An archbishop of Opus Dei to take over as the “head man” in Los Angeles; wonderful!
He takes over for Cardinal Roger Mahony, under whose tenure there were over 500 cases of abuse by the clergy.
I remember a time when people attacked me for saying that the Roman Catholic Church was one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet, and that it had been since its inception. Funny how those same individuals aren’t criticizing me for my statements anymore; during the last several weeks I haven’t heard a peep out of them. I wonder why? TGO
Refer to story below. Source: Associated Press
VATICAN CITY – The pope on Tuesday named Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, Texas, to take over the Los Angeles archdiocese when its current archbishop retires, putting him in line to become the highest-ranking Latino in the American Catholic hierarchy.
The appointment of the Mexican-born Gomez as coadjutor for Los Angeles also will likely make him the country’s first Latino cardinal. Gomez, 58, is an archbishop of Opus Dei, the conservative movement which enjoys favor at the Vatican.
Cardinal Roger Mahony, who has been dogged by the clergy abuse scandal during his quarter-century tenure in Los Angeles, turns 75 in February. Under church rules, bishops submit their resignation at age 75.
Pope Benedict XVI can decide whether to keep him on the job longer. But the appointment of Gomez as coadjutor indicates Benedict wants a smooth transition to a new leader for the nation’s largest diocese.
Gomez will have to oversee the fallout from the abuse scandal that came to light during Mahony’s tenure.
In 2007, Mahony agreed to a record-setting $660 million settlement with more than 500 alleged victims of clergy abuse.
A federal grand jury is also investigating how the Archdiocese of Los Angeles handled claims of abuse, and has subpoenaed several witnesses, including a former Los Angeles priest convicted of child molestation and a monsignor who served as vicar for clergy under Mahony.
Mahony’s attorney has said the cardinal, the longest-serving U.S. cardinal since the Second Vatican Council, is not a target of the investigation.
Mahony said he and his bishops would work closely with Gomez until early 2011, when Gomez takes over the archdiocese, which counts more than 5 million members, 70 percent of them Hispanic.
“I welcome Archbishop Gomez to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles with enthusiasm and personal excitement,” Mahony said in a statement.
Gomez said he was grateful for the appointment and the trust that the Vatican’s nuncio had in him.
“I will try with all my strength to earn that trust,” he said in a statement.
Mahony was to introduce Gomez at a news conference later Tuesday in Los Angeles’ cathedral.
Gomez was born in Monterrey, Mexico and studied theology at the University of Navarra in Spain. He was ordained an Opus priest in 1978 and worked in the Houston-Galveston area and in Denver before being named archbishop of San Antonio in 2004.
Opus Dei was founded by Saint Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer in Spain in 1928. Escriva held that sainthood could be achieved by anyone, from homemaker to professional, by carrying out everyday tasks extraordinarily well.
The movement, which enjoys a unique status at the Vatican, was depicted as a murderous cult in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code,” which Opus members and the Vatican have denounced as defaming the church.
At a future concistory, the pope will likely name Gomez a cardinal, given that Los Angeles is such a large and important archdiocese whose leader has traditionally worn a red hat.
Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the American Catholic church. Latinos comprised 32 percent of all U.S. Catholics in 2008 compared to 20 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey from Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
There are currently 65 million Catholics in the U.S.
Benedict acknowledged the importance of the growing Hispanic Catholic community when he named Archbishop Daniel N. DiNardo of the heavily Latino Galveston-Houston archdiocese a prince of the church in 2007.
“This just recognizes the reality on the ground that the center of gravity of U.S. Catholicism is moving to the South and West and is becoming increasingly Hispanic,” said David Gibson, a Catholic author who covers religion for PoliticsDaily.com.
___
Associated Press write Rachel Zoll contributed from New York.
You call “ignorant”, “fanatical”, etc respectful? You’ve used those terms throughout your diatribe. Have no fear, I wasn’t calling you idiotic, just your views.
Oh, sorry. Is “idiot” any better? The fact is that God doesn’t condemn us to hell or recommend ua for heaven. Hell is a condition of absence of something, like black is condition of lack of color, or dark is a condition of lack of light. Hell is our choice of turning away from God’s love. It is your choice, which means you have free will. God will not be subject to your limitations or your requests. He’s put it all out there, so there is no more that can be done or shown.
As we say in the country, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Your choice, bud.
First you state that I’m being stupid and now you refer to me as an Idiot… I am very disappointed. You seem to have lost your class, although on second thought it appears you never had any to begin with. But being that you’re a “good” Christian, as if there really is such a thing, why should I have expected anything different?
Throughout our entire discussion I’ve expressed my views without ever offending you. I’ve respected your opinions while expressing my own. Yet apparently you’re just another in the long line of ignorant, fanatical, dead-beat Christians who show their frustration when they realize they have nothing to offer but their age-old, tired, superstitious rhetoric. Actually, it would have been better had you entertained me with talk of elves and goblins…
I suppose this is inevitably what happens when a logical, educated, intelligent individual tries to engage in dialogue with a God-freak; sooner or later the God-freak, realizing how rudimentary his arguments are, gets frustrated and does what every “good” Christian does: attack. If I was you, and thankfully I’m not, I would worry that I may not be accepted into heaven. I mean after all your behavior is quite un-Jesus-like, wouldn’t you say?
