…and this is a 
Several months ago, we witnessed a tragic spectacle in the news: a nine-year old Brazilian girl was raped, became pregnant, and got an abortion…and the Brazilian Catholic church responded by excommunicating all the participants. One cleric in Rome, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, said the church had been insensitive, but no one in the hierarchy stepped forward to outright condemn the heartlessness of the church's stance and the unfairness of the policy.
We now have an official document from the Catholic church clearly stating their position. Anyone involved in an abortion for any reason is to be automatically excommunicated, no exceptions. They've actually hardened their position.
That includes nine-year old children raped by their stepfather. It includes any doctors who act on sympathy for a maltreated child. Of course, all the rapist has to do is demand that his victim bear his child, and he will be welcomed in the bosom of the holy church. The church is standing firm on principle.
…there is a more important principle at stake. "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith," the official says. "This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight." Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned.
I see. Dogma is more important than reality, and most surprisingly for representatives of a religion that claims the moral high ground, it is more important than human needs.
Everyone should simply leave that evil institution — tell them they can keep their bricks and their real estate, their gold chalices and their gilt robes, their layered assemblage of celibate perverts, meddling old men, and fearful brides of Christ, and let that human element walk away, free of their superstitions. The church doesn't want that human weight, anyway.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 18, 2009 10:07 PM
I think it's great that they're standing on their principles. It just makes it more obvious how out of touch they are.
...nice hats, though.
Posted by: Dale O'Flaherty | July 18, 2009 10:08 PM
I've been thinking of leaving the church formally to protest the Irish blasphemy law but I was baptised in England so I'm guessing that adds another level of beauracracy to the whole thing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 10:10 PM
You could leave the church for so many other perfectly good reasons, why limit yourself to just that one?
Posted by: waldteufel | July 18, 2009 10:11 PM
So, an old ex-Nazi wearing a dress and a doily on his head tells us all about morality. Charming.
Posted by: Dale O'Flaherty | July 18, 2009 10:11 PM
@No.3
A lot of good reasons yes but this one's the kicker.
Posted by: robotaholic
|
July 18, 2009 10:13 PM
I wonder what the HELL Donahue can say about this-
Posted by: Sean Eric Fagan | July 18, 2009 10:14 PM
While not defending the Catholic Church's position on this, I don't believe the girl was excommunicated -- the Church declared she was not able to make such a decision, her parents/guardians did.
Posted by: Larry | July 18, 2009 10:17 PM
Maybe in 400 years, Pope John-Paul-George-Ringo XVII will overrule this decision in much the same way it took them 400 years to decide that the earth wasn't the center of the universe per Galileo.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 10:20 PM
Is that any better?
Posted by: raven | July 18, 2009 10:21 PM
I know lots of Catholics. Not surprising, they are 23% of the population.
I don't know any that have any sort of enthusiasm for the RCC. A few still go to church. However, those churches are Protestant churches!!! They never said anything and it was obvious enough to not be worth asking about.
Posted by: Ebo Tebo | July 18, 2009 10:25 PM
But have you noticed how well Ratzi dresses? Really! He puts old dead John Paul to shame!! No cottons here! And he even wears that silly golden twenty pound du-frammis on his noggin too!! And I so much like that red velvet, white ermine thingy that ol' John Paul refused to wear too!
Yeah! Silks, doilies, rings of unimmaginable value, I wonder if he has a colour coordinated cast from his recent tumble?? Nothing too good for that fucked up old Bavarian Ratzi!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 10:27 PM
Don't forget his Prada shoes
Posted by: Martin | July 18, 2009 10:29 PM
Funny how they think excommunication is some kind of dreadful punishment to be feared. Would that they knew it is about as fearsome as the neighborhood 3rd graders banning you from their backyard fort. Horrifying to another 3rd grader, sure. To a grownup? Not so much.
Posted by: Eidolon of Middle Georgia | July 18, 2009 10:30 PM
I've been trying to find out if one can formally request and receive an official excommunication from this organization, as a matter of principle. Where do we get the forms to make this application?
Posted by: Proper Gander | July 18, 2009 10:32 PM
Beg pardon, PZ, but how is being excommunicated actually harming these people?
Posted by: Eduardo de Oliveira Padoan | July 18, 2009 10:32 PM
The Catholic church is a criminal institution, and the liberal Catholics (my family included, by the way) are all accomplices.
Posted by: Wildflower | July 18, 2009 10:33 PM
If I'd believe in the Christian delusion I'd say that those people must be possessed by the devil. Revoltingly disgusting scum of humanity. If that isn't true evil, then I don't know what it is.
@waldteufel (#4)
Judging from your German-sounding name I guess that was a bad joke? Or was it an attempt to troll? I'll bite this once: You can call that terrible pope many things, but Nazi respectively ex-Nazi are not one of them. The Hitler Jugend was a mandatory organization that every 14 year old person was forced to join. He deserted when he was 18.
Posted by: EboTebo | July 18, 2009 10:34 PM
Bill! Bill!! Bill!!??
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 18, 2009 10:35 PM
Why is it that religion this believes that 200 years ago their god was born in human form the son of a virgin, yet they still cling to their "Every sperm is sacred" doctrine?
Surely the message from that story is that "sperm is redundant"?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 10:35 PM
It's not exactly the excommunication that is the problem, it's the fact that the Church is assigning blame or fault on the girl for dealing with the pregnancy violently forced on her.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 10:36 PM
A 9-year-old girl is repeatedly raped by her stepfather, resulting in a pregnancy (twins) that would likely kill her if she tried to carry to term - Oh, but the church's dogma is so much more precious!
These people are monsters.
I disagree with PZ, though. I think they should absolutely forfeit all of their "bricks and their real estate, their gold chalices and their gilt robes," but they can certainly keep their "layered assemblage of celibate perverts, meddling old men, and fearful brides of Christ.."
Monsters.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 18, 2009 10:38 PM
It's not about harming them. It's about the rcc claiming what they did was immoral.
Posted by: mxh | July 18, 2009 10:39 PM
I guess there goes the argument that religion is useful to real life. Gotta quote that next time someone talks about how great catholicism is.
Posted by: Erin | July 18, 2009 10:44 PM
@#15: It's not about them being excommunicated, it's about the Church's utter and total failure to have anything that could even remotely be mistaken for a soul.
If they were going to say anything about this case, it should have been a condemnation of the rapist and words of support for the girl and her family during this difficult time. Instead they condemned the people who cared about the girl's well being and acted to save her life. Excommunication is meaningless except in that it shows where the Vatican's priorities are, and they are in the worst place imaginable.
Posted by: Wildflower | July 18, 2009 10:48 PM
It is indeed curious and somewhat amusing to a disbeliever... but I postulate that what we would feel when "threatened" with excommunication is irrelevant to this story. To them it's the worst possible punishment, worse than a life-long prison sentence or even capital punishment. First you get raped, and when you can't take it you receive the worst possible punishment. And if your family is devout enough they'll just turn on you as well... that's just one step from honor killings where they claim that in reality they were the victims. Just thinking about this makes me want to throw up.
Posted by: pcarini | July 18, 2009 10:48 PM
To a believing Catholic, I'd imagine the emotional distress to be considerable. They did just get condemned to an eternity of torture, you know.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 18, 2009 10:49 PM
Hey Rev, et al,
Do we have any AGW experts around tonight? I have a friend who is a good guy, but he's a diehard AGW denier. I'm trying to get him to come on here and learn something, but I know it's kind of slow around here on the weekends.
Posted by: Obdurate | July 18, 2009 10:50 PM
I too would like an official excommunication. i have heard talk of many leaving the irish catholic church in an official manner. does anyone know of an american organization/website that assists in this process?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 10:52 PM
Definitely not me but there are a few that are regulars... Trying to remember who...
anyone?
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 18, 2009 10:53 PM
The moral base of society shows once again that it has infinite compassion and love that it claims to represent, just like it did in the middle ages with heretics and witches...
Can we please drop the notion now that religion is a source of morality? This is evidentially false.
Posted by: Lurker #753 | July 18, 2009 10:53 PM
Hmmm, the question is: Which comes first, your people or your principles?
Because if your principles come first, your people come nowhere.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 18, 2009 10:55 PM
Seen KnockGoats lately?
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 10:56 PM
Steve_C @22:
Saving the life of a 9-year-old rape victim pregnant with her stepfather's twins is not immoral.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 10:57 PM
That's precisely what Steve_C was saying.
anyone?
Posted by: Wildflower | July 18, 2009 11:00 PM
@Rev.BigDumbChimp
That's also how I read that comment. I took it as a reply to:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 18, 2009 11:00 PM
A_Ray_In_Dilbert_Space is the first one who comes to mind, but there are a couple of others who tangled with AG, although he was incapable of acknowledging their points. After all, a liberturd is never, ever, wrong. KG was one, a Steve(n) was another.Posted by: Dexter M.
|
July 18, 2009 11:00 PM
It's hard for me to understand how the average person, who I think usually has a good heart, can accept the churches position on this and a hundred other issues. Are their minds so beaten down that they can't even think about the situation for themselves? It's almost funny how nearly every time I hear anything from any church on the subject of morality my response is my face in my palms and my head then hitting the desk.
Way to go pope! Keep defending evil actions.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 18, 2009 11:03 PM
I want to echo what Kel said above, and bring it back to the whole accommodationist argument.
THIS is partly why there can be no accommodation. You had better believe that if the Catholic Church ran the world, this is the kind of murderous, immoral tyranny they would impose upon the population.
They want nothing less than to have their dogma dictate our reality, as well as our morality.
Can you claim to be a person of reason and yet adhere to irrational faith? Can you claim to be a good person and yet accept the teachings of such an evil organization?
Francis Collins, are you listening?
Posted by: Caine | July 18, 2009 11:04 PM
Proper Gander @ 15:
To any believing Catholic, the threat of excommunication would be devastating. It would be so even to those Catholics who rarely wander into a church. It's immature to think it's no problem; it is on more than one level.
Not only is the church's stance on this an outrage, the threat of excommunication is being wielded as a weapon of control. I've known plenty of Catholics who don't actively practice, but would be appalled at the notion of excommunication and would do whatever was necessary to avoid it.
Catholicism excels at control and guilt. They'll use whatever they need to keep things the way they want. I know, I was raised Catholic. It's a mistake to think excommunication wouldn't matter to people, or that it wouldn't have a terrible impact on their lives.
Posted by: Taz | July 18, 2009 11:06 PM
This 9 year old girl needed the abortion to save her life. It's not about her, it's about the next girl who might need help. The RCC is trying (in its own meaningless way), to put pressure on those who might provide that help.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 11:07 PM
BDC @34, Steve_C @22: Apologies if I misunderstood; I took it as "they meant no harm to those involved, they are just (rightly) pointing out that abortion is always immoral."
Re: AGW, didn't Josh have some good stuff, or am I mistaken?
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 18, 2009 11:07 PM
I wonder how M&K would properly 'frame' a response to this so that they could show disapproval while not coming close to offending anyone Catholic.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 18, 2009 11:07 PM
Thanks, NoR.
You're right about A_Ray_In_Dilbert_Space. He is very good. Of course, AG was immune to reason and evidence.
What is it about libertarians and AGW denial?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 11:07 PM
bingo
and that "anyone" in my second comment was not on purpose
Posted by: Susan | July 18, 2009 11:08 PM
I like this. The more their evil ideas are clarified and publicized in every corner of the earth, the more followers they lose. BTW, I was "involved" in more than one abortion, and I demand to be excommunicated immediately. I'm not going to jump through any hoops-- this baby's on you, Mr Pope. Kick. Me. Out.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 18, 2009 11:09 PM
tell them they can keep their bricks and their real estate, their gold chalices and their gilt robes, their layered assemblage of celibate perverts, meddling old men, and fearful brides of Christ, and let that human element walk away, free of their superstitions.
The thing is, it's the human element (and their tithing) that makes the real estate and layered assemblage possible. No church exists in a vacuum, it is desperately dependent on the participation--and the monetary contributions--of its human element.
Let that human element walk away, free of superstitions, and the more of them walk away, the more real estate the church will have to sell, and it will be turned into the world's most fabulous libraries. The gold chalices and gilt robes can go to museums. The meddling old men and fearful brides of Christ can find other jobs.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 18, 2009 11:09 PM
I am compelled to fight the need to rearrange some faces, the ones wearing some stupid FCCing ceremonial hats, in some hopeless attempt to make these sick demented FCCs feel the pain they're here to inflict upon the children whose lives they've dedicated their lives to poisoning with insane nightmares.
But then, if I express this sentiment in any symbolic manner whatsoever, I'll incur the wrath of Mooney and his newly acquired Howlers, the dregs of PZ's dungeon. So, to recap, it is apparently better to line up with the RCC and Globally Gang Rape a Nine Year Old Girl, than to rearrange a rusty nail, a banana peel, some ink on cellulose and some stale unleavened bread into pixels. Wouldn't want to scare anybody away from science, would we?
Posted by: Seraphiel | July 18, 2009 11:10 PM
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather they not keep their real estate or their gold. Both were amassed through a long history of abusing and tormenting humanity, and they deserve to keep neither.
Posted by: MelM | July 18, 2009 11:13 PM
According to Wikipedia, "Her [Sotomayor]appointment would give the Court a record six Roman Catholic justices serving at the same time."
I wonder how Ratzinger will deal with Supreme Court judges who support abortion--if and when an abortion case comes to the court. I'm not comfortable having 6 members of the Catholic misery cult sitting on the Supreme Court and I remain edgy about Sotomayor.
Posted by: druidbros | July 18, 2009 11:13 PM
...and remember they dont get to partake of the transmogrified cracker and wine !
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 11:14 PM
No worries and more than likely Josh did. He usually does on most any topic.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 11:15 PM
Ken Cope @47:
Fucking spot on.
Oops - I said the F-word. Now science is surely DOOMED!
Posted by: H.H. | July 18, 2009 11:17 PM
And on the issue of witchcraft, God says "suffer not a witch to live." So while burning witches may seem unpleasant to our human sensibilities, there is a more important principle at stake (no pun intended). "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith," the official says. "This is not just theory. A witch floats in water, and you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight (again, no pun intended)." Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to witchcraft doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned. Consequently, the Vatican intends to carry out its execution of Ann Coulter.
Posted by: Charles | July 18, 2009 11:20 PM
The church's stance makes perfect sense...
... once one realizes that the Church considers children to be no more than chattel and their parents or guardians have old-style Roman (Imperial Roman, I mean) patriarchal rights, including selling one's own children into slavery, killing the child, using the child for sexual gratification, etc.
Never mind the clergy's use of children as a sexual resource.
Posted by: NickG
|
July 18, 2009 11:22 PM
Lurker 753 @31: "Hmmm, the question is: Which comes first, your people or your principles? Because if your principles come first, your people come nowhere."
Not necessarily true. It depends on the principles you are defending. For example, the principles of medical ethics dictate that sometimes you don't do everything possible for an individual (even if they want it) because it deprives others of more important care. Say a 70 year old man with lung cancer has a 20% chance of survival with conventional therapy, but this goes up to 22% with a therapy that costs $5 million. It may be quite ethically sound to deprive him of the new expensive care because of the impact that would have on others.
Nick
Posted by: Owen | July 18, 2009 11:22 PM
They're doing them a favor, kicking them out.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 11:25 PM
H.H. @53:
I doubt it. Ann Coulter would sink like a stone. And I've read her books: she carries no "human weight" whatsoever.
Posted by: Epikt
|
July 18, 2009 11:26 PM
Ben in Texas:
There's essentially no chance at all that the private corporations most responsible for the problem are going to do anything serious about AGW, so it's going to have to be addressed by the government. Libertarians tend to think nothing besides the military should be funded or run by the government, so they have to pretend AGW doesn't exist. That, or admit they're wrong about something, and that never happens.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 18, 2009 11:27 PM
Yes, because still and all New Atheists are freakin' bastards for supporting a blogger who nailed a cracker.
Tut tut.
Posted by: DavidPun | July 18, 2009 11:29 PM
The Catholic Church appears to have a major weak point when it comes to understanding why people are infuriated about the sexual abuse of a child, but I don't think its teachings about abortion are either evil or irrational. What was odd about this case was why they chose to make a public announcement about excommunication of those involved. There are apparently 40,000 abortions a year in Brazil despite its ban on abortions. Why choose this one to make a statement on its beliefs?
Posted by: NoGurus | July 18, 2009 11:30 PM
I have always felt sorry for Catholic women. They are damned by their religion. They are damned if they use birth control, damned if they have an abortion. Prevention is not an option. Termination is not an option. The church forces women into a classic double bind, where either road of prevention leads to damnation, and the only remaining option is the third option, to have children even if it is against their will. It is a conundrum that cannot be solved within the church. But there is a better option. Leave the damn church.
Posted by: Woof | July 18, 2009 11:30 PM
Darth Ratzo can kiss my shiny metal ass.
@HH:
I ROFLed. Thanks.Posted by: Phoenix Woman | July 18, 2009 11:31 PM
There aren't many "brides of Christ" left in the US, fearful or otherwise. Seems that the growth of a middle class and a general millenia-long trend towards income equalization (a trend that in the US was reversed since 1974, what with the attacks on unions and whatnot, but which is poised to reassert itself) has affected nun recruitment even more than it has priest recruitment. Back when the only way for 99% of most women to get educated (or even eat three meals a day) was to take the veil, it probably seemed like a relatively sweet deal. Now, especially considering the subordinate role of women in the RCC, it really stinks compared to the other life options out there. That's probably why the average age of nuns in the US is nearing seventy.
Posted by: atomjack | July 18, 2009 11:33 PM
Appalling. Hmm, note to self- search internet- nah, I've been an atheist for many years, I'll just cut to the chase-
Greetings, pope, I have decided that the draconian measures you institution takes, even in this modern age, are an offense to humanity. Things like the excommunication of those aiding the 9-year old rape- victimized girl in Brazil obviously point out your disconnection to the reality of the world. Since I live in the real world, not that rarified stratum you occupy, I demand that you excommunicate me, effective now. Do you need me to spit on the ring you wear to signify your closeneness to your imaginary playmate, or what? Nahh, some suck-up cardinal would just clean it up.
DisGUSting...they think they have the moral high ground?!? Props for sticking to your guns, I guess.
I'm torn between just understanding that rituals have no real meaning to non-believers, and sending the letter, with heavy leaning to sending the letter. Not. I'll frame it (the excommunication letter) and scan it and post it on the internet. Sans my real name, of course. The response might take awhile. Does anyone here care to see the result? I'd publish.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 11:36 PM
DavidPun @60:
The present case demonstrates perfectly why the Catholic church's teachings about abortion are both evil and irrational. If you cannot grasp this, then you are evil and irrational.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 18, 2009 11:40 PM
Epikt,
Thanks. Sounds pretty accurate--and frustrating.
My friend has thrown the kitchen sink at me today. He says:
There is no consensus on AGW...
The evidence isn't good enough...
The scientists are left-leaning and that gets in the way of their objectivity...
John Coleman has the answers...and so does David Legates...
Michael Crichton (yes, really, Michael Crichton) said that consensus was about politics, not science...
Scientists are too close-minded to listen to opposing viewpoints...
AGW isn't supported by evidence, it's nothing but opinion...
And besides, the proposed solutions are crazy!....
Ask him for evidence of this and, well, nothing forthcoming.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 18, 2009 11:45 PM
Haven't you heard? The problem is not that the doctors ended the pregnancy -- it's that they did it the wrong way. No, really. If they'd just done it as described here, everything would have been hunky-dory with the Church. This abortion was part of a big baby-killing feminazi conspiracy!
(Fortunately, the commenters over there -- even the Catholic ones -- are calling bullshit on the blogger, who really is a bit of a loon).
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 18, 2009 11:46 PM
About 25 years ago a priest came a kncokin' at my door and asked if any Catholics lived there. I just said "No," even though at the time I was rather non-committal about my atheism. He looked at me, hurt, like I was deliberately lying to him. I didn't feel like engaging him on the subject, because it didn't really matter at that point.
This pronouncement by this Pope is the final straw, my camel's back is now broken. I have no pride any longer in having grown up Catholic.
This might be the best place to make it official. I never have done anything or written anything to formally declare that I am not a Catholic, I just sort of stopped being one and then became an atheist.
I here declare my self-excommunication from that rotting institution and renounce my baptism, communion and confirmation.
Posted by: howard hershey | July 18, 2009 11:49 PM
The Catholic Church did not, AFAIK, excommunicate either the girl or the stepfather who raped the girl. Pedophilia is not sufficiently bad behavior compared to people concerned with caring about and probably saving the life of a 9 year-old who is unlikely to have been able to bring the pregnancy to term. But then, we know that the church has a soft spot in its heart for pedophiles.
Posted by: Bill | July 18, 2009 11:52 PM
"Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned."
The Rat Man learned a "strict approach to doctrine" as a member of the Hitler Youth and hasn't forgotten.
Heil Jesus!
Posted by: raven | July 18, 2009 11:54 PM
In the real world, the vast majority of catholics just ignore all that and plan their families like any sane and responsible adult. The RCC birth rate in the US is identical to the national average.
The RCC seems to have fossilized in situ and become irrelevant even to its members.
Posted by: rmp | July 18, 2009 11:58 PM
Ben in Texas, I've got some friends that sound like yours. If you come up with something they will listen to, let me know.
Posted by: MelM | July 19, 2009 12:01 AM
Here's the Cracker Cult's view on abortion in the Catholic Encyclopedia. There's much outrageous material in this document including one basic idea that the fetus has an equal right to life with its mother. This would require that the fetus have an equal right to the mother's body, which is not possible.
Posted by: Keanus
|
July 19, 2009 12:10 AM
If the Catholic church thinks it must excommunicate any Catholic who is involved in any way with even one abortion, then it better fire up its excommunication engine. American Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as American Protestant women, which means there are many millions of Catholic women out there who merit excommunication, to say nothing of the women and men who provide the emotional support that the church cannot muster. Many of those Catholics have not left but still go to church. They just keep their private life from the dear fathers, as they should. Although, to be fair, there are prelates who support such Catholics, but out of hearing by the hierarchy.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 19, 2009 12:10 AM
Oops - I said the F-word. Now science is surely DOOMED!
What, FCC? I say it all the time. FCC, FCC, FCCity FCC! FCC the Federal Communications Commission!
Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 19, 2009 12:11 AM
rmp,
lol, will do. chances are slim.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 19, 2009 12:17 AM
From a Christian perspective, the most troubling thing about this entire incident is how the stepfather is going to pay himself fifty shekels and still make it seem legit...
Posted by: HeWhoYouDespise | July 19, 2009 12:18 AM
looks like the church is proud of being inhuman
Posted by: phat | July 19, 2009 12:19 AM
"This is not just theory." he says.
That statement says a lot.
Posted by: MelM | July 19, 2009 12:23 AM
Congratulations Mike Haubrich! (#68).
Posted by: Lyr
|
July 19, 2009 12:24 AM
>
Hell yes. (Not that I believe in hell, of course. ) They have substituted blind subservience to a written rule for kindness and compassion for their fellow human beings. They protect those who rape children, and don't care one bit for the victims of those rapes. That church and others like it are nothing more than wicked, evil institutions that only care about maintaining their own power over their poorly educated flock.
Posted by: ckitching | July 19, 2009 12:27 AM
Excommunication could very well be a terrible fate for this family. The country is something like 75% Roman Catholic, so imagine being shunned by 75% of the country, and nearly all your friends/family.
