Catholic Church I pit you. (not catholic dopers, however.)

[Scott Plaid]

I feel angry about the catholic church. I beleve that if had not existed, the world would be a much better place.
In another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304616) I started to show the influence the masons and christian had on the world. (Simpified: Masons Good, catholics Bad) and was asked:
So the Catholic church is responsible, not just for any bad actions committed by any Catholic at any time, but by any Christian, generally, at any time? I think that argument is a kind of unreasonable one. And, btw, you never told me what Stoddard or the Crusader chronicler did that was so terrible.
I will elaborate on this tommorow, for I need to sign off soon.

[treis]

Uhm why didn't you wait until you had time to write your whole OP out before you posted?

How much longer do you have on your guest membership?

I personally and I don't feel I am alone hope that you do not choose to register after your guest membership is up.

[Avenger]

Aren't pittings usually in the, erm, pit?

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

To da Pit.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Scott Plaid]

Aren't pittings usually in the, erm, pit?
Oh. Damn. Well, it is a religious discussion, and I have to sign off soon.

Oh, and treis? Ten days. Also, my whole OP is I feel that the church has produced nothing good. Their might be individual catholic who are good people, but that is in spite of the church. Oh and yes, I realize this is the exact opposite of what most christians say about atheists. Let me start out by pointing out that many of my ancestors were killed in the inquisition. Now, I really have to sign off.

[Contrapuntal]

Oh. Damn. Well, it is a religious discussion, and I have to sign off soon.

Oh, and treis? Ten days. Also, my whole OP is I feel that the church has produced nothing good. Their might be individual catholic who are good people, but that is in spite of the church. Oh and yes, I realize this is the exact opposite of what most christians say about atheists. Let me start out by pointing out that many of my ancestors were killed in the inquisition. Now, I really have to sign off.


Bolding mine.


Some might think not nearly enough, and those too late.

[Sampiro]

Does anybody else read the OP in such a way that it implies Scott doesn't like Catholics?

[tomndebb]

Let me start out by pointing out that many of my ancestors were killed in the inquisition.
A) I doubt that that is true.

b) Apparently not enough of them (if any). :D

[Avenger]

Ha ha! Are we allowed to wish that someone's already dead ancestors had died earlier? I bet they haven't anticipated that in the board rules!

[Contrapuntal]

Psst. You guys. Post # 6. Pass it on.

[beagledave]

No one expects.......

Hell not even worth it.

[Avenger]

Psst. You guys. Post # 6. Pass it on.

Yeah, but Tomndebb can just edit it to make it look like he pre-empted you ;)

[andros]

Scott_plaid, I hope you do pony up the duckies for a full membership.

[silenus]

Yeah, but Tomndebb can just edit it to make it look like he pre-empted you ;)

Were it not for the fact that Tom is honorable, this might be a concern. :D

[Sampiro]

Three of my ancestors were killed in the Civil War fighting for the South (one in a prison camp in NY that was smaller than Andersonville but generally considered not much better) and I've never had the least problem with Northerners (except on the individual basis, and I've had that with members of my own family). This was probably a much shorter period of time ago than the Catholics killed your ancestors, so either I'm more forgiving or am not a very good descendant.

Who I really hate, though, are Indonesians. It was their damned volcano in Toba in 74,523 BCE that wiped out almost my entire family (it was just after suppertime when they were spreading out on their leaves ready to enjoy a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-Neanderthal) and Indonesia never so much as sent a card. To this day I will drive thousands of miles to avoid Indonesia. (I'm sure some Indonesians are good people, but it's in spite of the volcanoes.)

[Contrapuntal]

Three of my ancestors were killed in the Civil War fighting for the South (one in a prison camp in NY that was smaller than Andersonville but generally considered not much better) and I've never had the least problem with Northerners (except on the individual basis, and I've had that with members of my own family). This was probably a much shorter period of time ago than the Catholics killed your ancestors, so either I'm more forgiving or am not a very good descendant.