Actually, God did make everything ‘good’. It says so in the Bible. But God knew that true love cannot be forced, and gave his creatures free will. To the angels he gave them one chance, since they are omniscient. Lucifer decided against God’s love and took 1/3 of the angels with him, permanently. This is where corruption set in. You’re really being stupid. God gives man another chance at paradise by testing us here on earth. What was, was. Regardless of what you or I think, it’s the way it was-realistically. God doesn’t tell people to do evil, so your hypothetical doesn’t work. But if we’re to follow the commandments, #1 is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength.” If you do that, you will love all God’s creatures, too.
Do you have children? If not will you have children? Or someone you profess to love? If your child, whom you love, goes to the edge of the forest and picks a berry and starts to put it in his/her mouth, would you allow it? No, you would take it away from your child and possibly scold him/her about acting dangerously. When God says he wants us to love him or else we’re doomed to hell, it’s like me telling my child that if he eats that, he could die. True love is not appeasement. True love is sacrifice.
Regarding your theory, I guess you’ll find out (or not) when you die.
Ah yes, the Bible. The “Holy Bible.” The “Good Book.” That collection of the most intellectual works in the history of mankind with talking snakes and jackasses; The Great Flood; Noah’s Ark (which he constructed when he was 600 years old) in which ALL of God’s creatures floated around until the waters receded, 150 days (five months) later. Not to mention the butchering of entire cities; men, women and children; and the endorsement of slavery. Very impressive… Is this the best God could do? The almighty, all-knowing, all-loving God couldn’t get better authors to tell his story? I’m sorry, I should know better, certainly if the Bible says something is so it must be true.
There is no such thing as free will if God knows the outcome. Don’t you understand? God’s knowledge of what the future is cannot be wrong, because he’s all-knowing. Man, in the interim, is just a robot acting out God’s knowledge of what will be.
Do you mean to tell me that God couldn’t stop Lucifer; or that if he could, that he elected not to? By the way, a good Christian such as yourself shouldn’t call his brother stupid; that’s not very Christian of you. I’m really hurt by your statement.
I’ll tell you what I would do if a child of mine disobeyed me. I would teach him or her that what they did was wrong, and explain why. I wouldn’t condemn them (punish them) to everlasting pain and suffering and I certainly wouldn’t punish my future children for the transgressions of the first. But that’s just me…
Actually, you don’t know what my idea of evolution is. I have no problem with evolution, except that God had his hand in all of it. You’re very hung up on a literary device, that 6 days. I’ve got no such hangups. However, there is no proof that evolution worked the way Darwin proposed it.
You’re right, ther IS no context where those things are acceptable. But there was. It was acceptable in ancient societies before God manifested himself, and just like our current health care proposal will be gradually implemented, God led His people away from that context. And actually God IS due more love than is due your own parents. You can live without your parents, you cannot live without God granting you each and every breath you take, whether you believe it or not. You’re just lucky that God is not a selfish God, or a vengeful God. He’ll let you do your own thing, and get into your own trouble. You think I justified it? No, but would you like to blame someone who’s been dead for 4000 years? Blame the tribal leaders of the time. They still live much like that to this day. And if you think that so many were killed in the name of religion, what about those non-believers, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, and others, who have killed literally hundreds of millions of people? What about atheists like George Bernard Shaw who proposed that if a human couldn’t pull his own weight, he should be put to death, but make it nice, play sweet music while he dies…great stuff.
Actually, God made the world, God made the rules, man chose to ignore God’s rules, it’s God’s right to do what He wants. He did it once, nearly completely, but regretted what he did. But wait, you think all this is a fairy tale, so it didn’t happen. Did it or didn’t it? God can do what he chooses. He’s God. We cannot do what we choose, we’re not God. But God told us that murder is wrong. And so it is.
I’m not trying to discredit you. I’m just wondering how you know that you’re a good, decent person? Who told you? I know the answer. You don’t yet. The fact that you know that it’s not right to steal, lie, murder, commit adultery, that’s God’s law written in your heart. Good on you, if you follow God’s law.
I’m not hung up on any literary device. The Bible says God created the world in six days; either he did or he didn’t. If he didn’t then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong about that, it could be wrong about anything and everything; the creation, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.
What are you saying that God led his people away from that context? That “context” didn’t need to exist. God could have made everything good, yet he didn’t. He didn’t need to put that serpent in the Garden of Eden KNOWING that Eve would “sin,” (as if any of that really happened). But you get my point. If God KNOWS everything he knew man would sin because he created man and knew the object of his creation. Look, there is avoidable evil and suffering in the world. If God can’t stop it, he’s not all-powerful; if he doesn’t want to stop it, he not all-good; and if he doesn’t know it exists, he not all-knowing. He cannot be all three because of the fact that there is avoidable evil and suffering in the world!!! And don’t tell me the Devil is responsible for the evil that exists. Who created the Devil? God did correct, he created the universe and everything in it.
Let me ask you something, since it’s obvious you’re a believer; hook, line and sinker, if God speaks to you (as many people claim that he has) and tells you to kill one or both of your parents, or children, or cousin, or best friend; whatever; would you do it? I mean if God IS due more love than your parents, and you are as loyal to him as you appear to be, would you kill any of these people that don’t deserve as much love as he does if he asks you to do it?
