Talk about Human Depravity … for Goodness Sake!

[Nihilist Virus]

So, you'd be fine with just the list of church leader types that Paul has provided? Or did I see bishop on his list, I can't remember?

I'd be fine with a list that includes no one who is or was complicit in the worldwide coverup of child rape. But how can you tell who the "innocent Nazis" are? How can you trust them if they are? Why would you trust them?

I can understand your grief in this, and while I think that firmer measures should be taken against those individuals EVERYWHERE who are involved in the issues we're talking about at this moment, I'm not yet convinced that the Roman Catholic church is, in and of itself, the "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT"!, I'm simply thinking in lesser terms, with questions like: When Jesus said He hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans, just exactly what did He mean and how will He deal with it? Yeah, I'm thinking that justice could roll down upon the Catholic church, as it should for ANY church that names the name of Jesus Christ who ignores and covers up various serious moral scandals.

I don't see the relevance of this... but hey, it's your thread.

Yeah, I'm not going to sympathize with any Nazis or with any people who call themselves Christians, especially if they're church leaders of one kind or another, who can't seem to keep their hands off our children.

Again, I've already noted the delimiters I think should be present when considering 'how' justice in this situation should be dispensed. Besides, you're going to have to consider the fact that since I am a Christian, the overall ethical Matrix that is jostling in my head will HAVE to come to play in my overall conception of what justice is in this case and how is should be meted out. Again, I'm fine with justice being meted out in a way, but as I Christian I'd want to think that justice is being meted out as it truly should be and not as it has been hastily scribbled on a note pad by various angry atheists. Of course, this isn't to say that at the end of the judicial day, my estimation of how justice should be meted out won't perhaps look very similar to what has been scribbled in haste by the angry atheist.

There is nothing hasty about what I'm saying. This issue is decades old and nothing has been done, so I think "patience" is a far more appropriate word. Arresting the pedophile priests and letting the hierarchy continue to destroy lives is exactly like busting the low-level street corner drug dealers while doing nothing about the organized crime that had put them there.

Yeah. At present, I am really only thinking about those diocese sitting within U.S. borders since those are most socially relevant to me (kind of). The Vatican is, on the other hand, just some European edifice that sits over yonder in that there place called Italy, so, it's kind of far from home and since I'm not specifically Roman Catholic my emotional investments aren't really focused upon REFORMING the entire world.

The Pope may be over yonder but his influence is felt right here. Again, how many times can we let him obstruct our justice until it's an act of war? You've been dodging this question.

A "limited version" of Christianity? What pray tell to you mean my that? How can one have a "limited version" of Christianity? Is this to imply that Roman Catholicism is a "maximal version" of Christianity, so it isn't allowed in China?

Priests are compelled to register in China and are not allowed to place their religion over the state. I'm not sure if they're allowed to say that God is omnipotent.

Basically, while Kim Davis is an exception, most Christians in America are allowed to say that they will follow God's laws over man's laws and nothing comes of it. Doing such a thing in China - or merely saying it or suggesting it to others - will land you in quite a bit of trouble.

Oh, and of course they don't have this "freedom of speech and religion" thing over there.

It means that it goes without saying that I'm in a minority among Christians ........

Ok.

Well, wherever there are human emotions involved, how impartial can it all really be?

Is that the ol' "We cannot be 100% perfect so let's put forth 0% effort"?

Sure, we can't have perfection. But let's at least try to handle it right. But as far as I can see we aren't putting forth a genuine effort to handle it right because and the church is getting preferential treatment while constantly whining that it is being persecuted.

Again, bringing this issue back to the OP, would an enactment of "forcible dissolution" really prove to be a "proof" of Christianity for you?

No, why would it? A voluntary dissolution of the hierarchy would go MUCH further though on that front.

Because remember, this thread isn't merely an Ethics thread; I'm not trying to reproduce merely what can be said and debated over in that other forum here on CF. No, I'm wondering how all of this discussion might help (or hinder) the qualities of Christian Apologetics.