Who I really hate, though, are Indonesians. It was their damned volcano in Toba in 74,523 BCE that wiped out almost my entire family (it was just after suppertime when they were spreading out on their leaves ready to enjoy a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-Neanderthal) and Indonesia never so much as sent a card. To this day I will drive thousands of miles to avoid Indonesia. (I'm sure some Indonesians are good people, but it's in spite of the volcanoes.)

OK, you've officially gotten me out of my bad mood. And just when I was beginning to enjoy it. That was too funny.

[Sampiro]

Ha ha! Are we allowed to wish that someone's already dead ancestors had died earlier? I bet they haven't anticipated that in the board rules!

Am I the only person who's imagining Cecil and the Moderators and Administrators gathering around the scriptures and attempting to ascertain if this is "wishing death" rather like Talmud scholars trying to decide if an ornate wooden leg qualifies as vanity if worn on the Sabbath?

I probably am, but it's still a cool image.

[Marley23]

Oh and yes, I realize this is the exact opposite of what most christians say about atheists.
I normally don't do this, but cite?

[Yeticus Rex]

As a member of the Catholic Church (since catholic people ARE the Church) who has contributed to society and doing good works, I am insulted.

Nonetheless, I shall pray for you and your befallen ancestors.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

You don't like the Catholic Church?

Because it's done nothing good?


I just Googled "catholic church accomplishments" and came up with this page (http://biblia.com/christ/accomplishments.htm) , but I did it while I was thinking, "Just who does this moron think funds any hospital with the name 'Saint Whatever?' Has this idiot ever heard of Fordham, Georgetown, or any other Catholic university? Does this wretched mass of barely-conscious biological waste have any conception of the dangers priests in South America endure while simply trying to secure a livable environment for their parishoners? Ever seen Romero, dumbass?

I am a Catholic. I love my Church, apostolic succession, fullness-of-the-faith doctrine, Paulist extremes aside. I love the people in my Church, though they are human and fallible even as I am.

The Catholic Church is a human institution and subject to the limits of humanity. Its size renders its missteps more noticeable than the stumblings of one man, but those stumblings are not its definition- its definition is it adherence to the teachings of Christ and the works it does in His name.



Yesterday the Church was directly responsible for healing thousands, for educating thousands, for feeding, clothing, comforting vast numbers of God's children, all like you and me but for circumstance.

What did you do yesterday, asshole?

[Mr. Moto]

Yesterday the Church was directly responsible for healing thousands, for educating thousands, for feeding, clothing, comforting vast numbers of God's children, all like you and me but for circumstance.

Just wanted to point out that the numbers daily are in the millions, not thousands.

Wonderful post. Thanks.

[Apos]

Catholic Church... My name is Scott Plaid. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

[tomndebb]

Actually, if we're finding quotes for Scott_plaid, I suspect that Inigo Montoya is not the character I'd choose as a source.

I think Scott_ would do better uttering:

"If I'm wrong--and I'm never wrong..."

Or, possibly,

"Never go in against a Cecilian, when ignorance is on the line. Hahahahahaha" ::: clump :::

or, probably,

"Inconceivable."

[Antigen]

Nonetheless, I shall pray for you and your befallen ancestors.


Awesome. The heathens hate when we do that!

For an encore, tell him Jesus loves him and watch his head explode!

[GraceTX]

"Never go in against a Cecilian, when ignorance is on the line. Hahahahahaha" ::: clump :::
I do not think that word is spelled how you think it is spelled. Sicilian - as in someone from the lump of land that is the football to Italy's boot.

*waits for someone to spot another occurrence of Gaudere's Law*

[Guinastasia]

I do not think that word is spelled how you think it is spelled. Sicilian - as in someone from the lump of land that is the football to Italy's boot.

*waits for someone to spot another occurrence of Gaudere's Law*
WHOOSH!!!!

:D

[Keapon Laffin]

WHOOSH!!!!

:D
Uhh, I think Grace got it.

[smiling bandit]

On a more specific note, Scott-Plaid's ancestors must have been extremely "narrow" bunch.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5218373

Given the number of deaths attributal to atheist, protestant, hindu, and even Buddhist teachings, I think we can assume that no human religion except total apathy is "safe". And total apathy rarely confins itself merely to religion, leading to other problems.