Wait, did you state that God is not a selfish or vengeful God? The God who commands his earthly children to follow him or else they will burn in hell for an eternity is not selfish or vengeful? Are you kidding me!!!
Who allowed Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, etc. to carry out their missions, wasn’t it God? Why didn’t he intervene? And don’t tell me that God doesn’t intervene, because if he doesn’t, what’s the use of prayer? And what do you mean God regretted what he did? He knew what the outcome of what he did would be didn’t he; since he’s all-knowing?
In my opinion, God is a myth, an imaginary being invented by man when he knew little about the world around him; when he had no idea what the sun and moon were, or the stars in the sky, clouds, thunder, lightning, disease, death, etc., etc., etc. Fear of the unknown is what prompted man to invent these imaginary gods. Over time, different civilizations adopted the concept of gods which was already established by their predecessors and they adapted these gods to fit their own specific beliefs. These gods continued evolving as civilizations evolved. Then, thousands upon thousands of years later when man learned to write, he documented the beliefs of the time. Different societies adopted these differing beliefs and over time they became traditions which represented the beliefs of these various groups. That’s it, pure and simple.
Where did you ever get the idea that I didn’t believe in evolution? Certainly not Darwin’s idea. Also, where do you get the idea that the creation account in Genesis contradicts the idea of evolution? Hint: it doesn’t.
And if you believe that the rules of scientific method today are the same as they’ve always been, then you probably believe that mankind is the cause of global warming, too, because there is absolutely no evidence of it, and yet some people accept it as science.
Regarding Hawking, no, he was a theist at worst. http://thinkexist.com/search/searchquotation.asp?search=What+is+it+that+breathes+fire+into+the+equations+and+makes+a+universe+for+them+to+describe
I guess I need you to explain to me what your problem is with those snippets of scripture? You do realize that you’ve quoted about 1/10,000th of the Bible? Read the context of each passage, and you’ll see there’s good reason for EVERY one of them, without exception. Of course, put that along the cultures of the time, Romans who practiced infanticide and euthanasia, Hittites that practiced cannibalism, Egyptians who practiced selective murder of male children. Every culture in the middle East, Greece/Macedonia and the Roman Empire that practiced slavery. What you don’t see is God leading his people out of those types of cultural norms to the modern world, where we abhor human indignity, oh, except for the infanticide part, known today as abortion. That’s the moral world you want to live in. Two thumbs up!
Yes, I know, your idea of evolution is that God created the universe along with everything in it; from deadly bacteria to the tapeworm, cockroach and fly (all in six days) and then let evolution run its course. Sorry to disappoint you but this is not evolution. You can spin it any way you like (knock yourself out) but this is not evolution.
No, I don’t believe that mankind is the soul culprit for global warming as a great deal of global warming is cyclical. The earth, like all living organisms goes through cycles, and a great deal of global warming is the result of these cycles. However, having said that, don’t think for one moment that the thousands upon thousands of square miles of asphalt roadways and parking lots, along with the millions of concrete buildings with the thousands of square miles of building roofs, all of which are reflecting heat back into the atmosphere; have no impact on global warming. Add to this the tens if not hundreds of millions of vehicles; motorcycles, cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes; all which generate heat and are dumping millions of cubic feet of toxins into the atmosphere… They all contribute to global warming.
I’m sorry, but in my mind there is no context under which slavery, the slaughtering of women, the smashing of babies on rocks, the total destruction of entire cities, a God demanding more love for himself than that which is naturally given to ones parents and children, or any of the other grotesque, disgusting and despicable atrocities described in the Bible are acceptable. Only a brainwashed, twisted and demented mind can justify these actions; regardless of the circumstances. And quite frankly, I really don’t care about all the other acts of violence and brutality that other sick religious freaks were undertaking. All of them are completely evil and unjustifiable.
For the record, I’m not in favor of abortion. I only believe in abortion under very specific and extreme circumstances, and I can assure you that none of them are of a frivolous nature. But what problem would you, a good Christian, have with abortion? Your God drowned all his earthly children. Then the second time around in his experiment he slaughtered entire cities; men women and children. Certainly you have no problem with murder.
My friend, I’m afraid that as much as you may want to discredit me you will fail. I’m an honest, decent and moral individual. And more importantly, I don’t need God, religion or any of the supernatural baggage that goes along with it to justify the fact that I’m a decent human being.
Origin of Species is a great work of science-fiction. Darwin even wrote letters where he changed the rules of proof to fit his findings.
Stephen Hawking has stated, “It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief.”
When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, “…then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity.” He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.
A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”(p. 174).
Hawking believes in a first cause.
Regarding your last paragraph, you say you do ‘good’, ‘never hurt anyone’, etc. What is it that makes you think that you’re doing good, and so on. Mind you, I’m not doubting you, but your moral code comes from somewhere. And for it to be ‘good’, it must be ‘good’ to the general concensus. I call this ‘natural law’, which is instilled in every human by…God.
Obviously, I don’t expect anyone indoctrinated by religion to believe in evolution. I suppose you’re compelled to believe in Creationism; more than likely in the absurd and crude 6-day creation myth. So no, The Origin of Species would not be a good read for you.
