Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
And if you think that is fair then you cannot object to Muslims forcefully converting Christians without being hypocritical.

But the contexts were different. As I said, the specific reason was a concern that Jews who converted to Christianity would convert back to Judaism. They were maintaining Christianity in an already Christian Land.
2
And if you think that is fair then you cannot object to Muslims forcefully converting Christians without being hypocritical.
3
Preaching and Worship / Re: Parallel Hero Updates Thread
« Last post by Jacob Harrison on Today at 11:09:38 am »
Thanks. Chapter 10 should come tomorrow or the next day.

Been a bit busy with work myself.

The first arc should be done somewhere at around Chapter 18 to 20.

Now it is August 18. When is it coming?
4
Jerusalem and Israel were owned by other people before the Byzantine Christians. Same goes for Spain as well.

You are very inconsistent in what you consider "rightfully owned."

Also, you can stop being apologetic for the Inquisition. Jews weren't forcefully converting anyone and it was the Christians who forced them to convert or die. It was a catch-22, Jews were told to stop practicing their faith and convert to Christianity and any who were found not to have done so were punished.

For some reason I doubt that you defend Muslims who have forced everyone in their region to convert to Islam.

But the Christians did not take Israel or Spain from anyone, they were both under the Roman Empire which later converted to Christianity.

On the wikiepedia article on the Alhambra Decree(the expulsion of Jews from Spain), "The primary purpose was to eliminate their influence on Spain's large converso population and ensure they did not revert to Judaism." It was to prevent Jews who converted from reverting back. The Jews were given the option to convert or leave.
5
Jerusalem and Israel were owned by other people before the Byzantine Christians. Same goes for Spain as well.

You are very inconsistent in what you consider "rightfully owned."

Also, you can stop being apologetic for the Inquisition. Jews weren't forcefully converting anyone and it was the Christians who forced them to convert or die. It was a catch-22, Jews were told to stop practicing their faith and convert to Christianity and any who were found not to have done so were punished.

For some reason I doubt that you defend Muslims who have forced everyone in their region to convert to Islam.
6
How come Catholics some how "deserve" to own land that isn't theirs but Muslims don't? Especially since nowhere in Bible does it say that anything on Earth deserves to be owned by Christians? Sure, there is arguably the land where Jews came from but that's for Jews, not Christians.

The Christians owned Spain first before the Muslims conquered it. And the Holy Land is rightful Christian land because it is where Christ and the early Christians came from and it was part of the Christian Byzantine Empire before the Muslims conquered it. That is why the Crusades were about liberating the Holy Land. That is why I proposed that after England allies with Israel in it's war to free the persecuted Christians in the Middle East, conquering the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, should then conquer Israel so that the Catholics rule over the Holy Land.
7
Then why did they target Jews and Cathars?

According to wikipedia this is why Jews were targeted.

"the main justification the monarchy gave for formally expelling all Jews from Spain was the "great harm suffered by Christians (i.e., conversos) from the contact, intercourse and communication which they have with the Jews, who always attempt in various ways to seduce faithful Christians from our Holy Catholic Faith", according to the 1492 edict."

However the inquisitions were merciful and allowed Jews who converted to stay in Spain. The Cathars were targeted because they were heretics and therefore a cause of disunity in a Catholic Kingdom.
8
(all emphases in original)

Quote
Myth: Over 300 priests were found guilty of preying on youngsters in Pennsylvania.

Fact: No one was found guilty of anything. Yet that didn't stop CBS from saying "300 'predator priests' abused more than 1,000 children over a period of 70 years." These are all accusations, most of which were never verified by either the grand jury or the dioceses.

Did you not see the part where Pennsylvania has shitty statute of limitations laws?

Quote
During the seven decades under investigation by the grand jury, there were over 5,000 priests serving in Pennsylvania (this includes two dioceses not covered in the report). Therefore, the percent of priests who had an accusation made against them is quite small, offering a much different picture than what the media afford. And remember, most of these accusations were never substantiated.

Lemme do the math here... 300/5000 = ... = 6%. I say that's six percentage points too high when it comes to possible pedophilia.

Quote
Importantly, in almost all cases, the accused named in the report was never afforded the right to rebut the charges. That is because the report was investigative, not evidentiary, though the report's summary suggests that it is authoritative. It manifestly is not.

