awexsome:
only to be acknowledged by being made fun of and beat down logically if they ever try to influence politics.

Which they do... all the time. Right now.
There is a reason why if a (every) president of the USA doesn't end a speech with "God Bless America", it becomes huge -negative- news the next day. It is people of Faith (at best), pretending to religious to appeal to a broader audience (or personal ego) and not actually following the Dogma they claim to praise. "Fundamentalist" is not the same word as "Extremist" Fundamentalist is rooted on the Fundamentals. The fundamentals of a religion are it's DOGMA. it's "Stick with the basics" at best, and it's in paper only.

Fear of Intent:
I'm religious, and i can talk about my religion, and i don't doubt or try to win as far as i'm aware, because its not as black and white as you make it out to be its a million shades of gray, i love talking about religion because it gives me stuff to think about and to contemplate, it helps in the shaping of my own ideas, and that doesn't fall into either category, and as for the doubting in god, I've come too far to start doubting, when faced with a question that i have trouble answering or strikes a cord i don't doubt my belief in the existence of god, but it does make me consider the views that i'm holding about god as true or false, to me its never a battle of "is he real? is he not?" its about "whats he want from me? what does he truly believe? am i doing okay by him?"

sorry if its too long, and see i'm talking about it right now =P

You "talk" better than you read. I suggest you re-read the thread...

I never stated you can't "Talk" or "Discuss"... what i did say is that to step into a serious conversation about it, if you can't accept the premise of being wrong, you're not having a conversation. You are just forcing your point of view.

If you are a person of faith, you can have doubts, as rules are not fixed for you. However, you can't expect or impose your rules on or from anyone else, as they are your own exclusively. Even if ten thousand people live by the same set rules of faith, it still is their own individual faiths and rules. Because it's personal.

If you are a religious person (as you claim to be), then you can't have that serious conversation without betraying your own Dogma. Because Religion is not a "feeling" it's an institution. Bound and created in Dogmatic practice, that defines rules, principles, codes and conduct that can't be questioned or altered by it's practitioners (because there is a Hierarchy of command in it) .

So, if you can never doubt your god and your religion you can never really discuss it, because you're never open to accepting being wrong. Therefore you can only accept to being right. And anyone who wants to discuss anything always thinking they are right, are not having a conversation. They are imposing views.

Not really hard to understand.... just read first, create opinion second.

bells:
what i did say is that to step into a serious conversation about it, if you can't accept the premise of being wrong, you're not having a conversation. You are just forcing your point of view.

You should try reading this advice yourself. It speaks to most of your posts in this thread.

renegade7:
I see this a lot in religious people arguing against atheism in the "Atheism is a religion" argument. It isn't, it is the LACK of a religion.

Basically, they apply their own schema to everyone else....not everyone sees the world the way they do, and their inability to grasp that makes their ability to acknowledge the opposition (a critical part to a persuasive argument, as any high school English teacher will tell you) nonexistant, and therefore they can only argue from ignorance, not that the average atheist basher has any trouble with that.

Remember this if ever you try and apply the requirement for evidence or the null assumption to a religious person's beliefs.

Wolverine18:

bells:
what i did say is that to step into a serious conversation about it, if you can't accept the premise of being wrong, you're not having a conversation. You are just forcing your point of view.

You should try reading this advice yourself. It speaks to most of your posts in this thread.

Coming from someone who pre-judges, attacks without reading and comes bashing the door without reasoning, properly reading, pulling strawmen out of thin air and etc... i remain tranquil.

Specially since others who DID came and tried a conversation HAVE pointed out different thoughts from my own that i did agree with and enabled improvements over my views...

So, yeah... your blablabla? Not buying it.

bells:
You "talk" better than you read. I suggest you re-read the thread...

I never stated you can't "Talk" or "Discuss"...

bells's freaking THREAD TITLE:
Truly religious people can't discuss/debate religion

Did you read the thread?

Gee, what do you know. Being needlessly antagonistic can bite you in the ass...

bells:

Kendarik:

bells:
Yep... you have no idea of what Dogma actually is.

I think you accidentally typed "you" instead of "I".

[spoiler=No where in the definition of dogma (except in your head) is dogma unchangable]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially: a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets [pedagogical dogma] c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma
noun, plural dog·mas or ( Rare ) dog·ma·ta  [dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA.
1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

No where in there does it say "unchangable". Dogma can and does change. The only way you can define dogma as unchanable is if you define it as a word that has no meaning because it never applies to anything.

You can look at any set of religious or non religious beliefs over centuries and you will see that they can and do shift.