I really don’t know what your sources are for some of the statements you make. I’m fairly well-read, and I don’t limit myself to just one camp as most religious people do. In fact, one of the reasons I’m a non-believer is that I’ve read your Bible, which is the best source for converting people to atheism there is. In any event, your statement about Darwin changing the rules to fit his findings is ridiculous. The beauty of science is that it uses a self-correcting methodology. New discoveries are tested and discarded unless they fit all previously established and tested criteria. Only then is old data replaced with new, and this step is repeated over and over again. The intent of the process is to find any flaws and through trial and error eliminate these flaws in order to better substantiate a given theory. This is how new discoveries are made. Science doesn’t attempt to put a square peg into a round hole. Religion on the other hand, begins at the end (claiming there is a God and “knowing” his mind) and then attempts to justify this “knowledge” with supernatural claims and childish tales.
I don’t know where you got your Stephen Hawking quote from with regard to Isaac Newton, but your point that science and religion are somehow compatible is nonsense. Science deals in facts, religion in fiction.
I’m looking at the referenced page in my copy of A Brief History of Time and the quote you describe which is supposed to be on page 174 is nowhere to be found, at least not in my book; maybe we have different revisions of the same book. But regardless, there’s no need for me to defend Stephen Hawking, who despite his severe physical condition has accomplished more in his lifetime than you and I combined will ever achieve; even if we were to live to be 900 years old as presumably Noah did according to your Bible. Suffice it to say he’s a brilliant scientist, and oh yes, he’s a non-believer.
No, thankfully I did not get my morals or goodness from the Bible, which is supposedly the source of good morals. Some morality… Here are a few of the “good” and “moral” statements in the “Good Book,” in no particular order:
Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces…
Malachi 2:3
…The Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.
Isaiah 3:17
I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood…
Ezekiel 32:5
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rend them.
Hosea 13:8
Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women…
Ezekiel 9:5
Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger… Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:9, 13:15
Therefore, fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers… I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken.
Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17
And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall… Then you shall know that I am the Lord.
Ezekiel 35:8
… I make weal and create woe; I am the Lord, who do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law…
Matthew 10:34
The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnaces of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.
Matthew 13:49
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.
John 3:36
And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.
Luke 12:47
If one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:26
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:20
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: You may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.
Leviticus 25:44
Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy… and they shall be your possession… They shall be your bondmen forever.
Leviticus 25:45-46
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect…
Titus 2:9
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ…
Ephesians 6:5
But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…
Deuteronomy 22:20
… They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? Therefore I will give their wives to others…
Jeremiah 8:9
I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband.
Genesis 3:16
Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the horses plundered and the women ravished…
Zechariah 14:1
… I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this Sun.
2 Samuel 12:11
Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives…
Romans 7:2
For the wife does not rule over her own body, but her husband does…
1 Corinthians 7:4
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.
1 Corinthians 11:8
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14:34
… So when he went into his brother’s wife he spilled semen on the ground… And what he did (spilling semen) was displeasing to the Lord and he slew him also.
Genesis 38:9
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Timothy 2:11
And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem…
2 Samuel 5:13
When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity.
Deuteronomy 25:11
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father; she shall be burnt with fire.
Leviticus 21:9
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against God. They shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Hosea 13:10
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:9
Thanks but no thanks; I’ll pass on Christian morality!
Ah, pure chance…so I guess you believe, if you get enough worms crawling around on your computer, that you could someday write out Einstein’s theory of relativity…brilliant! I find it more believable that an intelligent being caused the universe to happen, and designed everything just so. Everything about the universe tells us that God did it. The universe could no more have been an accident than your automobile was, or the building you live in. The difference is that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is not man-made, whereas Greek/Roman mythos obviously was, as were the Norse gods. Hinduism was obviously started by a man. Buddha was a man.
I’ll leave you with this. If you’re right, and I’m wrong, neither of us will never know, when we pass on. But if I’m right and you’re not, we will both know instantly when we die, and by then it’s too late, your fate and mine will already have been decided. Rejecting God will put you into eternal torment. Trying to live the way God wants will get you to paradise. What a sad sorry life you live, with no purpose other than to consume, and then to die…But I know we’re more than animals, you obviously don’t.
I suggest you read the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin; and A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking – as well as many other great works of thinkers and scientists throughout the ages, before you are willing to mock my views. But, if you like, you can continue to mock them. However, I can assure you that these books are far more thought-provoking and instructional than getting your “knowledge” from this ridiculous book of fairy tales, otherwise known as the Bible.
Ah yes, I was waiting to “see” how long it would take for you to get to this. By the way, I must commend you; you’ve far outlasted everyone else I know. I always realized you were quite intelligent (although I’m afraid religion got a hold of you). You’ve hit on the old selfish cliche; if I believe and I’m wrong, nothing is lost. But if I don’t believe and I’m wrong, I’ll live in everlasting fire…
My life is anything but sorry. For one thing, I stand by my principles, right or wrong. My life is not about doing what’s best for me; copping out and/or living like a meaningless worm in this life for the hopes of everlasting life in another. This would be truly sad, to be a slave in this life for the hope of a better life to follow. Sorry my friend, but I am not a prostitute. I live by my convictions. I am a good, honest, trustworthy human being. I’ve never intentionally hurt anyone, and never would. I will help as many people as I can along the way, and expect nothing in return. This is my religion…
By the way, what IS your world-view? Atheist? Moral relativist?