Blame the victim and doctors for saving the child's life. Real classy.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 19, 2009 12:28 AM
Speaking of celibate perverts,
Greta Christina had an excellent review of the new film, Deliver Us From Evil, "a documentary about the extensive child- molestation scandal in the Catholic Church." It's fascinating, and everyone should see it.
Posted by: MelM | July 19, 2009 12:31 AM
FYI, 2009 is the 800th anniversary of the Albigension Crusade into France.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 19, 2009 12:32 AM
Well! I guess they told us! to wit:
The key to wisdom (not including being scared shitless of the deity you worship) is to ignore that which you dislike, though you know little about it. That which you dislike and hate, you deny for mere convenience's sake, seeing as there is so little time to consider earthly matters. That which you dislike, hate and can do nothing about you condemn to outer darkness where there is much suffering and gnashing of teeth, inasmuch as that's about all anyone can do.
And then you ask for a whole lot of slack and . . . some money.
Why is it that the supreme dog of the most pious who poofed all of everything into existence is so desperate for human affection and coin?
Don't he have his own?
Posted by: abys | July 19, 2009 12:33 AM
I can't remember the number of essays and reflection pieces that I've seen of people who -- like me -- grew up in the midst of the tightly-knit Catholic community only to see what kind of horrible little paddock of sheep that they had come into existence in when they get older. It is terrifying to see the people that told you to love your neighbor as yourself tell you years later that you need to hate and scream at persons who happen to be in a homosexual relationship, or assisting women who find themselves the victim of rape or family planning miseducation.
Catholicism is very much like Santa Claus indeed, with the exception that you find out that Santa Claus molests his elf helpers and drops bombs into the homes of doctors and scientists that disagree with him.
And my father wonders why I don't go to church anymore.
Posted by: Z.H. | July 19, 2009 12:40 AM
The church needs to learn that forgiveness is the key, not forsaking the people that worship them.
Posted by: Jim B | July 19, 2009 12:40 AM
I can only speak for American Catholics, in particular, the family and church I grew up in, where I was an alter boy for four or five years. Mind you, I didn't believe in any of it, but I was a respectful son and followed my parents wishes. I never ditched church, and I attended CCD without fail.
While I am sure there are many true blue believers, I believe the majority of American Catholics aren't. While they believe in God, they don't believe in papal infallibility, the Eucharist is symbolic, use of birth control is a personal choice [do you really think the size of the average Catholic family has dropped so much in the past 40 years because they are "doing it" less often?].
The appeal of The Church is the cozy feeling of community, the reassuring familiarity of ritual, and of course the unquestioned idea that you have to believe in some flavor of Christianity, so why not the one you were born into?
As such, I don't think most Catholics that I know would find excommunication terrifying, the worst possible thing that could happen (eg comment #25). It would perhaps be humiliating, but in their heart of hearts, they would believe that they were still OK in God's eyes, and weren't really slated to spend eternity swimming in a turbulent lake of boiling oil.
Posted by: abys | July 19, 2009 12:47 AM
Oh, and I would like to add....
Excommunication in a lot of the happy little underdeveloped countries that Catholicism has taken off in is akin to a death sentence (ironically, the RCC is against that). The missionary group plus whatever pastoral leadership has moved into an area become the new lawmakers, judge and jury of town. If you get excommunicated, you're pretty much kicked out of town and left to your own devices, or left to starve. They become lepers, except they're not the lepers that you get a gold star for helping out like in TEH BIBAL!!!
I can imagine it having a devastating effect even in industrialized countries with small, self-sustaining communities.
Posted by: Rtp10 | July 19, 2009 12:51 AM
This pope is a jackass, end of story. http://twoandahater.blogspot.com/2009/07/this-pope-continues-to-get-better.html
Posted by: Joe
|
July 19, 2009 12:56 AM
Off topic:
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2032869.html
Apparently 'secularism' has a 'death grip' on science. Yes, this article is an article about the wonderful Francis Collins. Blech.
Posted by: MelM | July 19, 2009 12:59 AM
The secular ethical perspective needs to view reason as a virtue and faith as a vice. Reason makes it possible to live according to facts of reality while faith leads people into trying to live in a fantasy "spirit world".
Dan Barker in his book Godless mentions how he lost faith in faith and that he "...gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word." He came to realize that faith is "...an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reaon..."
Posted by: Meno | July 19, 2009 1:04 AM
"One cleric in Rome, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, said the church had been insensitive"
I disagree. Having the girl leave the institution is the highest form of reward. Now, she will no longer be tainted by them. You could say that the church consoled her by not trying to jack her mind up any more than it already has been.
Posted by: ThoughtBegetsHeresy | July 19, 2009 1:06 AM
This is frustratingly disgusting. And, quite frankly, further supports the fact that there is really no sense of "compromise" with the religious.
Is it just me, or does this Pope seem to be taking the Catholic Church even further backward?
Posted by: KristinMH | July 19, 2009 1:06 AM
Raven @71: same thing in Canada. My dad is the 11th of 12 siblings. I am the 2nd of 2.
Still think it's time to get myself excommunicated, though...
Posted by: Epikt
|
July 19, 2009 1:11 AM
Ben in Texas:
Demonstrably untrue. In a recent survey by Naomi Oreskes of over 900 relevant peer-reviewed scientific papers, none took issue with the notion that AGW is real.
So he's familiar with the body of peer-reviewed literature? Ask him what journals he reads. Or is he getting "review articles" from the noted climatologist Rush Limbaugh?
Really? Jim Hansen--the bete noir of the wingnutosphere--is--or was--a self-described registered Republican. Given that most Republicans seem to be denialists of some sort, Hansen pretty much had to go elsewhere to get his message out.
And scientists all left-leaning ideologues marching in lockstep on AGW, yet there's no consensus? How does that work?
Um...who?
Oh, the Weather Channel clown. He's a meteorologist--a weatherman, not a climatologist. Two different animals. Even so, the American Meteorological Society has put out statements agreeing with the consensus, so he disagrees with the major meteorological organization in the US.
As for Legates, there are few in every barrel. I'm surprised your friend forgot (or didn't know about) Lindzen.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the denialists' arguments are so threadbare that they have to dig up irrelevant people like writers of fiction to support their crackpottery? Perhaps your friend can tell us what Britney Spears thinks about the issue.
Except, of course, the tiny number who stroke his political preconceptions.
That's idiotic. There's a huge body of peer-reviewed literature describing a huge body of evidence. Pretending it doesn't exist is intellectually dishonest.
Doing nothing is far crazier.
Not surprising. Ultimately, a major portion of their argument goes something like, "I hate Al Gore, therefore AGW is a myth."
Posted by: waldteufel | July 19, 2009 1:11 AM
Well, Wildflower, your comment is a slap in the face to all of those Germans and Austrians who resisted the Nazis.
Ratzi deserted when he was 18? Guess what, Wildflower, that was the end of the war.
Going along with the program is no defense.
Posted by: Murray
|
July 19, 2009 1:15 AM
To the commenters asking how they might go about requesting an excommunication from the RCC, the answer is right there in the article: go get yourself involved in an abortion!
Posted by: sorry_I_willoffendsomeone | July 19, 2009 1:23 AM
What's the difference between Taliban justice and Catholic justice.
None.
Posted by: sorry_I_willoffendsomeone | July 19, 2009 1:26 AM
What's the difference between Taliban justice and Catholic justice.
None.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 19, 2009 1:28 AM
Yes. Rev and Wildflower have it right.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | July 19, 2009 1:42 AM
If the world 400 years from is lucky, the RCC and all the rest, will be nothing but curiosities. If the world is very lucky, they won't exist at all.
Posted by: Zar | July 19, 2009 1:43 AM
Additionally, the church higher-ups have a habit of treating nuns poorly. Nuns have to take a vow of poverty and live in some pretty meagre conditions while priests can live comfortably. Whenever budget cuts have to be made, the nuns often get the short end of the stick. There is also a lot of tension between nuns, who are a lot more involved in real-world stuff outside the church (non-religious charity and things like that) and higher-ups, who would prefer the nuns to just stick to their church-related duties. Bleah.
There seems to be a weird disconnect with most Catholics I know. They don't have much respect for the Vatican (my friend's Catholic father had a ton of child-molesting priest jokes and was not shy about telling them), and don't follow a lot of the strict rules, yet they strongly identify as Catholic. I really don't understand it.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 19, 2009 2:04 AM
The girl was not excommunicated. She is obviously far too fertile to toss aside.Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 2:13 AM
Libertarians, or at least the school we're discussing, believe that only those institutions from which they perceive themselves as benefitting should be funded by the government.
Posted by: Tully
|
July 19, 2009 2:13 AM
Reading about this makes me feel tainted and dirty because of my Catholic upbringing. I need to start writing those letters to get myself excommunicated. It frustrates me more than anything that I will always be considered Christian just because some old man in a dress sprinkled me with water and said some magic words when I was a few days old.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 2:15 AM
You believe that a nine year old rape victim should have been forced to carry a pregnancy that would kill her?
Posted by: Scrabcake | July 19, 2009 2:17 AM
I have a certain liking for the Catholic church. No real reason for it. I think it's fascinating as a cultural institution, and I think that the catholic missionaries, unlike the fundy missionaries have done a done good in some of the nastiest places on earth, nevermind that some of their Christian copatriots have helped to make the nastiest places on earth what they are today. The Catholic church is also interesting as a link to our most ancient past in the western world. Very old ideas are frozen into it like bugs in amber. I find that kind of comforting, actually.
That being said, the pope and anyone who takes his word as law are full of shit.
This sort of ruling is one of the most cruel examples of black and white thinking. Black and white situations simply don't come up very often in real life, but people in general don't seem to get that. Whether it's the left bleating on about the latest misdeeds of the dastardly Snidely Oilcompany or the right's frankly stupid insistence that killing a foetus is ALWAYS a bad thing, the lack of analysis of issues like this is the source of a lot of the ills in society.
I think it's the result of laziness. I've spent a lot of time thinking about Chevron vs. Ecuador and China vs. the Uighurs and I find these sort of issues even more mind-hurtingly morally arcane than abortion. I think most people just give up after a while. Taking the easy road is probably a lot easier if you have an authority figure like Ratzy telling you what's right and wrong so you don't have to think about it.
As for Ratzy's motivation, who knows. He's obviously given up on critical thinking himself. I don't think he wakes up every morning and says "Yup. Gonna be a bastard to women and AIDs victims in Africa today. It's so good being evil." He's convinced himself that this is a black and white issue and is likely deaf to any dissenters. Which is exactly the opposite of what someone in his position SHOULD be especially in a church that doesn't put faith above works.
Anyway, ramble=off. Goodnight.
Posted by: Rocket Stegosaurus | July 19, 2009 2:18 AM
The article from Time states that the girl is not "subject to automatic ex-communication" due to her age, but the doctor and "her parents" have been ex-communicated.
But this, as far as I can tell, still leaves ambiguous if the girl has been ex-communicated, and if the step-father (not an actual parent) has been ex-communicated. I can only infer no and yes, respectively, though it is not entirely clear.
If this is in fact the case, then I would hope that PZ correct his statements regarding the girl herself being ex-communicated.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 19, 2009 2:30 AM
Heil Ratzinger!
Oh, wait - who won the war?
The catlick church should excommunicate a few cities so that people can have friends again. In places where the church is considered largely unimportant excommunication doesn't really have any consequences, but where the church's tyranny prevails the outcasts can lead a very tough life indeed. However, the excommunications are consistent with the church's history of picking on those who can't fight back and of blaming victims. Some things never change.
Posted by: GMacs | July 19, 2009 2:38 AM
I would like to be optimistic and think that maybe this excommunication will be eye opening to these people and it will make them realize that the church is full of shit (almost as if it were divinely planned to do such). Though, to be sure, I (and hopefully everyone else) would really prefer that children not be raped in the first place.
Hey, you don't suppose the church sympathizes with the step father, do you?
Posted by: Clemens | July 19, 2009 2:40 AM
Would donating a small amount of money to a pro-choice organization count as being involved in an abortion in a sufficiently severe form so that it leads to excommunication?
Posted by: echidna | July 19, 2009 2:44 AM
Rocket Stegosaurus,
Follow the link to PZ's previous post, which makes it clear that the girl was excused due to her age, and so her mother was deemed responsible. By the way, the stepfather was not sanctioned in any way by the church.
PZ has no need to correct himself: the church threatened every (adult) participant involved, and provided the clarifying link.
Posted by: RickD | July 19, 2009 2:45 AM
This cannot be surprising, can it? Religious dogma is always about pounding square pegs into round holes. Once you admit that there are limits to the number and kind of situations that are reasonably addressed by your dogma, you've opened the door to doubt as to its completeness.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 19, 2009 2:45 AM
Thanks to my extremely Catholic upbringing, in a Catholic school in a Catholic neighborhood, I find images like the following to be creepily nostaligic. Particularly from around Lent.
http://tormentedfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/hellraiser-pinhead.jpg
Also, my college buddies refered to me as the dominatrix of the group--not particularly surprising to me. I've got some fucked up kinks, and being soaked in Catholicism during my most formative years is a major part of it--if not all of it.
Catholics are some of the most theatrically fucked up people I've ever known, and that includes all of my formative years. The way they gripped their Bibles and rhapsodized about Jesus in the Way of the Cross every year, I could easily imagine where their other hand was.
Given how much they love blood and violence and have a boner for murder, combined with their sociopathic contempt for women, I'm not surprised in the least at Ratzi's attitude here.
I need to print that quote off so next time I get the "religious people have a superior moral standing to atheists" BS, I can roll up this shit and smack them square in the face. Or the nuts. Maybe both. After all, I'm the dominatrix! I'd be more than happy to make them just like Jesus, if that's what turns them on! >:)
Seriously, the Catholic church in particular makes me think of the superjock football player in HS, who "made four touchdowns in a single game!" and ruled the school, screwing any women he wanted and doling out physical abuse as he pleased with complete impunity.
Until he graudated and found himself in the real world, with only memories of his past glory and the conviction that he has been somehow wronged by the fact that what was once passed off as harmless "fun" will now get him arrested for assault and that no one lines up to lick his nuts anymore.
I'll look forward to seeing the Catholic Church die in it's stained underwear, bald, penniless, and alone--and no doubt still convinced of the injustice of it all.
Posted by: Cactus Wren
|
July 19, 2009 2:57 AM
Mike Haubrich@#68:
Doesn’t count. When a news story announces that Pope Palpatine “represents over one billion Catholics worldwide”, they’re still counting you – and me – in that number.Clemens@#112:
Driving a bus would count, if you knew one of your passengers was on her way to get (or perform) an abortion.Understand, this is called latae sententiae excommunication. It’s basically saying “You’re excommunicated, whether you know it or not – and whether the Church knows it or not.” It happens automatically when you commit one of a small list of sins including among others abortion, heresiarchy (not heresy), or trying to assassinate the Pope.
Posted by: Ragutis | July 19, 2009 3:01 AM
The nuns are getting uppity, and the Vatican's not happy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-nuns-on-the-run-from-vatican-inquiry-1731272.html
I heartily encourage them in their dedication to "principle" and commitment to medieval values. The more hardline and archaic tack the RCC takes, the more imminent their collapse. The way the clergy and unordained orders are shrinking and aging, they're edging towards collapse. FFS, within a few decades, a majority of their current members and hierarchy will be dead and they aren't being replaced.
Of course, that'll just leave the other flavors of unreason with big opportunities for growth unless the teaching of science and critical thinking gets much better. Soon.
Posted by: Erp | July 19, 2009 3:12 AM
Few points.
1. The girl as she was underage was not excommunicated
2. The step father was not excommunicated unless he agreed to the abortion (and as no one probably asked him, he didn't)
3. Oddly enough if the family had been Orthodox Jewish, Jewish law would require the abortion as it was necessary to save the life of the mother.
4. Many of the remaining nuns in the US are being investigated by the Vatican. Apparently some have strange ideas such that actually helping the poor might be a good use of their time.
Posted by: Rocket Stegosaurus | July 19, 2009 3:17 AM
@echidna #113
The quote I am concerned with from Dr. Myers:
Posted by: bastion of sass | July 19, 2009 3:20 AM
Darn skippy "this is not just theory"!
Yes indeed, the Catholic Church has laws, and those laws aren't just stuff made up by ordinary men, or even God's special select holy men who run the Catholic Church, which was started by God's only son, Jesus (who is, by the way, also His own Father.) Goodness no!
These laws were promulgated by God Himself. But not all necessarily at the same time because, even though He could foresee that they'd be necessary, His ways are mysterious.
And each time, after God made these laws, He sent Himself, in the guise of the invisible member of the Super Triune Trio, the Holy Spirit (formerly known as the Holy Ghost, and the trio's Divine Messenger for times when the message is just too important to entrust to mere angels, as well as a pretty well-known stealth impregnater of virgins) with a message.
And this holy message that God sent from Heaven via Himself to the men who run the church started by His son (who is also Himself and the Holy Spirit) was inserted directly into the brains of the Pope and his advisers, who then passed on these God-made laws to everyone who wasn't special enough to get the message directly from God via Himself.
So, of course, we've all got to obey these laws!! God Himself has clearly and incontrovertibly, said so.
Posted by: Shane | July 19, 2009 3:23 AM
http://www.countmeout.ie - a website for people wanting to leave the Catholic Church and stop them counting their "membership" in official statistics.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 3:23 AM
Can't wait for a time when the thread of excommunication will cause only a slightly sheepish giggle in people and not put fear and guilt into them anymore, but in South America it will probably take a little while longer,poor and disadvantaged people have not much else then religion and football to hold on to,unfortunately.
I agree with raven,the RCC is fast becoming too removed from reality even for its followers,and people just do what's practical.
Let Ratzinger keep doing what he's doing, and there will be less catholics left when he eventually expires.
The godlycobblers should maybe think about what life in this world would be like if the RCC or the xtian/muslim Taliban would rule the place.
Good-weather atheists.
Posted by: foxfire | July 19, 2009 3:24 AM
PZ wrote
PZ, you know darn well that is not the way it works. Dogma is extremely important in reality situations that involve a priest who is/has molested a child(ren). If the molestation has *not* been made public then there is no need to interrupt Dogma from more important work, such as berating miscreants who denigrate the Holy Cracker.
If however, the situation has been made public, then Dogma requires the priest to be mildly chastised for getting caught and possibly moved to a different region where said priest will hopefully be more circumspect.
Between protecting the Holy Cracker and dealing with unwanted publicity, Dogma is far too busy attending to the moral high ground to worry about every prepubescent nit who seduces an adult male by her simple presence, then wants to later whine about the fact she got pregnant and might die.
I'm horrified by your lack of respect for Dogma - I wouldn't be too surprised if you later renege on your closing paragraph and suggest that taxes be imposed on the real estate and gold to pay for something like universal health care. What would Jesus think!!!
Posted by: Rick Schauer | July 19, 2009 3:25 AM
The Roman Army used to kill every tenth man when they fought poorly...it's called "deci"mating the troops. Ratzi is doing a similar thing with parishioners but they call it ex-communication.
Look what happened to the Roman Army. Hopefully, the same happens with the Catholic church. Pssst, Ratzinger is the devil!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 3:34 AM
How odd it is that the Catholic Church thinks the 9 year old girl was not old enough to decide if she should have an abortion but was old enough to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was likely to kill her.
If one wants evidence the Catholic Church regards women as nothing more than baby incubators then look no further.
How any person who considers themselves to be moral can carry on calling themselves Catholic when their Church does this sort of thing is beyond me.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 19, 2009 3:40 AM
Progress? Who needs progress? Sure it brought us more equality between races and between sexes, and more freedom and civil rights, liberal democracy, enormous advances in science and technology...
Seriously, Insane Church-people... you're in the way of more progress in both society and science. Step out of the way and let humankind finally grow up. You are too conservative with your ideas that staying behind is better than moving ahead. Well, guess what? We're not taking you seriously anymore. You're a bunch of grownups who believe in fables and fantasy. That makes you look silly, stupid and ridiculous at best. But it is the way you act that makes you dangerous. Don't demand respect; you don't deserve it.
Posted by: Bible Man | July 19, 2009 3:51 AM
Show me where in the Bible Jesus instructs anyone to build a vast financial empire with a professional priesthood wearing silk and gold and Prada shoes and to cover up for child rapists.
The Catholic Church is exactly the kind of authoritarian cult that Jesus denouced.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 4:02 AM
Ehm.
Where?
Who?
No True Scotsman applied to the whole RCC, thats not a bad effort !
Posted by: Gorogh | July 19, 2009 4:07 AM
While correctly labelled as "evil", it might - unintentionally, of course - do more good than harm in the long run. It might alienate more people from the Catholic church, and it might cause some doubt about whether Christian morals are actually up to the task of 21st-century problems.
Still, a good opportunity for righteous indignation.
Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | July 19, 2009 4:09 AM
I would take the 'pro-life' stances more seriously if they acted with the same energy against wars or, God forbid, child abusers.
Raping children gets you covered and relocated, waging wars where thousands innocents gets killed gets a slap on the wrist at best, abortion gets you the worst possible of the official penalties.
I wounder how they can contain so much hypocrisy without exploding.
Posted by: Greg Tingey | July 19, 2009 4:30 AM
ALL abortions, right?
Then, presumably "god" has been excommunicated, since NATURAL abortions have always outnumbered live births.
You know, where an egg is sperm-fertilised (and INSTANTLY becomes a full human being, according to catholic doctrine) and doesn't implant, or "drops out" after a few days, or dies, because it wasn't "fit" to live - i.e. it had a defect.
Well?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 4:37 AM
Greg T,
Please don't go confusing them with science. It will make their heads start to smoke and then explode.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 4:43 AM
I dont know about the "outnumber" bit, but your point is well made of course, I sometimes feel like slapping the pro-life fascists over the head with this.But they are kinda not so much into facts.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 4:55 AM
It is difficult to get good data on the number of pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted, as most times the woman will not have been aware she was pregnant. However experts generally agree that around 25% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. It most cases woman probably just put it down to their period being late.
Posted by: blf | July 19, 2009 5:07 AM
The girl was not freed (not excommunicated).
The document implies she should have been.
That's probably why Pee Zed says the crackerpots have “hardened their position”.
I'm a bit surprised they now imply the girl should have been freed. Doing that would deprive them of another slave they themselves can rape.
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 5:12 AM
@ raven #71:
The problem being that they still dishonestly pretend to be Catholics.
If all the people who departed from their alleged religion genuinely did leave it, ie admitting to themselves and declaring to others that they'd left (and become something else instead - probably their own individual cherry-picked and neutered version of the religion), then religious power bases would melt away and fundies would have no-one to hide behind.
But most religious people are far too comfortable and/or cowardly to do that. Principles are for enforcing on other people.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 5:21 AM
There is an example of that in the news here in the UK.
A ferry company has started operating services to the Isle of Lewis, of the West Coast of Scotland, on Sundays. Local churches are all upset about it because they have been told they can longer dictate to the rest of us what we can and cannot do on a Sunday. When the ferry broke down earlier this week some of the idiots even claimed it was a sign from god.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8157570.stm
I presume the Colgate Twins are no doubt appalled by the lack of respect being shown by the ferry company and its passengers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 5:24 AM
To add to my comment above, I just went to check out the website of The Reverend Dr James Tallach of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland but he closes his website on Sundays.
Still, we must all remember to respect him.