Your whole argument is in fact silly considering you have defined religious as something pretty much no one on the planet is either. You have a corrupted understanding of religion.

So it's UNQUESTIONABLE but you can change it... got it.[/quote]

Apparently you don't know how a dictionary works. You do realize that those lines are MULTIPLE possible definitions and only ONE of those supports your case. The other three do not. That's the point we have been making throughout this thread, you have a horribly narrow understanding of the word and don't seem to realize it doesn't have to be unchanging and that it can, and does change.

Really not that hard to understand...

Apparently its hard for you to understand.

Uszi:
Ha! This thread is awesome because all of the surly atheists are defending religious folks.

I'm book marking it for later.

Yeah, I mean, I get where the OP is going... I've encountered people like he's described who can't be debated because they've adopted this sort of belief system. But that said, the point is over generalized... even to that specific segment I've admitted that I've interacted with. I feel like Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort probably have doubted God or the truth of their views at some point. They probably experience crisis of faith about as often as anyone else.

They just might not show it mid-debate.

Personally, I won't be happy until either Blahblah or Rastelin defends religion in this debate. But it's been heartwarming nonetheless.

OT: The simple fact that there are multiple sects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam proves you wrong. They obviously have debates all the time. Their dogmas change constantly.

image

Oh come on. The leader of one of the largest religious groups does this. He doesn't really believe. Only when it is safe to believe do they talk loud and proud. The matter is not improved by the followers. When push comes to shove, they do not really believe or get doubts.

And I doubt there is such a thing as 100% belief. That would border to madness, which is hardly valid.

Rastelin:
image

Oh come on. The leader of one of the largest religious groups does this. He doesn't really believe. Only when it is safe to believe do they talk loud and proud. The matter is not improved by the followers. When push comes to shove, they do not really believe or get doubts.

And I doubt there is such a thing as 100% belief. That would border to madness, which is hardly valid.

You know that they started that only after a Pope was shot right? He's not doing anything most other head's of state don't do most of the time.

And besides, believing in god doesn't mean you want to be shot. Religious people believe god(s) gave them brains and thus they should use them. Only a fool believes they don't have to take any actions for themselves

Wolverine18:
And besides, believing in god doesn't mean you want to be shot. Religious people believe god(s) gave them brains and thus they should use them. Only a fool believes they don't have to take any actions for themselves

So the hole thing about gods will on earth and "he has a plan for everyone" does not apply. According to Christians you will not live an inch longer that god intended.

You see "using your head" is the rational part of people talking to them. Not faith.

Wolverine18:
You know that they started that only after a Pope was shot right? He's not doing anything most other head's of state don't do most of the time.

And besides, believing in god doesn't mean you want to be shot. Religious people believe god(s) gave them brains and thus they should use them. Only a fool believes they don't have to take any actions for themselves

First, he's not the head of any state, and I refuse to acknowledge Vatican City as anything more than a glorified city-state. Second, there are many, many people that want the pope removed if for no other reason than he shuffles pedophiles from place to place.

l0ckd0wn:

Wolverine18:
You know that they started that only after a Pope was shot right? He's not doing anything most other head's of state don't do most of the time.

And besides, believing in god doesn't mean you want to be shot. Religious people believe god(s) gave them brains and thus they should use them. Only a fool believes they don't have to take any actions for themselves

First, he's not the head of any state, and I refuse to acknowledge Vatican City as anything more than a glorified city-state. Second, there are many, many people that want the pope removed if for no other reason than he shuffles pedophiles from place to place.

You may refuse to acknowledge it, but he is recognized as the head of state of a country by the UN and most member nations. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean he isn't the head of state.

Rastelin:

Wolverine18:
And besides, believing in god doesn't mean you want to be shot. Religious people believe god(s) gave them brains and thus they should use them. Only a fool believes they don't have to take any actions for themselves

So the hole thing about gods will on earth and "he has a plan for everyone" does not apply. According to Christians you will not live an inch longer that god intended.

You see "using your head" is the rational part of people talking to them. Not faith.

There you go thinking you understand all of religion when you clearly don't. Just because a particular faith might believe god has a plan for everyone doesn't mean that god will prevent those plans from being derailed through free will choices. That is part of the faith belief of Catholics. They are supposed to take active steps to achieve things for god's ends and their own.

Wolverine18:
They are supposed to take active steps to achieve things for god's ends and their own.

You must be talking about the common Catholic and not their leaders. The clergy have done anything but good. Unless it is god's plan to let priests rape children, let them protect those rapists, advocate restraint while sitting on golden thrones surrounded by unimaginable wealth. Not to mention prohibit condoms causing more aids, suffering and misery among Catholics in African countries where they have problems enough as it is. Lousy work if you ask me.