I do not believe that God exists. Not only do I not believe in a personal God such as the God of Christianity – one who supposedly created us, looks out for us and intervenes in our affairs upon request – I also do not believe in a higher intelligence, power, spirit or anything else resembling a cosmic administrator. Naturally, I also do not believe in the concept of heaven and hell, or that such places exist. Furthermore, I do not believe in an after-life of any kind. In my opinion, upon our death we just cease to exist, period; just as all other living things cease to exist. Other creatures do not have souls that ascend to heaven or descend to hell, and neither do we.
Instead, I believe that the conditions were “right” for life here on earth (and more than likely other worlds) and that we simply evolved over time, by pure chance, just as all other life forms on earth have evolved throughout the 4-billion plus years of our planet’s existence.
Actually, Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God-the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is an intellectual certainty that the laws of logic exist, and an intellectual certainty that the laws of mathematics exist, and an intellectual certainty that the laws of science exist. There are also absolute moral laws. It is a fact that these things are all non-material. They have no form or substance. It is also a fact that the laws of logic, math, science, and the moral laws are universal and unchangeable. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.
Romans 1 vs. 18 – 21 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things.
Therefore, God exists. With intellectual certainty.
Regarding modern science, what has modern science proven with certainty? I’ll wait.
The Bible teaches nothing; it was written by ignorant people who had no knowledge of anything beyond the immediate vicinity of their meager existence. With the passage of time some books were added and others deleted, then later translated from Aramaic and Greek into many different languages. It is full of contradictions; it even contains two distinct creation stories!
Quoting biblical jargon to me is a waste of time. This is the same book that describes talking animals, people living to be hundreds of years old, etc.
Look at my example below to substantiate not only how utterly absurd the stories (fairy tales) in the Bible are, but how inconsistent and ignorant the storytellers were. Jonah supposedly was swallowed by a _______ fish/whale (fill in the blank). Where he lived for 3 days! What swallowed him, a fish or a whale? Obviously a book inspired by a perfect being should know the difference, yet obviously the authors of this “holy book” were clueless as to the difference between a fish and a whale (mammal). See below:
Jonah 1:17
Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.
Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly.
It really is stupid to even be discussing this, because anyone with half a brain knows the Bible is not factual!!!
There is no intellectual certainty about God’s existence. Your statement is NOT PROVABLE – it is based on faith.
If I need to illustrate to you what modern science has proven with certainty you must be living in a cave.
Ah, but I didn’t qualify where or when the scientists did their work. I said that 75% of the greatest scientific minds ever were believers in one God. And I’ve named names. I could keep going with names, too, both believers in one God and non-believers in one God. I didn’t qualify it. I also didn’t claim that the reason for their greatness was because of their belief. What I’m saying is that belief in one God is an intellectual certainty because most of the greatest minds ever believed in one God.
Your demographic theory sucks wind, too. There is a huge block of Palestinian Christians, and there’s a ton of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other faiths in Mexico. One of the largest islands in “Catholic” Philippines is almost totally Muslim. Truth be told, I include Muslims in those believing in one God.
Regarding scientific thought now ignoring God, the truth is that since most scientists have turned away from God, not taking Him into account, they have made little, or no progress in any scientific field.
And actually, what the founding Fathers were afraid of is what Henry VIII did-proclaiming a state religion. Henry took all Church property away from the Catholics who owned it rightly, and made his own religion-Anglicanism, and forbade practice of any other, persecuting all others. That’s what the Fathers were trying to avoid.
What is your point? What you are saying makes no sense. There is no intellectual certainty in believing in one single God; if ten different societies believe in ten different gods, either one is right and the other nine are wrong, or they’re all wrong. They certainly can’t be all right since none of them agree on the same God. What is the value of believing in one God? Where do you get your logic from?
You can try and debunk my “demographic theory” all you want, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet follow the religion of their tribe. Of course there are exceptions, there always are. Christians of differing denominations sent missionaries to every corner of the globe to recruit followers. Needless to say they succeeded. So what? India, which boasts a population of 1.2 plus billion people is primarily Hindu, but was formerly a British colony. Obviously the British are not Hindu, so a percentage of India’s population was influenced by England and therefore a portion of their population is Christian; but still, most are Hindu. The same is true even of regions within countries themselves. Most Americans from the southern states are Baptists, Episcopalians, and Evangelicals, whereas northerners tend to have less Protestant ideologies. And there is NO DOUBT that children born in Lebanon or Iran for instance are almost assured of being Muslim, whereas those born in Mexico or Colombia, with a strong Spanish tradition, will most certainly have a Catholic upbringing. I’m afraid the sucking of wind is yours and yours alone.
The third paragraph of your latest commentary is so completely absurd that it doesn’t even merit a response. Utter stupidity!!!
What the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid was a government with religious intervention, although you can masquerade it anyway you like. This is why Thomas Jefferson made it a point to specifically identify a government where there would be a separation of Church and State; regardless of what the “Church” happened to be. Try and get your “facts” straight from now on.
