The Continuing Saga of the Pedophile Priests

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: It's already been pointed out that your understanding of the "faith-based" initiative is erroneous. It does not "funnel billions" into church-based charities. It just provides a tax-break incentive for them. Still, how does that give them the "legal right to engage in discrimination". The policies of these charities were established long before the "faith-based" initiative. Also, these are PRIVATE organizations. They do not need a "legal right" to establish whatever rules or by-laws they consider appropriate for their mission.

You do realise that all other private organizations, like corporations and non-religious charities have to comply with anti-discrimination laws, don’t you?
I mean, surely the government isn’t giving religion special treatment is it? O.o

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: First of all, separation of church and state means that the gov't has no authority to dictate policy or doctrine for any religious organization. Baptist, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc. are under no obligation to please the gov't with the doctrinal policies they choose to follow. LIkewise, the Salvation Army is a PRIVATE organization that bases it's policies on religious doctrine. All the examples you list are based on the doctrine of various religions and aren't subject to legal recriminations. Another point is that NONE of the examples given qualify as BASHING. Disagreeing with (or not supporting) a lifestyle choice is NOT the same as BASHING these groups. It is a difference of opinion and nothing more.

You do realise that being GhEy isn’t a Lifestyle choice, don’t you? ^.^
Since that belief is contradicted by statements of all but one professional mental health organizations, human sexuality researchers and gay and lesbian organizations.

Errm, you do realise that the loads of Churches regularly spout out gay bashing stuff e.g

Quoteing:

"Homosexuality Is Sin: Next to the crime of murder comes the sin of sexual impurity." Excerpt from a 2002 Mormon pamphlet."

“Mormons refer to homosexuals as being "same-sex attracted." Their current beliefs are similar to that of most other conservative Christian churches. They believe that:
Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.
All homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, irrespective of the nature of the participants' relationship.
It is caused by dysfunctional parenting, typically by an overbearing mother and emotionally distant father
It can be cured through reparative therapy, repentance, and prayer.
“
“ATLANTA (CNN) -- Delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting waded into the middle of another controversial issue Wednesday by formally rebuking President Bill Clinton for declaring June as National Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.
"Our love for our president compels us to rebuke him and publicly to deplore his most public endorsement of that which is contrary to the word of God," read a resolution approved at the end of the SBC's two-day meeting in Atlanta.
Members of the nation's largest Protestant denomination also voted 2,316 to 1,313 to ask Clinton, a Southern Baptist, to recall James Hormel, an openly gay man whom he appointed as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg two weeks ago.
"We need to speak out and say we do not want an avowed homosexual to represent the U.S.," said the Rev. Wiley Drake of Buena Park, California, who sponsored the resolution.”

There’s plenty more if you want it...

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I'm curious about something, Dramnek; as Yorick said, your hatred of ANYTHING remotely religious is almost palpable. You have posted numerous threads that have ranged from mildly insulting to outright libel.

It isn’t libel; you’d find it was all true if you were prepared to look at religion, history objectively and perhaps do some research, A good place to start is “The Misery of Christianity” by Joachim Kahl and “Hitler’s Pope” by someone whose name I can’t remember.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: What happened to cause this anger? Why do you attack any religious ideology with such venom? The intenseness of your responses indicates that your anger is very personal and deep-rooted. So I would like to know what caused that. I have a couple of friends that are "Christians turned atheist". I know their stories and understand where their responses come from. I would like to know the same about you. Did you have a really bad personal experience, or do you just dislike religion on general principal? I'm honostly and sincerely curious about this, so don't classify it as another "Ad-Hominem" attack, because it isn't. I just want to know your motivation.

Both, sort of, Well actually you are slightly wrong there.
I don’t dislike it on general principles, that would be illogical and discriminatory, what I dislike is the irrationality of it and the petty hatreds and discrimination it engenders, I have yet to meet any religious person that was not free of these, especially the hypocrisy religion engenders, and sheer weight of evil deeds that has been inspired by religious faith far outweighs any flimsy “oh, but it means well” excuses.
Indeed the worst persons I have ever meet were also some of the most religious, and even had the cheek to try and justify their actions by using religion! In fact most people I have known who were claimed to be religious were hypocrites, they claimed to believe in a religion which says “love thy neighbour as thyself” and yet they went around being as petty and hateful as everyone else.

Originally posted by Neb: There is only faith, there is no proof. No "proof" or "evidence" can be proven as being real, can be proven as being 100% true. So therefore all you actually have is faith, faith that your "proof" or "evidence" is real. And yes, there are degrees of belief. And so what? Everything is belief, nothing can be proven so everything is faith. Pure faith and belief. We BELIEVE and have FAITH that everything exists though we cannot prove it, so therefore it is pure faith and belief. The question is, do we believe in things because they are that way or are things the way they are because we believe them to be so?[/QB]

The argument you put forth puts the standard for “proof” and “evidence” artificially high, for all practical human purposes there are degrees of faith and proof, after all is there not the Cogito?
“I think therefore I am”, this is defiantly proof of our existence, therefore there are degrees of proof, even if only 3.
I.e absolute proof, that is Cogito ergo sum, and contingent truth like 2+2= 4 and every other “truth”.