Rastelin:

Wolverine18:
They are supposed to take active steps to achieve things for god's ends and their own.

You must be talking about the common Catholic and not their leaders. The clergy have done anything but good.

Really? I must have dreamed up that part of Catholic history where the Pope John Paul II helped strengthen ties with other religious communities and where he openly condemned pedophilia in the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that the former pope was perfect, but its completely inaccurate to assume that the clergy have done nothing good.

Wolverine18:

You may refuse to acknowledge it, but he is recognized as the head of state of a country by the UN and most member nations. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean he isn't the head of state.

You're correct and I cannot argue that. That being said, I personally don't understand why a city state with less than 900 persons gets the significance they do.

Rastelin:
Unless it is god's plan to let priests rape children, let them protect those rapists, advocate restraint while sitting on golden thrones surrounded by unimaginable wealth.

Helmholtz Watson:
I'm not saying that the former pope was perfect, but its completely inaccurate to assume that the clergy have done nothing good.

And what about the current pope? He's been accused multiple times of being malevolent to the sexual abuse problems and has even shuffled some priests around with no consequences.

Rastelin:

Wolverine18:
They are supposed to take active steps to achieve things for god's ends and their own.

You must be talking about the common Catholic and not their leaders. The clergy have done anything but good. Unless it is god's plan to let priests rape children, let them protect those rapists, advocate restraint while sitting on golden thrones surrounded by unimaginable wealth. Not to mention prohibit condoms causing more aids, suffering and misery among Catholics in African countries where they have problems enough as it is. Lousy work if you ask me.

It seems your problem is not with catholicism as a whole but the institution and the papacy. Many people have had many different priests and clergymen who are perfectly normal and respected of the community. Religion=/=Institution

recruit00:
It seems your problem is not with catholicism as a whole but the institution and the papacy. Many people have had many different priests and clergymen who are perfectly normal and respected of the community. Religion=/=Institution

So that's like saying the actions of a state are not reflective of the people... Although in any case those two things are clumped together because the people encompass the state and their leaders.

Catholicism = religion, Catholicism = institution, Institution = sum of all it's parts, including the one's you throw out because you choose to.

Rastelin:

Wolverine18:
They are supposed to take active steps to achieve things for god's ends and their own.

You must be talking about the common Catholic and not their leaders. The clergy have done anything but good. Unless it is god's plan to let priests rape children, let them protect those rapists, advocate restraint while sitting on golden thrones surrounded by unimaginable wealth. Not to mention prohibit condoms causing more aids, suffering and misery among Catholics in African countries where they have problems enough as it is. Lousy work if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the catholic church. I did say "supposed to take". I agree totally that they often don't follow what they are supposed to do.

I know you love trimming context so that you can try to keep twisting things around and avoid the discussion itself, but if you go back and read the context you will see I was just pointing out that taking actions instead of expecting god to do everything for you is conistant with Catholic doctorine.

l0ckd0wn:

recruit00:
It seems your problem is not with catholicism as a whole but the institution and the papacy. Many people have had many different priests and clergymen who are perfectly normal and respected of the community. Religion=/=Institution

So that's like saying the actions of a state are not reflective of the people... Although in any case those two things are clumped together because the people encompass the state and their leaders.

Catholicism = religion, Catholicism = institution, Institution = sum of all it's parts, including the one's you throw out because you choose to.

Right, which is why humanity are evil pedophiles and murders, because there are evil pedophiles in it.

Nice attempt to miss his point.

l0ckd0wn:

Wolverine18:

You may refuse to acknowledge it, but he is recognized as the head of state of a country by the UN and most member nations. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean he isn't the head of state.

You're correct and I cannot argue that. That being said, I personally don't understand why a city state with less than 900 persons gets the significance they do.

I agree its odd. Blame Mussolini, he gave them independance and recognized them by international treaty. Having done so, no other international body or country really has a legal reason not to recognize them. Hell, even Germany recognized them as an independant and neutral state and respected their borders during WWII.

Wolverine18:

Right, which is why humanity are evil pedophiles and murders, because there are evil pedophiles in it.

Nice attempt to miss his point.

I didn't miss his point, but you tip-toed around mine to say that, so I'll put it simply:

When a person witnesses a crime they can make a choice to act or not to act. If they choose not to act they are choosing to not interfere and thus are guilty by association because they 1.) have knowledge of a crime, and 2.) choose to do nothing about it.