Like I said, if the church hierarchy all individually claimed to have been visited by Jesus and then voluntarily dissolved the church and gave away all their gold to rape victims and the poor, and then these men lived out humble lives of penance, then I can absolutely guarantee you that at least one atheist would convert to Christianity. But obviously the hierarchy loves their gold more than anything. Certainly more than they love the poor and starving. Certainly more than the eternal souls of the unsaved.

But... could you imagine that though? A worldwide conspiracy by the church to do good? To make it right?

Oh, but I know the response to this. "But NV, we need our leaders!" Exactly, so let them lead! Nothing they could do would be better leadership than this. After all, what exactly are they accomplishing right now? The average Christian doesn't know the Bible, and probably couldn't even name a dozen books in it.

Think: Paul standing before various governors. You remember those stories, don't you? That's the kind of this I'm shooting for here.

Who cares what Paul would say? Doesn't it matter more what Jesus would say? And I think we all know what he would say about the church.

This is a guy who said that those who harm children would be better off having a millstone hung around their neck and then to be cast into the sea. This is a guy who constantly chastised the religious leaders for hypocrisy. If he were here right now we know exactly what he would say. Something along the lines of, "Not one stone would be unturned."

Well, don't know. Sometimes I have to remind myself that your avatar and screen name don't actually say, "Annihilationist Virus."

Well, dissolution of the hierarchy is certainly better than their suggestion, which is to let them police themselves. I cannot think of anything that is both as hilarious and sickening.

I wasn't talking specifically about Europe; but now that you bring it up .....

Now that I bring it up... what?

And what do you think is the legal hold up in in the U.S. on this? Does some law or religious ordinance have to be changed to see justice roll?

It's a combination of the church's immense wealth and power. Your mind is your greatest possession, and yet people just hand theirs over to the church. Not to mention the cash flow.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd be fine with a list that includes no one who is or was complicit in the worldwide coverup of child rape. But how can you tell who the "innocent Nazis" are? How can you trust them if they are? Why would you trust them?

I don't see the relevance of this... but hey, it's your thread.

There is nothing hasty about what I'm saying. This issue is decades old and nothing has been done, so I think "patience" is a far more appropriate word. Arresting the pedophile priests and letting the hierarchy continue to destroy lives is exactly like busting the low-level street corner drug dealers while doing nothing about the organized crime that had put them there.

The Pope may be over yonder but his influence is felt right here. Again, how many times can we let him obstruct our justice until it's an act of war? You've been dodging this question.

I have a life, and it not my responsibility to keep tabs on every single clergyman or church leader out there who, by biblical definition, is a potential perp (or 'sinner' as we Christians call theme). I'm not dodging; no, I'm just not taking responsibility for more than I can or need to. However, this doesn't mean I don't support requiring ever church leader to undergo lie-detector tests, at the least.

Priests are compelled to register in China and are not allowed to place their religion over the state. I'm not sure if they're allowed to say that God is omnipotent.

I place my religion along side the state, just as Paul implies we should do, until and at such a time the state decides it wants to egregiously become uncooperative with the Lord. Whatever they do in China is politically backwards, obviously.

Basically, while Kim Davis is an exception, most Christians in America are allowed to say that they will follow God's laws over man's laws and nothing comes of it. Doing such a thing in China - or merely saying it or suggesting it to others - will land you in quite a bit of trouble.

Is that the ol' "We cannot be 100% perfect so let's put forth 0% effort"?

Obviously, I didn't say that, but I believe the church hierarchy can stay even if actual positions need to be filled from elsewhere.

Sure, we can't have perfection. But let's at least try to handle it right. But as far as I can see we aren't putting forth a genuine effort to handle it right because and the church is getting preferential treatment while constantly whining that it is being persecuted.

And what do you suggest Christians, even Protestants and Orthodox, do about the R.C.?

Like I said, if the church hierarchy all individually claimed to have been visited by Jesus and then voluntarily dissolved the church and gave away all their gold to rape victims and the poor, and then these men lived out humble lives of penance, then I can absolutely guarantee you that at least one atheist would convert to Christianity. But obviously the hierarchy loves their gold more than anything. Certainly more than they love the poor and starving. Certainly more than the eternal souls of the unsaved.