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 5:29 AM
("Principles are for enforcing on other people" cont.)
For example:
The pope doesn't live a life of poverty but one of outrageous excess. He permits the same among the top levels of his hierarchy. It's the nuns and sheeple whom he wants to live in poverty in his stead.
Mother Theresa believed her god loved witnessing suffering. So she inflicted it on a great many other people, not so much on herself, by withholding medical treatments, including painkillers, from them (despite receiving money aimed at providing such services).
Posted by: VolcanoMan | July 19, 2009 5:46 AM
Glad to hear your renouncement of faith Mike Haubrich! (#68). The accomodationists rail against those nasty new atheists' evil tactics, but here, in reality-land, religion is a tremendously detrimental phenomenon that enables and encourages (passively and actively), great evil. It is only because of PZ, and others like him with a wide audience, that many people who question their own religious tradition are made aware of these crimes against humanity (not to mention rationality) perpetrated by the faithful. And while the actions of a few bishops should not imply that all Catholics are this removed from reality, those bishops are high in the hierarchy of an organisation with a billion members, all of whom are implicitly suspending their disbelief just by being religious in the first place; surely a minority of Catholics will support the bishops' position because it is their duty as Catholics not to question the Church. We NEED people like PZ to expose the lunacy, to tell it like it is, to convince the people who can be convinced to abandon their religion.
Of course it is going to make the religious people angry: they enjoy a virtual immunity from criticism in all but the most progressive European countries. But clearly, it works.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | July 19, 2009 5:59 AM
Waldteufel: Well, Wildflower, your comment is a slap in the face to all of those Germans and Austrians who resisted the Nazis.
Ratzi deserted when he was 18? Guess what, Wildflower, that was the end of the war.
Going along with the program is no defense.
I believe one of the key themes of this thread is that adult rules shouldn't be arbitrarily applied to children - and Joseph Ratzinger was still a child when he was forced to join the Hitlerjugend (along with everyone else in his age group).
As has already been said, you can call Papa Ratzi any number of things with ample evidence to back them up - so what's the point of calling him a Nazi, when that charge is so easy to counter, and which ends up saying much more about you than it does about him?
Posted by: Martin Andersen | July 19, 2009 6:01 AM
Urgh. Stories sourced via: blog -> blog -> Yahoo News -> Time. That's a lot of clicking for the original wording.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 19, 2009 6:02 AM
To them it's the worst possible punishment
...it's right up there with an imaginary spanking.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 19, 2009 6:13 AM
How do they fact check to see if someone who asks to be excommunicated is actually a member of the catholic church, and whether the excommunication request is from them? Is this process performed by mail? Do they check ID carefully?
I'm seeing a wonderful potential denial of service attack, here. Pick your favorite catholic and start the process on their behalf. Stuff the excommunication pipeline with chaff and it either grinds to a halt or its complete lack of credibility is revealed.
Posted by: Tom Morris | July 19, 2009 6:13 AM
I posted it on Twitter a few weeks ago. Allow me to repeat it:
I've been reading the Ryan Report after hearing some of the more evil highlights on the radio recently. Let's see:
I think this one really describes my problem with religion:
Reading the Ryan Report makes me feel a bit like Alfred Hitchock must have felt when he saw a priest talking to a small boy. He said "That is the most frightening sight I have ever seen." then shouted to the child "Run, little boy. Run for your life!"
Posted by: ElectricBarbarella
|
July 19, 2009 6:17 AM
May I hijack for a moment? I cannot access Pharyngula through my Firefox (fully updated). I get this 404:
Can anyone tell me how to fix this? It has been going on for weeks now. I am only able to access the site via I8. I come here through my own blog, for which a link to PZ's sits on. It's a simple link on my blog roll, too. Nothing fancy.
toni
Posted by: Tom Morris | July 19, 2009 6:23 AM
ElectricBarbarella: open up Firefox's cookie management panel and remove scienceblogs.com cookies. It's in the Privacy section of the Firefox preferences.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 6:23 AM
ElectricBarbarella #256
I'm reading and posting at Pharyngula just fine using Firefox. You've probably got a corrupt file. I suggest dumping and reloading Firefox (yeah, I'm a fan of the brute force method of fixing software problems).
Posted by: ElectricBarbarella
|
July 19, 2009 6:34 AM
@Tom
Dumping the cookies worked, thank you! Now I know what to do if it happens again. This was the only site that was doing this too.
toni
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 6:46 AM
Considering the matter at hand:
The RCC's hierarchy is a group of professional virgins. As a result, their outlook on sex, sexuality, and the consequences of sexual activity are skewed to make them completely out of touch with how normal people view these subjects.
Furthermore, the authority and dignity of the Church is more important to them than the lives of normal people. When Pope Benny (or Cardinal Ratzi as he was then) issued a decree that bishops will not inform civil authorities* about pedophiliac clergy under pain of excommunication, it was obvious that the dignity of the Church was more important to him than sexually abused children.
Jesus supposedly said something about "suffer the little children." The Church has a rather odd interpretation of this verse.
*Not informing civil authorities of a crime is called misprision of felony. 18 USC §4 says:
Other countries have similar laws.
Posted by: Keenacat | July 19, 2009 7:03 AM
Is it just me, or do some people miss out on the fact that one can be a major fucking dipshit without having been a devout nazi first?
AFAIK Ratzinger was registered to the Hitlerjugend by his seminary and he left as soon as possible (=when he left the seminary). He deserted from military duty later, not from the Hitlerjugend.
That makes his nuttery no less nutty, of course. So why would anybody feel the need to insist on Ratzinger being a nazi? It's unnecessary and senseless.
Posted by: blf | July 19, 2009 7:08 AM
That—or more accurately, of continence—is want they want you to believe. It's not true and never has been. For instance, see Wikipedia's List of sexually active popes. And that is just the pedophile-in-charge at the Vatican, ignoring the rest of the cult's leaders and the pedophilia.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 19, 2009 7:32 AM
Epikt @ 96.
Thanks. All very good stuff. I gave up on him late last night. He is immune to logic and evidence. Politics drives him, not evidence, but he won't admit that. I invited him here, but I think he had stage fright. Honestly, even though he is a good friend, I was anticipating seeing him get annihilated. He went to a different ScienceBlog instead, but his posts there are so bitter and empty of content, I'm glad he didn't come here.
Posted by: Wildflower | July 19, 2009 7:38 AM
@waldteufel (#97)
The war ended on August 15, 1945; or for the German scenario somewhere between April 29 and May 11. According to most sources, he deserted in April 1944, which would be well before the end of the war; according to others a couple weeks before the end. All sources agree that he was reluctant and never saw combat.
Regardless of the time that he did desert, the threat that went along with deserting did not fade. Roughly 20,000 German deserters were executed, the last one on May 10, 1945, two days after the unconditional surrender.
However, the time might imply his motives: An early desertion could be seen as an active uproar against the Nazis, a later one just as weighting the odds and saving his own ass by becoming a POW to the allied forces, rather than the Russians... and you're of course free to call him a coward or whatever you like -- though people might call you a hypocrite on that unless you were a 14 year old child in Nazi Germany and you did have the insight and guts to risk your own life.
No, it's you who's doing that. By being imprecise and swinging that broad brush you make the term Nazi irrelevant and devalue those that were in the resistance:
Nazi: All the people that were automatically drafted. All those that did not join the resistance for fear of their own life or that of their families: Angst-ridden chicken-shits. Children, women in factories, basically, everyone who wasn't in the resistance, regardless of what they actually did do. Being a Nazi doesn't really mean anything anymore other than being alive in Germany during WW2 and not being in the resistance.
Resistance: There isn't really much to consider. Either you're in, or you're out. And it's easy to become a member. One can expect every 14 year old to join.
Posted by: Beige | July 19, 2009 7:47 AM
Why can't they just let it go now, it's getting to be beyond vulgar.
Posted by: Bryan Firestone
|
July 19, 2009 7:51 AM
Ken Ham has some great news for us. His cult of ignorance is dying and the majority of the kids are walking away. He's really upset and, like the pope, thinks the best solution is to hunker down into heartless, judgmental and obstinate ignorance.
http://answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/state-of-the-nation/state-of-the-nation
Posted by: shonny | July 19, 2009 8:25 AM
He (SiegHeil II) didn't really desert HitlerJugend, he just joined the natural extension of it, the RCC of Pedophilia.
Notice how the RCC never had any problems with the mafia nor the nazis. Ratty would fit right in; no morals, no scruples, no compassion, just pomp and greed and hunger for power.
Posted by: Kemist | July 19, 2009 8:39 AM
Same in Canada. Here catholics are mostly french-speaking, concentrated in Quebec. And actually, the greatest drop in nun recruitment coincided with the right of women to attend french university (around the 1960's).
One of my profs actually remembers teaching a whole bunch of nuns chemistry in those years. After an accident in the lab, he had to explain to mother superior why her nuns came back with a nice violet skin color.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | July 19, 2009 9:03 AM
Robotaholic @6,
why do you imagine Donohue would do anything other than what he always does, i.e., stoutly defend his religion's actions whilst damning all that his religion has harmed, as he did when belligerently defending Irish paedophile clergy and sliming the little boys they had raped?
I don't think Donohue gets the credit he deserves. He serves a valuable purpose, though not the one he imagines he serves. He is one of the very few Roman Catholics alive today who is absolutely, forthrightly and uncompromisingly true to the essential spirit of that religion. One can only hope that Roman Catholics with less pathological personalities will come to understand this, and to understand the choice they face if they wish to be honest: to side with Donohue and the Vatican, or to side with humanity.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 9:18 AM
blf #152
I didn't say that they were actual virgins, I said they were professional virgins. It's like Ted Haggerty is a professional homophobe but a practicing homosexual.
The Catholic Church's outlook on sex is definitely warped. One of the sources for this outlook was Augustine of Hippo, who had several mistresses. He considered sex to be immoral, even sex for procreation. Probably his most famous quote is "Lord, give me chastity and continence, but not yet." Possibly if Augustine had been married instead of having shack jobs, his opinions about sex would have been different. Anyway, Augustine is a prime example of a professional virgin who wasn't an actual virgin.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 19, 2009 9:45 AM
Shane @ 121:
Thanks for that link! I've been wondering how to get my name off their damned lists. I'm sure at least a couple of my family members will too. Mom's pretty religious and credulous, but she's gotten extremely hardened against the institution of the CC over the last few years. She's come a long way from her "a few bad apples" and "no true Christian" arguments from back when the child abuse started hitting the public eye.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 19, 2009 9:49 AM
Thanks for the link, Shane. It is written for Irish-born Catholics. I'll have to see if there is one for U.S. born Catholics. Even though my parish was "St. Patrick's" it's a few thousand miles to the west.
Posted by: DLC | July 19, 2009 10:06 AM
Fearful Brides of Christ ?
Hm. back in the day, we all speculated if nuns really weren't lesbians who needed a way to legitimately not live around men. But that's childhood for you -- think in childish ways and play with children's things and all that.
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 19, 2009 10:07 AM
When you can't admit a mistake or change your stand on a subject, because the source of your knowledge is supposedly unable to MAKE a mistake, you're stuck with what you say, even when it's ridiculous, or even evil.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 19, 2009 10:30 AM
My fiance is catholic and I'm an ex-catholic. We're to be married next year in November, but to do so in a catholic church (she still wants a catholic marriage) she would have to get permission to marry an atheist.
Now, I don't have a problem lying to the Clergy and saying I'm still catholic (it just makes it easier). But I do have a question, and I wonder if anyone knows enough about catholic "law" to answer it.
Will sending a letter to them telling them I was an atheist and lied to get a catholic wedding for my wife merit excommunication?
Posted by: SimonG | July 19, 2009 10:39 AM
If one accepts that at the instant of conception something magical happens and a new life is created, then opposition to abortion makes some sense. One could argue the toss when it's a matter of life and death, but even there a religious person might not unreasonably feel that they are not qualified to make the choice between two lives. With heaven in prospect, leave it to their god.
What strikes me as inconsistent is that one gets excommunicated for being involved in an abortion when the same does not happen for murder. In fact, as far as I can see all of the other offences which lead to excommunication are to do with respect for RC doctrine and beliefs. It's fairly sensible to say that if you don't share RC beliefs, then you are not an RC, hence excommunicated. Merely commiting a sin doesn't get you excommunicated - something that would be pretty dumb in a church heavily into forgiveness.
Posted by: Lynna | July 19, 2009 10:46 AM
Ragutis @117: The first comment at the blog link you gave for the story on the nuns is instructive. Sounds like Mel Gibson:
Posted by: cgeorge | July 19, 2009 10:51 AM
The "Church" not only believes that 9-year-old rape victims should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, even if it kills them, but also that no woman should be able to end an ectopic pregnancy (also life-threatening to the mother).
This is essentially what I was taught many moons ago as a young Catholic girl: there is no justifiable reason for abortion, ever. If the mother will die by carrying the pregnancy to term, so be it. (Even if she has other children who need her!) The mother has had her chance at life. Too bad for her if it ends prematurely. And too fucking bad for her already ALIVE children. They don't really matter.
Unfortunately, it took me a couple of years to figure out how evil and anti-woman this position is. But I figured it out young enough.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 19, 2009 10:53 AM
I have to agree with wildflower that it is you who's diminishing the hero-status of those who resisted. you know, there's people who do evil things, people who do heroic things, and a large group of normal people who just go with the flow for the most part. the way you're talking about it though, apparently walking away was supposed to be the normal thing to do, and everything else was premeditated evil.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | July 19, 2009 11:12 AM
I'd be genuinely interested to know how many other 14-year-olds resisted conscription into the Hitler Youth. And even more interested to see any evidence of the Pope espousing admiration for Nazism in an independent and free-thinking manner (group activities performed under duress clearly don't count).
Posted by: Meanie-meanie, tickle a person | July 19, 2009 11:14 AM
"We have...a doctrine of the faith..."
Oh, you betcha, Ratso. In fact, you have a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.
Yeah, you betcha, Ratso...
And you can't fire me, asshole; I quit long ago.
Also too, the jig is just about up for these folks, I think. The RC couldn't be more objectively anti-female if they changed their name to the He-Man Woman Haters' Club. I, for one, would love to see a triumvirate of rotating Popes larry, Moe, and Curly Joe...
Posted by: Lynna | July 19, 2009 11:15 AM
Something 'Tis Himself wrote @150 triggered memories of my own clashes with churches and cults.
'Tis got it right. This is exactly the principle on which they operate.
If church members are abusing Boy Scouts, start the coverup. If the news leaks, claim newspapers are just trying to destroy the church (anything to distract from the real story of abused children, and to protect the dignity of the church).
If the church needs money to build a new conference center and more McTemples, but the active member numbers are shrinking, squeeze those poor members who are left.
If head honchos in the upper ranks are mentally ill, run business scams, cheat on their spouses, are gay, etc., just sweep all that under the rug. Whatever threatens the dignity of the church must be hidden.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 11:16 AM
Probably not. If someone can rape children and remain in good standing as a priest, then simple lying should be worth only three Our Fathers, three Hail Marys and an Act of Contrition.
Posted by: Notagod | July 19, 2009 11:24 AM
Proper Gander @15:
Proper Gander, how do you twist your mind around to the point where that question has any validity? I'm just wondering how you can read what PZ reported then think; ah, but the people weren't actually harmed by the excommunication. Have you not considered what the christians are implying should happen the next time a too young girl is impregnated by a rapist?
If any christian actually does have morality or ethics they certainly didn't get them from the christian religion. A "good" christian would rape a child and have the child likely die in child birth, that is the ethics and morality of true christianity.
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 11:30 AM
But that's really only the same as with other big institutions, eg the BBC, who are resting on past laurels (including largely imaginary ones in the case of religions!) while enjoying and demanding unmerited power and respect and trying to get away with concealing their incompetence and dishonesty. That sort of evil is very common - and it relies once again on the vices of faith (from outside) and loyalty (from inside), generally reinforced by various threats (both real world and imaginary again).
Posted by: JT | July 19, 2009 11:32 AM
Not exactly on topic but
http://gawker.com/5052329/scientists-explain-why-people-vote-for-republicans
Scientists are now able to explain why the Republicans continue to recieve votes.
Really interesting is the Backfire Effect, which is where conservatives believe something more after it has been refuted.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 19, 2009 11:38 AM
If the church needs money to build a new conference center and more McTemples, but the active member numbers are shrinking, squeeze those poor members who are left.
Which doesn't seem to be working very well (at least here in the Northeast). Lately, my local public radio station has been whining about how the the catholic churches in Western Mass. have had to close churches/schools and combine parishes because of falling attendance. The HORROR! (Between their weird obsession with how the catholic church is doing and the insane amount of woo they broadcast, I've stopped donating money. There's only so much insanity I can support.)
Posted by: David | July 19, 2009 11:40 AM
"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that, for bureaucrats, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing."
--Thomas Sowell
Goes for religions also!
Posted by: David | July 19, 2009 11:40 AM
"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that, for bureaucrats, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing."
--Thomas Sowell
Goes for religions also!
Posted by: David | July 19, 2009 11:42 AM
Sorry about the double post - computer agreed too!
Posted by: Lynna | July 19, 2009 11:45 AM
JT @176: great link, thanks. BTW, one paragraph in that story is close to on-topic:
And I really enjoyed this bit:
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 19, 2009 11:47 AM
Yeah, but I'm getting a catholic marriage by lying to them. Surely they'd think that was as bad as raping children or getting an abortion, right?
With all their retribution stuff, I figured that would make them pretty pissed off... though I guess that just means they get to keeping claim on me as a catholic, huh?
Posted by: Lynna | July 19, 2009 11:51 AM
KemaTheAtheist @182: The church wants you, or they want your money and hopefully your children. I predict that even if you told them you are lying about your belief they would spin the facts to their advantage. To whit: You do really believe. God has brought you to this point in your life. Some part of your old evil ways (or maybe Satan himself) is preventing you from realizing that you do believe.
Posted by: Notagod | July 19, 2009 12:06 PM
Tell them you lied to a cracker. I don't know if that would work but the cracker is the key. Tell them that you have collected a bunch of consecrated crackers and you have taught them to masturbate.
Posted by: Cary | July 19, 2009 12:23 PM
The Catholic church is a bunch of evil fucks.
I can't believe people belong to that festering house of hatred.
Posted by: BK | July 19, 2009 12:38 PM
Generally, as long as money is coming their way and no one is rocking the boat, they look the other way pretty well. Remember the abortion doctor that was killed. I think he was Catholic, and I doubt what he did was kept secret, yet the church didn't bother him as long as he was alive and no one was complaining to them. Suddenly both the money stops coming from him and people are complaining, so now he's suddenly excommunicated.In the case initially mentioned, I doubt the people involved are donating huge amounts.
Really, if they wanted to pick out the non-believers, all they need is a list from their local church. When you join one, your name is listed somewhere, and the local church could periodically follow up with each member or send out required surveys to remain a member with such things as:
1) How much did you give to the church this year?
2) Are you divorced? (That will get ride of at least 50% of its membership.)
3) Have you had sex with anyone but the person you are married to?
4) Are you homosexual?
5) Do you use birth control or ever had an abortion or prevented having a baby in any way besides being abstinent?
6) How often do you attend church?
They don't bother with anything as long as they have the numbers and the money.
When I got married, my priest wasn't entirely happy with me, because when I signed the papers promising that my kids would be Catholic (I married a Methodist), I told him that I'd even just drop off the kids at the church and let them keep them. He said no, that I had to raise them. I replied, "But you're the one who wants them, and you want to make sure they're Catholic, and that seems to be the best way to ensure it." He just reiterated that he didn't want my kids. I then offered him a very old holy iguana, and he didn't want that either.
Anyway, there are certain advantages to being Catholic. When any other religion bothers me about how I behave or hat I believe, I just tell them I'm Catholic, and they throw up their hands in futility and say, "Well, THAT explains it." Then they walk away and leave me alone. Really, it's sometimes easier than fighting over my atheism. I think I'm still technically a Catholic on paper since I was raised that and was married in the church. I don't know how you become unCatholic. Not attending, or giving money, or going atheist doesn't necessarily remove one's name from the rosters I think.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 19, 2009 12:41 PM
Oh I get it! I've been brainwashed twice! The church brainwashed me the first time, and since it didn't keep it must have been Satan brainwashing me the second time! Oh Satan, please take away the brainwashing that the church brought to me the first time so that I can only serve you!
*bangs his head* HEY! I said *SATAN* not Shiva. Get outta my head.
Can you believe these freakin' Hindu gods? Two is enough... I don't need a god that can't keep to a single form in their two... Just rude...
Via personal demonstration using S&M, gay, furry, snuff porn on top of an upside-down cross with Jesus' zombie body still nailed to it, in the middle of a pentagram made of blood? Do you think that would be enough?
...
I just stepped over a line, didn't I? Maybe I should lay off the free-writing. Anyways... now I'm just curious if anything about the Jesus Cruxi-fiction should be considered as "snuff"...
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 19, 2009 12:49 PM
Remember the abortion doctor that was killed. I think he was Catholic, and I doubt what he did was kept secret, yet the church didn't bother him as long as he was alive and no one was complaining to them.
Dr. George Tiller? Not so much-- he was a Lutheran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller#Assassination
Posted by: Anri | July 19, 2009 12:55 PM
In RE: the Hitler Youth biz...
Speaking personally, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume a lack of evil motive in Ratzi having been a part of the Hitler Youth. At that time and place, and at his age, it would have taken an amazing person to have not been a part of it.
A truly holy man, a man set apart, sainted, A MAN FIT TO LEAD ONE OF THE LARGEST INSTITUTES OF FAITH KNOWN TO MANKIND!!!
*ahem*
In any case, so long as everyone agrees that he's not that kind of a man, there's no problem.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 19, 2009 12:56 PM
1.) None.
2.) No.
3.) Yes.
4.) No, but I'm willing to learn. (+5 points to anyone who gets the reference...)
5.) Yes.
6.) Not since the guy tried to use the "even scientists have to say there's a great order to the universe" argument. The only reason I didn't jump up and start shouting all the things wrong with that statement and tell him to never talk about science again was to not embarass the rest of my family.
Kinda funny actually the guy that was the "straw that broke the camal's back" and made me an atheist is the guy that's going to wed me and my fiance.
Posted by: XD | July 19, 2009 1:08 PM
No. They will probably just send an albino monk after you.Posted by: Alistair Wall | July 19, 2009 1:14 PM
Re AGW: try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/climate_science/
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 1:21 PM
@ KemaTheAtheist #187:
Ah, you mean through the medium of interpretive dance ...
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 1:22 PM
"That inhuman monolith . . . "
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."
"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. ... The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. "
"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."
-- John Holdren.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 1:29 PM
Pilty, you are still defending your morally bankrupt church, which means you are an idiot. Go fourth and find a more moral institution for your efforts. There are many to choose from. Greek Orthodox maybe...
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 19, 2009 1:52 PM
Pilt, go soak your head. May I suggest a fine mixture of glass shards and lemon juice?
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 19, 2009 1:54 PM
If by "interpretive dance" you mean the...
Okay... I will stop myself this time. No one wants to know what I was thinking. Well, maybe now of some kind of macabre curiosity, but I'm fairly sure what I was thinking is illegal everywhere in the world except New Jersey, and, ironically, in the Vatican city itself.
Sufficient enough is to say that #chan ain't got nothing on me... hmmm, "ain't got nothing" just gave the speach center of my brain a stroke. I need to be more careful...