So I’ve made my point-that most of the greatest thinkers in history have been people who believed in one God. The principal Founding Fathers–Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin–were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion.
No, you’ve made no point whatsoever. If the greatest artists in Medieval art or literature for example, just happened to be Muslims, that would only mean that they lived in places and/or during times when Islam was the prevailing faith. This would not mean that Islam was the reason they were great artists, writers, philosophers, etc. As I’m sure you’ll agree, religion is demographic. People generally follow the religion of their roots. It is an undeniable fact that a child born in Palestine is much more likely to be a Muslim than one born in Mexico, and that one born in Mexico is much more likely to be a Christian (Catholic) than one born in Palestine. Under the scenario above, since Allah is not the God you believe in, you wouldn’t be giving him or Islam credit for the achievements of their scholars. So to say that the greatest thinkers in history believed in one God is pointless, as religions have dominated the landscape for thousands of years.
However, in the last hundred years or so, as science has progressed, religious dogma has disappeared in the scientific community, as well it should.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct, the Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of religion in government. Not because one is more corrupt than the other, but because of the danger of having the two struggle for power and the consequences that would follow. Regardless, life during the appropriately named Dark Ages, when religion (Christianity) ruled, was not very pleasant for the average citizen.
One of “those”??? *GASP* Actually, the Church is not in the business of laminating itself to scientific data. But there is no problem believing the literal account of Genesis and the evidence of the age of the universe. See, the issue is how we interpret it. The account in Genesis does coincide with the evident age of the universe. 6000 years is about how long Judaism’s been around.
You said…”Yes, the Catholic Church absolutely, unquestionably, beyond the shadow of a doubt suppressed scientific thought, forcing many great thinkers to either abandon their research …” Actually, the Catholic Church did not suppress Galileo. They only required more proof before they would back him up. He could not prove it. As long as he presented his theory as a theory, there was no problem between him and the Church. But he refused, and went ahead claiming it was fact, but he had no proof, in fact, had not the instruments necessary to prove it. By the way, what books did they burn?
You really ignored what I said. I said that the majority of the greatest scientist ever were believers in God. Einstein “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: “A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.” That’s not atheist.
Also, you named 21 people. And then you try to discount that the greatest scientists of all time were believers? Until about the 1600’s, it was not a question, in the world we’re talking about, that there is one God. Today almost half the world believes in one God. Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Benjamin Franklin, Marconi, Thomas Edison, Wernher von Braun…Note that Thomas Edison is on your list and mine. How could that be? I bet one of us is wrong. Also, if you think some of your list were great thinkers, remember that GB Shaw advocated killing humans who society judged weren’t pulling their weight. Great!
Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton all lived in the Middle Ages at what is considered the height of Christianity; of course they followed church dogma. Some of the others you mentioned; Michael Faraday, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, etc. lived predominantly in the 1800s, and yes, they considered themselves Christians, as did many others; even in the 20th century. Benjamin Franklin however was a Freemason. He had some rather negative things to say about religion, as documented in Poor Richard’s Almanac, therefore I’m almost certain he didn’t believe in the God of Christianity, although he was probably a deist.
Here are a few of the things Benjamin Franklin said and wrote:
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”
“Think of how great a proportion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it ‘til it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security.”
“To follow by faith alone is to follow blindly.”
I don’t have the time right now to get into a lengthy response, so I’ll just address your statements with regard to Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein. I’ll respond to your other comments in due time…
Here are a few of the things Thomas Edison said and wrote. As you will see some of them have nothing to do with religion. But if those that do don’t sound to you as if he was a non-believer (atheist) I don’t know what else he could be “labeled” as:
“The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them.”
“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
“Religion is all bunk.”
“All Bibles are man-made.”
“Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people.”
“There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the real labor of thinking.”
“I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States.”
“I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.”
“My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it.”
“To those searching for truth – not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.”
“Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.”
“I am proud of the fact that I never invented weapons to kill.”
“There ain’t no rules around here! We’re trying to accomplish something!”
“I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul… No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living – our dread of coming to an end.”
These are a few of the things Albert Einstein said and wrote:
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.”
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”
“It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which I lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the merely personal, from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes and primitive feelings.”
“The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of humans nor the rule of divinity exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the good, the true, and the beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task”
Limit myself? Hardly. I’ve been where you are, bitter and hate-filled. I’ve come a long way. Volumes have been written about just this proof of God. I’ve read a lot of them, and I’ve read a lot of the other side. None of that other side is convincing.
Your final comment sounds a bit like what Satan said to Eve in the garden, but I have opened my mind, that’s where God comes in.
I hate to disappoint you, but I’m anything but bitter and hate-filled; quite the contrary. I do realize however that the religious use that rhetoric as it makes them feel somehow superior to people who don’t need to look to the supernatural for fulfillment. But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself, knock yourself out.
The “other side” as you refer to it includes the use of reason and common sense, as well as a necessity for evidence to support claims; not blind faith. This is how science works. You know, science, that which the Catholic Church has oppressed for centuries in order to maintain the ignorance of the masses and in doing so securing its profits.
Based on your last comment, I suppose you also believe the fairy tale of the talking snake in the Garden of Eden?