A lot of them are also dead, but even then were it not for shitty laws regarding civil suits, the dioceses could have been sued with the evidence unearthed by the Grand Jury.

And I should point out that a lot of that evidence is Church records.

Quote
There are some cases that are so old that they are unbelievable. Consider the case of Father Joseph M. Ganter. Born in 1892, he was accused in 2008 by an 80-year-old man of abusing him in the 1930s. Obviously, nothing came of it. But the priest was accustomed to such charges.

In 1945, at the request of Father Ganter, a Justice of the Peace interviewed three teenage males who had made accusations against him. Not only did they give conflicting stories, the three admitted that they were never abused by Ganter. But don't look to the media to highlight this case, or others like it.

Well, for one, again, shitty statute of limitations. And for another, the world of 1945 was very different from the world of 2008, never mind 2018. Religion had a far harder grip on society at the time, plus, particularly in the US, it was becoming pretty clear that the next enemy would be the "godless Commies". Maybe those three men perjured themselves (if they were under oath). Maybe their accusations really were baseless. That doesn't mean the 80-year-old man was automatically lying.

Quote
Myth: The report was warranted because of the on-going crisis in the Catholic Church.

Fact: There is no on-going crisis—it's a total myth. In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. How do I know?

Over the past two years, .005 percent of the Catholic clergy have had a credible accusation made against him. No one knows exactly what the figure is for other institutions, but if there were a grand jury investigation of the sexual abuse of minors in the public schools, people's heads would explode—it would make the Catholic Church's problems look like Little League. But no district attorney or attorney general has the guts to probe the public schools.

.005% is still .005 percentage points too high. As for doing a grand jury investigation of public schools, hey, we're in agreement. Let's do that. Let's investigate (since he used the term) Little League baseball, too. Maybe Donahue's right that the problem is less rampant in the Catholic Church than it is in other institutions. Let's find out.

Quote
To single out the Catholic Church—without ever investigating any other institution—is akin to doing an investigation of crime in low-income minority neighborhoods while allowing white-collar crimes committed in the suburbs to go scot-free, and then concluding that non-whites are criminally prone. That would be a scam. So is cherry picking the Catholic Church.

I have to say, on the part about low-income neighborhoods, he's got a point.

But I wonder if he's looked at Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. They didn't stop at religions.

Quote
Myth: The grand jury report was initiated to make the guilty pay.

Fact: False. It has nothing to do with punishing the guilty. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh "Salacious" Shapiro admitted on August 14 that "Almost every instance of child abuse (the grand jury) found was too old to be prosecuted." He's right. But he knew that from the get-go, so why did he pursue this dead end?

Just because it's too old to be prosecuted doesn't mean it's too old to let the stories be known, and if the legislature sees fit, they can reopen the window for civil suits. Also, that word "[a]lmost"? That means that there are some that can be and are being prosecuted.

Quote
Kane and Shapiro have never sought to shame imams, ministers, or rabbis—they just want to shame priests. Nor will they conduct a probe of psychologists, psychiatrists, camp counselors, coaches, guidance counselors, or any other segment of society where adults routinely interact with minors.

If this is true, then, again, I agree that there should be probes into those religions and professions. Drag it all into the light. Expose the entire ugly underbelly to the harsh scrutiny of justice. But don't pretend the Catholic Church is somehow faultless and being victimized.

Quote
In most states, public school students have 90 days to report an offense. That's it. Which means it is too late for a student raped by a public school teacher to file suit if the crime occurred this year at the start of the baseball season. Public institutions are governed under the corrupt doctrine of sovereign immunity, and few politicians have the courage to challenge it.

Once again, we agree. Let's get rid of sovereign immunity for sexual abuse in public schools.

Quote
The reason we have statutes of limitation is because many witnesses are either dead or their memories have faded. The public school industry understands the importance of this due process measure, and rightfully protests when it is in jeopardy. So why is it that when bishops make the exact same argument, they are condemned for obstructing justice? The hypocrisy is nauseating.

How about we enforce that due process in the courts, let them determine what evidence is good enough? Judges are good at that sort of thing; go look at the Jian Ghomeshi trial a while back.

Quote
Myth: The priests "raped" their victims.

Shapiro said that "Church officials routinely and purposely described the abuse as horseplay and wrestling and inappropriate contact. It was none of those things." He said it was "rape." Similarly, the New York Times quoted from the report saying that Church officials used such terms as "horseplay" and "inappropriate contact" as part of their "playbook for concealing the truth."

