₦airaland Forum

plaetton: ^^^^
I am sorry if my tone gets heated sometimes.

But I don't have a problem debating and disagreeing with you.
But when it comes to matters of justice, I get very passionate.
I hate injustice and I hate when someone tries to defend what is indefensible.

Please don't go around telling people that the Pope's apologies are mere acts of goodwill.
In other words,he is not really obliged to render them.

That is very offensive to anyone that values justice.

Ptolomeus: Every day we read posts by many Catholics here explaining the importance of going to church and pray. They cite the biblical passages they express that everything bad that happens is the fault of the devil, and we must pay a tithe to the pastor ...
Before that speech, I imagined that in these churches was peaceful, it was a place where everyone found his inner peace ... I was wrong.
That a pastor prosecute suits is something very ugly ... There is nothing of God in that ...
This film looks like a bandit ...
As for the death of a Pastor at the time of giving his sermon ... will be an action of the devil who took over his church? or be the work of God, who is tired of quackery and that they waived tithes on their behalf?

greatgenius: When I saw that post @ifeness made I was going to correct him but I had a busy day and had no desire for a discussion..

The funny thing about this whole back and forth between creationist and evolutionist about the timeline is that they both are right.. it is all relative. Life evolved through a series of steps in a blink of an eye that we now call billions

God created the universe in a blink of am eye, in one holy instant just as the creationist say and they are right .. and it came about in a series of process of evolution taking billions of billions of what we now call years just also as the evolutionist claim .. its all a matter of perspective ...and It all happened In one holy blink of "instantbillions"- I hope that's a word

my point is both are right but I understand also that In a world of the relative and with humans one thing must always be right while another wrong... So sometimes you just have to leave people alone..

Enigma: ^^ I told you before, I'm just a Christian.

onetrack: While I'm an atheist and therefore I view masturbation as perfectly normal and natural, I'd like to see your SCRIPTURAL justification for saying that self-pleasure is forbidden or sinful in the Bible. Anything which is considered sinful for Christians must be directly and clearly stated, because to suggest that God left some things unclear would be saying that God deliberately confuses people.

plaetton: This statement is the mother of all silliness that I have read so far?
You know, even though we disagree on matter of faith, I was beginning to respect you as a knowledgeable(?) and staunch defender of the catholic doctrine.

You have proven, once again, that religion, despite all its claims as a repository high moral authority, is nothing but smokes and mirrors.
You have prove, once more, that when religious belief intersects with ethics and morality, religion woefully fails.

It's sheer wickedness and callousness for you to say that the Pope's apologies are just mere acts of goodwill.
WTF?
Please go and tell that to the millions of victims of the molestations.
That statement is an embarrassment to the faith that you are defending.
Frankly, I dont think that they need your type to defend them. You are embarassing them the more.

Now, read carefully:
If the priests and bishops are the only ones responsibile for such illegal, degrading and human acts, how many such cases has the catholic investigated, and most importantly, how many priests have they handed over the police for criminal prosecution?

In your morally deficient and convoluted logic, the Pope and the leadership of church are neither responsible nor culpable, BUT, it becomes their responsibility to cover up the crimes and shield the offending priests from criminal prosecution?

I am sick in my tummy with your reasoning.
Man!
Everyday, on and off this forum, I discover that Religion is a lot more dangerous than I could ever have imagined.

greatgenius: go read my post again i said you have always-all-ways existed..this is a fact..i was not talking about form but essence..form is an illusion.. you dont or cant agree becuase you dont truly understand or know who God is..

there is really nothing like a new "creation". just God or energy taking on different forms..everything that exists has existed and will exist.( as you have been told there is nothing new under the sun).. if you existed as a devine thought as you rightly claimed then you have always existed.. your current "existence" or being is thought expressed BUT your true nature or essence is not your current existence..