Originally posted by Yorick: Time and time again I have stated that I will entertain the notion of God not existing when scientific and logical evidence can be provided. Until then he remains realer to me than you are. He certainly communicates more to me than you do. Are you not real? Subjectivity is impossible to remove. One cannot remove oneself from it. True objectivity in a human is impossible, as all knowledge is analysis of ones experience. Reading about anothers experience is still your own experience. So, can you provide any? Until then your argument is based on illusion and negative attempts at disproof. Based on your criteria, a person cannot even prove they exist as a physical entity, nor that they love, nor that they are awake. As I said, I've got nothing much more to say to you. Your hatred of me and my kind - A Christian Entertainer - is palpable, and your bitterness is something I don't wish to share or echo. Until you can learn to accept others differences - my differences - no discourse is possible.[/QB]

So you are now claiming to speak for all those who are Christians *AND* those who are entertainers?
Sorry d00d, buts that’s just lame.
You simply parrot what I say in reverse; I think there is little for you to fall back on now, (The burden of proof is on you BTW since you are basing your arguments on a god that you must prove who exists before your arguments have any validity, whereas mine are based upon evidence and logic)
If you want logical arguments for the non-existence of god and why people believe in it try these books:
“The Misery of Christianity” by Joachim Kahl
(Chapter 2: “irrationality in theology” is particularly good, I could provide some extracts if you like…)
“Why People Believe Weird Things : Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” by Michael Shermer
“How We Believe : The Search for God in an Age of Science” by Michael Shermer

Well, your unwillingness to actually engage with my points just goes to show IMHO that you are arguing from emotion anyway, and your insulting language just shows you may lack self-control on this subject.
I oWn j00 d00d!
Oh well, better luck next time

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Well Dramnek, I like you am not Achriatian, but I have met loads of perfectly nice Christians, and many without some of the more old-fashioned principles, so I don't think just the ones you have met is a very good representation of millions and millions of people.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Well Dramnek, I like you am not Achriatian, but I have met loads of perfectly nice Christians, and many without some of the more old-fashioned principles, so I don't think just the ones you have met is a very good representation of millions and millions of people.

Well, of course you may think whatever you wish,
(Although taken as a whole thorughout history the many religions have overall done far more deeds of evil than good) but do not let that thought distract you from the rest of the points I have made.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Neb: There is only faith, there is no proof. No "proof" or "evidence" can be proven as being real, can be proven as being 100% true. So therefore all you actually have is faith, faith that your "proof" or "evidence" is real. And yes, there are degrees of belief. And so what? Everything is belief, nothing can be proven so everything is faith. Pure faith and belief. We BELIEVE and have FAITH that everything exists though we cannot prove it, so therefore it is pure faith and belief. The question is, do we believe in things because they are that way or are things the way they are because we believe them to be so?

The argument you put forth puts the standard for “proof” and “evidence” artificially high, for all practical human purposes there are degrees of faith and proof, after all is there not the Cogito?
“I think therefore I am”, this is defiantly proof of our existence, therefore there are degrees of proof, even if only 3.
I.e absolute proof, that is Cogito ergo sum, and contingent truth like 2+2= 4 and every other “truth”.[/QB][/QUOTE]That is proof of your existence? No, it is not. You have no proof, how are you sure that you think? Might you not just be reacting in very complex instinctive ways? Sorry Dramnek, I've yet to see any actual proof from you.

2+2=4? How can you be sure that that is true? How can you prove that 2+2=555 isn't true? It's relative [img]tongue.gif[/img] It's both true and untrue at the same time, by one rule it is true, by another rule it is not. But which rule is the correct one? Neither, therefore none of them are true, none of them are correct, none of them are proof.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Actually, sorry to be pedantic, but in this case, 2+2 =4 isn't debatable, it needs no proof, because you are treating it as a physical separate thing, when all it is is a representation.
Basically, if this many marks (represented by I)

II is represented as 2, then it is, that's like saying the word orange does not mean orange, but it does because that is what we callit, so by definition it is.

And if you then get another II and you have to add them together, which in a rudimentary form can be described as the combination of two groups, so if you write them next to each other you get:

IIII which is represented by our word four, or number 4.
So that is why 2+2= 4, not by some odd theory, just simply because addition is a system humans made or at least branded with this current way of doing it, so 2+2 must = 4.
Anyway, back to the debate...