[andros]

Uhh, I think Grace got it.

How do you figure?

[Genghis Bob]

. . . my whole OP is I feel that the church has produced nothing good. Their might be individual catholic who are good people, but that is in spite of the church. Oh and yes, I realize this is the exact opposite of what most christians say about atheists. . .

Ummm. . . please tell me what specifically "is the exact opposite of what most christians say about atheists". That the church has produced nothing good? That there might be individual atheists who are good people, but that is in spite of . . . uh . . . of their not-church?

Could you be more specific, please?

Or more coherent?

Anything?

[Malacandra]

Is it at all possible that this tr... oublesome individual will teach his pony another trick? :dubious:

[lno]

To get all this whooshing out of the way (it's knocking over my antique cans, dagnabbit! Darn kids...):

"Sicilian" refers to someone or something from or regarding Sicily, as Grace aptly pointed out. This is also what the original line from the movie is about.

"Cecilian" is a riff on being a Doper, i.e a follower of Cecil.

Ha ha! Teh funny.

Now where's my burrito?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

No burrito for you, lno. It's so hot even you can't eat it.

[LouisB]

No burrito for you, lno. It's so hot even you can't eat it.Besides, I saw a Catholic Atheist take it when you guys weren't looking.

[Scott Plaid]

Could you be more specific, please?

Or more coherent?

Anything?
fraid’ not. While I do believe that the entire history of the church is just one big clusterfuck after another, I don't feel the pressing need to state anything more than to look a history book, or at one (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html) of the sites that you get when you google christianity +victims. (http://www.google.com/search?q=+christianity+%2Bvictims&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=)

Also, I thought it would be nice to see who would show up when I posted an anti-christian thread. I understand this site is for the pupose of sharing opinions, being silly and seeing the other side's point of view, however, I don't see how history can support the other side of the argument I have hardly made. I suppose given this fact I will simply try and stay out of religion if I join the SDMB.

I am glad all you guys are having fun, though.

[gobear]

I'll see your Romero (whose titular character was censured by the Church for his reforms) and raise you a Magdalene Sisters and The Boys of St. Vincent's. The Catholic church as an insitution is utterly morally bankrupt, and is concenred only with maintaining its temporal power.

And that "asshole" sure shows that you are filled with the Hokly Spirit. I find it hilarious that you Christians act so superior and holy, yet at the first provocation or contradiction, you spew venom in complete defiance of Jesus's example that you profess to follow. This is one of the many reasons I have such contempt for you pious hypocrites.
Matthew 23:27-28)
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

[i]I John 1:6-10
If we say, "We have fellowship with him," while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.

If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


Or As Bill Hicks put it:

I did that joke in Alabama, in Fife, and these three rednecks met me after the show. "Hey, buddy! C'mere! Mr. Funny-man, c'mere! Hey, buddy, we're Christians, and we don't like what you said." "So then forgive me."

[Captain Amazing]

Also, I thought it would be nice to see who would show up when I posted an anti-christian thread. I understand this site is for the pupose of sharing opinions, being silly and seeing the other side's point of view, however, I don't see how history can support the other side of the argument I have hardly made. I suppose given this fact I will simply try and stay out of religion if I join the SDMB.


I'd be glad to debate it with you, as would a lot of other dopers, I suspect, but I think you just need to be more precise in your arguments. I mean, there's no argument that Christianity, and more precisely Catholicism, has been responsible for a lot of bad stuff throughout history, but if you're claiming nothing positive has come out of it, I'd strongly disagree with that. If nothing else, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is really pretty. Just click on the panels and you'll see.

http://sun.science.wayne.edu/~mcogan/Humanities/Sistine/Panels/index.html

I'm not saying that the Sistine Chapel justifies all the bad stuff done in Christianity throughout history. Obviously, it doesn't. I'm not even saying the good stuff outweighs the bad. That's a subject for debate. But when you say that nothing good has ever come from Christianity, that's kind of a silly argument. Even if you just want to look at terms of social progress, education in the middle ages was kept alive by the Catholic church, and modern universities, and the whole concept of the "liberal arts" comes from Catholicism. Both the abolitionist movement and the black civil rights movement in this country was dominated by religious groups.

I think the subject is just too broad to make any specific statement on. I mean, you're talking about a 2000 year old, worldwide, diverse religious family. If you're going to discuss Christianity as a whole, you have to take into account enormous diversity, from evangelical missionaries in modern day Sudan, to the inhabitants of a 16th century mission in Mexico, to Calvinist Enlightenment scholars in 17th century Uterecht, to Catholic samurai in warring-states era Kyushu, to 5th century Armenian monks.

If you want to narrow the scope of your debate a little, I think you'll get a much better response, and a lot less joking and derision.

(and you still haven't told me what the congregationalist minister and the crusader chonicler did that was so horrible. :) )

[Scott Plaid]

I'm not saying that the Sistine Chapel justifies all the bad stuff done in Christianity throughout history. <snip> Even if you just want to look at terms of social progress, education in the middle ages was kept alive by the Catholic church, a<snip>. Both the abolitionist movement and the black civil rights movement in this country was dominated by religious groups.
The justification of slavery also came from the bible. And the druids had universities before the christians took over England Some of the buildings were turned into monastaries. Sure, so the druids also killed people, but so did many other religions. I am not saying it was right, but thye didn't do it for as long a period of time as the christians. As for texts being keep alive during the middle ages. What can I say? It is plainly and simply true. And who do you supposed caused the dark ages? The church.

I think the subject is just too broad to make any specific statement on.
I feel the same way when I hear someone saying that society must be improved, and then ignores the very idea that the long history of christianity might have anything to do with the problems of todays world.

If you want to narrow the scope of your debate a little, I think you'll get a much better response, and a lot less joking and derision.
No can do. I believe the whole system is rotten to the core, and must be tackled head on. If I was to simply handle catholic chaplains in Hitler’s army, or early christian prosecution of rivals, or conquest justified by Divine Right, then I risk people believing that I think modern catholicism is ok.


(and you still haven't told me what the Congregationalist minister and the crusader chronicler did that was so horrible. :) )
I am surprised you didn't google them.
http://www.answers.com/topic/solomon-stoddard

He wrote the books listed above and is quoted as proposing "to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial means to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'"

as you said earlier, he was a Congregationalist. A group that would not exist if not for catholisism. As for the crusader chronicler, if you gave his name I could find out. However I do not see who of the list I have provided on post 49 of the last thread you are referring to.

[Munch]

I'll see your Romero (whose titular character was censured by the Church for his reforms) and raise you a Magdalene Sisters and The Boys of St. Vincent's. The Catholic church as an insitution is utterly morally bankrupt, and is concenred only with maintaining its temporal power.

This isn't going to be another one of those bullshit tit-for-tat arguments again, is it gobear? The OP isn't arguing that the Catholic Church has put itself in the red on the morality scale by performing more immoral actions than moral actions - the OP is arguing that the Catholic Church has put itself in the red by performing NO moral actions. Ever. That's patently false, and you know it - you admitted it well enough in the first clause of your post. The fact that scott_plaid refused to acknowledge the various citations and examples set forth above expose his complete inability or unwillingness to consider them is what is now on trial, not the Catholic Church.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

gobear, I'm not sure what your specific problem is, and I don't have my DSM IV handy, so I'll address what I see in your post with regard to me and to my Church.

I find it hilarious that you Christians act so superior and holy, yet at the first provocation or contradiction, you spew venom in complete defiance of Jesus's example that you profess to follow.
First, I did call Scott_plaid an asshole. His comments- basically, "I don't like the Catholic Church, I have no cites as for exactly why, but I don't- and I don't see how anyone can disagree with me," brand him as such.

Does that make me a bad Christian? Absolutely, unequivocally, not. It would make me a bad Christian if I hated him for his views. It would make me a bad Christian if I were violent with him because of his views. But it doesn't make me a bad Christian to call a spade a spade. In your very own quotes, you quote Jesus as calling the scribes and Pharisees much, much worse than "asshole," yet you're calling me un-Christian for my negative description of Scott_plaid?