Fact: This is an obscene lie. Most of the alleged victims were not raped: they were groped or otherwise abused, but not penetrated, which is what the word "rape" means. This is not a defense—it is meant to set the record straight and debunk the worst case scenarios attributed to the offenders.

It sure as hell comes across as a defense when you seem to be trying to downplay the psychological trauma likely inflicted on the kids.

Quote
Furthermore, Church officials were not following a "playbook" for using terms such as "inappropriate contact"—they were following the lexicon established by the John Jay professors.

Examples of non-rape sexual abuse found in the John Jay report include "touching under the victim's clothes" (the most common act alleged); "sexual talk"; "shown pornography"; "touch over cleric's clothes"; "cleric disrobed"; "victim disrobed"; "photos of victims"; "sexual games"; and "hugging and kissing." These are the kinds of acts recorded in the grand jury report as well, and as bad as they are, they do not constitute "rape."

And if you read the documents the Grand Jury looked at that predate the John Jay Report, you'd see that they were using euphemisms then, too, like "very indecent behavior". (p. 62) Or, as one alleged abuser put it, "check for cancer". (p. 77) Or "known occurrences of misbehavior". (p. 99) "[c]ontrolling his addiction" (p. 100)

To go back to an earlier bit I skipped over...

Quote
The report, and CBS, are also wrong to say that all of the accused are priests. In fact, some were brothers, some were deacons, and some were seminarians.

...

Here's the truth: In over 1300 pages, the word "horseplay" appears once! To top it off, it was used to describe the behavior of a seminarian, not a priest.



Quote
Myth: The abusive priests were pedophiles.

Fact: This is the greatest lie of them all, repeated non-stop by the media, and late-night talk TV hosts.

There have been two scandals related to the sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Church. Scandal I involves the enabling bishops who covered it up. Scandal II involves the media cover-up of the role played by gay molesters.

Let me repeat what I have often said. Most gay priests are not molesters, but most of the molesters have been gay. Not to admit this—and this includes many bishops who are still living in a state of denial about it—means the problem will continue. Indeed, there are reports today about seminaries in Boston and Honduras that are disturbing.

http://www.gundersenhealth.org/ncptc/jacob-wetterling-resource-center/keep-kids-safe/sexual-offenders-101/sexuality-of-offenders/

Quote
[M]ost men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual and most of these men were married and had children of their own.

Quote
They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children....

Quote
How do I know that most of the problem is gay-driven? The data are indisputable.

The John Jay study found that 81 percent of the victims were male, 78 percent of whom were postpubescent. Now if 100 percent of the victimizers are male, and most of the victims are postpubescent males, that is a problem called homosexuality. There is no getting around it.

Fuck you for calling homosexuality a problem.

Also, rape isn't entirely about sex: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/insight-therapy/201602/rape-is-not-only-about-power-it-s-also-about-sex

Quote
The New York Times, which has been covering up for homosexuals for decades...

[citation needed]

Quote
Myth: Cardinal Donald Wuerl is so guilty that he needs to resign.

Fact: This accusation, made by a CBS reporter, as well as others, is based on pure ignorance, if not malice. Shapiro played the same game when he lamented how "Bishop Wuerl" became "Cardinal Wuerl" after he allegedly "mishandl[ed] abuse claims." This is a scurrilous statement.

No bishop or cardinal in the nation has had a more consistent and courageous record than Donald Wuerl in addressing priestly sexual abuse. Moreover, the grand jury report—even in areas that are incomplete and unflattering—does nothing to dispute this observation.

Why do I call Wuerl "consistent and courageous"? Because of Wuerl's refusal to back down to the Vatican when it ordered him to reinstate a priest he had removed from ministry; this occurred in the early 1990s when Wuerl was the Bishop of Pittsburgh. The Vatican reconsidered and agreed with his assessment.

I'm sorry, did you miss these bits?

Quote
Diocesan records revealed that Wuerl granted Paone' s request to be reassigned again on October 22, 1991.