Posted by: anonymous | July 19, 2009 1:58 PM
It's funny how the article says "The church doesn't want that human weight, anyway." They have it backwards. The church is inflexible BECAUSE of the human element. These people were excommunicated from the church because they committed a horrible crime: They murdered a person! It's crazy how many people are on this board saying the church is somehow obsolete or old fashioned because it's against murder.
Posted by: Rocket Stegosaurus | July 19, 2009 2:03 PM
@blf #135
That would do it. Thanks.
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 19, 2009 2:04 PM
I noticed Benedict wears a dress.
Posted by: Seraphiel | July 19, 2009 2:05 PM
The church is inflexible BECAUSE of the human element. These people were excommunicated from the church because they committed a horrible crime: They murdered a person! It's crazy how many people are on this board saying the church is somehow obsolete or old fashioned because it's against murder.
Nice try. No donut for you, though.
A 9-year-old girl stands a good chance of dying in labor. The medical professionals who handled her case, in consultation with her family, acted to preserve the girl's life.
Not only is it none of your business, or the church's, but also, fuck you.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
July 19, 2009 2:06 PM
Hurrrr-durrr... ZOMG! Wait until you learn that she was carrying twins! Will your outrage be doubled?
It's not a person. Get over yourself. You don't get to define these things.
Posted by: Terry | July 19, 2009 2:09 PM
So, the Catholic Church condemns abortion. Those who engage in it, to eternal damnation, Lake of Fire, blah, blah, blah.
The Catholic Church (and most others) would take that same child, as an adult, and based on the type of crime this person committed, put that person to death under state law, and rejoice in that killing.
Typical of theists.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 2:10 PM
anonymous, the only way your statement is true is if you grant a fetus the status of a person.
Oh, wait a second, people like you think that a fetus is of greater importance then the woman (Or in this case, the young girl.) who carries the fetus.
Posted by: Seraphiel | July 19, 2009 2:11 PM
The Catholic Church (and most others) would take that same child, as an adult, and based on the type of crime this person committed, put that person to death under state law, and rejoice in that killing.
To be fair, the Church is clear in its opposition to the death penalty.
They don't spend nearly the amount of effort fighting it that they spend on abortion, though.
Posted by: nanahuatzin | July 19, 2009 2:12 PM
The catholic church is putting itself in the garbage truck.
While 80% of mexicans claim to be catholics, 80% aprove the use con anticonceptives, and 61-72% (man/woman) suport abortion.
Each year, less and less boys decide to became priest.. because they are begining to see how irrelevant is.
Maybe it is a good thing priest are supose to be celibates, and stop contaminating the genetic pool...
Even so.. i would recomend a vasectomy to every priest... just in case, remember that most victims of sexual abuse are girls..
Posted by: Doug | July 19, 2009 2:12 PM
"These people were excommunicated from the church because they committed a horrible crime: They murdered a person!"
No they didn't, they aborted a fetus. Big difference.
Posted by: GMacs | July 19, 2009 2:14 PM
It's crazy how many people are on this board saying the church is somehow obsolete or old fashioned because it's against murder.
No, it's obsolete because it conflicts with our reasoning faculties and the knowledge we have gained.
It's horrible, because it decries the right to save this girl's life while doing nothing to protect children who have already been born, and even harms children. Ask the folks in Ireland.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 2:26 PM
They aborted the foetus of a nine (NINE!) year old girl who was likely to die if she went to term. This after the girl had been raped by her step-father.
The Catholic Church has not excommunicated the step-father. They are praying for him instead.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 2:32 PM
The Catholic Church has not excommunicated the step-father. They are praying for him instead.
But, but the father merely raped his step daughter. No one was killed. Besides, how do we know if the girl did not lead him on.
I will stop now, trying to do this makes my brain hurt. And it is not even remotely funny.
Posted by: Terry
|
July 19, 2009 2:35 PM
"The Catholic Church (and most others) would take that same child, as an adult, and based on the type of crime this person committed, put that person to death under state law, and rejoice in that killing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, the Church is clear in its opposition to the death penalty.
They don't spend nearly the amount of effort fighting it that they spend on abortion, though."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on.
The Catholic Church has maintained this position yet turns a blind eye to slavery and every other sort of debauchery over the ages, in the name of greed.
I don't buy it.
Posted by: a lurker | July 19, 2009 2:43 PM
"All right, then, I'll go to hell" - Huckleberry Finn
Posted by: Doug | July 19, 2009 2:47 PM
"They aborted the foetus of a nine (NINE!) year old girl who was likely to die if she went to term. This after the girl had been raped by her step-father."
I think we're agreeing, here, aren't we? As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person and is not entitled to the legal status afforded to a person. Because no person is involved, abortion cannot be a murder. From a medical persepctive, what happened in this case was simply a medical procedure aimed at preserving the life of a living human.
I don't know what to say about the fact that the church excommunicated the child but is praying for her criminal stepfather. I simply cannot think of a word that fits. And the fact that supporters of the church are patting themselves on the back for maintaining their principles -- again, I can't come up with an adequate word. Maybe I need a new dictionary?
Posted by: Doug | July 19, 2009 2:49 PM
"They aborted the foetus of a nine (NINE!) year old girl who was likely to die if she went to term. This after the girl had been raped by her step-father."
I think we're agreeing, here, aren't we? As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person and is not entitled to the legal status afforded to a person. Because no person is involved, abortion cannot be a murder. From a medical persepctive, what happened in this case was simply a medical procedure aimed at preserving the life of a living human.
I don't know what to say about the fact that the church excommunicated the child but is praying for her criminal stepfather. I simply cannot think of a word that fits. And the fact that supporters of the church are patting themselves on the back for maintaining their principles -- again, I can't come up with an adequate word. Maybe I need a new dictionary?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2009 3:00 PM
To whit: You do really believe. God has brought you to this point in your life. Some part of your old evil ways (or maybe Satan himself) is preventing you from realizing that you do believe.
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2009 3:03 PM
The Catholic church is a bunch of evil fucks.
I can't believe people belong to that festering house of hatred.
And right at that moment, Pilty strolls in.
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 19, 2009 3:05 PM
Anon @#198: Eat diseased rat shit and die of bubonic plague.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 19, 2009 3:10 PM
Svetogorsk @ # 170: I'd be genuinely interested to know how many other 14-year-olds resisted conscription into the Hitler Youth.
Google "Edelweiss Pirates". There was a large contingent of Ratzinger's demographic cohort who not only refused participation in the Hitlerjugend, but who formed resistance groups that fought with the "good German" youth - and they were strongest in the western region where the Ratzingers lived.
The report that little Joey R deserted the Army in 1944 is derived from a typo. He abandoned military service (in which he participated as a Hitlerjugend member, not as a formally enlisted serviceman) when his unit disintegrated around him during the final days of the Reich in April 1945. His duties before then included guarding prisoners and assisting with an anti-aircraft battery: he is the only Pope known to have fired on US and British troops.
It may, depending on your perspective, ameliorate the story to know that apparently he did not join the Hitler Youth due to enthusiasm for National Socialism, but because they offered scholarships to a seminary - the answer to his prayers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 3:21 PM
The girl herself was not excommunicated. The church considered to her to be too young for that but old enough to be forced to carry a foetus she is carrying as a result of rape to term.
Instead they excommunicated the medical staff who performed the termination. Saving a child's life is bad it seems.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 3:26 PM
Blue Fielder @ 196:
Blue Fielder @ 217:
Blue Fielder @ his blog (the appropriately named http://lefthandplay.blogspot.com/):
Blue Fielder -- forgive me for saying so, but you seem rather an ill-tempered fellow.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 19, 2009 3:30 PM
Also see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BlVPX5ngbE
and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3hQK4iS0Y
You can watch them on YouTube now!
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 19, 2009 3:30 PM
Gee, what a surprise, Pilty pulls smear-happy troll garbage. Who's surprised?
And he uses the same old trick every other troll who hates me uses: "HURR U ANGREE HATEFULL". Hey, if people like you weren't ignorant, childish, stupid, mindless, bleating, hateful, moronic, selfish, insane, worthless peons, I wouldn't HAVE to be so angry, you trolling twat. Besides, I'm not the one who repeatedly comes here and posts insane non-sequitur garbage for no other reason than to stroke his own ego.
I see a spot in the dungeon for Pilty.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 3:34 PM
Pilty, your continuing posts show why you are now at the top of my (and no doubt others) Survivor Pharyngula elimination list. You add nothing to our discussions, and continue to be an amoral troll. If you were moral, you would be finding another church instead of trying to defend the RCC.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 3:34 PM
Blue Fielder -- forgive me for saying so, but you seem rather an ill-tempered fellow.
Says the humorless joker who wishes for a return to a catholic theology so that his enemies may be put to the flames. Or are you actually a new Jew who will be dragged into the extermination camp?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 3:34 PM
PZ Myers:
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 3:40 PM
Hoax, your point is obscure. Please clarify.
Or do you think that one man's position is equal to a hierarchy that claims to have eternal knowledge and power?
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 19, 2009 3:45 PM
Y'ever notice how these rightards think "HURR U ANGREE" is some sort of inescapable insult usable only by them? I'd think having a movement that's nothing but violent rhetoric and hate would make one "angry" by definition, but no, that's just "patriotism" when they do it.
And, of course, anger invalidates anything else, according to them - if you're "angry", you're not to be listened to. That is, unless that anger is directed at "liberals" and "heathens" and anyone else they're told from on high to hate. Then it's love of country.
Considering how many of these idiots are angry that they lost, that they're failures, and that the world is leaving them behind, I'd say that, by their own standards, they should shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 3:47 PM
Pilty, you have no point. Quit trying to defend the RCC and join another church. There are 3000+ others, so one that doesn't have the immoral baggage of the cover-up of pedophilia isn't that hard to find.
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 19, 2009 3:56 PM
so one that doesn't have the immoral baggage of the cover-up of pedophilia
NOT pedophilia. Child molestation.
There is a difference.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 4:18 PM
Blue Fielder @ 222:
I don't hate you, BF. I don't even know you. I'm just fascinated by your tone of strident hysteria. It confirms what I wrote elsewhere: "In my experience, what separates RWAs from liberals is that the former tend to think in a logical sequence from established premises, whereas the latter tend to 'think' in a series of emotionally charged pictures which are typically articulated as slogans and abuse ...
You might be right -- particularly if Mr Holdren's "Planetary Regime" ever becomes reality.
Nerd of Redhead @ 223:
Do you defend Mr Holdren's remarks about forced abortion, sterilization etc?
Just askin'.
Janine @ 224:
Either/or.
Janine @ 226 (re 225):
I just wondered whether those who self-righteously huff and puff about the Pope's past would be equally quick to condemn Mr Ayers'.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 19, 2009 4:21 PM
Oh please Pilty. Open your eyes. That's one of the most naive things I've every seen you post here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 19, 2009 4:23 PM
/jawfloor
Did you seriously make that statement?
Ayers - hardly important political figure in some small circles.
Pope - the most widely known and powerful religious figure in the world.
Get a grip Pilty.
Posted by: Anri | July 19, 2009 4:25 PM
Hey, it's Piltdown Man!
Who has the time to respond to rude language, but not to other questions...
But, maybe he didn't see it on the thread it was on, so here we go:
Pilty sez (in RE:demons/devils/balrogs/whatever):
"They were created individually by God as angels but were expelled from Heaven when they joined Lucifer's rebellion."
I've always been meaning to ask this of someone who obviously has the true answer:
Was god powerless to stop the devil's rebellion? Or unwilling to do so?
Thanks in advance for giving this question more time than scatological insults.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 4:27 PM
BF @ 229:
As in all child molesters are paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child molesters ...?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 4:32 PM
Either/or.
Hoax, I am merely relaying the messages that you have left on this blog. You have expressed the desire to burn infidels and for your church to be in control again. You have also claimed that catholics are the new Jews. I just want to hold you to your words.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 19, 2009 4:33 PM
Not that it has any relevance, but I just (finally!) wrote a letter to the vicar, asking to get delisted from the Church of Denmark. (I meant to do it around Easter or Pentecost, but I kept forgetting.)
Now to rememeber to deliver it.
Someone please remind me to donate the saved tax to charity. Really! I suck at doing selfless stuff.
Posted by: Doug | July 19, 2009 4:40 PM
"The girl herself was not excommunicated...Instead they excommunicated the medical staff..."
I stand corrected.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 4:41 PM
I just wondered whether those who self-righteously huff and puff about the Pope's past would be equally quick to condemn Mr Ayers'.
Why, yes, the words of a man who has no voice in the current administration is comparable to the words of a man who is the head of a powerful worldwide organization.
Posted by: nanahuatzin | July 19, 2009 4:42 PM
Piltdown Man @234
As in all child molesters are paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child molesters ...?
no, more like:
many child molesters are paedophiles, not all paedophiles are child molesters ...
While legally, the terms are equivalent, medically, paedophilia is a paraphila, that SOMETIMES results in child molesters...
And some child molesters are people that enjoy overpowing someone weaker than them.. children or not...
So.. child molester a more precise term to use...
Posted by: windy | July 19, 2009 4:42 PM
Heh, exactly.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 4:46 PM
I'll stand corrected in terminology, but Pilty does not stand corrected in supporting an immoral organization. Which makes him immoral. Pilty, you don't have to denounce the RCC, just move on. Put staying put means you agree with the cover-up. If you don't, vote with your feet.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 19, 2009 4:50 PM
Dear Brother Pilty,
I am shocked to see our Holy Mother Church under attack again! Good on you for fighting a single-handed rearguard action. Where's the Catholic League when you need them?
Anyway Brother Pilty...don't worry, you're no longer alone. Smoggy is here, and I've got your back!
Yours in joyous defense of the true faith,
Smoggy
PS Quietly. Sorry I'm late--I've been sleeping badly. Recurring nightmares about growing up in the Christian Brothers' orphanage and Brother Padraic using my anus as a penis scabbard. But I'm feeling a lot better...the shakes and screaming are less regular than before.
So... where were we?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 4:55 PM
Oh! Damn! Now it is the feared tag team duo of Smoggy and the Hoax. We are doomed! Doomed I tell you.
Smoggy, you better keep Floyd Rubber from entering the ring with a folding chair!
Posted by: Brad | July 19, 2009 5:09 PM
Though you will I hope atheists dont choose to associate Christians with these types of catholic churches. I have been going to a christian church most of my life and we believe rape is wrong but also sleeping with family. The God I know will forgive the girl but will probably end up sending the man to hell.
Posted by: John Schroeder | July 19, 2009 5:09 PM
The best thing is this sentence...And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight. If "real life" situations exist and the church separates them with a term such as this, is that not in some fashion calling the rest of their lives "fantasy", What's the other type of "life situation"? The NOT real life situation?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 5:09 PM
Anri @ 233 --
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/what_is_it_with_atheists_and_g.php#comment-1785685
Patience is a virtue.
Posted by: John Schroeder | July 19, 2009 5:13 PM
The best thing is this sentence...And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight. If "real life" situations exist and the church separates them with a term such as this, is that not in some fashion calling the rest of their lives "fantasy", What's the other type of "life situation"? The NOT real life situation?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 5:13 PM
Don't worry Brad, we will not confuse your church with that of the catholic church. And most of us will treat your church with the same respect we show for the catholic church.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 19, 2009 5:26 PM
Maybe he would... if he actually existed.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 19, 2009 5:28 PM
Brad @244
As a practicing Catholic a reject your insinuations against the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
I can only conclude that you are jealous because the men in charge of your Church don't wear such nice dresses.
Posted by: Bobby | July 19, 2009 5:28 PM
I really hope the Pope's balls get infested with maggots. Fuck the Catholic church and the Catholic religion, may it die a long overdue death. The may hundreds and thousands of little boys bums rejoice! Religion is for the weak and scared.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 5:28 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 232:
Janine: 238:
A man who almost certainly ghostwrote the US President's memoir Dreams from My Father. Who knows the extent of his influence?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 19, 2009 5:32 PM
Dear Brother Pilty,
"A man who almost certainly ghostwrote the US President's memoir"
Wow...you're even further off the deep end than I am, Pilty. Praise the Lord for the marvelous and magnificent shit you have in your head masquerading as a brain. I will pray hard to match your level of sheer lunacy.
Yours in Immaculate Insanity
Smoggy
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 5:33 PM
Pilty, that still in now way says anything about Ratzi. He is an amoral lunatic, which makes those who defend him of the same stripe. Which means you. Your feeble attempts to deflect the proper moral outrage for the cover-up written by Ratzi are just laughable. Time to vote with your feet and go elsewhere. Like Anglicans or Greek Orthodox. I understand that the latter give a good service.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 5:41 PM
Nerd of Redhead @ 231:
Will you denounce the immoral statements made by Mr Holdren (who is currently, I believe, a prominent member of the ObamaNation's administration)?
Posted by: Art M. | July 19, 2009 5:48 PM
Please get your facts straight before Blogging.
The 9 year old was not excommmunicated, It was the
parents and abortion doctors, all of which are over 18
and who should have known known better.
Please read Time Magazine article.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911495,00.html
Peace.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2009 5:50 PM
Art,
"Known better?"
They quite probably saved the life of a 9-y.o. girl by terminating her pregnancy. You fetus fascists really are shit humans.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
A man who almost certainly ghostwrote the US President's memoir Dreams from My Father. Who knows the extent of his influence?
Proof?
Posted by: blf | July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
If I knew what he said, and thought they were immoral, I presumably would. But first things first: What did he say that is “immoral”? (With references, please.)
And I can't help but notice you don't seem to be denouncing the lack of morality or common sense shown by most of the crackernuts hierarchy. You instead appear to not only be defending them, but also agreeing with them, and doing so without presenting any argument at all why they are either correct or moral.
Posted by: Anri | July 19, 2009 5:57 PM
Pilty -
Thanks for the response. I think we can than agree that those who could have prevented it, but didn't are at least partially culpable.
Yes?
Also,
"Will you denounce the immoral statements made by Mr Holdren (who is currently, I believe, a prominent member of the ObamaNation's administration)?"
You were asking someone else, but here's my answer:
Yes.
That set of statements was repulsive, immoral, cruel, obnoxious, and I can only hope that if anyone who was in power attempted to operate such a progrom, or collaborate with someone who did, I would have the courage to stand against them, regardless of the mottoes they espoused, the authority they claimed (worldly or otherwise), or they books that had inspired them. Under no circumstances should we put such a person, who holds such views in a position of unquestioned authority or moral determination over people, especially the poor, disadvantaged, or desperate.
Ok, Pilty.
Your turn.
Posted by: blf | July 19, 2009 6:05 PM
No, the parents (plural) were not excommunicated, only the mother. The father—the rapist—was not excommunicated. He, in fact, ran away in an attempt to avoid prosecution.
The doctors and mother did know better: She approved, and the doctors carried out, the abortion, thereby very probably saving the life of the nine years old repeatedly raped girl.
It's the completely assine crackernuts here who don't know better: They think it's Ok the father raped his little girl (remember, he hasn't been excommuicated), and that it would be better if the girl (and, very probably, the twins she was carrying) died (the almost certain outcome).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 6:07 PM
Pilty, still mistaking the head of a world-wide organization who masterminded a cover-up for someone who doesn't have that kind of authority. What a crock of shit you keep spewing. You have nothing, and you know it, and all you can do is to try to deflect your BS from the actual facts. Your church covered up child molestation using the strategy outlined by the present leader. That leader has not renounced his previous strategy. That means he agrees with the cover-up and is immoral because of it. And you are immoral to support such an immoral man.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 19, 2009 6:08 PM
Don't hold your breath. Worst case scenario, Pilty will justify the actions of the priests and the church hierarchy by claiming they were all possessed by demons out to make the church look bad.
Oh, and Pilty - if people don't like what the Obama administration is doing then they are free to vote against him in the next presidential election - i.e. they can take action to show they have the character to reject behaviour of which they disapprove.
Since you can't vote out the Pope or others in the Vatican, the only recourse you have to do likewise (and demonstrate you possess character and moral integrity) is to quit the church and denounce its actions.
Why haven't you done that?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 6:08 PM
blf @ 259:
See post #194. (Source.)
Janine @ 258:
No proof, but Jack Cashill makes a persuasive case in series of articles for American Thinker.
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 6:12 PM
They also salvaged what little they could hope to get in the way of quality-of-life for her. (It remains to be seen how irretrievably damaged she is by the evil paedophile and his evil church, both masquerading as suitable father figures.)
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 6:21 PM
Hoax, "beneath the surface," I remain unimpressed. Two Chicago based persons referencing Carl Sandburg. Meh.
Straw must be very important to your existence. You you are grasping for it or you are torching people made of it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 6:29 PM
We know Pilty has nothing. Pilty knows he has nothing. All he can do is to try to deflect attention his own immorality. We won't let you do that. So, either fess up that you are immoral, or be moral and vote with your feet by going elsewhere. Those are the honorable and moral things to do. But then, we expect you to show us your immorality by doing neither.
Posted by: blf | July 19, 2009 6:29 PM
Oh, the Ecoscience thing. Piltdown the Supporter of Child Molesters, Holdren and the Ehrlichs where discussing a range of possible ways of dealing with overpopulation. The summary in Wikipedia says it very neatly:
Enumerating solutions is good science. Just because a solution has been enumerated does not mean the author advocates the solution. Enumerating solutions is not, itself, immoral, even if some of the solutions enumerated are unethical and/or immoral. It's common for unacceptable solutions to be enumerated and discussed, just so they are clearly shown to be unacceptable.
Posted by: Bob | July 19, 2009 6:30 PM
"This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight."
Well said, Pope. Dogma > Reality is exactly what it means to be a religious nutjob. If you are going to go around living your life, and making decisions that you feel are best for you, then don't expect churches to welcome you with open arms.
Posted by: Burt | July 19, 2009 6:32 PM
I wish their position surprised me. For anyone who'd like to know, the RCC published a position/policy paper back in 1962 that outlined the steps to be taken should one of their pedophiles be accused in public. that, in itself, is a long story, but the upshot is that the RCC was complicit the whole time abuse was happening, so why would they give a crap about a 9 year old GIRL, of all things??
Brazil should know about that document--its title is "Criminales Solicitaciones". They might want to talk to any priests who have suddenly moved down there from the US.....
seriously, the Church needs to be exposed.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | July 19, 2009 6:32 PM
In 'Unintended Consequences News' from Brazil a suprisingly sharp increase in uterine tumors needing medical intervention has puzzled politicians.
Posted by: Bob | July 19, 2009 6:33 PM
"This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight."
Well said, Pope. Dogma > Reality is exactly what it means to be a religious nutjob. If you are going to go around living your life, and making decisions that you feel are best for you, then don't expect churches to welcome you with open arms.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 6:34 PM
#156 - Brian Firestone, Thanks for that link to Ken Hams speech. That's some amazing numbers he ticks off. If the research is good, then we could just be winning against the god peddlers.
Posted by: Lynna | July 19, 2009 6:36 PM
Bryan @156: Good link, thanks.
Ken Ham summarizes his views and reveals his fears quite succinctly in that video. All the people going with PZ to the Creation Museum, should view that video first. Not only is it informative regarding Ham's take on just about everything, but it reveals his tactics.
If fewer people are going to church (2/3 of young people will leave and never come back according to Ham), Ham concludes that countries like the United Kingdom are "spiritually dead." He uses loaded words that extend beyond the belief in a 6000 year old earth -- and that tactic enables Ham to include everyone who doesn't want to be "spiritually dead" in his campaign to keep people going to church.
He also brings up several instances of Christians being "persecuted." A lot of his examples, especially those related to hospitals and nursing homes, sound like instances of Christians forcing theology on vulnerable people.
There's more, of course. One of his main points is that "millions of years" was just a phrase that got repeated so much that people started to accept it when describing the age of the earth -- just repetition, with no facts to back it up -- that's Ken's take on the issue. He also defines Darwin's theory of evolution incorrectly.
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 19, 2009 6:36 PM
Holy shit, Pilty actually got it, more or less. I actually doubt all child molesters are pedophiles, though, since for many it seems to be about power and control rather than any directly sexual or "romantic" (and Cthulhu help them should they actually believe that delusion) desires.
Posted by: Nanu Nanu | July 19, 2009 6:42 PM
The 9 year old girl who was raped, impregnated and then given a life saving treatment doesn't need "forgiving".
Posted by: carol h. | July 19, 2009 6:48 PM
There is no surprise here for that attitude by the Catholic church. This is the oldest boys club in the world. The dogma they embrace is part of the reason they have lost so many followers. The inhumane policies of this church are well known. And they accomplish nothing but to drive away the very people they want to retain. Including trying to recruit men and women for the church as priests and nuns.
This child has been irrevocably damaged by what was done to her. This church is filled with men who fear women. They fear a woman's influence, and so they seek to destroy it. The virgin Mary, is a flat one dimensional female. Her only validity in the church is her relationship to Jesus. They discount any of what she was to the whole christian movement except for this one thing. The church, in their desire to keep power in the hands of men, have striven over the centuries to hold onto this one and only allowable vision. She would be nothing in the biblical sense without this tie to a male. And for what? Because of the male equipment. This is the criterion for equality into that male bastion.
In the old testament itself, their are over 200 verses that defame and denigrate women. It is the woman's ability to give birth, that drives men in the church to retain power in the only way they can. To subjugate women as early as possible. This child's banishment from the church of men, is simply another punishment for being female. This dislike of women is the one thing that hold these men together. And the fact that so many priests take women of the side, in marriage and as lovers, is a testament to just how failed the church is.
One day, this child will be relieved to be banished from such an institution. Her freedom just may come from finding her religion outside of any church. Everything, and I mean everything about this church is less about God then it is a political institution. The ability of a woman to give life, is something the church envies. It is the only thing they have not been able to take away from women. And forcing a child of nine to have a child, because of what another man has done to her is punishing her twice.
All any of us have is the final thing. Dominion over our own body. The church and all other religions have sought to take over even that. A womans right to her own body and her own reproductive options. Something tells me, that if a law were passed dictating what a man could do with his sperm, the streets would be filled with bellowing men, demanding their rights.
This child is too young to demand anything. She has had to depend of the humanity and loving spirit of those that sought to help her at the worst time of her life.
Posted by: carol h. | July 19, 2009 6:50 PM
There is no surprise here for that attitude by the Catholic church. This is the oldest boys club in the world. The dogma they embrace is part of the reason they have lost so many followers. The inhumane policies of this church are well known. And they accomplish nothing but to drive away the very people they want to retain. Including trying to recruit men and women for the church as priests and nuns.
This child has been irrevocably damaged by what was done to her. This church is filled with men who fear women. They fear a woman's influence, and so they seek to destroy it. The virgin Mary, is a flat one dimensional female. Her only validity in the church is her relationship to Jesus. They discount any of what she was to the whole christian movement except for this one thing. The church, in their desire to keep power in the hands of men, have striven over the centuries to hold onto this one and only allowable vision. She would be nothing in the biblical sense without this tie to a male. And for what? Because of the male equipment. This is the criterion for equality into that male bastion.
In the old testament itself, their are over 200 verses that defame and denigrate women. It is the woman's ability to give birth, that drives men in the church to retain power in the only way they can. To subjugate women as early as possible. This child's banishment from the church of men, is simply another punishment for being female. This dislike of women is the one thing that hold these men together. And the fact that so many priests take women of the side, in marriage and as lovers, is a testament to just how failed the church is.
One day, this child will be relieved to be banished from such an institution. Her freedom just may come from finding her religion outside of any church. Everything, and I mean everything about this church is less about God then it is a political institution. The ability of a woman to give life, is something the church envies. It is the only thing they have not been able to take away from women. And forcing a child of nine to have a child, because of what another man has done to her is punishing her twice.
All any of us have is the final thing. Dominion over our own body. The church and all other religions have sought to take over even that. A womans right to her own body and her own reproductive options. Something tells me, that if a law were passed dictating what a man could do with his sperm, the streets would be filled with bellowing men, demanding their rights.
This child is too young to demand anything. She has had to depend of the humanity and loving spirit of those that sought to help her at the worst time of her life.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 6:55 PM
Blurt @ 270:
I assume you're referring to Crimen sollicitationis?
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 6:56 PM
Oh, you mean Catholics are no True Christians ? Where have I heard that before...
Even though the RCC is filled with stupid assholes, they don't actually say rape and incest are correct, unless you're a priest, or a father, etc. Just that abortion is worst.
What about those who saved the girl's life ?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 6:58 PM
Piltdown Man #264
Jack Cashill, the guy who wrote Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future, First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America, and numerous WND articles, is a conspiracy nut. But I understand why you love Cashill, Pilty. Right after George Tiller's murder your buddy Cashill compared him to a Nazi war criminal.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 7:01 PM
carol h @ 277:
There are?
Care to quote one?
Posted by: John Paul III | July 19, 2009 7:02 PM
Yes. Only the Catholics are allowed to invade nations and murder millions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 7:05 PM
Don't worry Pilty, you are still an irrelevant idiot with delusions of Cat-O-Lick grandeur. We just can't take you seriously since you are so delusional. Maybe if you went away for a couple of years...
Posted by: Norma Villarreal | July 19, 2009 7:07 PM
You stated it, PZ. Dogma is more important than reality. Enough said.
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 7:07 PM
Care to try this for starters, Pilty...
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:12 PM
Care to quote one?
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 7:18 PM
A few others for you, Pitty : here and here
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:18 PM
Care to quote one?
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Care to quote one?
"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 7:28 PM
Quoted three, not bad, not bad at all. As if a godbot shouldn't know better...Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 7:28 PM
"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. … If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days..." Leviticus 15:19-32.
“Man born of woman…Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!” Job 14:1-4
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 7:31 PM
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:32 PM
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 7:33 PM
Pilty, I'd think even you would be smart enough not to challenge an atheist feminist on Biblical misogynism. Obviously I was wrong.
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 7:35 PM
"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)
"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)
"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)
"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)
"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)
"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)
"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)
Posted by: dean | July 19, 2009 7:37 PM
"The Hitler Jugend was a mandatory organization that every 14 year old person was forced to join. He deserted when he was 18."
Except for religious exemptions, and the fact that he "deserted" after the surviving generals disbanded the youth groups.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:42 PM
'Tis Himself, the Hoax does not see any of the quotes provided by BdN or me as examples of misogyny. Just that BnD and me are wanton sluts who are trying to overthrow the big sky daddy by rejecting our given roles.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:45 PM
BdN, consulting the Dark Bible? Same here.
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 7:51 PM
Yep, it was one of the three sites I linked to, but I guessed that Pilty wouldn't go there by him/herself, afraid of what was there so I decided to post them here directly! Sorry if I stole you some !
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 19, 2009 7:53 PM
Ask, Pilty, and you shall receive.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 19, 2009 7:56 PM
Cue intellectually dishonest sophistry to attempt to explain how a history of subjugation and forced second-class status supported by the bible and enforced by the church is actually empowering for women and not in any way denigrating or defamatory.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 7:56 PM
BdN, you did not steal a thing. You were more far ranging than I was.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 19, 2009 7:59 PM
Impressive work by the Ready Response Team. Janine and BdN have just demonstrated the value of the InnerTubes.
Nice, you guys. Thanks for the good example and the ammunition. ;->
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 8:03 PM
Shame on you Pilty, you have been here long enough to know that PZs holy babble quotin' team is world class. That was silly of you.
Back to Ham, Lynna has it right all of you going to the museum should watch that speech. I actually jumped up and cheered when Ham made the grand mistake of saying that the christian parents should teach their children that every WORD of the babble is a FACT.
If you interpret Ecclesiastes 4:19, 22 literally as a FACT, there is no resurrection. I would love to hear Ham wheedle his way out of that one.
Maybe Piltdown Man can explain it to us? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 8:06 PM
misogynism
Oy gevalt! I apologize to all for not using "misogyny."
Also I apologize to BdN for not acknowledging her strong contributions to the slam of the Catholic apologist.
Excellent work, ladies. That was impressive.
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 8:11 PM
Well, my pleasure then! (and not that it is really important but I sit more on the male end of the gender spectrum...)
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 8:14 PM
Patricia @ 309:
Ecclesiastes chapter 4 only has 17 verses.
What text are you referring to?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 19, 2009 8:18 PM
Alright, BdN, you are a wanton male slut!
Posted by: Notagod | July 19, 2009 8:19 PM
Brad (thinking he is different from the catalicks) wrote:
Wanting to withhold medical treatment that probably saved the life of the girl means that you are the same, dumbass. You've been going to a christian church most of your life and you completely miss the most important issue, that should be a warning that you are probably receiving a regular brainwashing at your disgusting christian church.
Posted by: Woof | July 19, 2009 8:21 PM
I went to a Catholic high school (for scholastic reasons) but I don't think I got any on me. About half the teachers were priests, and of those about half were total asshats. The rest, however, I'm glad to have known.
The Magic Cracker Brigade in Rome, OTOH, can eat shit & die. (Oh noes! I think I just offended M&T! Yea me!)
Posted by: Quixotic | July 19, 2009 8:22 PM
Pilty, would you mind responding to some of the posts, instead of deflecting? Do you admit to the bibles defamation and denigration of females? Do you admit to your own immorality? Can you defend the actions of the leaders of you church?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 8:23 PM
Pilty - Chapter 3 of course, 4 was a typo. (Dang Chimp!) You are being a smart ass.
Was Eccl. 3:19, 22 thrown out of RC scripture? Were I re-writing the babble, and wanted people to continue to give me money in hopes of heaven or hell I'd throw the entire chapter out.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 19, 2009 8:24 PM
Er, no he didn't. You ever heard the expression "Garbage In, Garbage Out"? Fits you perfectly. Anyway, read this:
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/polygraph-level-scholarship-may-suffice-for-harmless-speculation-about-the-authorship-of-midsummers-night-dream-but-not-for-dreams-from-my-father-too-much-is-at-stake/
To summarize:
"According to Cashill, I have now proven that Dreams From My Father was written by many a dead man of American letters, a living mystery writer, a New York Times columnist and the 1967 Illinois Commission on Automation and Technological Progress."
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 8:25 PM
Who the fuck is John Holdren, and what the fuck did that massive collection of mined quotes have to do with the topic of the thread?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 19, 2009 8:26 PM
Oh, Patricia - surely by now you know how it works; any part of the bible that contradicts another part, or a church teaching is a misinterpretation. You know, because they wrote in different genres back then - and obviously there are parts that aren't meant to be taken literally, even though the parts you're questioning might be sandwiched between two sections that are, no-fooling, meant to be taken absolutely literally.
What funny people the ancient scholars were with their mixing up of things! And Christians are just as funny now, because they can't tell you with any certainty how they decide which is which - and it's just a freakish coincidence that the parts they like today are the ones that fit with today's standards.
Or it might be a mistranslation. Take your pick; biblical apologist bingo is a game that uses a very big sheet with a lot of numbers on it...
It kind of makes me wonder why, if the bible's been the same the whole way through, and the church knew exactly what was meant the whole time, why so many things have changed over the years. Oh, but that's just foolish thinking on my part.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 8:28 PM
For those who might be interested, here's Ecclesiates 3:19-22 (KJV of course):
Posted by: RadFemHedonist | July 19, 2009 8:29 PM
The church would rather she die than have an abortion... why am I not surprised? I would like to say that I don't want this becoming a common ground style thing, where this becomes something that's meant to get through to even some misogynistic fundies, as opposed to questioning how anyone who isn't a misogynist would deny a born woman or born girl of any age the right to end a pregnancy, whether that pregnancy was the result of rape or consensual sex or artificial insemination. There is no excuse for the church's view on rights here, but it's not just 9 year old rape victims who should be able to get abortions (not that I'm suggesting that's the majority view of those posting in this thread).
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 8:29 PM
*Raises hand* I think I know the answer!
Ecclesiastes 3:19 Does the Bible really teach that "a man has no preeminence over a beast"? No! The Bible only records that the book of Ecclesiastes says it. Then why is this book in the Bible? Can it possibly be called inspired by God when it makes such "under the sun" pronouncements, some only partially true, others entirely false? Here is the tested answer: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching ... reproof... correction, for instruction... in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16 ASV.) The divine purpose in including Ecclesiastes in the Bible is obvious. It gives a startling picture of how fatal it is for even the wisest of men to substitute man's "wisdom" for God's wisdom, and to attempt to live by it. Solomon's reign began with God, gold, and glory. It ended with bafflement, brass, and bewildered acceptance of man's having "no preeminence over a beast"!--man, who was made "in the image and likeness of God" (Gen. 1:27) and "but little lower than God [or heavenly beings]"! (Ps. 8:5.)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 19, 2009 8:29 PM
Pilty @ #308
Hold on there, fella...
You're going to jump right on Patricia's question, but no comment regarding the many, many examples of defamation and denigration of women that you asked for?
How very typical.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 8:31 PM
No; why would we?
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 8:32 PM
Or, maybe this ?
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 8:35 PM
For what?
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 8:37 PM
"The Bible only records that the book of Ecclesiastes says it." Ah! Ah! No wonder...
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 8:40 PM
Surprised at the fervor with which some people here discuss Ratzinger's Hitlerjugend past.
As if the guy wasnt (medi-)evil enough the way he is.
Shouldnt we judge him on his deeds in the present, which are horrific enough and affect the lives of billions of people, rather then finding him evil because he might have "fired on American troops", as someone said upthread ?
Please !!!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 8:43 PM
BdN #319
In other words, the Bible is to be taken word for word literally true, except for those parts that need interpretation.
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 8:43 PM
@Janine
Well, it's the first time I'm called a slut, but since it allows me to sit along yourself in Pilty's, and others like him, minds, I must consider it an honour!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 8:44 PM
Wowbagger - er, in my old sect we believed the literal word. Most of my quoting is from memory. We did study chapter 3:1, 9, 'to everything there is a season, blah, blah, blah.
Eccl. 3:19,22 was never the subject of a sermon or babble lesson in my church. Half the congregation would have had heart failure. No amount of snake kissing in the world makes up for the FACT that the babble says you aren't going to heaven or hell. Just dead sucks. :p
Posted by: BK | July 19, 2009 8:44 PM
Sorry, my mistake. I read somewhere that he was excommunicated, and I thought only the Catholic church did that.Posted by: Rob | July 19, 2009 8:45 PM
Strange for a group to get so righteous and yet turn a blind eye on child molestation by priests. Maybe someone should explain "Suffer the little children" just a bit better.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 8:46 PM
Wow...
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 8:55 PM
Well Pilty, is BdNs answer correct? It sounds like a sniveling, wheedling, ass kissing approach that the RCC would approve.
Posted by: RHM | July 19, 2009 8:55 PM
".....The God I know will forgive the girl...."
Um....forgive her for WHAT? The rape? Or the abortion, which was also performed based on decisions made for her, by others (thankfully)?
The god you know seems a confused entity, but I guess that can happen when you are an imaginary being.
----------------
I think the emphasis on the abortion being a life-saving necessity for this child is an over-emphasis.
It shouldn't require the possibility of her death to make it somehow more justifiable, or make anyone more comfortable with the decision.
Child raped=pregnant=abortion. It's the only reasonable, moral progression.
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 8:56 PM
'Tis Himself
Here is the tested answer: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching ... reproof... correction, for instruction... in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16 ASV.)
In other words, the Bible is to be taken word for word literally true, except for those parts that need interpretation.
No, no, no, you just don't get it : everything is to be taken word for word, but some are the word of God and others are the word of some random dude. Which is which is up for grabs!
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 19, 2009 8:58 PM
Pilty, even Chris Mooney can refute that conspiratorial nonsense:
"However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they suppported"
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/
It seems, fellow Pharyngulites, that even faitheists have their uses sometimes (shame they don't see it the same way about us "militants"). Don't you just love the Overton Window?
Now Pilty, that's two conspiracy theories you've espoused that I've knocked down. Got any more crackpot theories? I notice it's now July 20th where I am, so wanna go oh-for-three by claiming that the moon landings were faked?
From the UK: Happy Moon Day everyone!
Posted by: BdN | July 19, 2009 9:03 PM
""The Bible only records that the book of Ecclesiastes says it."
I don't know why but the more I look at this quote, the more I feel a "sum is greater than the parts" problem. Does that mean that the book of Ecclesiastes is not a "real" part of the Bible, but an extraneous one, standing on itself ? Then, what books constitute the "real" Bible? Which ones ARE the Bible and are not merely "recorded" by the Bible ? What the hell is the Bible then, if not a bunch of reports ?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 19, 2009 9:05 PM
The god you believe in should, if he exists, beg the girl - and the rest of humanity, for that matter - for forgiveness for what he allowed the rapist to do in the first place.
Posted by: Zar | July 19, 2009 9:06 PM
Pilty, like many thetards, does not understand concepts like ambiguity, variation, or choice. Either you must forbid a raped 9-year-old from getting a life-saving abortion, or else you support tearing the ovaries from unlucky women.
I wonder how many abortions he is responsible for. Ultra anti-choicers often have one (or more) in their past.
If only his mother had swallowed his father's load; the world would be a better place.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 9:07 PM
And remember to moon someone today.
Posted by: waldteufel | July 19, 2009 9:10 PM
Rorschach # 325 --
I was one of those harping on Ratzi's Hitlerjugend past, but after reading the arguments of those who disagree with me, and reading yours also, I've changed my thinking. The bastard has enough to answer for based on his actions since becoming head Catholic. We should probably focus on that.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 19, 2009 9:13 PM
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
The only thing that lets God off the hook, so far as humanity is concerned, is that the Kozmik Asshole conveniently lacks the effrontery to Exist, which only makes the followers of said imaginary being infinitely more culpable as enablers.
Posted by: aesy | July 19, 2009 9:18 PM
Hello y'alls, long time lurker. I remember reading the bible, specifically one of those parts mentioned above. prior to that, i had read a Calvin and Hobbes anthology. Boom! I get a mental image of a pope joining the Get Rid Of Slimy girlS club....
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 9:18 PM
Thank you Tis for posting that lovely bit of uplifting scripture. I sometimes forget that not everyone's mind is as polluted with the stuff as mine is.
The author of Ecclesiastes is supposed to be Solomon himself. The opinion I would enjoy reading the most would be Owl Mirrors. If the KJV Tis posted is good with the original Hebrew or Greek, this is pretty damning.
It would make a swell T-shirt, Eccl. 3:19,22 on the front, and then the verses on the back. Job 7:9 says about the same thing. Dead is dead.
Posted by: JimmyX | July 19, 2009 9:35 PM
Abortion is murder.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 19, 2009 9:37 PM
Abortion is murder.
A terrible mind is a thing to waste.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 9:38 PM
Oh come on Pilty, if you don't give us the church's opinion on these verses you know a smart ass here will look it up.
I imagine some of you are busy collecting the hundreds of posts archived and racing to be the first to publish the Pharyngula Holy Babble, Scripture the Christians Don't Want to Know.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 19, 2009 9:39 PM
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
'Tis, I think you just made NASA cry.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 19, 2009 9:41 PM
Patricia @ 313:
Thanks, I assumed that's all it was. I was just seeking clarification.
Not at all, it's just that we Catholics are notoriously unfamiliar with Scripture. ; )
Nope. Here it is:
19
Douay-Rheims-Challoner: Therefore the death of man, and of beasts is one, and the condition of them both is equal: as man dieth, so they also die: all things breathe alike, and man hath nothing more than beast: all things are subject to vanity.
Revised Standard Version: For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity.
So men and animals both die.
20
DRC: And all things go to one place: of earth they were made, and into earth they return together.
RSV: All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Their bodies rot.
21
DRC: Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?
RSV: Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?
22
DRC: And I have found that nothing is better than for a man to rejoice in his work, and that this is his portion. For who shall bring him to know the things that shall be after him?
RSV: So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should enjoy his work, for that is his lot; who can bring him to see what will be after him?
These would seem to be the money quotes -- the Bible doesn't know if there's anything after death!
But not so fast. Take a look back at 17-18:
17
DRC: And I said in my heart: God shall judge both the just and the wicked, and then shall be the time of every thing.
RSV: I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work.
18
DRC: I said in my heart concerning the sons of men, that God would prove [test] them, and shew them to be like beasts.
RSV: I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts.
There seems to be a twofold sense here -- on the one hand God is giving man's natural vanity a salutary curb (man dies and rots, just like the beasts). But on the other hand, given that the preceding verse has explicitly stated that God will "judge" the righteous and the wicked, the "test" spoken of here carries the implication of a challenge. The "who knows?" questions of 21-22 are rhetorical questions --which get a definitive answer a little later in Ecclesiastes 12:7:
DRC: And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.
RSV: and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
+++
Celtic_Evolution @ 320:
As you say, there have been a great many such "examples" posted. This will take a little time & it's now 2:38am.
But I will get around to addressing them, never fear. Watch this space.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 9:55 PM
Abortion is gods plan: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against stones. And thou shall eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. Dash their children, and rip up their women with child. All the women therefore that were with child he ripped up. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes. They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children... Shall I go on JimmyX or do you get it?
Posted by: tubbolard | July 19, 2009 9:59 PM
once again Patricia wastes a great deal of electrons on the useless.
Posted by: windy | July 19, 2009 10:03 PM
Actually I was not impressed with Mooney's reasoning in that piece. I don't think we should buy a knee-jerk defense that says there was nothing objectionable in the text just because Holdren is on 'our side'. For example this seems to be a recommendation, not a description:
"Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption"
But isn't that also a fine Catholic sentiment? Why does Pilty object?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 10:03 PM
Compared to Pilty the immoral, she was positively concise. Godbots like Pilty try to hide behind meaningless verbiage.Posted by: Quixotic | July 19, 2009 10:15 PM
he is going to try and rationalize biblical lady-hate? hehe im all ears...er eyes...
Posted by: dt | July 19, 2009 10:19 PM
I'm sure that you all realize this already, but we're free to choose any point of origin we want. It may be mathematically and mechanically simpler to choose the sun as the center of the solar system, the pivot point of the spiral as the center of the milky way and divine creation as the only way we could have evolved so quickly, from our first person point of view (which is the only platform any of us will ever view the universe/solar system/galaxy from--sorry guys, travel faster than the speed of light is sheer fantasy, and surviving a dive through a black hole and unlikely theoretical worm hole is mathematically impossible), the earth is and ever more shall be our center of the universe, Galileo be damned.
I'm not a Catholic, and have no desire to become one. But like all private clubs, I support their right to have their rules. If the Catholic Church is such a bad thing, why criticize them if their doing this poor little girl a favor and separating her from this bad thing? And as for the rapist, I don't think we want the catholic church (or any other) forming mutaweenish police to enforce their laws. They just say sorry, you're out of the club. There were no good choices for the little girl. The parent(s) chose one of the bad choices that happened to also violate club membership.