But... could you imagine that though? A worldwide conspiracy by the church to do good? To make it right?

Oh, but I know the response to this. "But NV, we need our leaders!" Exactly, so let them lead! Nothing they could do would be better leadership than this. After all, what exactly are they accomplishing right now? The average Christian doesn't know the Bible, and probably couldn't even name a dozen books in it.

Those are all excellent points. There's nothing for me to disagree with here.

Who cares what Paul would say? Doesn't it matter more what Jesus would say? And I think we all know what he would say about the church.

Do we, literarely and historically speaking?

This is a guy who said that those who harm children would be better off having a millstone hung around their neck and then to be cast into the sea. This is a guy who constantly chastised the religious leaders for hypocrisy. If he were here right now we know exactly what he would say. Something along the lines of, "Not one stone would be unturned."

It's a combination of the church's immense wealth and power. Your mind is your greatest possession, and yet people just hand theirs over to the church. Not to mention the cash flow.

I don't.

 

[Moral Orel]

Basically, while Kim Davis is an exception, most Christians in America are allowed to say that they will follow God's laws over man's laws and nothing comes of it.

How is that abomination* an exception? Ultimately, she got away with it too. She doesn't have to issue marriage licenses to people she disapproves of, just her office does.

*I'm using "abomination" in the strictly Biblical sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How is that abomination* an exception? Ultimately, she got away with it too. She doesn't have to issue marriage licenses to people she disapproves of, just her office does.

*I'm using "abomination" in the strictly Biblical sense.

So, in this nuanced implication you seem to be making, Moral, do we want to say that for a Christian, we all might consider whether or not there should be any kind of qualified moral difference between clothing a neighbor (or enemy) who is in indeed in need of clothing, on the one hand, and providing a marriage license to two people whose apparent 'need' is that of being sexually active with another person of the same gender, on the other hand? Do we want to equate "a need of clothing" with "a need of specific sexual typology"?

 

[Moral Orel]

So, in this nuanced implication you seem to be making, Moral, do we want to say that for a Christian, we all might consider whether or not there should be any kind of qualified moral difference between clothing a neighbor (or enemy) who is in indeed in need of clothing, on the one hand, and providing a marriage license to two people whose apparent 'need' is that of being sexually active with another person of the same gender, on the other hand? Do we want to equate "a need of clothing" with "a need of specific sexual typology"?

You need a marriage license from the government to be sexually active with a person now? Is that all marriage is about to you, Philo?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You need a marriage license from the government to be sexually active with a person now? Is that all marriage is about to you, Philo?

....I think you know the answer to that one.

 

[Moral Orel]

....I think you know the answer to that one.

That's how you framed your question. I don't know how to answer a question framed in an inaccurate way. Is sex really the need that people seeking a marriage license are seeking to fulfill?

I think Kim should have resigned, if you want to actually explore the point NV was making and I was addressing. Or we can spin off an a tangent. I'm down for anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's how you framed your question. I don't know how to answer a question framed in an inaccurate way. Is sex really the need that people seeking a marriage license are seeking to fulfill?

I think Kim should have resigned, if you want to actually explore the point NV was making and I was addressing. Or we can spin off an a tangent. I'm down for anything.

The point of my last question above about equating one thing with another was intentionally slid into the middle of the 'frame' so as to emphasize another detail that then 're-frames' the whole issue of Kim Davis.

Let's just face it, where intuitions and judgments about the nature of human depravity are concerned, even where they interface on a modern legal level, there's BOUND to be an ideological clash between Christians and various articulations of modern law. It's inescapable, really.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Nazi party was forcibly dissolved, even if there were some innocent Nazis. I'm sure there was one Nazi who didn't participate in torture or execution of civilians and who was unaware of the conspiracy to commit genocide and mass murder. Should the Nazi party have been spared then? Sorry, I know it's a bit of a loaded question - you either concede the point or look like a Nazi sympathizer. To be clear, I would absolutely not label you as such. But it was pretty clear back then that the Nazis had to go. It's clear that the same thing applies today to the church, but there are a couple billion Christians who are content to let the church literally get away with murder.
.