When a billion people are enlightened to the fact that the spiritual leaders are acting with impunity and actively avoiding legal prosecution for the constituents, it's more than just complacency, it's apathy.

l0ckd0wn:

When a person witnesses a crime they can make a choice to act or not to act. If they choose not to act they are choosing to not interfere and thus are guilty by association because they 1.) have knowledge of a crime, and 2.) choose to do nothing about it.

What? People are not guilty by association, what kind of logic is that? Should an innocent Muslim-American be arrested because Islamic militants killed 11 people in Iraq today? Should all Chinese-Americans be held accountable for the murderous actions of Bo Xilai?

Guilt by association is a terrible policy to use.

Helmholtz Watson:
Guilt by association is a terrible policy to use.

I agree it is a bad example from a legal standpoint, but I'm making them guilty by association from a social standpoint. However how much social harm needs to be done before the apathy stops?

In the other cases you referenced, these weren't people standing by watching shit unravel before them, like the California Gang Rape case. Thousands of cases all over the world have come out telling of the atrocities of the Catholic church. All of those people in those parishes who choose to do nothing, not even inquire, are apathetic and are choosing to do nothing to fix the state of their churches and parishes - I find they are guilty for doing nothing when child pedophilia is so rampant.

However, the church could have said to have been "aiding and abetting" all the way up to the pope - every time he knowingly moved a priest that was caught with his hand in the wrong place he chose to move that priest out of the lime light, aiding that priest to get away with his crimes.

The problem then moves towards a place few tread; inditing a priest for sexual misconduct or assault.

l0ckd0wn:
It seems your problem is not with catholicism as a whole but the institution and the papacy. Many people have had many different priests and clergymen who are perfectly normal and respected of the community. Religion=/=Institution

It is the institution that is corrupted. I do not blame every Catholic for it, but despite the scandals and given this Church's history, they keep going to church, pay their due to it and thereby giving validity to the clergy and the power they possess.

For me it seems no matter how much the church fucks up and abuse it's power, it is never bad enough to question it's leaders. This mystifies me. And remember this. There are as you say decent priests, but they got the red tape treatment from their leaders about the child rapes. No matter how they felt about it, they did keep quiet. There they stopped being good men in my eyes.

Rastelin:

l0ckd0wn:
It seems your problem is not with catholicism as a whole but the institution and the papacy. Many people have had many different priests and clergymen who are perfectly normal and respected of the community. Religion=/=Institution

It is the institution that is corrupted. I do not blame every Catholic for it, but despite the scandals and given this Church's history, they keep going to church, pay their due to it and thereby giving validity to the clergy and the power they possess.

For me it seems no matter how much the church fucks up and abuse it's power, it is never bad enough to question it's leaders. This mystifies me. And remember this. There are as you say decent priests, but they got the red tape treatment from their leaders about the child rapes. No matter how they felt about it, they did keep quiet. There they stopped being good men in my eyes.

To be clear, I did not say that, Recruit00 did. But, I agree wholly with your statement of validation.

Helmholtz Watson:
I must have dreamed up that part of Catholic history where the Pope John Paul II helped strengthen ties with other religious communities and where he openly condemned pedophilia in the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that the former pope was perfect, but its completely inaccurate to assume that the clergy have done nothing good.

You do not know how much they concealed when he was running the outfit. The child abuse was no less then than what was revealed under the current pope. The Church did not come forth with this. They got caught. This has been going on for a long time. If John Paul II didn't know about it and was not part of the coverup, well that makes him a poor leader and pope doesn't it. A few good deeds does not make up for raping children an sheltering those who did it. There is no excuse for that church anymore. They have lost the right to any.

Rastelin:

You do not know how much they concealed when he was running the outfit.

Really? "The outfit"? That is quite the hyperbole, isn't it?

Rastelin:
The child abuse was no less then than what was revealed under the current pope. The Church did not come forth with this. They got caught. This has been going on for a long time. If John Paul II didn't know about it and was not part of the coverup, well that makes him a poor leader and pope doesn't it.

Not really, he isn't omnipotent, he can't possibly know the actions of each and every clergy member. Also, if you go back and look at my previous post, he openly condemned the actions of those priest.

Rastelin:
A few good deeds does not make up for raping children an sheltering those who did it. There is no excuse for that church anymore. They have lost the right to any.

Never claimed it did, I just refuted your claim that the clergy have done nothing good. It is completely false and inaccurate. As I pointed out before, pope John Paul II made a great effort to ease relations between the many different denominations of Christianity and religious groups. That in itself is proof that your statement is completely wrong.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked