Pope's Justification For Pedophilia

I didn't see any 'justification for pedophilia' in the quotes in the article in the OP.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wishing you a happy new year too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The computer is back and functioning?

Good question.
I suppose victims merely believe this to be the case.
Because to know that those acts of abuse are 'sanctioned by God' would require a knowledge base that I am sure would be so big that it would easily and meaningfully contextualize the abuse, lead the victim to understand it, and feel equanimous about it.

There is definitely someting exceptionally sinister about abuse in the name of God or when the perpetrators are people of God, as this will lead the victim to doubt everything about existence and its source.
"Ordinary abuse" does not have the profound philosophical implications that abuse in the name of God has or when the perpetrators are people of God.


But why do victims hold on to the belief that those acts of abuse are 'sanctioned by God'?

The definition of what goes for "mentally damaged" can be relativized too, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal,

Thank you.

Yes, hopefully it will last up untill I can afford a new one.

Good point.

Quite right.
This makes the ideal situation to create atheists, should that be a goal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or so we believe.

The same reason why muslim/islam/terrorist are linked in the psyche.

We can pick and choose what can be relavatized.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That could indeed be the case sometimes!

The argument could be made that someone who truly believes in God would not abuse people, much less in the name of God; and that therefore someone who abuses people does not actually believe in God; and moreover, someone who does not believe in God tries to make others not believe in God either.


For example: My father has been an atheist his whole adult life. His parents were staunch Catholics. They beat him, in the name of God. My grandfather was trying very hard for my father (then a boy) to become a priest, for it was very good for a family to produce a priest, it brought high social status. So they had sessions where they went through Latin liturgy etc.; my father had to kneel on the cold stone floor of the church while his father made him repeat those texts and yelled at him and beat him (in the church). (My father told me how he came to hate the church, God and religion.)

Why would a father do that to his son?

I don't understand?

Do you suggest that victims of abuse in the name of God are potential terorrists?

However, it is characteristic that not all victims of such abuse get stuck; many people who have been abused move on with their lives, and many don't give up on their religion.
So this suggests that it is not the abuse that is the problem, but the victim's response to it.
This is not to say that it is allright to abuse anyone, just that it is not a given that abuse will cause permanent scars.

Why do you think we believe that?


Why am I willing to believe that a theist is free to kill, rape and pillage with impunity?

 

Signal,

I don't think it is as simple as that.

I don't know.
Would this make any difference if his parents weren't staunch catholics, but staunch academics, or, communists?

The idea has been implanted into our minds, so when we hear the word terrorist, suicide bombs, fanatic, and so on, it automatically triggers muslim/islam.

You tell me, you stated it.

jan.

 

Could you say a bit more?

If I think of the example of my grandfather and father, I would say it is indeed more complicated. As far as I personally knew my grandfather, he seemed to be possessed of mixed desires. In some ways, he was definitely very pious, in others, he was not. Perhaps he himself was unable to decide which desires to act on. Nor is my father a through-and-through atheist; if anything, he seems mostly just defensive and scared about theism and would rather not talk about these things.

Staunch academics or communists generally do not try to get their sons to become Catholic priests to begin with ...

Do you mean that similarly, the idea has been implanted into our minds that people of God can do no wrong and that therefore when we hear that a child is abused by a priest, we conclude that this is not wrong ?

Several posters in this thread seem to think so too; there seems to be an intuitive understanding that it is reasonable to expect that people of God cannot and should not do any wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that one ought to accept that even people of God or people who claim to act in God's name can do wrong, and should be considered as having done wrong (as opposed to writing off their behavior as "divine lesson for the victim" or "you should turn the other cheek" or some such).

Many of us have come to believe that the authority of anyone who claims to act in God's name or know God must not be questioned.
You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that this be not so.
If this is so, can you explain on the grounds of what you think so?

 

did you choose them?

 

not me..i believe the ppl who believe in god are just as human as those who do not..(i'm a believer,and i know i am messed up..)
i believe there are those who are in the spiritual leader role, who are pressured to be perfect by those he is leading..how much does this contribute to the problems?
keep in mind whenever an atheist points to a believers imperfection, it offends them ,why?
why is it so important to not show our imperfections?

this is your grandpa's thinking..
their age said don't question..
our age is to question..

 

I am surprised by this comment... Do you know how you came to believe this?

 

Good question; I am not sure. And it is quite important to me, actually.

Perhaps it is simply because of the abuse I was subject to by theists; force can make people believe all kinds of things.

But perhaps there is a different source for this belief. For example a combination of appropriate fear of God and naivete.

 

Somehow, I don't have this belief.

Well, it is reasonable to expect that those who have obtained leadership positions would also be spiritually advanced, is it not?

I'm not sure this is _always_ the case.

Because we are trying to get more than we are qualified for?

What point is questioning if it doesn't really get you anywhere?

 

i would agree with that, they should have more experience in such matters,but i don't think it is reasonable to take what they say and make it law..IOW utilize what they say to help you 'think for yourself' not 'do as your told'..
what is right SHOULD tend to itself..

yea..i should have said 'many atheist'..

because it gets old having ppl take advantage of our imperfections.
we defend ourselves by hiding our imperfections..
to me this doesn't make sense to me as we need to know others imperfections to be able to supplement their imperfections with our strengths and be of more value...IE if you can do everything by yourself,why would you need me?
but this again is subjective to humanity's ability to take advantage of anything...
and so the circle begins..

depends if you are seeking understanding or justification..

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

I first took you to mean that whenever an atheist points to a believer's imperfection, the believer takes offense. To this, I commented that this might not always be the case.
But I am not sure now what you first meant -?

What difference do you see between the two?

 

Signal,

A better argument would be that someone who has good intelligence would not abuse people. Belief, doesn't mean anything.
I can believe in God today, and tommorow lack belief, because of any number of reasons. Our actions are the measure of who and what we are.

They may employ the same level of passion to become academics, or, communists.

No. The idea of people can do no wrong, is not a religious one. At least a religion which bases its structure on scriptures.


Victims hold on to the belief that those acts of abuse are 'sanctioned by God' because it's okay to believe and accept that.
It was okay for George Bush to anounce that he invaded Iraq because God told him to do it. Nobody questioned it. It is accepted, and more importantly, will go down in history as factual.

The catholic child abuse scandal will also play a crucial role in the future, that will link religion (all) and God, to child-sex abuse, the one unforgivable crime.
You control the future by creating historical perceptions in the present.

That is a set-up.
When such a person does something wrong, they say, told you it was all bullshit.
The only way to understand religion properly is to serve someone who follows it properly, who served someone, and so on...

Who is of God?
How can you or I tell?
If God exists, then everything is ultimately of God. If we can't or wont percieve that, then who are we to say who or what is of God.

If someone claims something and we do not understand, or are unsure, then we should not be bullied into a situation where we learn to BELIEVE.

Notice when discussing the many downsides of evolution theory, the evolutionist standard retort is, you do not know what evolution is.
So either we believe evolution is true, or we are stupid for not believing.

You will find the same practices in many religious denominations.

By not questioning it, you accept that they HAVE the the authority. WHY?

It's quite simple.
They could be con-artists.

jan.

 

the atheist (suppose theist also) acts like perfection is supposed to be the result of believing in god,whenever a believer confesses belief, an atheist will immediately start pointing at their imperfections, as if it is a measurement of that belief. its like the atheist get offended cause the believer is not perfect.

justification vs understanding..
when a person is looking for justification they tend to stop listening/understanding when the discussion leads to changes in their understanding, they will only listen when the discussion lines up with their understanding of things, when it does not line up they will get defensive,

 

Our actions are the measure of who and what we are.

I don't know if you are quoting someone else in that encapsulation.
If not, you have arrived by yourself at the very crux of the argument.

Why would anyone disagree with that?

Please, if you have gained this Philosophy through another philosopher,
let me know his name so that I can read his ideas further.


This is becoming a very interesting argument.

To what degree does religion become a conduit for evil action.
While not condoning it, enabling it, either through confession and absolution, or by saying that "Saved People" are justified by faith, and that their sins will be forgiven.

How many people have done things that they know to be wrong with the assurance that it will not affect their chances of eternal life?
It seems to me that both the Catholic and the Protestant Churches views on Sin do exactly the same thing.
As long as you join the club, repent according to regulations, and donate the alms, you'll be fine.

 

Anything that could be considered abuse can also be interpreted as an effort to teach someone a lesson.

"I beat her and forced her to have intercourse with me, so that she may learn who is in charge."
"Yes, I hit the boy, and yes, he bled and then had to get ten stitches. But he needed to be taught a lesson in humility."

How can anyone argue against such justifications for use of force?

True.

I am not so sure about that. There are many references on how the spiritual master can do nothing wrong, for example.

I don't understand that?

That is not my memory of the events. I vividly remember how some American Christians protested in the streets, claiming that GW Bush should not call himself a Christian and that he is misrepresenting Christianity.

I don't understand?
When I see a religious person do something that is generally considered wrong, I am bewildered, and try to find a way to explain why it is not wrong if a religious person does something that would otherwise be considered wrong. If I don't find such an explanation, I feel guilty.

But how can one know who that is?

Who is to say that, for example, Tomas de Torquemada was not an exemplary servant of God, and therefore should be followed or surrendered to?
Were the people who protested the Holy Inquisition not wrong to do so? Or the people who refused to instantly admit what they were accused of?

I have never seen, in any religious establishment or with religious people I have been with, that such freedom would readily be given; and if it was given, it was with a grudge and a threat to take offense.

Sure. But how do you know that such practices are not in line with what a true servant of God would do?

For me, religion/spirituality has always been about anxiously walking a tightrope between making an effort not to offend the theists and maintaining some semblance of sanity.
But given that theists generally take offense very easily, it is very difficult to behave in such a manner that they wouldn't take offense. In order to not offend them, I would often have to do things I don't understand or find repugnant.
If I do things as I see fit, they usually take offense, and I go down as an offender of God's people.
To me, most interactions with theists are such that no matter what I would do, I would be wrong and lose.

They could also be enlightened and you too delusional to see it.
How then would you avoid causing them offense?

 

The theist wants to rule, get the upper hand in the relationship. After all, the theist makes claims to know the Ruler of the Universe Himself. The theist speaks from the perspective that God is on his side, but against the other person.
When the theist turns out to be imperfect in some way, this can lead people to be reluctant to let the theist have the upper hand.
Do you think this is wrong?

I don't understand that ...
By justification, I mean something like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

 

i think there is an element of atheist WANT theist to be right,they want to be able to dissociate their responsibility for their actions (theist also) and do that action because they were told to..ppl want to believe that theist have better knowledge concerning what is right and wrong in gods eyes..but that isn't always the case..
the upper hand you speak of is just an attempt to get ppl to listen to them and do as they are told.
fundamentally this is wrong..(there are exceptions) but we should take responsibility for our own beliefs and actions..the excuse 'because he told me to' does not hold up.

this line ends up being 'do as your told' vs 'think for yourself'

i was using it as most new users here get on and post their attitudes/beliefs in an attempt to get someone to agree with them, then they get irate when no-one does..they are not seeking understanding, they are seeking to justify their own attitudes/beliefs..(i suppose the word validate also works),

 

You are most welcome to participate here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=105794