And I certainly don't act so "spiritual and holy." And I certainly don't pretend that I am without sin. It is un-Christian to do so. I am a flawed, imperfect being, and I take Christ as my example in an attempt to do good in this world despite my shortcomings. When I fall short of this ideal, which I do often, I am repentant and do my best to change. But I don't think you'd ever catch me of all people making any claims to holiness.

So many of "you non-Christians" get upset when we resist your flaming, as if we were supposed to sit there and patiently absorb all your taunts. Christ didn't instruct us to be milquetoasts. "Turn the other cheek" is not an instruction to ignore self-preservation- it is an exhortation to continue giving your fellow man a chance to demonstrate his goodness. Have I given up on Scott_plaid? Let's just say that no one is irredeemable, but there are some I'd bet on more readily than others when it comes to redemption.

Christ was human. He lost his temper on a number of occasions. He called hypocrites just that: hypocrites. He called liars just that: liars. Scott_plaid is making sweeping negative characterizations that he refuses to defend for the stated purpose of having FUN. Last I checked, that was not only a direct violation of the Ninth Commandment, but also in direct contradiction to Christ's commandments, and even the atheists' "harm no one." I think I also read something in the SDMB policies about it.

Now, on to your own statement, gobear, and I'll keep this simple:

The Catholic church as an insitution is utterly morally bankrupt, and is concenred only with maintaining its temporal power.

(emphasis mine)


Then explain the hospitals, hospices, universities, and outreach programs.




Sure, there are priests who molest children. Sure, there are priests who embezzle. Sure, there are members of the clergy who have embraced pride or money as motivation. And there have been people who covered for them. Yes, these people are of the Church. But these people are not the Church.

Just as there are plenty of homosexual child predators, pornographers, and perverts within the homosexual demographic, and just because there are plenty of gluttons and slovenly people among the overweight community, and just because there are plenty of overreactionary bleating idiots among the online-posting community, that doesn't mean that every overweight homosexual onilne poster is a porno-peddling, KFC-guzzling, shrill-shrill-Betty either.


The aberrations do not define the group, gobear, and it is irresponsible and beneath the intellect you have displayed to suggest that they do.

[gobear]

Oh, I'm not supporting the OP--he's an idiot. But Happy Scrappy Hero Pup's response of "La la la, I can't hear you, the Catholic Church is great" needed to be answered. In particular, this piece of nonsense:

Its size renders its missteps more noticeable than the stumblings of one man, but those stumblings are not its definition- its definition is its adherence to the teachings of Christ and the works it does in His name

could not go unchallenged. When the Catholic Church is an accessory to shielding pedophiles, it's just a "stumble" that doesn't count as a definition, but feeding orphans does. That's a steaming load of crap. And I'm not convinced that the Catholic Church's charitable deeds are necessarily beneficial, as in the example of Mother Teresa's refusal to give painkillers to the patients in her care and refusing to give them lifesaving treatment focusing only on their death and baptizing them as Catholics without regard to their own faiths. (Of course, when she became ill, Mother Teresa went to the best clinins in the US and Europe.)

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Missed me by a couple of seconds, pal.


I've never said the Catholic Church is "great."

I've never defended its role in allowing scandal to continue by enabling the perpetrators or by covering for them.


In fact, I condemn them.




But for you to say "utterly morally bankrupt," that's garbage and you know it.


If you want to pick a fight with me, pick a better one than this.

[smiling bandit]

The justification of slavery also came from the bible.

They didn't need to justify slavery. It had existed among all societies everywhere for millenia. There was no reason to stop, except that certain Christian groups started to question its morality. That was the sole reason, really. Economic arguments helped, but were not terribly good at persuading people.


And the druids had universities before the christians took over England Some of the buildings were turned into monastaries.