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: You do realise that all other private organizations, like corporations and non-religious charities have to comply with anti-discrimination laws, don’t you? I mean, surely the government isn’t giving religion special treatment is it? O.o

Corporations have to comply with anti-discrimination laws in their employment policies to allow all workers an equal chance for advancement and other employment opportunities. That is true of any business.

Charities and "non-profit" organizations, on the other hand, do NOT have to comply. There are no restrictions on who they hire, nor how they distribute any money they raise. And some organizations (such as the NAACP) are discriminatory by their very nature. They are set up to help ONE segment of the American population and nobody else. Is that fair? Yes, it is. Because the gov't can't dictate who the NAACP or United Way or Salvation Army can help, nor do they have any say as to what policies these organizations promote.

You do realise that being GhEy isn’t a Lifestyle choice, don’t you? ^.^ Since that belief is contradicted by statements of all but one professional mental health organizations, human sexuality researchers and gay and lesbian organizations.

No, I don't. The choice may not be a conscious decision on the person's part, but there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory that it is a "genetic pre-disposition". If it were, then the "genetic anomaly" would be present in every gay person's DNA. But that simply isn't the case.

Errm, you do realise that the loads of Churches regularly spout out gay bashing stuff e.g Quoteing: "Homosexuality Is Sin: Next to the crime of murder comes the sin of sexual impurity." Excerpt from a 2002 Mormon pamphlet." “Mormons refer to homosexuals as being "same-sex attracted." Their current beliefs are similar to that of most other conservative Christian churches. They believe that: Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. All homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, irrespective of the nature of the participants' relationship. It is caused by dysfunctional parenting, typically by an overbearing mother and emotionally distant father It can be cured through reparative therapy, repentance, and prayer. “ “ATLANTA (CNN) -- Delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting waded into the middle of another controversial issue Wednesday by formally rebuking President Bill Clinton for declaring June as National Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. "Our love for our president compels us to rebuke him and publicly to deplore his most public endorsement of that which is contrary to the word of God," read a resolution approved at the end of the SBC's two-day meeting in Atlanta. Members of the nation's largest Protestant denomination also voted 2,316 to 1,313 to ask Clinton, a Southern Baptist, to recall James Hormel, an openly gay man whom he appointed as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg two weeks ago. "We need to speak out and say we do not want an avowed homosexual to represent the U.S.," said the Rev. Wiley Drake of Buena Park, California, who sponsored the resolution.” There’s plenty more if you want it...

This is where we disagree. Declaring that homosexuality is a sin is NOT the same as Gay-Bashing. The Bible also says that adultery and lusting after a woman other than your wife are sins. These are other forms of "sexual impurity".

I'll grant you the second example though. The ambassodor should be judged on his effectiveness in dealing with foreign nations, not his sexual preference.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I'm curious about something, Dramnek; as Yorick said, your hatred of ANYTHING remotely religious is almost palpable. You have posted numerous threads that have ranged from mildly insulting to outright libel. Response by Dramnek_Ulk It isn’t libel; you’d find it was all true if you were prepared to look at religion, history objectively and perhaps do some research, A good place to start is “The Misery of Christianity” by Joachim Kahl and “Hitler’s Pope” by someone whose name I can’t remember.

Then again, if you looked at Christianity objectively, perhaps you would discover your numbers are exaggerated. In Biblical times, the Pharisees were the religious rulers, and they were an exceptionally pious bunch, considering themselves "above the common man" because of their "religious insight". Jesus came to show the fallacy of the Pharisees. He came to show that God loves every single person and that His Holy Grace is NOT restricted by social boundaries established by man.

Yes, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion - this is NOT the same as being "inspired" by religion. Just as the Civil War was not "inspired" by slavery. Lincoln used slavery to help justify the war. It was started because some states wanted to secede from the Union (which they had a Constitutional right to do, BTW).

But there are thousands and thousands of Christians who continually minister to the poor, who establish goodwill shelters for those with no home, missionaries who risk their very lives to spread God's Word to other nations.

For every religious atrocity you can name, there are literally thousands of nameless Christians who bring the message of God's Love to many thousands more through their actions as well as their words.

There are also other causes that have done just as much damage. Hitler attempted genocide of the Jews in the name of Social Darwinism and China is still committing horrible atrocities on it's own people in the name of Social Communism. Are these ideals the cause of the atrocities, or merely the tools used by aberrants to justify their actions?