I think there's pretty good evidence the average nazi that wasn't in the military wasn't aware of the genocide. There's examples of writing where they might be questioning how their former Jewish friends are faring abroad (because they believed they were exiled) or if they liked their new community (because they believed they were moved to a separate community for Jews). One might think that the soldiers guarding the concentration camps would be boasting about killing Jews....but that seemed to be the exception, not the rule. Quite the opposite, there's examples of commanders requesting shorter rotations guarding the camps because of the extremely negative effects it had on troop morale.

Funny enough, you mentioned the possibility of a good nazi and China....and it reminded me of this one hero nazi stationed in China. He was there on some business endeavor (literally some money making venture) in the city of Nanking. He stayed behind when his compatriots evacuated when news of Japan's imminent invasion reached them. He had some manor and walled yard and flew the nazi flag...so he figured he'd be safe from any Axis powers.

Well, if you're familiar with WW2 and Japan's atrocities therein....you've heard of the Rape of Nanking. This nazi realized what was happening all over the city....and went to significant lengths to shelter, feed, and protect hundreds of Chinese. He regularly leaned on his status as a Nazi to get food and medical supplies for everyone. Several times, the Japanese demanded that he allow soldiers in or that he expel all Chinese from his property....and he used his nazi affiliation to refuse them. He even tried to petition some Japanese commander to stop the rape, murder, and looting. Ever see that movie "Hotel Rwanda"? It was kinda like that...except without any UN guards.

I'd like to tell you it ended well for the guy....but I'm pretty sure he died a pariah. Upon returning to Nazi Germany, I think he was punished for his actions in China (probably for giving offense to the Japanese) and I'm pretty sure he was punished. Post war, he was hated by his countrymen for being a nazi....and those who were still enamored with nazism hated him for being a disloyal disgraced nazi. The only people who appreciated what he had done were those he saved. It's a good story really...but I don't see Hollywood making it anytime soon.

Anyway....I don't think nazis are a fair comparison. As an organization, mass murder was one of their goals. I can't say with any reasonable certainty that molesting children is one of the reasons why the Catholic church was created.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have a life, and it not my responsibility to keep tabs on every single clergyman or church leader out there who, by biblical definition, is a potential perp (or 'sinner' as we Christians call theme).

Where is this coming from?

I'm not dodging; no, I'm just not taking responsibility for more than I can or need to. However, this doesn't mean I don't support requiring ever church leader to undergo lie-detector tests, at the least.

Yet another dodge. I asked, "How many times can a foreign king obstruct our justice until it is an act of war?" Your answer here is irrelevant, so it is a dodge. You don't need to pretend that I'm saddling you with responsibility so you can then recuse yourself from it. I'd prefer if you just said that you don't want to answer the question. Or an "I don't know" works. But this charade where you are mischaracterizing me is a bad look.

Are you just wanting to check out of the conversation? Is that it? You don't need my permission, lol. Just don't warp my words please.

I place my religion along side the state, just as Paul implies we should do, until and at such a time the state decides it wants to egregiously become uncooperative with the Lord. Whatever they do in China is politically backwards, obviously.

You mean your interpretation of what the Lord wants. Which is dangerous. It's dangerous to have a to-the-death loyalty to something that is open to interpretation and can never be proven false.

Obviously, I didn't say that,

But you kinda did, and you kinda doubled down on it above when you said, "I have a life, and it not my responsibility to keep tabs on every single clergyman or church leader..."

You do this "I don't have to do 100% of X" as if I'm asking you to actually do something. I'm not.

but I believe the church hierarchy can stay even if actual positions need to be filled from elsewhere.

Sure. Fair enough.

And what do you suggest Christians, even Protestants and Orthodox, do about the R.C.?

I suggest they take responsibility for this situation. Who else will do it? Are Catholics going to do it? Obviously not. They are laughing as they tell us they will "police themselves." Do you expect Muslims to? Well, maybe they would, but then it would be World War III. And if they win they'd come for you as well, and then for me.

Those are all excellent points. There's nothing for me to disagree with here.

Do we, literarely and historically speaking?

Literally yes. Historically no.

I don't.