No, you may have opened your heart, but your mind is still closed.
Hmm, so you say. But I’ll take a purpose-filled life over the idea that this is all a great accident any day. I have used reason and common sense to come to my conclusion, which is supported by about 6000 years of information, not blind faith. Science, oppressed by Catholics? Do tell. You think I believe in fairy tales? Catholic Church kept science alive through the centuries. We also defined what constitutes proof. Darwinian evolutionists changed the definition because they could not get past the theoretical stage. Did you know that the vast majority of the world’s great scientists were Christian or Jewish? About 85%. Many were Catholic priests, or monks. Most of music theory was figured out by Catholics.
My mind is not closed, but it is very decided. And yeah, I took my sweet time.
Funny you should mention a “purpose-filled life,”as in the title of the book. I’m presently reading another book which deals with this very subject. I don’t have time to get into the details now, but if we continue the dialogue I’ll summarize its content one day.
You mention 6000 years; I hope you’re not one of “those” who believe the world (universe) is only several thousand years old; surely you don’t believe that!!!
Yes, the Catholic Church absolutely, unquestionably, beyond the shadow of a doubt suppressed scientific thought, forcing many great thinkers to either abandon their research or to do so in hiding for fear of being labeled a heretic and punished (tortured) and/or murdered by the Church. Galileo is but one example of this. It wasn’t until 1718, well after his death, that the Church granted permission to have one of his works published; in a limited version of course. Which brings me to another point: the Church was also responsible for the confiscation and destruction of countless works which they felt challenged their stranglehold on European society. This is why literary giants such as Voltaire wrote things referring to the Church such as: a “consistently implacable enemy of progress, decency, humanity and rationality,” and how it had been the Church’s interest to “keep people as ignorant and submissive as children.” He also wrote: “Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.” In short, artists, sculptors, philosophers, writers, etc. were all forced to produce work that was not in conflict with Church politics.
Listen, I don’t know where you get your “information,” but I can tell you that it is totally skewed. Forget what I say (as if you wouldn’t do so anyway). You owe it to yourself to read and research content that is neutral in nature, not the crap that is published by Christian organizations. Of course there were scientists, musicians, etc. that were Catholic; that goes without saying. The Catholic Church dominated life in Europe for centuries, how could it not produce people of all walks of life, but looked at from a different perspective, how could talented individuals not become part of the institution of the day? Having said that, many of the greatest thinkers in history, particularly modern history being that the Church has lost a great deal of its power, are atheists. Sure, great physicists such as Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were born Jewish, but they were atheists. Just because one is born to Jewish or Christian parents doesn’t make them as such. These people, particularly Einstein, has volumes of work explaining his views on this very subject, and he was definitely an atheist; no question about it. Another great scientist, Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, was also an atheist. The list of accomplished individuals who are or were non-believers is quite extensive, and growing. People such as Thomas Edison, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twain, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Ernest Hemingway, Victor Stenger, Lemuel K. Washburn, Steven Weinberg, Sigmund Freud, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Victor Hugo, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Robert Ingersoll, Joseph Lewis, Carl Sagan, George Bernard Shaw, Gore Vidal… The list is endless. All the individuals identified above (many of which I’m certain you’ve never heard of) are or were freethinkers and would have nothing to do with organized religion or any of the absurdities of Church doctrine.
Anyway, don’t think even for a moment that I intend to change your views on religion or Christianity. I realize your mind is made up and so you very well may go to the grave without giving the subject a second thought; this is your choice and also your loss. I understand that not everyone has the same genetic make-up. There are shepherds and there are sheep, and obviously a great deal more sheep than shepherds.
Actually, I can prove the existence of God. Witch hunts were a predominantly Protestant endeavor. And actually, the Inquistion did very little to hurt anyone. In fact, many secular criminals blasphemed just so they could get the more lenient punishment from the Inquistion. And your knowledge of the Galileo affair is flawed as well. The Church told Galileo that, since he couldn’t prove his theory (which was actually formed by a Catholic Priest, Copernicus), he couldn’t teach it as absolute truth.
Regarding the priest scandals, no, not so much the 80’s, but the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s with the loosening of sexual morality. And actually, since the Church’s zero-tolerance policy, instituted by Cardinal Ratzinger, I can inform with pretty good credibility that the Church has itself under much better control.
The Church was not burning or torturing people hundreds of years ago. If a heretic would not capitulate and confirm his faith, he was turned over to the secular government for sentencing. And actually, I know my Church history, and know that people who became priests over the centuries, by and large, were good and faithful to their faith.
The priest abuse scandal, if you study it, has almost zero new cases. It’s old news. We haven’t heard the rest because the NYT and secular media keeps putting up reruns.
I’m afraid your “facts” are flawed. But since you seem so sure of yourself and make your statements with such conviction, I’ll only address your first statement for the time being. Prove the existence of God. If you can do this you’ll accomplish more than any other human being in the history of mankind.
To borrow from Peter Kreeft, Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.
Your knowledge of history is very skewed.
Is that the best you can do? Is Philosophy 101 the best you can offer as “proof” for the existence of God? I thought you would do better; obviously, I’m disappointed.