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Did you have a really bad personal experience, or do you just dislike religion on general principal? I'm honostly and sincerely curious about this, so don't classify it as another "Ad-Hominem" attack, because it isn't. I just want to know your motivation. Response by Dramnek_Ulk Both, sort of, Well actually you are slightly wrong there. I don’t dislike it on general principles, that would be illogical and discriminatory, what I dislike is the irrationality of it and the petty hatreds and discrimination it engenders, I have yet to meet any religious person that was not free of these, especially the hypocrisy religion engenders, and sheer weight of evil deeds that has been inspired by religious faith far outweighs any flimsy “oh, but it means well” excuses. Indeed the worst persons I have ever meet were also some of the most religious, and even had the cheek to try and justify their actions by using religion! In fact most people I have known who were claimed to be religious were hypocrites, they claimed to believe in a religion which says “love thy neighbour as thyself” and yet they went around being as petty and hateful as everyone else.[/QB]

Unfortunately, I can't argue with some of your points here. There are a lot of hypocritical Christians who think they're better than the non-believer because of their relationship with Christ. The truth is that - if they're relationship with Christ was as true as they portray it to be - they would never act the way they do. They often act like the Pharisees and say "I'm better than you because Jesus loves me". What they forget is that Jesus loves EVERYBODY equally. From the Pope to Billy Graham to Osama bin Laden...we are ALL God's creations and He loves ALL of us equally as such. He may not love the actions of His creations equally, but that doesn't change how He feels about the individual.

You keep telling Yorick that "the burden of proof for God's existence is on him". I can tell you for a fact that God is real, because I have felt His touch personally in my life, but that won't really prove anything to you (just like you can't prove to Neb that you actually exist).

You do have to accept God's existence on faith (at first). Once you do that, though, God Himself will "prove" to you that He really does exist.

Here's an example to illustrate my point. When I was very young (5-6), my cousin tried to get me to drop a plastic glass onto the sidewalk in front of her house. I refused to do it because I thought she was trying to trick me into breaking the glass and getting into trouble. She wouldn't drop the glass either. She said I would just have to trust her. Eventually, curiosity won out and I dropped the glass. Imagine my surprise when my "leap of faith" proved she was right.

God is just as real as that plastic cup was unbreakable. But...you have to accept it on faith before it can be proven.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Actually, sorry to be pedantic, but in this case, 2+2 =4 isn't debatable, it needs no proof, because you are treating it as a physical separate thing, when all it is is a representation. Basically, if this many marks (represented by I) II is represented as 2, then it is, that's like saying the word orange does not mean orange, but it does because that is what we callit, so by definition it is. And if you then get another II and you have to add them together, which in a rudimentary form can be described as the combination of two groups, so if you write them next to each other you get: IIII which is represented by our word four, or number 4. So that is why 2+2= 4, not by some odd theory, just simply because addition is a system humans made or at least branded with this current way of doing it, so 2+2 must = 4. Anyway, back to the debate...

Maths is religion, as long as it's not applied to anything PHYSICAL. 2+2=4 has something in common with God, you cannot prove that it is but you believe in it and go by it's rules anyway [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Hmmm.... God prohibits the worship of anyone except for himself, I wonder if that means Christians aren't allowed theoretical maths? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Neb: There is only faith, there is no proof. No "proof" or "evidence" can be proven as being real, can be proven as being 100% true. So therefore all you actually have is faith, faith that your "proof" or "evidence" is real. And yes, there are degrees of belief. And so what? Everything is belief, nothing can be proven so everything is faith. Pure faith and belief. We BELIEVE and have FAITH that everything exists though we cannot prove it, so therefore it is pure faith and belief. The question is, do we believe in things because they are that way or are things the way they are because we believe them to be so?

The argument you put forth puts the standard for “proof” and “evidence” artificially high, for all practical human purposes there are degrees of faith and proof, after all is there not the Cogito?
“I think therefore I am”, this is defiantly proof of our existence, therefore there are degrees of proof, even if only 3.
I.e absolute proof, that is Cogito ergo sum, and contingent truth like 2+2= 4 and every other “truth”.[/QUOTE]That is proof of your existence? No, it is not. You have no proof, how are you sure that you think? Might you not just be reacting in very complex instinctive ways? Sorry Dramnek, I've yet to see any actual proof from you.

2+2=4? How can you be sure that that is true? How can you prove that 2+2=555 isn't true? It's relative [img]tongue.gif[/img] It's both true and untrue at the same time, by one rule it is true, by another rule it is not. But which rule is the correct one? Neither, therefore none of them are true, none of them are correct, none of them are proof.[/QB][/QUOTE]2+2 cannot ever be anything but 4 since it is a Contingent truth, you cannot have 2+2 equalling anything other than 4, it just cannot happen. It is part of the very basis of 2+2 that they equal 4, since it is a contingent truth.
Also you are attacking a straw man, The Cogito is not proof of my existence but it is proof of yours.
If you deny that you exist, you are involved in a self-contradiction.
Also numbers are representations of groups that we find in the real world, we then assign words to these groups to represent them, therefore these words cannot represent anything but these arbitrary groups, 4 cannot start equalling 3 in the real world since again it is a contingent truth that 4 is 4 things together in a group. As I have said it is a contingent truth, and therefore to mankind it is true and cannot be any other way.