A quick wiki search tells me that sex with a child below the age of 12 can be prosecuted without parental request, sooo, if the Brazilian police do their job, at least the best possible outcome for rapist is on the table, but no matter what, the little girl can't be unraped nor the fetus unaborted. At the very least, everyone in the sad story gets a second chance. except, of course, the fetus. And that's from my perspective a few thousands miles from the crimes.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 19, 2009 10:20 PM
@ Rorschach #133 and others regarding early pregnancy loss:
From the deliberations of the President’s Council on Bioethics, sometime in 2003
http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html Search for [Sandel].
The ensuing exchange is quite worth reading. As best I know, these numbers never found their way into any of Chairman Kass' Commission reports. Should you find them there, please let me know.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 19, 2009 10:22 PM
That's the plan. I suspect what we'll see - if it appears - will be a routine of apologist tapdancing and handwaving of a standard not seen since the heyday of the late, great Gene Kelly.
Posted by: quixotic | July 19, 2009 10:32 PM
popcorn and soda at hand....this should be good.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 19, 2009 10:38 PM
dt @ # 354 says "There were no good choices for the little girl. The parent(s) chose one of the bad choices that happened to also violate club membership."
I vehemently disagree. I echo RHM @ # 333. "I think the emphasis on the abortion being a life-saving necessity for this child is an over-emphasis.
It shouldn't require the possibility of her death to make it somehow more justifiable, or make anyone more comfortable with the decision.
Child raped=pregnant=abortion. It's the only reasonable, moral progression."
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 10:41 PM
Piltdown Man @ 348 - Thank you for this reply. The KJV that Tis Himself posted, and your versions show some great diversity. I'm interested enough to look further into just who changed it and when. I still think the whole of it is bullshit, but I find the process fascinating.
It would be interesting to hold up your interpretation next to Ken Hams, the popes and Rowan Williams. My personal opinion is that you are all squirming around scripture on a wish to get to heaven.
According to a 2006 Baylor University study http://www.baylor.edu/isreligion/index.php?id=40634 you're right, 33.1 percent of Catholics "never" read scripture.
Posted by: foxfire | July 19, 2009 10:43 PM
Hi everyone - I was so distracted by SC's #221 link ("Sophie Scholl- The Final Days" and then I ended up ordering the DVD on Amazon) that I lost track of the thread.
Has Pilty responded to any of the volumes of data that have been presented to him on his requests for evidence?
Oh wait... I just realized that was a really stupid question.
Sorry!
Posted by: dt | July 19, 2009 10:46 PM
And I fully support your right to your opinion
"I vehemently disagree. I echo RHM @ # 333. "I think the emphasis on the abortion being a life-saving necessity for this child is an over-emphasis. It shouldn't require the possibility of her death to make it somehow more justifiable, or make anyone more comfortable with the decision. Child raped=pregnant=abortion. It's the only reasonable, moral progression."
And I do not make up the rules for the Catholic Club. However:
1) I also support their rights to their rules (whether its not wearing green on Thursdays or not killing children regardless of age. (Sorry, I'm not going to review HTML rules for style)
2) The family did not follow the club rules
3) They lose their membership.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 10:49 PM
They are my electrons to waste.
Oh wait, I forgot. They are my father, brothers and husbands electrons to waste. Silly me.
Here I go straight to hell.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2009 10:57 PM
DT, it is obvious you don't understand the full story. Start here. Also click on the first link in PZ's story above.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 11:08 PM
Wait. What?
Pilty you jump from chapter 3 to 12. No.
We can see and judge for ourselves that man and beast die and rot.
But the spirit returning to gawd who gave it... I want evidence for that.
Posted by: Sauceress | July 19, 2009 11:10 PM
Defames,denigrates and devalues..
Depending on age,females are worth half to two thirds the value of males.
Leviticus 27:3-7 (King James Version)
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation.
3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 19, 2009 11:22 PM
DT:
Amazing. You talked for ages and said absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 19, 2009 11:27 PM
Damn, I should be worth more shekels than my age. I can make pies and pickles. Stupid bible.
Posted by: Sauceress | July 19, 2009 11:32 PM
Not to mention your spanking talents.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 19, 2009 11:42 PM
"Funny how they think excommunication is some kind of dreadful punishment to be feared."
If you belive in hell, the devil, and all the rest, then it is. Not just in the next life, either: the very air is full of malicious spirit beings and only the holy church can protect you.
Posted by: wrpd | July 19, 2009 11:49 PM
George Tiller had been a member of a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The LCMS is very vocal in it's stand against abortion. George Tiller later joined a parish of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a much more liberal group. I don't remember the details of his leaving the LCMS.
Posted by: JRC | July 20, 2009 12:04 AM
"The church is standing firm on principle."
And just as firm on the principle of forgiveness and restoration to the
penitent.
But don't mention that, because that would not suit the agenda of the
evil one, who wishes to obscure the good news and focus only on the
problem of mankind without mentioning the solution.
During the time of Oliver Cromwell, Truth was almost permanently obscured,
but the people demanded the restoration of what Cromwell had hoped to
obliterate, as is well explained in the fourth verse of Joseph Stephens's
hymn:
Through many a day of darkness,
through many a scene of strife,
the faithful few fought bravely,
to guard the nation's life.
Their Gospel of redemption,
sin pardoned, man restored,
was all in this enfolded:
one Church, one faith, one Lord.
---> May I repeat: Sin pardoned, man restored.
Thank you.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 20, 2009 12:10 AM
one Church, one faith, one Lord.
---> May I repeat: Sin pardoned, man restored.
Thank you.
And fuck you too; fuck you very much.
Posted by: Timmy Tim | July 20, 2009 12:15 AM
I have been thinking about converting to being an atheist since none of my questions get answered about why God would want this to happen or that to be correct (I've been catholic since birth). After reading this article, I am now an official atheist.
I'm not here to take anyone's beliefs away or ruin anyone's faith,.... but KEEP YOUR F***ING RELIGION TO YOURSELF!
-an Ex-Catholic now living in Hell (also known as The 700 Club)
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 20, 2009 12:16 AM
Oh dear. Yes, spanking does take up some time. The sorting out of everyone's paddles, upholstery care, leather thongs and absorbent carpeting... I'll mention this to my father the next time he decides to sell me. It might up my worth to two chickens. :p
Posted by: Timmy Tim | July 20, 2009 12:17 AM
I have been thinking about converting to being an atheist since none of my questions get answered about why God would want this to happen or that to be correct (I've been catholic since birth). After reading this article, I am now an official atheist.
I'm not here to take anyone's beliefs away or ruin anyone's faith,.... but KEEP YOUR F***ING RELIGION TO YOURSELF!
-an Ex-Catholic now living in Hell (also known as The 700 Club)
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 20, 2009 12:21 AM
It might up my worth to two chickens.
Those would have to be a couple of big chickens.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 20, 2009 12:38 AM
Fess up, Patricia--are you cribbing from The Beauty Trilogy?
Sadly, Anne's gone back to church, and probably ain't gonna write no more of that stuff.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 20, 2009 12:51 AM
What?! I haven't heard about this.
Anne Rice has left Lestat for gawd? Oh, woe and woe.
I'm going to strongly refuse to read any of this blasphemy.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | July 20, 2009 12:54 AM
My response to this whole thing can be stated in three words re: Roman Catholic church:
How Fucking Evil!
my outrage is enormous but pretty much impotent because they are pretty much impervious to criticism from a heathen.
And yes, Ratty is a bastard, a liar and a former Nazi. He could have done something important for good a youth but he went the wrong way.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 20, 2009 1:00 AM
Timmy Tim,
You have probably figured out that f you don't fuck with people and if don't monkey around with stuff that isn't yours or that you don't understand you have noticeably fewer hassles. It gets even better if you don't lie.
Congratulations and welcome. Courage to you and fare well.
Posted by: bobdman | July 20, 2009 1:09 AM
Yet they don't excommunicate a priest for anally f**king a nine year old child. Or an archbishop for hiding the horrible act from the real authorities. The pope protects them. Who cares about children in the Catholic church? Certainly not the pope. Protecting the church is much more important.
I Laugh anymore when I hear the "Pope" make moral judgements about the world. Hell, they are still calling rape victims liars to slow down the legal judgements against the church. The pope and all catholics who support him are moral midgets and have NO MORAL AUTHORITY to judge anyone.
I'm sure the little girl in this news story is a real sweetheart and deserves a better God than the PIG that the Catholic Church has dreamed up.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 1:39 AM
I just want all the females from twenty years old even unto sixty years old to know, i think you are worth 100 shekels easy. 150 if you can make pies and pickles.
Posted by: Kagato
|
July 20, 2009 1:40 AM
"And I did so mean to address those 14 straight quotes posted within an hour of me directly asking for them, but gosh, I just got so sidetracked cutting and pasting my own bible quotes into a response to a different random post I latched onto that, gee, I just lost track of the time. Woop! Gotta go now!"
Hell, it's not like you couldn't have anticipated some example quotes to be posted in reply to your question, and figure people would be expecting a response from you, is it?
It's not like you could have just taken, say, the first quote posted and come up with a quick reply to that before bed, is it?
And what's with the damned scare-quotes around "examples"? Are you trying to imply they aren't legitimate bible quotes or something? Or just that, golly-gee, you people simply aren't interpreting them correctly?
I may asphyxiate from holding my breath in anticipation.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 20, 2009 1:54 AM
He may be a moral coward lacking the courage of his convictions - i.e. since he won't show he's against the actions of the child-rapist-protecting-and-endorsing institution known as the Catholic Church by leaving it - but he's pretty good at coming back and finishing what he's started.
But it might be at a weird time of day for those in the US; he is, I believe in the UK somewhere.
Posted by: raven | July 20, 2009 2:01 AM
Must be a full moon or something, the loons are out. The RCC can have any rules it wants, no problem as long as they don't violate secular laws.. That isn't the issue though. The RCC wants to force its rules on people who don't agree with them. That theocracy thing that never works. The other issue with RCC rules. Many of them do, in fact, violate civil laws. We no longer allow witch burnings, stoning of adulterers and heretics, and the odd pogram against Jews.
Tough times for xian killers these days. We also don't allow pedophile priests to abuse children and then let their church try and cover it up.
DT is a cold blooded serial killer. He just set up a few strawmen and then murdered them. Won't anybody care about the poor, dead strawpeople. This strawmen slaying is boring. Dumb and dishonest xians do it constantly. I guess when you have nothing, all you can do is lie. Xian morality is a myth.
The rest of your babble is just fundie xian garbage. The sun does not orbit the earth regardless of how many lies you tell.
dt: " and divine creation as the only way we could have evolved so quickly, from our first person point of view " A creationist kook.. Big deal. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. From our first person point of view, it took a hell of a long time for humans to appear.
Posted by: Kagato
|
July 20, 2009 2:06 AM
That he may; but I'm not expecting to be particularly astounded by whatever he comes back with.
If only Christian apologetics really meant "yeah... we're sorry about that."
Posted by: raven | July 20, 2009 2:28 AM
Too bad about not converting to catholism. Your fundie death cults are a lot worse. The RCC has its problems but the members have dealt with it. Decades ago they stopped paying attention to the priests and do what most people do, make their own decisions and live their life the best way they can. There is a huge gap between the heirarchy and the members and the priests are mostly irrelevant.
Why not criticize the RCC? They have the right to their own rules as long as they conform to civil society. We have the right to criticize them also. Free country. In point of fact, while criticizing them won't have much effect on the fossilized organization, the members are free to pay no attention or drop out. They frequently do so. Think of it as humanitarian missionary work, freeing minds from the poisonous mollasas of toxic religion.
In point of fact, Pope Ratzinger and the death cult fundies are invaluable helpers in this task. Polls show that between 1 and 2 million people drop out of the xian religion every year in the USA. The RCC has fossilized in situ and in the long and not so long term that is going to cost them. They are in decline in most of the first world.
Posted by: Jesus | July 20, 2009 2:47 AM
Matthew 7:16 "by their fruits ye shall know them"
Why doesn't anyone think to do some research on this religion?
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/astrotheology/index.html
or if you like videos, do yourself a favor and take 20 minutes and watch this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2740987755232169561
with Love,
Jesus
Posted by: pugay | July 20, 2009 2:49 AM
Why object to having the girl be kicked out of the religion?? Perhaps she'll be better off without the church's pernicious influence. Also, the title of this post was not very well chosen. One would not expect such a large institution as the Catholic Church to be "human".
Posted by: pugay | July 20, 2009 2:51 AM
Why object to having the girl be kicked out of the religion?? Perhaps she'll be better off without the church's pernicious influence. Also, the title of this post was not very well chosen. One would not expect such a large institution as the Catholic Church to be "human".
Posted by: raven | July 20, 2009 3:05 AM
Damn that full moon again. The loons are out in force.
Way to miss the point. The point was that the RCC has no moral authority and has apparently died mentally at the top If a religion has no moral authority and is a force for evil, what reason does it have for existing and why keep it around?
Posted by: Rorschach | July 20, 2009 3:09 AM
I suspect English is not pugay's first language.
pugay,the point here is that for a catholic person being excummunicated is as bad as for you to have your genitals cut off,it hurts,and instills fear.
Not something a rape victim should have to go through.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 3:10 AM
As has been stated earlier in the thread, we all agree anyone is better off without the weight of this religion and its dogma. What we (i hate to speak for everyone, but imma do it anyway) have a problem with is the RCC stating that it is worse to help a 9 year old incest rape victim abort a fetus than it is to commit the rape, or that they feel helping this girl should be punished at all.
Also, we can empathize with how hard it must be to be excommunicated if one truly believes this equates to a guaranteed eternity in hell, as well as definite ostracization(
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 3:13 AM
from one's community.
Posted by: FlyinFree | July 20, 2009 3:17 AM
Why does this story surprise anyone? We already knew the Catholic stance on child rape, their priests do it constantly and the Pope himself wrote the policy that protects the rapists and covers up the crimes. Anyone who calls themsevles Catholic is actually declaring they are a child abuse advocate. If you are supporting the church in any way you are part of the problem, there is no gray area here.
And don't forget the millions who die every year in Africa from starvation and AIDS because the Catholic Church won't allow condoms. Oh and of course there's the persecution and murder of millions of Jews and Arabs throughout history and let's not forget who the church feels about gays and women.
The fact that institutions like the Catholic Church still exist today makes me embarassed to be human. Grow up people.
Posted by: Dave Cramer | July 20, 2009 3:28 AM
right on #388
People should check that out if they haven't already. Very eye-opening.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 3:29 AM
"The fact that institutions like the Catholic Church still exist today makes me embarassed to be human. Grow up people."
*raises his glass
-Salud!
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 3:38 AM
#388
i doubt Zeitgeist is new to many here...and I'm no apologist...but that movie makes some blatant overgeneralizations ... the whole god sun, light of the world thing...i dunno...
it told me what i wanted to hear, that's for sure...i just wonder how much of what they present can hold up to serious scrutiny...anyone else have any thoughts on "the greatest story ever told"
Posted by: Josh | July 20, 2009 4:09 AM
Honestly it depends on how you view abortions. If you view it as murder then obviously its wrong. If you view it as a human right then its okay. Despite the whole biological argument and what not. If you believe in the soul and an afterlife you have to believe that they are given one at the moment of conception.
Obviously the Catholic Church views it as murder. If you so vehemently view someone as a murderer, you would excommunicate them too.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 4:22 AM
"If you believe in the soul and an afterlife you have to believe that they are given one at the moment of conception."
Um...no..?
So do you have half a soul as a sperm and half as an egg? The RCC would not want you to waste even one seed, you know. Is the soul created the moment the sperm enters the egg? Some would say you gain your soul the moment you take your first breath. I dont believe in a soul, but I dont think believing in a soul equals believing a lump of cells = 9 year old girl. When did you get your soul?
Posted by: Ryan | July 20, 2009 4:25 AM
Makes one sick just reading about the story. Unbelievable that a foetus is more important than a 9 year old's life. Crazy world...
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 4:26 AM
"If you so vehemently view someone as a murderer, you would excommunicate them too."
Yea you are right...there is no room for compassion here. If you view someone as a murderer, then there is obviously no point in attempting re-habilitation...excommunication is the rational decision. Oh whoops, i think my sarcasm is showing...lemme get that.
Posted by: Dianne | July 20, 2009 4:31 AM
Unbelievable that a foetus is more important than a 9 year old's life.
I think that this is a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's and the pro-life movement in general's position. They couldn't care less about the fetus. What is important to them is keeping control of women's fertility and thus of their lives. A woman who can not control when she has children is far more vulnerable and easy to control than one who can control her fertility at will. The embryo or fetus is just what they use to sell it to the masses, the sincere, well meaning pro-life types who don't understand biology well enough to know that it's not just a smaller baby at earlier developmental points. But the fetus, baby, and 9 year old are all collateral damage from the CC's point of view: better that they should suffer than that the Church should lose power.
Posted by: SEF | July 20, 2009 4:36 AM
That's evidentially untrue, since the underlying religion used to believe ensoulment occurred:
(a) at birth on drawing breath (hence the relationships in all the words such as spirit, inspire, respire etc etc and the old idea that only land animals were really alive);
(b) at "the quickening", ie when the foetus reached the point of self-determined movement.
Meanwhile, if your belief of ensoulment on sperm-egg fusion were to be correct, you're back to your god being the master of mass-abortion again - because the failure rate from that point is very high.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 4:39 AM
Also, i see Ryan spelling it "foetus", and it doesn't look wrong...but i want to spell it "fetus". Does anyone know which spelling is correct? Furthermore.. which witch is whitch wich?
Posted by: palochka | July 20, 2009 4:55 AM
According to the NOAD, "foetus" has no etymological basis, but is common in British non-technical use.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 4:56 AM
I realize i have paid way too much attention to this thread tonight...but i really wanna see Pilty rationalize biblical lady hate. Oh well, time to hit the sack. Check back in around 12:00pm CST.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 4:59 AM
Palochka, Thank you. Also, i know nobody cares what time i wake up. i dont know why i posted that. too much rum.
Posted by: John Morales | July 20, 2009 5:01 AM
Quixotic, allow me. Fetus.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Quixotic | July 20, 2009 5:16 AM
John Morales, Even better. Whatta guy. Haha, really thanks; its kinda cool that for the rest of my life i'll know the correct usage and why...improper use of semicolon... Zzzz...
Posted by: SEF | July 20, 2009 5:30 AM
Ahem! "foetus" was in English spelling at least as far back as my 1867 etymological dictionary (and was conventional during my childhood), although fetus also appears there (and gets precedence on entry cross-referrals for coming first in alphabetical order!). The claimed derivation is from an obsolete word (in Latin) "feo" = "to bring forth", where the eo became the œ ligature (perhaps because the EO combination really was a single vowel in old english, including runes!) which then became separate letters O and E because of typesetting issues.
I'm not likely to go back the necessary hundreds of years in spelling conventions (and the great vowel shift!) to start using "feotus" though. However, I might occasionally manage to bring myself to spell it as "fetus" - especially if I'm specifying both modern(ish) English forms as options in situations when I'm trying to provide keywords for people during an explanation.
Posted by: George | July 20, 2009 5:47 AM
Well, the first part of Zeitgeist is based on the work of Jordan Maxwell. I did some of my own personal research after viewing the movie and looking into Maxwell's theories, and after a few days popping in and out of the public library...
Well, let's just say the "astrotheology" thing is pretty much 100% right on. I even got the librarian in on it, and she couldn't believe what I was showing her. I don't see how this information is not more in the public light yet.
But yes, just replace God's "son" with "sun" and all the scriptures make a whole lot more sense. "Astrotheology"-- google it.
Posted by: George | July 20, 2009 5:52 AM
Well, the first part of Zeitgeist is based on the work of Jordan Maxwell. I did some of my own personal research after viewing the movie and looking into Maxwell's theories, and after a few days popping in and out of the public library...
Well, let's just say the "astrotheology" thing is pretty much 100% right on. I even got the librarian in on it, and she couldn't believe what I was showing her. I don't see how this information is not more in the public light yet.
But yes, just replace God's "son" with "sun" and all the scriptures make a whole lot more sense. "Astrotheology"-- google it.
Posted by: John Morales | July 20, 2009 6:11 AM
George:
I doubt that.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 20, 2009 6:49 AM
Anri @ 260:
Presumably the only alternatives would have been to abolish the rebellious angels from existence before they had actually rebelled (- which would hardly have been just, punishing someone before a crime had been committed -) or to have created the angelic intelligences as robots without the free will to rebel (- which would have defeated the object of Creation). Ditto with the Fall of Man.
If allowing sin to enter creation makes God "culpable" -- well, it can't be said He hasn't suffered for it ...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2009 7:07 AM
Ah, Pilty's back with more tripe. He needs a new hobby. Maybe like learning that nobody else, except maybe his psychiatrist, is interested in his religious delusions, which he should otherwise keep to himself in a polite society.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 20, 2009 7:12 AM
Pilty, you can't punish the nonexistent, so never being created would not be a punishment of anyone for anything. Do try to keep up.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
July 20, 2009 7:25 AM
Either the "All Knowing, All Powerful, Loving Creator" Isn't!
...Or it is just some pathetic little schoolyard sadomasochistic, bully, wanna be omnipotent. What a fucking little schmuck. I say we gang up on it and whup its ass!
Posted by: Kendo | July 20, 2009 7:42 AM
Piltdown , you claim to have a unique insight into God's Plan at posting 415. Why then do you need so much time to compile your responses to the '"examples"' of misogyny in the bible? Come on man, just tap into your private hot-line to The Mind of God and tell us what He was on about. PS, I love the way you answer to the name "hoax".
Posted by: Wildflower | July 20, 2009 7:59 AM
Before I even bother to look further into that astrotheology thing than Google's "I Feel Lucky" result (Wikipedia just redirects to Astrology :P) for the term:
Are they really basing that nonsense on the similarity of the words in the English language... since God wrote the text with a future English audience in mind and considered subsequent translation errors?
As far as I know the words for "sun" and "son" in Hebrew and Aramaic are completely different. Same for Latin. In Greek, 2 letter are the same (less than 50%) and the claim that it's due to the Germanic roots is equally far fetched: Sun in German is indeed "Sonne"... but it's female! How do you get from "die Sonne" to "der Sohn" or in the process of translating to "son" (completely ignoring the fact that those translations feature the words for son, not sun)?
"Die Sonne"? Must be "she son"! So probably "daughter"? Can't be; God wouldn't have a daughter. Must be "son"!
This is completely mind-boggling.
Posted by: OurSally | July 20, 2009 8:03 AM
>>The Hitler Jugend was a mandatory organization that every 14 year old person was forced to join. He deserted when he was 18.
For once I can contribute something:
My Bavarian father-in-law was tossed out of the Hitlerjugend because he refused to give up being an altar boy. Ratzo could have done this too. Maybe my father-in-law should be Pope?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 8:06 AM
Oh yes real suffering. He sent his son to come to earth and die for sin that he created and knew existed.
Suffering for that guy on the cross, but its his father's fault.
Pretty fucked up.
Posted by: Julie | July 20, 2009 8:10 AM
This is horrible. PZ is giving people the idea that in order to embrace science, you need to be vicious and hateful toward other groups, particularly Christians.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 20, 2009 8:19 AM
Since when has your god needed to be just? Your first holy book is nothing but a litany of monstrous injustice.