You don't what? Hand over your mind to the church? Even though you have an unshakable belief in their unsubstantiated claims? Maybe we are talking past each other.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How is that abomination* an exception? Ultimately, she got away with it too. She doesn't have to issue marriage licenses to people she disapproves of, just her office does.

*I'm using "abomination" in the strictly Biblical sense.

Wasn't she fined, fired, and/or jailed?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think there's pretty good evidence the average nazi that wasn't in the military wasn't aware of the genocide. There's examples of writing where they might be questioning how their former Jewish friends are faring abroad (because they believed they were exiled) or if they liked their new community (because they believed they were moved to a separate community for Jews). One might think that the soldiers guarding the concentration camps would be boasting about killing Jews....but that seemed to be the exception, not the rule. Quite the opposite, there's examples of commanders requesting shorter rotations guarding the camps because of the extremely negative effects it had on troop morale.

Funny enough, you mentioned the possibility of a good nazi and China....and it reminded me of this one hero nazi stationed in China. He was there on some business endeavor (literally some money making venture) in the city of Nanking. He stayed behind when his compatriots evacuated when news of Japan's imminent invasion reached them. He had some manor and walled yard and flew the nazi flag...so he figured he'd be safe from any Axis powers.

Well, if you're familiar with WW2 and Japan's atrocities therein....you've heard of the Rape of Nanking. This nazi realized what was happening all over the city....and went to significant lengths to shelter, feed, and protect hundreds of Chinese. He regularly leaned on his status as a Nazi to get food and medical supplies for everyone. Several times, the Japanese demanded that he allow soldiers in or that he expel all Chinese from his property....and he used his nazi affiliation to refuse them. He even tried to petition some Japanese commander to stop the rape, murder, and looting. Ever see that movie "Hotel Rwanda"? It was kinda like that...except without any UN guards.

I'd like to tell you it ended well for the guy....but I'm pretty sure he died a pariah. Upon returning to Nazi Germany, I think he was punished for his actions in China (probably for giving offense to the Japanese) and I'm pretty sure he was punished. Post war, he was hated by his countrymen for being a nazi....and those who were still enamored with nazism hated him for being a disloyal disgraced nazi. The only people who appreciated what he had done were those he saved. It's a good story really...but I don't see Hollywood making it anytime soon.

Interesting story. I wish that would be a movie, despite the long odds. Thanks for that.

I'm aware that Nazism is not equal to Catholicism. I'm not saying they are equal. I'm saying the comparison is apt because they are large organizations that have conspired to protect those who have committed atrocities. The finer look you've offered illustrates that there were good Nazis just as there surely are good priests, bishops, and cardinals.

But as you know, when you cut out cancer you unavoidably take out healthy tissue along with it.

Anyway....I don't think nazis are a fair comparison. As an organization, mass murder was one of their goals. I can't say with any reasonable certainty that molesting children is one of the reasons why the Catholic church was created.

The Nazi party was not created to exterminate the Jews. They considered Jews to be a problem and they offered many solutions before settling on the "final solution." So I think the comparison is appropriate.

 

[Moral Orel]

Wasn't she fined, fired, and/or jailed?

She got five days in jail for contempt of court, and then released and allowed to excuse herself from issuing marriage licenses she didn't approve of. She just wasn't allowed to interfere in other clerks doing their jobs, she was allowed to refuse to do the job she swore to do.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

She got five days in jail for contempt of court, and then released and allowed to excuse herself from issuing marriage licenses she didn't approve of. She just wasn't allowed to interfere in other clerks doing their jobs, she was allowed to refuse to do the job she swore to do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where is this coming from?

What I'm trying to imply is that in my marriage, my wife has at least some influence on the extent to which I get to fully carry out any thought or act that I might otherwise wish to prudently (or just flat out overtly) make in the world at large, even one pertaining to pushing other Christian brethren to "get their act together." THAT is what I'm attempting to secretly allude to. It's not just all simple and direct as you seem to think it can be for each and every Christian out there, even among those who would like to see a more idealized condition for Christianity..............which obviously hasn't been achieved.