[b]thought has always existed..God is thought/consciouness. what religions denotes as God the father is actually thought. God the father or thought is the first level of creation. nothing exists in this universe that did not first exist as pure thought. The process of creation starts with thought or "God the father"( an idea,conception)..next comes the word or what religion again have chosen to call "God the son"..everything you say is thought expressed.. the son is the father expressed..jesus understood this divine truth perfectly why he said truths like " i and the father are one" " if you have seen me you have seen the father"

next comes action or the "holy spirit".

actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. forces are elements existent.elements(YHWH the name of your "creator" are elements.. more on that later) are particles of God, portions of All, the stuff of every thing.

do you see where i am going with this..i could have answered your contention simply but in painting this picture i hope for you and others to clearly understand the whole God concept..

you have always existed.. you are God made man..thought or the father expressed. " in the beginning was the word and the word was with "God" and the word was God".. this verse was not talking about only jesus as your religious elite will have you believe.. everyone is an expression of the one God..

good.. if there is none or anything else beside God in the beginning then from what did God use to "create" you with?.. this is a simple question but i want you to think about this deeply god brother becuase herein lies the start of your true understanding/remembrance of God.

Enigma: ^^^ Good point.

Evil Brain: Exactly. There is clear evidence of a cover-up.

The pope was the head of the organization directly involved in the cover-up for 21 years.

We have signed letters and memos that he wrote encouraging his subordinates to keep séx abuse cases quiet.

The guy clearly has a case to answer. Let him come and defend himself in court like any other suspected criminal. If he's innocent, then the truth will come out. This idea that he cant be arrested because he's the pope is nonsense. Nobody is above the law.

ijawkid: I still can't understand why the pope can't be arrested or why he possesses so much immunity.....is he some kinda God or what??....even Jesus was arrested and so was his apostles......why can't the pope be arrested and tried if he is vicariously responsible for the child molestations going on in the church??..................why can't the pope be arrested oooo??...is he a king or a political ruler??.....smh!!!!....

plaetton: ^^^^^
And by the way, one does not need to have a PHD in anything to be able to discern right and wrong. The only things required are common sense and a sense of moral responsibility.

plaetton: My friend , I do not normaly like to be rude, but the kind of silliness on display here just amazes me.
It seems that religion really does a lot of damage to the cereberal cortex or some other part of the brain.

Just listen to yourself: " The pope is protected from every side".
You mean protected from responsibility or protected from culpability?

HHmmmm, then I wonder why he and the Pope before him have been going around the globe apologising for the heneous crimes.

So , if the catholic clergy, which , according to you, is the most organized institution in the world, have been steadily and stealthily molesting young children, and expertly covering them up for 2000yrs, you are saying that the bona fide head of that institution, is protected from all sides from taking responsibility?

You guys shock me from every single day with you selective and ambiguous, and convoluted morality.

wiegraf: It doesn't?
So, considering the fact that there's been widespread abuse documented you'll have no problems with that option being thoroughly investigated then, yes?
Or do you still insist that he was not responsible at some level for their actions?

With your US presidents example for instance, I believe when his representatives (and employees), the diplomats, were killed a lot of criticism was leveled at his office related to security concerns. In essence, he was responsible for their safety, they were his responsibility, just like those priests were Ratzinger's (I assume, don't know the details). Wikileaks documents that were posted which showed clinton ordering some underhanded clandestine activity and what not, critisism leveled at her and her office. Let's not even consider Bush.

Now, the situations may be different, diplomatic immunity working differently in different situations, and I don't know how your church works. But to imply Ratzinger was not accountable, especially if his office was directly responsible for handling these matters, seems rather disingenuous, no? Also consider that these accusations are from before Ratzinger was actually pope.

A good case study would be the abuse cases recently with the american college football coach, the fallout described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
Yes?

plaetton: You greatly disappoint me.
How does Obama and American children compare as an analogy to the Pope and his priests.

American kids do not represent and are not answerable to Obama on personal conduct.
All catholic Priests represent the the holy see, and by extension, the pope

They are answerable to the pope.
The Pope is both the author and custodian of catholic doctrine: doctrines that are supposed to promote and regulate moral behaviour.