The argument you presented is one of many ridiculous “proofs” for God’s existence, conceived by philosophers through the ages and subsequently destroyed just as easily as they are merely no more than a play on words and prove nothing. You may have just as well presented Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God which basically states that if I am thinking of the greatest possible being thinkable, then I can think of no being greater. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the greatest being thinkable. Being is greater than not being, so if the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the greatest being thinkable. The conclusion must then be that if I am thinking of the greatest being thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists. In short, that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then that being must exist.
The stupidity of such arguments of course is that one can substitute anything in place of God, such as a Cyclops, an elf, the tooth fairy, Mother Goose, the Three Little Pigs, etc., and the arguments immediately are reduced to rubbish, which is what they are. It truly is amazing that in this day and age people still believe in the archaic nonsense and superstition that is religion.
I suggest you read the works of people other than Peter Kreeft. If all your “knowledge” is based on what these individuals have to say you’re only going to get one perspective on things, and a distorted one at that. Now I see where you acquired your absurd views on the Inquisition.
Don’t limit yourself, instead – OPEN YOUR MIND…
Actually, my mind is open, it’s yours that’s closed to God. I know about the world,it’s pluses and minuses, and I see the glory of God in all of it. You limit yourself by not seeing it, or being open to the possibility (which I know, and most people know, is a certainty).
God is a concept, an idea and a myth. There is no glory in believing in something for which there is no evidence; no proof. It’s all about having faith in what ignorant, nomadic people living in the desert wrote in the Bible over 2000 years ago, or the Koran several hundred years later. What you believe in is no different than believing in Greek Mythology. Why don’t you believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, etc.? Why don’t you believe in the thousands of gods of the Hindu? Why don’t you believe in Allah? Why don’t you believe in Buddha?
There is no certainty; it’s all wishful thinking. Gods are man-made.
Well, then maybe you need new critics. While there may be corruption in the Catholic Church, you can’t prove that it’s been corrupt since it’s inception, and you cannot compare it to the government of the US, China, Venezuela, the Philippines, and so on.
Besides that, you’re talking about the Archdiocese of LA of the 2000’s mishandling cases of abuse and pedophilia which happened in the 1960s and 70s, some in the 80’s, and brought to light in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. There aren’t new cases of abuse because the Vatican, and all it’s dioceses, have cracked down, and put into place a zero tolerance policy. What happened in the church is horrible, and was mishandled, but it’s old news to the general public.
I have no problem with criticism. I’ve been criticized about my thoughts on religion for quite some time now. I understand that people are extremely passionate about “their” religion and therefore consider any attack on “their” religion as if it were a personal attack on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I have no respect for religions, for none of them, I do for the most part respect the individual regardless of their faith. Obviously I do not respect suicide bombers or otherwise evildoers, but it isn’t because of their faith but instead because of their actions.
No, you’re right, I can’t prove that the Catholic Church has been corrupt since its inception, but you can’t prove the existence of God, and yet you more than likely believe in him anyway. And while your belief in God is based strictly on faith, my belief with respect to the corruption of the Catholic Church since its inception is based, not on faith, but on history, common sense and deductive reasoning.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the witch hunts, when women were tortured and otherwise burned alive for what the Church described as: fornicating with the devil; among other ridiculous claims. Tens of thousands of innocent women throughout Europe suffered this fate at the hands of the priests, priests who were obviously doing “God’s work.” And no doubt you’ve heard of the Inquisition and the long list of horrendous acts of cruelty perpetrated by the inquisitors, once again on innocent victims. And you’ve certainly heard of Galileo, who was forced by the Church to “admit” that his conclusion about the Sun being at the center of our solar system was wrong, and instead that it was Earth that was at the center of our solar system; just like the Church said it was. He spent the rest of his years on house arrest, thanks to the wonderful Roman Catholic Church.
Now let me ask you, do you really think that child abuse and pedophilia are a phenomenon limited only to the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Certainly you’re way too intelligent to believe that! Just imagine, if hundreds upon hundreds of cases of abuse by priests have been documented within the last thirty years alone, just think of the thousands upon thousands of individuals who have been abused and never came forward because of guilt, shame, fear of not being believed, etc.! Furthermore, don’t you realize that one of the reasons that this is now out in the open is because of the worldwide media and the internet, which didn’t exist 50 years ago?
What makes you think that if the Church was torturing and burning people alive hundreds of years ago, that they also weren’t abusing and molesting children? The Church was the most powerful institution on the planet. People had to think, believe and act according to Church guidelines; or else. Do you actually believe that if priests in this day and age are committing these senseless and cruel acts that their predecessors weren’t doing the same thing, if not worse? Remember, back in the day there were no laws to protect the individual; the Church was everything to everyone.
The particular article that you commented on has to do with the Archdiocese of LA, but that’s just one of a dozen different articles I’ve posted recently on the subject of which there are many more. This pedophilia has been happening all across the globe, not just in the United States. If here in the U.S. and other civilized countries child abuse by the Church has been rampant, what do you think happened throughout third world countries when the Vatican sent their “troops” in to indoctrinate the masses in an effort to convert them to Christianity? Do you think pedophile priests in those countries behaved themselves?
Yes, I realize this is old news; very, very, very old news. And yet there is more news to come. We haven’t heard the last of this yet. Stay tuned…