Yet another dodge. I asked, "How many times can a foreign king obstruct our justice until it is an act of war?" Your answer here is irrelevant, so it is a dodge. You don't need to pretend that I'm saddling you with responsibility so you can then recuse yourself from it. I'd prefer if you just said that you don't want to answer the question. Or an "I don't know" works. But this charade where you are mischaracterizing me is a bad look.

I don't know? How many times can a foreign king obstruct this or that? I'm not even sure what I, personally, am supposed to do about.

Are you just wanting to check out of the conversation? Is that it? You don't need my permission, lol. Just don't warp my words please.

No. Maybe just don't assume that I'm going to find agreement on every incidental detail of our conversation, even if on some major points we find some commonality?

You mean your interpretation of what the Lord wants. Which is dangerous. It's dangerous to have a to-the-death loyalty to something that is open to interpretation and can never be proven false.

Sure to some extent another person can say to me, "That's just your interpretation," but then this wouldn't actually take into account whether or not the other person is repeatedly subjecting his/her interpretation to the Hermeneutic Circle as I do. I mean, one does have to flush more than once a day, or at least that's how I thought things are supposed to work in life.

But you kinda did, and you kinda doubled down on it above when you said, "I have a life, and it not my responsibility to keep tabs on every single clergyman or church leader..."

Again, don't take my 'hesitancy' to just jump on the atheist bandwagon as a form of doubling down. Being married and having family and a job means there are other integral and trilateral forces at work in my overall decision making process or in figuring out 'how' I might both agree and then prompt action upon some singular moral issue.

You do this "I don't have to do 100% of X" as if I'm asking you to actually do something. I'm not.

Alright. I'll take your word for it and say that this is good to know.

I suggest they take responsibility for this situation. Who else will do it? Are Catholics going to do it? Obviously not. They are laughing as they tell us they will "police themselves." Do you expect Muslims to? Well, maybe they would, but then it would be World War III. And if they win they'd come for you as well, and then for me.

I'm not sure how this answers the question or that even if I do all of this to your measure, it's going to somehow make Christianity more palatable to one who is presently entertaining a more negative mind-set toward the Christian faith as you now are. But, I know at the same time, I don't want to put words into your mouth our speak for you in any of this.

Literally yes. Historically no.

You don't what? Hand over your mind to the church? Even though you have an unshakable belief in their unsubstantiated claims? Maybe we are talking past each other.

I think I've more than demonstrated over the years here on CF that I don't hand my mind over to anyone. Sure, I have some conceptual affinities, but you might remember that I have taken a degree in Philosophy from a secular university with a predominance of atheistic professors in my classes. So, I think I'm fairly conversant with who and how to evaluate the limits of my own thinking, even where my own religious faith is concerned.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't know? How many times can a foreign king obstruct this or that? I'm not even sure what I, personally, am supposed to do about.

You seem to be absolutely determined to not listen to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to be absolutely determined to not listen to me.

Do you want me to write a letter to the Pope?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you want me to write a letter to the Pope?

I just wanted to have a conversation. You're acting like everything I say is a call to action. Not only is that incorrect, but I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not asking you or expecting you to do anything. It's just frustrating. Let me know if you get around to reading what was said without making unwarranted inferences.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just wanted to have a conversation. You're acting like everything I say is a call to action. Not only is that incorrect, but I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not asking you or expecting you to do anything. It's just frustrating. Let me know if you get around to reading what was said without making unwarranted inferences.

You seem to be absolutely determined to not listen to me.

Did we not agree on some important things in a few posts above? I'd call that progress if we contrast it with much, if not most, of what has come before in our discussions over the past few years, NV.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks to Quid, we've had a first glimpse of one of the many horrors our world has apparently, in its supposed wisdom, seen fit to commodify.

The subject matter of the abuse of children, of whatever kind, is tragic and truly one of the lowest levels of evil and human depravity which exists in this world. Yet it exists, and according to the article Quid has provided, it is “rife and growing.”

Yet most Christians would rather rant about two men living together. And that is precisely why I don't take Christian outrage all that seriously. The "moral compass" as such, is broken. It sees far too much as evil for me to have confidence in it, even when it is "right". As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.