So, if the catholic priests are molesting children as some sort of perverse rite of passage, then the entire catholic doctrine, and the Pope that oversees it, are directly responsible for the moral malaise.

plaetton: I made two statements.

1. He is directly responsible for the cover up as cardinal who oversaw these issues.
2. He is also indirectly responsible as the Pope and head of the catholic church.

greatgenius: by the bolded you have shown your lack of undestanding of the God concept..before you were "created", you was. you have always existed and will always exist, eternally..

but lets go with your flow and ask you this question..is there anything or someone else beside God..do you believe God is all there was in the beginning and nothing else?

nne3870: Yep I know God's standards are far above man but he told us to ask whatsoever in his name and we are sure to get it, so its not wrong asking him to honour our will sometimes.

plaetton: Having read much so far, my own very simple questions on this issue are thus:

1. Why is homosexuality regarded as sin?
2. Because god does not like it? God does not like many of the choices that humans make. That I can understand. But,
3. Is homosexuality a choice that people make, or, are people born gay? That, for me, is the meat of the matter.

If people make the choice of being gay, then I can understand the religious injunctions against it, similar to other hedonistic vices.
But if it is a natural trait similar to , say, being left handed, being an albino, being very short or being very tall or obese, then to say that god hates it, makes no sense whatsoever.

My Reason?

Because the same religious people believe that god designed and created everyone with every talent and with every shortcoming. We are always told to give thanks to god for everything that he made us and has given to us.

Claiming, with scripture, that god hates homosexuality is , again, one of the many contradictions of the intelligent design and creation fables.
If god designed and created, then obviously , homosexuality would have to be considered as a design flaw or software glitch(Malfunctioning hormones).
No so? Who takes responsibility for this malfunction, the homosexual end product ( who had no input in design and manufacture), or the designer and manufacturer?

When you show great natural talents, credit and praise are given to god, the designer and creator.
But, when one shows natural weaknesses, not only is god, the perfect designer and creator, automatically absolved from responsibility, but he will also be credited with hating the very fault which he created.
Na wa o.

I said last week, and I'll repeat it again,

Religious people, mostly Christians, have this clever tendency to always sneak their god into every success, and sneak him out of every failure.

plaetton: I did not say that he should be prosecuted. My point is that he is directly responsible for covering up these crimes, and thereby encouraging it to continue. He is indirectly responsible for these crimes as the pope and head of the catholic church.

And yes, peter Obi or Fashola should always take personal responsibility for the high crime rates in their states. That is what leadership is all about. It is not about riding in convoys and sirens or in Popemobiles waving hands.

plaetton: Asinine statement.
Even you, oh Chukwudi44.

From which water fountain are you people drinking?
And I thought catholics were more intelligent than the brain dead pentecostal zombies.
I guess that when the chips are down, religion is religion.

If the pope and the leadership of the catholic church are not responsible for the widespread culture of sex.ual abuse of children for decades and centuries by neurotic priests, then pray tell, who is ?

plaetton: [/b]
This statement is completely false. You are either ignorant of of the facts, or you are being less than honest.
There is ample and indisputable proof that the pope, in his previous position as the prefect of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith, directed that all case of abuse be forwarded to and be dealt with by his department. As the person in charge of protecting the faith, the grand inquisitor, so to speak, he sent out memos to all bishops to do as much as they could to protect the image of the church.
These are documented facts.

In one particular instance, he personally transferred an accused molester to another region rather than defrock him, citing the asinine excuse that the priest was still young and did not deserve to have his priestly career ruined. This is on record.

Cardinal Ratzinger, as the defacto number 2 man during the long reign of John Paul 2, was more interested in saving the image and money of the catholic church than in ensuring justice for the millions of victims of millenia of child molestation by neurotic priests, the supposed repositories of holiness and high morality.