I'm often upset that I'm unable to fly under my own power. I just can't do it. Can't flap my arms hard enough to get off the ground and up into the trees where I'd like to spend some quality time.
If your god didn't give me the power of flight I guess means I'm some kind of unflying robot. Which then begs the question: if he's okay with me not having the free will to fly, why wouldn't he be okay with me not having the free will to allow harm to come to others?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 8:23 AM
No, people who want to think that is what he is saying are repeating that patently false idea ad nauseam.
Julie do you generally misrepresent people or is it that you have a bone to pick with PZ?
Posted by: John Morales | July 20, 2009 8:25 AM
Julie @423, what post are you commenting on?
This one is about the Roman Catholic Church being vicious and hateful toward other groups.
Pointing that out is not being vicious and hateful, it's being opinionated.
Like you are, except with justification.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 20, 2009 8:25 AM
You are kidding right ?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 20, 2009 8:27 AM
Are you sure? Perhaps you should try reading a few of his posts through again.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2009 8:29 AM
"If you so vehemently view someone as a murderer, you would excommunicate them too."
Except for, you know, all the murderers the Church hasn't excommunicated.
It's about controlling women.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2009 8:41 AM
As usual, Julie gets it backwards. Xians need to stop pushing their religion on everyone else. And stop promoting things like creationism as a science, when it is a theological idea (no evidence, so it can't even be a hypothesis). If Julie wants to be treated with respect, the respect for other religions, or the lack of deities, needs to be respected first. That isn't the case at the moment Julie. Science is an adeistic endeavor, which means it ignores deities.Posted by: Functional Brain | July 20, 2009 8:44 AM
No, but he is exposing Christians who are vicious and hateful towards everyone who are not as deluded and idiotic as they are.Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 20, 2009 8:55 AM
@423: no, people (like you) who already think science is evil will read PZ and have their biases confirmed. But people like you could read a Happy Meal Menu and have your biases confirmed, so you're irrelevant already.
Posted by: hunter | July 20, 2009 8:58 AM
So let me get this straight you want everyone to leave the catholic church... but this girl who was forced to leave.... you want her to be put. back. in.???
I don't really think you have a story here, well maybe if you where a pro-abortion catholic, but as an atheist why do you care about another persons pain and expulsion from a religion you think is folly.
(btw totally not a catholic just thought that an article in "religion" and "evil" would be written by a person that believes in either.)
Posted by: Hunter | July 20, 2009 9:03 AM
So let me get this straight you want everyone to leave the catholic church... but this girl who was forced to leave.... you want her to be put. back. in.???
I don't really think you have a story here, well maybe if you where a pro-abortion catholic, but as an atheist why do you care about another persons pain and expulsion from a religion you think is folly.
(btw totally not a catholic just thought that an article in "religion" and "evil" would be written by a person that believes in either.)
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 20, 2009 9:03 AM
What could be more evil that watching a child enjoy him or herself dipping their chicken mcnuggets into barbeque sauce?Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 20, 2009 9:10 AM
Hunter, are you really that much of an asshole or do you just play one on Pharyngula?
No-one here is suggesting that you ignorant asshat. We're simply appalled at the moral reasoning of the church in its decision to put forth such an action on a clearly innocent little girl, further inflicting undue pain, suffering and humiliation. If you can't be bothered to read, please don't bother to comment.
As an atheist I don't... as a fellow human being I care an awful fucking lot. See, unlike the catholic church (and you, apparently, based on this comment) I actually have a well defined moral compass that points to behavior like the one shown here by the CC as being abhorrent.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 9:11 AM
Didn't you read the thread ? It's already been answered many times and not long before you posted. Just the fact that it informs us on the RCC worldview would be enough : contrary to their claims, to alleviate suffering is NOT what they are there for.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 9:17 AM
Pilty :
Ok, so free will is THE object of the whole Creation ? Where did you get this ? And if this is so, knowing we would then suffer, why didn't he create bodyless, pure soul entities with this free will? And, knowing what was coming, why did he care creating the whole darn thing at all ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 20, 2009 9:21 AM
So the Catholic Church's attempts to force a nine year old girl who was pregnent after being raped by her step-father to to go to term even if doing so was likely to kill her is not a "story" ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 9:24 AM
Do you typically have comprehension issues or is it just when commenting on the internet?
Posted by: SEF | July 20, 2009 9:25 AM
@ MAJeff #429:
Indeed. That's certainly where the evidence points. Perhaps it's been long enough that some people need a reminder, while others won't even have had a first view, of this handy checklist which someone else compiled, having noted that:
It would be particularly instructive for any of the "abortion is murder" crowd to read through and see where, if they're brutally honest with themselves, their views actually fall on each of the points.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 9:27 AM
Of course not : obviously, the only thing they can do is expel them from their "private club". It's not like they had power over entire countries or anything...
Posted by: Anri | July 20, 2009 9:39 AM
Hey again, Pilty, and thanks for getting back to this:
"Presumably the only alternatives would have been to abolish the rebellious angels from existence before they had actually rebelled (- which would hardly have been just, punishing someone before a crime had been committed -)"
Or, of course, to have punished them for thinking it, but before they acted upon the thought - that's permissable according to the bible, yes?
"or to have created the angelic intelligences as robots without the free will to rebel (- which would have defeated the object of Creation)."
I'm not really certain I know what the 'object of Creation' was, apart from giving glory unto god - which would certainly work just fine with robots without free will.
In fact, isn't that the basic concept of heaven? A bunch of souls gathered around the throne of god, endlessly and ceaselessly praising him?
As far as I can see, the only difference between having set this up initially and having set it up post-judgement is that in the former case, there's no hell - no suffering - no anguish anywhere in the universe.
"Ditto with the Fall of Man."
Likewise, ditto.
"If allowing sin to enter creation makes God "culpable" -- well, it can't be said He hasn't suffered for it ..."
Yes, but if we assume that heaven is a place of perfect happiness and bliss (kind of by definition), and if we assume that Jesus resides there (as we are told), then, presumably he's not suffering PTSD or suchlike. He's not haunted by nightmares, he's not wracked by afterpains, he's not troubled with scar tissue.
He sassed some roman magistrates, and had a very bad weekend, 2000 years ago.
In short, he suffered, yes. For a limited time, a long time ago, and it doesn't bother him anymore - he's in a realm of perfect bliss now.
So maybe we should stop pointing to this 'sacrifice' as anything present or currently important. It's over and done with.
Posted by: Sauceress | July 20, 2009 9:45 AM
#423
Yawn...sounds an awful lot like another hit and run troll riding through on Mooney and Kirshenbaum's bandwagon.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 9:56 AM
Well, to be fair, he suffered almost a thousand years :
Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Posted by: martina | July 20, 2009 10:03 AM
@ #45: You demand an excommunication? In fact you are excommunicated automatically when you assist in abortions:
see canon law "Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."
"Can. 1314: ...a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed."
Hooray, you're free!
Posted by: martina | July 20, 2009 10:06 AM
@ #45: You demand an excommunication? In fact you are excommunicated automatically when you assist in abortions:
see canon law "Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."
"Can. 1314: ...a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed."
Hooray, you're free!
Posted by: SEF | July 20, 2009 10:17 AM
@ martina #446-7:
But that's just an invisible (possibly pink, possibly not) excommunication - effectively imaginary.
• The Catholic church, not having any god to inform its hierarchy of anything, will carry on counting you as one of its members.
• The churches won't magically know not to let you in to take your money off you or hand you a cracker.
• It certainly isn't enforced by the non-existent god.
• Even the person themselves, if they were previously prone to hearing voices in their heads and imagining those to be an external god, will still believe themselves to be in communion and communication just as much as before.
Posted by: intermixmt | July 20, 2009 10:27 AM
To the Catholic Church, Where, Where is the love of Christ in all of this? I know I will have things to answer for at the day of reckoning, but as Jesus said, "Whoa to those who hurt little children, for it would be better that person to tie a millstone around their neck and cast themselves into the sea, than to hurt these children." To the pervert that raped this little girl, he will get what he deserves. To those arguing about abortion, which is better, killing the unborn or killing the living which is physically not capable of delivering a child? To all, where is your compassion for all that have been tragically hurt through all of this?
Posted by: Tena | July 20, 2009 10:27 AM
Ok - the Catholic Church issues dispensations for all the Paraguayan soccer players who committed cannibalism in order to survive after their plane crashed in the Andes. They can issue dispensations for cannibalism, but not for a child who has been raped?
How irrelevant is this institution? How can they claim to make decisions for their god?
Posted by: martina | July 20, 2009 10:30 AM
@ SEF: sure, law enforcement isn't a strength of the RCC when it comes to loosing paying members. and ignorance IS an excuse in some cases.
but: what are the possibilities for atheist, but still RCC members e.g. in the US effectively resigning from/leaving church and getting a decent excommunication? In Germany, when you resign, you excommunicate yourself.
Posted by: Tena | July 20, 2009 10:31 AM
Ok - the Catholic Church issues dispensations for all the Paraguayan soccer players who committed cannibalism in order to survive after their plane crashed in the Andes. They can issue dispensations for cannibalism, but not for a child who has been raped?
How irrelevant is this institution? How can they claim to make decisions for their god?
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 10:34 AM
Pilty #348
Why are they rhetorical ? You cannot say this only because they give what seems an answer to it 9 chapters later. A rhetorical question somewhat assumes we already know the answer. Why wait this long to tell us ? The stylistic effect is kinda lost... And you're the one jumping on the last part to say it is related.
Furthermore, I fail to see how it completely answers the question. The first verse is :
RSV: Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?
If the answer is "And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.", does this mean the beasts' spirit returns to God too ?
Is looks like it is pretty common knowledge out there in your circles that the answer I provided a little earlier is the most accepted : Ecclesiastes is not the word of God, but of man : "The Bible only records that the book of Ecclesiastes says it."
Or that : The underlying crucial question could be asked as follows: Which is the best way to spend life for a human being? - The answers to these questions are mostly given from human viewpoint. [...]Such statements might make the reader wonder how such a thing can possibly be written in the Word of God. And yet the explanation is not difficult. This human reasoning is no divine revelation (as e. g. the Epistle to the Ephesians in the NT) but it has been added to the Bible by divine inspiration. [...]God's direct teaching of man appears only in chap. 12:11-14. These final words can be considered a suitable introduction to the book of Proverbs.
If this is the case, the "answer" to the "rhetorical" questions lies in the "human reasoning" part so are not part of the divine revelation one, hence they don't bare any truth at all.
And I think you're off : the real answer is that it was written to promote VEGETARIANISM : "They all have the same spirit, and man has no advantage over the beast." Because the true teachings of scripture point to animals having Souls and Spirits, there can be no doubt that Jesus would have been a vegetarian and that all subsequent Christians should be also; for if an animal has a soul, then it would be just as much a sin to kill an animal as it would be to kill a man. This is not just my opinion, but also God's, for God the Father says, "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man" Isaiah 66:3.
You see ? You see ? Everybody can "interpret". It all boils down to the question : why would we consider yours better ?
Furthermore, and I'll leave it at that, many other verses point out to death being final :
Joshua 23:14
This day I [Joshua] am going the way of all the earth.
Job 7:9
As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.
Job 14:10. 12
But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? ... So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
Job 20:7
Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung.
Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Psalm 31:17
Let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave.
Psalm 88:5
The dead ... whom thou rememberest no more.
Psalm 115:17
The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
Ecclesiastes 3:19
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward.
Ecclesiastes 9:10
For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Isaiah 26:14
They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased they shall not rise.
Isaiah 38:18
For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 10:42 AM
Sorry, I shouldn't have given you another bunch of bible quotes to explain... Are you done with the "all women are sluts with no value" part yet ?
Posted by: Philip1978 | July 20, 2009 10:42 AM
Is it me or am I imagining things -
Piltdown has managed to copy and paste a load of tripe about the Bible - beasts and all - but has not got the slightest intention of answering a very simple question posed to him.
I find it even more amusing that no matter how much is quoted and laid out in all its chapters and verses which Piltdown could look up in the Bible that is almost definitely by his/her side - none of that is ever addressed.
I also find it hilairous that since 331 AD the Bible has gone through more changes, interpolations and translations than could be counted. The book holds concepts, philosophies and practices performed by a multitude of previous religions that came before and at the same time as it was created yet somehow its still God's word!
So go ahead, defend the Pope's actions in this matter, defend your religion and reject quotes from your meaningless human made magic book as you please, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or be polite.
A 9 year old girl was raped by her step-father who had also been raping her disabled sister and the Pope is moaning about how it was wrong to abort.
What part of this reprehensible behavior could you possibly WANT to defend?
Are you really that ill?
Posted by: Tena | July 20, 2009 10:49 AM
Let me see if I have this right: the Catholic Church issued dispensations for the Paraguayan soccer players who had to resort to cannibalism to survive when their plane crashed in the Andes.
So the church can forgive CANNIBALISM, but not a child who has been raped?
How in the world can these people purport to make decisions for their god? How in the world can these people insist they know their god well enough to know that HE can overlook cannibalism, but not the life-saving procedure that kept a little girl from having a totally twisted existence?
Posted by: Sabriell | July 20, 2009 11:04 AM
Who says you need a God to have morals? I have no God and apparently better morals than the ones that do have a God or claim to follow the word of God.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 20, 2009 11:27 AM
What more do you expect from Father Ratzinger's Home for Rapists and Pervs.
Posted by: Jada | July 20, 2009 11:45 AM
As a "Catholic" and I use the term lightly, this is why I feel our religion has completely lost touch with reality. And they can excommunicate my ass if they want to. God is my judge, and I hope they are prepared when THEY face him.
Posted by: Love and compassion | July 20, 2009 11:49 AM
Catholic church is a bunch of extremely dumb, retarded idiots.
Christians are the stupidest people on Earth, followed by muslims.
It`s true!
Posted by: Love and compassion | July 20, 2009 11:56 AM
Catholic church is a bunch of extremely dumb, retarded idiots.
Christians are the stupidest people on Earth, followed by muslims.
It`s true!
Posted by: Kaida | July 20, 2009 12:12 PM
It seems that the book (of fables and moral stories) is often manipulated to ensure the constant control of those who thirst for it. Sad that a nine year old and those who aided her are thrown out of their religion - can anyone actually do that - throw you out of your beliefs? I go back to "judge not" commentary.
I believe it is sad when we use God to justify our harmful acts toward others.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 12:24 PM
yawn
Posted by: becca | July 20, 2009 1:00 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?page=-1
Losing my religion for equality
* Jimmy Carter
* July 15, 2009
"Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God."
Posted by: Lynna | July 20, 2009 1:03 PM
Slightly off-topic, but there's a podcast about empathy, kindness to strangers, organ donation etc. at The New Yorker site. See
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2009/07/27/090727on_audio_macfarquhar
Posted by: Q | July 20, 2009 1:07 PM
The most ridiculous part of all of this (and anything Catholic) is that 1.2 billion people actually listen to what one jerk who epitomizes reason replaced by lunacy says.
Posted by: Marcos Vinicius | July 20, 2009 1:23 PM
I'm Brazilian. Even though I'm an atheist and have no involvement whatsoever with the Catholic Church, I'm ashamed by two things:
1) This horrendous crime happened in my country.
2) Most of the people here are STILL catholic even after knowing that the church doesn't give a damn to "human weight".
Seriously, sometimes living in a catholic country gets me very pissed.
Posted by: Marcos Vinicius | July 20, 2009 1:25 PM
I'm Brazilian. Even though I'm an atheist and have no involvement whatsoever with the Catholic Church, I'm ashamed by two things:
1) This horrendous crime happened in my country.
2) Most of the people here are STILL catholic even after knowing that the church doesn't give a damn to "human weight".
Seriously, sometimes living in a catholic country gets me very pissed.
Posted by: Brandon Gastelum | July 20, 2009 1:28 PM
And this comes as a surprise to anyone? A Nazi at the head of the catholic church... how fitting. Pretty soon the banner above "crucified" Jebus' head that reads INRI will soon be replaced by a swastika.
Posted by: Lynna | July 20, 2009 1:46 PM
Brandon @469: Speaking of Nazis, white supremacists are trying to re-establish their organization in northern Idaho. Of course, they have their own religion too, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Aryan Nations).
Posted by: Michael | July 20, 2009 1:54 PM
I hate to interrupt all of the hate towards Catholics and religion here, but I thought I'd add at least one voice from the other point of view. Obviously the raping of a young girl is a reprehensible act, and the stepfather should be condemned and jailed. Obviously the pregnancy of a young girl presents a very difficult situation.
But the solution most people here seem to be fine with is to simply kill the children in her womb and be done with it? Really? When is killing children a good solution to anything?
I myself was adopted as a child, and I have no idea if I'm the child of a rape victim or simply of a mother who was too overwhelmed to take care of me. But NO ONE has the right to take my life simply because I was unplanned and unwanted. Killing unborn children is not the answer, and if the Catholic Church can try to enforce this by threatening (and carrying out) excommunications, then more power to them.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 2:01 PM
Another lazy arse who didn't read the damn thread...
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 20, 2009 2:05 PM
Fine, Micheal, the girl could have been killed while trying to carry twins to term. You do know that she was nine years old. Please try to know the details of the case before you comment on it.
And, yes, the woman has the right to end a pregnancy or to carry through to the end.
And I will not let any irrational and immoral group like the catholic church have any say over what I do. They need no power at all, not more. When they had power, it was bloodshed for many people.
Posted by: Lynna | July 20, 2009 2:06 PM
Michael @471- This fact has been repeated and repeated, but perhaps you still missed it: If the 9-year-old girl did not have an abortion, she would have died. This was the opinion of the doctors and of her mother.
So, you are lobbying for the death of a 9-year-old girl. It was also highly likely that the twins she was carrying would also have died. There was almost no chance that a 9-year-old could carry twins to viability, let alone to term.
Do know any 9 year old girls? If so, do you want to kill them if they don't bear the children of a rapist?
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 20, 2009 2:06 PM
Michael, shut the fuck up. Take your whining, your oppression, and your bullshit, and get out, now. You do not have the privilege of being heard.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 2:09 PM
Killing Children = bad
Terminating a pregnancy to save a rape victim's life = good
Killing Children ≠ abortion
Posted by: robinsrule | July 20, 2009 2:11 PM
Michael:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137:9 (King James Version)
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 2:14 PM
No, nobody is fine with it but it was the most sensible and sensitive solution.
How many times must this be said ? It IS NOT a children. NOT a sentient being.
Exactly. But even if her life wasn't threatened, would Micheal and the likes advocate that, already being psychologically hurt by the abuse, she should suffer at least another 9 months ? That sounds like child cruelty to me.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2009 2:16 PM
But the solution most people here seem to be fine with is to simply kill the children in her womb and be done with it? Really? When is killing children a good solution to anything?
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
July 20, 2009 2:16 PM
#477 wins a coupon for one Internet, redeemable anywhere Internets are sold.
Posted by: Josh | July 20, 2009 2:19 PM
Well, apparently when they're Iraqi it's an acceptable means by which to "defend America*."
*Yes, I know it's off topic, but it's responsive to the question.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 2:24 PM
Well, I don't wanna play the same game as yesterday, but here are another few occurrences for Michael, following robinsrule, where it seems right to kill children
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)
"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)
"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2009 2:29 PM
I myself was adopted as a child,
Utterly irrelevant.
Posted by: speedwell | July 20, 2009 2:38 PM
Hmm, OK. So what if Michael hadn't been adopted? What if a prospective parent never quite materialized? Would he feel differently today?
Because there simply isn't a prospective parent waiting with beaming smile and open arms for each and every little unwanted pregnancy. A few anti-woman fanatics are willing to adopt; most aren't; many have abortions themselves because their OWN case is DIFFERENT. If Michael was a pregnant teenager, I imagine the fact of having been adopted would be only one of many factors in deciding what to do.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2009 2:39 PM
Michael, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you want to tell anyone else what they must do abortionwise, you should be able to show a recent signed letter from god showing that you have the authority to make that decision for someone else. Otherwise, STFU.
Posted by: Iris | July 20, 2009 2:40 PM
Michael @471:
Wow Michael, you're so close! That is precisely why compassionate, moral people prevented the death of the 9-year-old rape victim by aborting the twin fetuses she was carrying. Get it? The living, breathing girl of 9 is a child, and fetuses are not children.
Yes, Michael, the woman who carried you did indeed have that right. She made a choice - and I wholeheartedly support her right to have made it. But make no mistake: it was absolutely 100% her choice and her right.
Pilty:
I cannot wait to learn all about how this just and loving god commands me to STFU, keep myself chaste for and obediently serve at the pleasure of men - all for my own good of course. Hey, it's not how men want women to behave, no, no, no. It's what god wants! Because he loves me so much! And maybe Michael can chime in and educate me about why it is my moral duty to carry a rapist's offspring to term, even when doing so would likely kill me. So loving and just and...well, Christian.
The Christian god is a cruel and capricious monster, obviously made in the image of human monsters like Michael who would happily follow such a creep.
Honestly, I don't understand why any woman who has even glanced at the bible would remain a Christian.
Posted by: Lee Picton | July 20, 2009 2:40 PM
So, the RCC claims that a human is "ensouled" at the moment of conception? When, exactly, was that dogma invented? When did the RCC ever so conveniently decide that Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of ensoulment was no longet valid? Was it like Mormons getting revelations that it was OK for blacks to be Morons after all?
For those of you not acquainted with the doctrine of ensoulment, according to the august Aquinas, the male got his soul 40 days after conception and the female not until 80 days after conception.
So was that a loophole? Could you abort a male fetus before the 40th day and the female befor the 80th day? Of course, in Aquinas' day, the niceties of sex of the fetus hadn't exactly been worked out. Isn't it wonderful how the RCC just makes up shit as they go along?
Posted by: Dania
|
July 20, 2009 2:41 PM
No children were killed. The life of an 9-year-old girl was saved. How can you condemn the people who saved her life?
Posted by: Rick R | July 20, 2009 2:49 PM
"No children were killed. The life of an 9-year-old girl was saved. How can you condemn the people who saved her life?"
Because, in MichaelWorld, fetuses = children, and nine-year old girls = baby ovens.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 2:55 PM
I think I begin to get it : they want to protect the fetus because "infants who die without baptism have the penalty of fire in hell with the devil". They just want to have time to baptize them. Then, they can die since they'll be going to heaven. The question becomes : why a benevolent God would send innocent children to hell??? Anyways, even once baptized, they're bound to quickly commit a sin or another... and since they're too young to ask for forgiveness, I guess they'll still burn down there...
Posted by: Leon | July 20, 2009 3:09 PM
I did.
Posted by: raven | July 20, 2009 3:11 PM
Hmmm, Michael, if you are babbling on the internet, you must be alive. No one is planning to kill you. Take your meds and the paranoia will go away. In the unlikely event that someone is trying to kill you, call 911, the police.
If you had been aborted, you wouldn't exist and you wouldn't care either.
Under US law and xian religious practice, zygotes and embryos are not considered people. Ever seen a graveyard for miscarriages? In 2,000 years no one bothered even though the majority of zygotes end up miscarried.