(p. 226)

Quote
Wuerl responded by dispatching letters notifying the relevant California and Nevada Dioceses of the 1994 complaint. However, Wuerl did not report the more detailed information contained within Diocesan records. The Diocese did not recall Paone; nor did it suspend his faculties as a priest. To the contrary, Paone continued to have the support of the Diocese. On July 29, 1996, Wuerl was informed by the Chancellor of the Diocese of San Diego that Paone had continued with his ministry, but, "acting on the advice of our insurance carrier," he was requesting that Wuerl complete the enclosed affidavit, which stated, among other things, that Paone has "not had any problems involving sexual abuse, any history of sexual involvement with minors or others, or any other inappropriate sexual behavior."

(p. 229)

Quote
In February, 2003, Wuerl accepted Paone' s resignation from ministry. Wuerl wrote a letter acknowledging Paone' s request while providing assurance that "sustenance needs and benefits will continue according to the norms of law." Approximately 41 years after the Diocese learned that Paone was sexually assaulting children, he was finally retired from active ministry. In spite of Wuerl's statements to the Vatican, the clear and present threat that Paone posed to children was hidden and kept secret from parishioners in three states. Wuerl' s statements had been meaningless without any action.

(p. 231)

Quote
In the midst of this public scandal, on March 1, 1989, Wuerl authorized a confidential settlement between the Diocese and the family of the victim and his brother (who was also a victim) in the amount of a $500,000 lump sum with a separate amount of $400,000 to be paid over a period of 30 years. The settlement contained a "confidentiality agreement" which prohibited the victims from discussing the settlement or basis for the settlement with any third parties - unless agreed to by the Diocese. The settlement released the Bishop, the Diocese, and the Roman Catholic Church from any further liability with respect to the matter.

(p. 247)

Quote
In March, 1992, Zula informed the Diocese that he might be eligible for early release in July and requested that Wuerl confirm his future salary payments to assist him in obtaining his release. In response to Zula' s request, internal Diocesan documents revealed that Wuerl directed his subordinates to provide the requested information. The Diocese also agreed to increase Zula' s sustenance payments to $750 per month after his release and to provide him with medical coverage. When Zula was released in July, 1992, he received a check in the amount of $11,542.68 from the Diocese.

(p. 250)

Quote
On January 20, 1995, Wuerl met with Zula to discuss his future salary and medical benefits. They discussed his dispensation from priestly vows but Zula was hesitant to agree to his removal because he did not think he could support himself. Zula suggested the possibility of a lump-sum payment which Wuerl referred to as "cushion income." After further discussion, Wuerl was open to the idea of Zula receiving a lump-sum payment of $180,000.00. Zula countered, however, with a request for "$240,000.00 (TAX FREE)." Additional internal documents indicated that the Diocese weighed Zula' s request. Three pages of undated handwritten notes with the heading "FROM THE DESK OF Father Guay" referenced Zula' s concern regarding his July, 1995 payments and the figures of $180,000 and $240,000. The words "slush fund - under table" were also included on the notes. Similarly, in a November 24, 1995 letter sent from Zula to Wuerl, Zula stated that he had recently met with Guay and Father Dinardo who informed him that if he were to resign from the active priestly ministry, he would still be entitled to receive his monthly sustenance payments and medical coverage. In light of this representation, Zula stated his desire to resign.

In 1996, the Diocese entered into a memorandum of understanding with Zula whereby he was allowed to resign and was prohibited from ever seeking future assignments within the Diocese. In return, the Diocese agreed that it would continue to pay him $750.00 per month for sustenance and provide medical coverage for him.

On January 31, 2001, another victim disclosed abuse by Zula. The victim reported that Zula asked him to remove his clothes so that he could beat him with a belt. On December 14, 2001, the Diocese increased Zula' s sustenance payments to $1,000 per month as of January, 2002.

(pp. 252-253)

Quote
There are many vicious critics of the Catholic Church who would like to weaken its moral authority

What moral authority?

Quote
These very same people delight in promoting a libertine culture, one which ironically was the very milieu that enticed some very sick priests and their seminarian supervisors to act out in the first place.

When did these scandals start? I would submit that it's before the "libertine culture" you decry took hold.

And priests are rampantly sexually active in, say, Uganda:

https://www.observer.ug/component/content/article?id=24337:fr-musaala

Keep in mind that penalties for homosexual activity in Uganda can be as high as life imprisonment.
9
How come Catholics some how "deserve" to own land that isn't theirs but Muslims don't? Especially since nowhere in Bible does it say that anything on Earth deserves to be owned by Christians? Sure, there is arguably the land where Jews came from but that's for Jews, not Christians.
10
Then why did they target Jews and Cathars?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10