As per your statement in bold, I must say that I am totally shocked to read this from you.
So you do not think that the pope and the entire leadership of the catholic church should bear and take responsibility for the centuries and millenia of sex.ual abuse of children under the stewardship of the church?

So you don't think that leaders should take responsibility for things that happen under their care?

I dont know what religion does the brains and inner cores of you people.

Another case of religion and their moral schizophrenia.
Tomorrow , you and your fellow goddist will come on this forum to tell us about your god-inspired high moral standards.
Tufiakwa!

Evil Brain: He was aware of many of the cases of child abuse. He was fully aware that many, it any at all had not been reported to the relevant authorities and he did nothing to make sure the authorities were informed and justice was served. I'm not suggesting should have reported them personally, but he could have taken steps to make sure it was done. A simple letter asking the relevant church agencies to look into it would have sufficed. Or he could have demanded that all such cases referred to him have been reviewed by local authorities first. He was a very powerful man in the vatican even at that time, there were plenty of things he could do, instead he did nothing. In fact he even argued against defrocking a confirmed pedo priest because it would have hurt the church's reputation, exactly the same kind of behaviour that the bishops were engaged in.

I find it funny that both you and the church are using the exact same tactic that american crime families and the Italian Mafia have been using to protect their senior members. "The individual bishops were responsible", "the don knew nothing about the drug dealing". You conveniently forget that the Catholic Church is a monolithic organisation and that all those bishops are representatives of and directly answerable to Rome. That tactic didn't work for the Gambino crime family and it won't work for the Catholic church.



Think about what you are saying. If you find out that the company you work for has been repeatedly committing money laundering, are you going to say "its not my job, so I'm not going to report it"? Benedict was a senior member of the church. Since few or none of the priests referred to him were in prison or under trial; he must have known that the cases weren't being reported. He would have known about all the priests who had been moved from the jurisdictions where the r@pes occured. He was fully aware of the the cover-up and he did nothing. Obstruction of justice is a crime. If you are aware of an on-going crime, and you do nothing to stop it, and make no attempt to report it, for twenty-one whole years, then you are also guilty.

The best you can argue is that the pope was a mere accomplice rather than a main participant in the cover-up. Regardless of which he is, he still deserves to be arrested and tried. Church's reputation be d@mned.

Evil Brain: He was aware of many of the cases of child abuse.

He was fully aware that many, it any at all had not been reported to the relevant authorities and he did nothing to make sure the authorities were informed and justice was served. I'm not suggesting should have reported them personally, but he could have taken steps to make sure it was done.

A simple letter asking the relevant church agencies to look into it would have sufficed. Or he could have demanded that all such cases referred to him have been reviewed by local authorities first.

He was a very powerful man in the vatican even at that time, there were plenty of things he could do, instead he did nothing. In fact he even argued against defrocking a confirmed pedo priest because it would have hurt the church's reputation, exactly the same kind of behaviour that the bishops were engaged in.

I find it funny that both you and the church are using the exact same tactic that american crime families and the Italian Mafia have been using to protect their senior members. "The individual bishops were responsible", "the don knew nothing about the drug dealing". You conveniently forget that the Catholic Church is a monolithic organisation and that all those bishops are representatives of and directly answerable to Rome. That tactic didn't work for the Gambino crime family and it won't work for the Catholic church.

Think about what you are saying. If you find out that the company you work for has been repeatedly committing money laundering, are you going to say "its not my job, so I'm not going to report it"? Benedict was a senior member of the church. Since few or none of the priests referred to him were in prison or under trial; he must have known that the cases weren't being reported. He would have known about all the priests who had been moved from the jurisdictions where the r@pes occured. He was fully aware of the the cover-up and he did nothing. Obstruction of justice is a crime. If you are aware of an on-going crime, and you do nothing to stop it, and make no attempt to report it, for twenty-one whole years, then you are also guilty.

The best you can argue is that the pope was a mere accomplice rather than a main participant in the cover-up. Regardless of which he is, he still deserves to be arrested and tried. Church's reputation be d@mned.