Speaking of murderers, you have no right to complain about homicide. You set up several strawmen and then coldly, callously killed them!!! Really the xian killers of strawmen epidemic on this thread is out of control. It is also boring, only stupid trolls with only lies to tell bother with it.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 20, 2009 3:12 PM
Where has anyone said that we should believe that Holdren wasn't some sort of global fascist 30 years ago because he's on "our side"? No we should believe that because what Mooney says makes sense, and because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: do we treat all of Pilty and his ilk's conspiratorial nonsense equal to sanity? Does the idea that a respected scientist and Obama science adviser advocating forced abortions and sterilizations not strike you as a bit hard to believe? If Holdren truly advocated those policies, don't you think the whole of the Left would be up in arms about it, and not just the Limbaughs of this world? Or do you believe the Creationists every time they quotemine Darwin too?
Mooney may be an idiot sometimes, but his next book is hardly likely to be entitled "Nazi apologetics" now is it?
ZOMG! Holdren advocated encouraging responsible parenthood!
Actually if you look back through the text Pilty pasted here, you'll see that Holdren used "should", "must" etc as well. Again, this does not indicate he was advocating what followed from the "should", "must" or "ought". It seems to me at least that his argument is of the form "If X is chosen, you must do Y" i.e if you go down the route of the most extreme policy, then so-and-so necessarily must be done to be consistent. Mathematicians, scientists, policy analysts, economists etc etc do this type of thing all the time.
Yes, you can claim you came from Mars if you want, but you exercising your free speech doesn't make you right.
No, those centres are where they are not because it is "mathematically and mechanically simpler" to say that the sun is the centre of the solar system, but because it's the only non-insane option. Saying that our solar system is the centre of the milky way is like saying the centre of a table is located at the corner.
Erm no. Just no. In th first place, how is divine creation "mathematically and mechanically simpler"?
No, it's PHYSICALLY impossible (if it actually is impossible) to do that. AFAIK, there is no mathematical formulation for life and death.
There is no centre of the universe... oh you mean in a "spiritual" sense. Well science doesn't need to take note of your feelings, but even this "spiritual" sense is probably wrong: look what happened 40 years ago today. It's not beyond humanity to leave this planet behind in the distant future.
Anyway, what was with this non-sequitur paragraph?
Does this mean that the physicists at CERN will all be going to hell too? Aborting all those protons and (previously) electrons with their satanic antiparticles. Matter dominates this universe for a reason, heathens!
Fixed that for you.
Because their god can't make his own decisions, being non-existent and all.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 20, 2009 3:18 PM
If I get a choice I want to go to Norse Hela. It sounds much more interesting than catholic hell.
Posted by: robinsrule | July 20, 2009 3:30 PM
Michael, a few more answers:
"And all the men of his city shall stone him [a stubborn and rebellious son] with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deuteronomy 21 18-21
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21 verse 17
Paul's sidekick Jesus agrees:
"For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" Mark 7 verse 10
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 20, 2009 3:48 PM
Robinsrule - You must be confused. Sweet baby jezus said: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
That should answer Micheals question as to why he was adopted. His parents were good christians.
Posted by: chocolatepie | July 20, 2009 3:59 PM
I know I'm late to the party, but the Straight Dope did a column on how to get excommunicated:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1164/how-do-i-go-about-getting-excommunicated
Posted by: SimonG | July 20, 2009 4:26 PM
Several people seem not to grasp that in the RCC, murderers do not routinely get excommunicated. It's only those involved in abortions that suffer this fate. That seems to me to be evidence that the RCC is being hypocritical about their policies.
I could go on a killing spree in the local shopping centre and if I were a Catholic I wouldn't get excommunicated. I could plant a bomb in a maternity hospital and kill pregnant women and I wouldn't get excommunicated. Anyone who wishes to offer even the mildest defence of the rcc's policyon abortionn must first, I think, make some attempt to explan this discrepency.
Posted by: MS | July 20, 2009 4:56 PM
And even if one accepts the premise that a fetus is fully human, which I certainly do not, how exactly does that convey the right to occupy another human's body for 9 months against that person's will? Forget the specific circumstances in this case, horrendous as they are; when is that right ever conveyed?
Even normal pregnancy in a healthy adult carries with it a significant risk of harm to the mother (much greater than the risk incurred in most abortions). I cannot, for example, be compelled to undergo the risk of having a kidney removed for donation, even if I am the only possible donor and someone will die without my kidney. I must choose to donate and give my consent. I just don't see that this is different in any meaningful way.
Posted by: Julie | July 20, 2009 4:58 PM
PZ: Grow up.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2009 5:01 PM
Posted by: Julie | July 20, 2009 4:58 PM
PZ: Grow up.
Apparently, the misogynists running the RCC are above reproach.
Posted by: robinsrule | July 20, 2009 5:01 PM
Patricia, I guess the take-home message for Christians here is go ahead and hate your parents, but never ever curse them.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2009 5:04 PM
Just a note. The Bishops are also reinforcing their status as an anti-gay hate group:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/07/bishops-oppose-immigration-equality.html
Posted by: antistokes | July 20, 2009 5:10 PM
PZ: Grow up.
Well i guess he better, huh, 'cause that poor girl would not have....
Evolution occurs on a uterus-by-uterus basis. A scary thought to those that don't have 'em.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2009 5:11 PM
Julie, you need to grow up, not PZ. Why? Who gives you the authority to tell someone else what degree of respect they must show you andyour religion? You don't have that authority, nobody does. The only possible answer in a polytheistic society is you must be ready for criticism if you and your religion don't make sense to other people. If you don't like reading the criticism of the cat-o-lick church, you have the option to quit reading this blog. Do so.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 5:16 PM
Julie is that the best you can come up with?
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 5:37 PM
Is this some kind of sibylline, theologically sound argument or is it only the vacuous babbling roaming through your head ?
Posted by: Stu
|
July 20, 2009 5:41 PM
PZ: Grow up
Nanny nanny poo poo. Also: pffffffbllt.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 20, 2009 6:21 PM
Julie, because I will really enjoy the laughter, please define what would constitute being more adult?
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 6:25 PM
I guess it would be something along the lines : don't pick on those who hold childish beliefs for they don't have the intellectual maturity to stand for themselves.
Posted by: Mr. X | July 20, 2009 6:28 PM
I thought that they had excommunicated everyone BUT the 9-year-old mother-to-be/rape victim, on some technicality that "children beneath a certain age can't be excommunicated."
Overall, this whole stupid case only illustrates how irrelevant Catholic doctrine is to the real world. It wouldn't even matter, if so many idiot sheep didn't follow it in lock-step.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 20, 2009 6:32 PM
I can't hold my breath much longer...better reply Julie.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 6:46 PM
Of course! But the trick is : THEY KNOW IT !!! Read the OP :
""This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight." That's disturbing.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 20, 2009 6:47 PM
Fine reply Stu. That's what got you called a BM. Well done!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 20, 2009 6:56 PM
Not quite. They didn't excommunicate the rapist. But then the Catholic Church encourages and supports child rape.
Posted by: Shadow
|
July 20, 2009 7:03 PM
KematheAthiest #190:
#4 -- Stripes. But would they be sent to someplace special?
Posted by: Greta Christina | July 20, 2009 7:19 PM
Nice to know that they love the little children so much. Do they have a similar policy that anyone involved in any way in child molestation -- whether committing the actual criminal act, or simply helping to cover it up -- is to be automatically excommunicated, no exceptions?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 20, 2009 7:27 PM
Greta, if they are in the US, they will go to the Supreme Court in order to try to keep the court records closed.
Posted by: Iris | July 20, 2009 7:43 PM
Patricia, OM:
Aren't we still waiting for Pilty to explain why we should pay any attention to his misogynist, child-murdering god?
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 7:54 PM
Greta, here is an exhaustive list of the different reasons for which you can be. As far as I've read, I don't see anything like it. But you can be excommunicated if you penetrate in a monastery......
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 8:00 PM
You know, it's long making that much stuff up...
Posted by: Louis | July 20, 2009 8:55 PM
Astro-Theology" or, "The Worship of the Heavens".
ASTRO-THEOLOGY
This is the first, original, and therefore the oldest, and most respected story on Earth! It did not take ancient man very long to decide that in this world the single greatest enemy to be feared was the darkness of night, and all the unknown dangers that came with it. Simply stated, man's first enemy was darkness.
Understanding this one fact alone, people can readily see why the greatest and most trustworthy friend the human race could ever have was by far, heaven's greatest gift to the world ... that Glorious Rising Orb of Day: ...
the SUN
With this simple truth understood, we can now begin to unravel an ancient and wonderful story. Today, as in all mankinds' history, it has once again been told anew.
Modern-day Christianity has often belittled our ancient ancestors who are not here to defend themselves. They falsely accuse that they were nothing more than ignorant worshippers of the sun. Therefore we can, with assurance, summarily dismiss thousands of years of human spirituality as ignominious myth, believed by well-meaning, but gullible primitives. Too much of this kind of spiritual arrogance and religious pride has continued without challenge. The time has come to set matters straight.
THE CHALLENGE
First. no people of the ancient world believed the "Sun" to be "God". That belongs in the "disinformation file".
In point of fact, every Ancient culture and nation on Earth have all used the Sun as the most logically appropriate symbol to represent the Glory of the unseen Creator of the heavens. Here it is important to remember two points.
First, with the exception of Japan, the ancient world mythologies always understood the Sun to be masculine in qualities, and the moon feminine. Second, the English language is derived from the German. In the Germanic, the word 'Sun' is spelled 'Sonne'. The two words can (and have been) used interchangeably.
Old Testament:
"The heavens are declaring the Glory of God." (PS.19: 1)
New Testament:
"Jesus is the Glory of God." (2 Cor 4:6)
Old Testament:
"The SUN of Righteousness will arise with healings in His wings." (Mal 4:2)
New Testament:
"God's Son/Sun...he is risen!" (Matt 4:16)
Saying. "How, often I wanted to gather you under my wing. "
The "Ancient Story" went something like this....
1. The ancient peoples reasoned that no one on Earth could ever lay claim of ownership to the Great Orb of Day. It must belong to the unseen Creator of the Universe. It was, figuratively speaking, not man's, but "GOD'S SUN". Truly, "God's Sun/Son was...
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.
2. As stated before, in the dark cold of night man realised his utter vulnerability to the elements. Each night, mankind was forced to wait for the " Risen Sun" to chase away the physical and mental insecurity brought on by the darkness. Therefore, the morning Sun focused man's attention on heavenly dependents for his frail, short existence on Earth, and in doing so, it became the appropriate symbol of divine benevolence from heaven.
3. So just as small fire brought limited light into man's own little world of darkness, likewise the "Great Fire of Day" served the whole Earth with its heavenly presence. For this reason, it was said at Deut 4:24, and Heb 12:29 that the God of the Bible was a "Consuming Fire" in heaven. And so He is!
4. It was accepted by all that man was bound to a life on Earth, but the sky was God the Father's abode - His dwelling place. Naturally, God's Son/Sun would also reside with his Father " up in HEAVEN".
5. Ancient man saw in his male offspring his own image and likeness, and his own existence as a father was proved by the person of his son. It was assumed that God's 'Sun was but a visible representative of the unseen Creator in heaven. So it was said, "When you have seen the Sun, you have seen the Father ". or "The Father is glorified in his Sun".
6. Ancient man had no problem understanding that all life on Earth depended directly on life-giving energy from the Sun. Consequently, all life was lost without the Sun. It followed that God's 'Sun' was nothing less than "Our very Saviour". If you don't think so, wait 'till it don't come up!
7. Since life is energy, and energy from the Sun gave life, and we sustained our very existence by taking energy in from our food (which came directly from God's Sun), the Sun must give up its life supporting energy so that we may continue to live.
"God's Sun gives his life for us to live."
8. While it was plainly true that our life came from and was sustained each day by "Our Saviour... God's Sun", it was and would be true only as long as the Sun would return each morning. Our hope of salvation would be secure only in a "RISEN saviour". For if he did not rise from his grave of darkness,all would be lost. All the world waited patiently for His 'imminent return". The Divine Father would never leave us at the mercy of this world of darkness. His Heavenly promise concerning his Sun was surely that..."He would come again"...to light our path, and save those lost in the darkness ... and He still does...every morning about 5:30 am.
9. Logically, even if man himself died, as long as the Sun comes up each day, life on Earth will continue forever. Therefore, it was said in the ancient texts that everlasting life was "the gift" that the Father gives through his Sun. For..."God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten SUN that we may have life everlasting"....on Earth! Not for you personally - but ON EARTH... everlasting life!
10. Since evil and harm lurked at every turn in the fearful dark of night, all evil or harmful deeds were naturally, the..."works of darkness."
11. With the return of the Sun each morning, man felt more secure in his world and therefore, was at peace. Therefore, God's 'Sun' was with his warm rays of life and hope...The Great "Prince of Peace".
12. And of course the reverse was equally true. The dark evil of night was ruled by none other than..."Prince of Darkness"... The EVIL / DEVIL.
13. Our English words 'Good' and 'God' we get from the German word 'Goth' as in 'Gothic'. Now we see God is Good, and Devil is Evil
14. It was only a short step to see "The Light of God's Sun" equated with the light of truth - and evil equated with darkness. From then on, it was simple to understand...
"LIGHT was GOOD - DARK was BAD."
15. That being true, then the Great Orb of Day (God's Sun) could rightly say of itself,
"I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, and no man comes to the Father except through me", or one comes to God Only by the Light of Truth.
16. We should all "give thanks" to the Father for sending us His "Sun". For the peace and tranquillity he brings to our life is even called 'Solace' - from "Solar" = Sun.
17. We now have before us two (2) cosmic brothers - one very good, and one very evil. One brings the "truth to light" with the "light of truth". The other is the opposite, or in opposition to the light - "The Opposer"...
Prince of this World of Darkness-
The "Devil".
18. It is at this point that we come to Egypt. More than 3,000 years before Christianity began, the early morning "Sun/ Saviour" was pictured in Egypt as the "New Born Babe". The infant saviour's name was "HORUS".
19. The early morning Sun or "New Born Babe", was pictured in two ways.
A) The Dove - Bringer of Peace
B) The Hawk - God of War
(who punishes the enemies of God!).
20. At daybreak. this wonderful, newborn child, God's 'Sun', is ... 'Born Again' Horus is Risen. Even today, when the Sun comes up, we see it on the "Horus-Risen", or "Horizon". His life was also divided into 12 parts or steps across Heaven each day: 12 HORUS = 12 HOURS. This is the origin of the modern " 12 Step Program". Horus is the (new-born) Sun, or the Bringer of the Light. In Latin, Light Bringer is Lucis, or Lucifer, or Luke.
21. But now, what about the evil brother of God's Sun, that old rascally "Prince of Darkness" himself? In the Egyptian, he was called "SET". We are told in the Bible that when God's Sun died, He left the world in the hands of the Evil Prince of Darkness. This evil prince took over the world at "SON-SET".
22. It was generally observed that 'God's Sun' could be depended upon to return in the same manner that he left, namely, "On a Cloud""..and that "Every eye will see Him"" ... Every evening, go out and watch the Sun leave this world "on a cloud". And next morning, watch to see Him return on a cloud. And every eye will see him come again! ... Unless you're blind!
23. Keep in mind 'God's Sun' symbolically represented the light of truth, but was condemned by His enemies who could not endure the light of truth in their life. The ancients taught that the very act of opposing or denying the light of truth to the point of killing it, happened in one's own mind! When we are confronted with the harsh realities of life, the light of truth, which we do not wish to face, and which runs counter to our views, such truth is judged in your mind, or judged "in the temple area" of your brain, and put to death in your head ! Therefore, 'God's Sun - The Truth and The Light - is put to death at "GOLGOTHA" , or "PLACE OF THE SKULL ", located somewhere between your ears! This putting to death of the light of truth in your mind is always accompanied by two thieves: Regret for the past and Fear of the future.
24. And of course God's 'Sun' goes to His death wearing a "corona" - Latin for "Crown of Thorns" . Remember the Statue of Liberty? To this day, Kings still wear a round crown of thorns, symbolising the rays of the Sun!
25. God's 'Sun' brought His wonderful light to the world, and distributed it over 12 months. So it was said, God's 'Sun' had 12 companions, or helpers, that assisted His life-saving work. So it was, God's 'Sun' had 12 apostles (or months) that followed Him religiously through His life. Incidentally, now you know why the American jury system has 12 jurors who help bring the truth to light, with the "Light of Truth".
26. As far back as we can go into the ancient world, we find that all known cultures had a "Three-in-one" Triune God. The very first trinity was simply the three stages of the life of the Sun.
A) New Born Savior at dawn.
B) Mature, full-grown (The Most High) at 12 (High) noon.
C) Old and dying, at the end of day (going back to The Father).
All three were of course One Divinity - The Sun
three different phases, but one God!
The Trinity is truly a mystery...Like electricity, radio, TV, and jumbo-jets are all a mystery to the un-enlightened mind!
27. The Egyptians knew that the Sun was at its highest point in the sky (at high noon). At that point, one offered prayers to the "Most High" God! To the ancients, the sky was the abode, or heavenly temple, of the "Most High". Therefore, God's 'Sun' was doing His heavenly Father's work of enlightening all in the temple at 12 ...not 12 years old, but 12 noon!
28. The world of ancient man kept track of times and seasons by the movement of the Sun daily, monthly, and yearly. For this, the sundial and sun calendars were devised. Not only the daily movement of the Sun was tracked on the round dial, but also the whole year was charted on a round Sun calendar dial. Examples: Ancient Mexican, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Celtic, Aryan, etc. With this method, certain new concepts emerged in the mind of ancient man.
29. Since the Earth experienced 4 different seasons, all the same and equal (in time) each year, the round Sun calendar was divided into 4 equal parts. This is also why we have, in the Bible, only 4 Gospels. Of this point, there can be no doubt. The 4 Gospels represent the four 4 seasons which collectively tell the entire story of the life of God's 'Sun'. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. This is why the famous painting of "The Last Supper" pictures the 12 followers of the Sun in four groups (of three) ... the seasons!
30. On the round surface of the yearly calendar, you can draw a straight line directly across the middle, cutting the circle in half... one end being the point of the winter solstice; the other end being the point of the summer solstice. Then you can draw another straight line (crossing the first one); one end of the new line being the spring equinox; the other end being the autumn equinox. You now have the starting points for each of the 4 seasons. This is referred to by all major encyclopedias and reference works, both ancient and modern, as "The Cross of the Zodiac". Thus, the life of God's 'Sun' is on "the Cross". This is why we see the round circle of the Sun on the crosses of Christian churches. The next time you pass a Christian church, look for the circle (God's Sun) on the cross.
The Sun, since the first day of summer, has each day been moving southward, and stops when it reaches its lowest point in the Northern Hemispheric sky (December 22nd - our winter solstice).
At this lowest point, the Sun stops its journey southward. For three days, December 22nd, 23rd , and 24th, the Sun rises on the exact same latitudinal (declination) degree.
This is the only time in the year that the Sun actually stops its movement Northward or Southward in our sky. On the morning of December 25th the Sun moves one degree northward beginning its annual journey back to us in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately bringing our spring. Anything steadily moving all year long that suddenly stops moving for three days was considered to have died. Therefore, God's Sun who was dead for three days, moves one-degree Northward on December 25th beginning its annual journey back to the Northern Hemisphere. The Sun is symbolically ....BORN AGAIN.
And to this day, His worshippers still celebrate His BIRTHDAY!.... Merry Christmas.
31. Today we use expressions when someone dies. We say things like, "They Passed", or "They Passed On", or "They Passed Away". The ancients said "They Passed Over" (from one life to another), And so it was with the coming of spring, as God's Sun is "Resurrected" from the Death of Winter to His New Life (in spring).
In the ancient world, long before the Hebrews ever existed, the celebration of spring was called "The Pass Over." The Sun, which was dead in winter, has passed over to His new life in spring. This is the origin of the modern Pass Over celebration.
This is why Christians also celebrate "The Resurrection", or His return, in spring with a "Sun Rise service"... He kept His Promise, and has returned to us with the Promise of New Life... "HAPPY EASTER-PASSOVER!"
Etymology Sun vs. Son e.g. God's "Sun"
sun (n.)
O.E. sunne, from P.Gmc. *sunnon (cf. O.N., O.S., O.H.G. sunna, M.Du. sonne, Du. zon, Ger. Sonne, Goth. sunno), from PIE *s(u)wen- (cf. Avestan xueng "sun," O.Ir. fur-sunnud "lighting up"), alternate form of base *saewel- "to shine, sun" (see Sol). O.E. sunne was fem., and the fem. pronoun was used until 16c.; since then masc. has prevailed. The empire on which the sun never sets (1630) originally was the Spanish, later the British. To have one's place in the sun (1688) is from Pascal's "Pensées"; the Ger. imperial foreign policy sense (1897) is from a speech by von Bülow.
son
O.E. sunu "son," from P.Gmc. *sunuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. sunu, O.N. sonr, Dan. søn, Swed. son, M.Du. sone, Du. zoon, O.H.G. sunu, Ger. Sohn, Goth. sunus "son"), from PIE *sunu-/*sunyu- (cf. Skt. sunus, Gk. huios, Avestan hunush, Armenian ustr, Lith. sunus, O.C.S. synu, Rus., Pol. syn "son"), from root *su- "to give birth" (cf. Skt. sauti "gives birth," O.Ir. suth "birth, offspring").
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2009 9:15 PM
Louis, tl;dr. Try a link next time.
Posted by: BdN | July 20, 2009 9:20 PM
He just copy/pasted the whole site from the link in #388. I suspect some morphing.
Posted by: Kagato
|
July 20, 2009 9:29 PM
Piltdown Man @415
(Still watching that space, by the way. Is something going to happen there, or is it just a very pretty space that you felt needed our attention?)
I'm not sure you've really thought through the full implications of this "logic".
You've ascribed omniscience to God, therefore he already knows the ultimate outcome of his actions before he's taken them. God wouldn't need to 'uncreate' the rebellious angels, he could just choose to not create those angels in the first place, and only go ahead with the creation of the angels that will choose to obey.
Now, you can say that by only creating obedient angels, he's not allowing free will, he's merely creating "robots" -- but if he created the other angels, knowing from the outset that creating them as he did, they would rebel, then they are equally slaves to their destinies. God has merely created two sets of "robots": slaves who love God, and slaves who hate God. If he knows what they will become at the point of creation, he is in effect deliberately creating them to be that way.
Further, if he was going to follow the rather twisted approach of punishing them for acting in the way they were created to act, why would he need to 'uncreate' them before they rebelled? He could wait until afterward, and disappear them then. But he didn't; he let them continue to exist, despite the damage he knew they would eventually cause.
Finally, what is the ultimate outcome of this 'exercise in free will' you claim Creation is all about? Apparently there'll be this big battle between the forces of good and evil, good shall triumph, and all pain and sin and suffering will come to an end. (except for those who burn forever in the lake of fire, of course).
By your own description, doesn't that mean that when the end times come and peace reigns forever, free will must also come to an end? That the end goal of the Christian creation is for everyone to become robot slaves to God? Doesn't this make the intervening thousands of years of 'free will', and the suffering that accompanies it, a sadistic and unnecessary sideshow?
But that was his idea!
Posted by: Iris | July 20, 2009 10:09 PM
Louis @522 - Wow. Please take your meds. You seem pretty harmless (unlike Michael, Pilty, & the Pope), but I feel very sorry for you because you are completely missing out on an absolutely amazing real world.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 20, 2009 10:28 PM
Does God have free will?
For if he does, then how can he be omniscient?
And if he doesn't, then how can he be omnipotent?