:dubious: I'd really like to see a serious cite to back this one up. The druids, properly speaking, were wiped out by the Romans arriving in England. They were not known for their great learning or advanced sciences. The Romans considered Brittania to be a muddy backwater populate by ignorant barbarians, which it was. They were not known for advanced stonework either, and built little more than wooden palisades as far as public works went. Christianity came afterward, and spread throughout much of lower England.


And who do you supposed caused the dark ages? The church.

1) The so-called Dark Ages were actually a period of growth in technology and knowledge. Engineering as well as farm technology advanced noticably during the period. What was lost was the scientific mindset, but this was not particualrly prevelant anywhere, not even in the much-lauded Arab world.

2) The Dark ages were caused a by a fundamental crisis of power in Rome. Rome fell because it had become inefficient and lost the loyalty of its legions. This caused the "Dark Ages" because Rome stopped being the center of trade in the Western world. Without Rome to unite them, the peoples that now lived from Spain to Constantinople had no reason to stay together. At best, you'd have to argue that Christianity was a fundamental cause of that weaknening, which is probably not true. The Roman economy died painful death without Christian influence.

And then you'd have to argue that the "Dark Ages" really were a bad thing overall, which is not obvious. Good luck.

[Scott Plaid]

The OP isn't arguing that the Catholic Church has put itself in the red on the morality scale by performing more immoral actions than moral actions - the OP is arguing that the Catholic Church has put itself in the red by performing NO moral actions.

Actually, you are right. I made an inflammatory post in order to have all those who disagree with me in one room, so that I could burn it down. Ha Ha Ha! However, now that Captain Amazing and some others are sounding more reasonable, I feel like posting a few "the harm outweighs the good" posts.

Also, since I have begun to write this post I see some people have posted messages stating that good christians don't attack people. One of them has said that it is true, but that jesus also said something about being aggressive. He might have said both things, but I find it to be much more likely that writers put words in the mouth of this "jesus".

[Captain Amazing]

The justification of slavery also came from the bible. And the druids had universities before the christians took over England Some of the buildings were turned into monastaries. Sure, so the druids also killed people, but so did many other religions. I am not saying it was right, but thye didn't do it for as long a period of time as the christians. As for texts being keep alive during the middle ages. What can I say? It is plainly and simply true. And who do you supposed caused the dark ages? The church.

Hold on there, hoss. First of all, while one justification of slavery came from the bible, non Christians have also held slaves, and there were plenty of justifications made for slavery that weren't religious based. And the fact that Christianity could both be used to justify and condemn slavery shows you're dealing with a good deal of diversity here. As for the druids, while they had an educational system, like all societies do, the modern university system is descended from the Christian universities of the middle ages and rennaisance.

As for the church causing the "dark ages", that's Gibbon's argument, but I don't think it's the best reason. I'd put the blame more on overexpansion, corruption, barbarian incursion, and big differences in weath between west and east. Why do you think that Christianity caused the Dark ages


I feel the same way when I hear someone saying that society must be improved, and then ignores the very idea that the long history of christianity might have anything to do with the problems of todays world.

I'm not denying that it does. What I'm saying is that you need to focus on specific problems. Just giving some sort of scattershot "Christianity is responsible for everything bad" argument doesn't convince anyone.


No can do. I believe the whole system is rotten to the core, and must be tackled head on. If I was to simply handle catholic chaplains in Hitler’s army, or early christian prosecution of rivals, or conquest justified by Divine Right, then I risk people believing that I think modern catholicism is ok.

I don't think people will say that you think modern catholicism is ok. But if you focus on specific issues, they can actually be debated, and discussed. If you make the kinds of statements you're making, they don't lend themselves to debate or honest discussion.


I am surprised you didn't google them.
http://www.answers.com/topic/solomon-stoddard

He wrote the books listed above and is quoted as proposing "to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial means to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'"

as you said earlier, he was a Congregationalist. A group that would not exist if not for catholisism. As for the crusader chronicler, if you gave his name I could find out. However I do not see who of the list I have provided on post 49 of the last thread you are referring to.

Well, first of all, when he suggested that dogs be used to hunt Indians, did he mean it as for genocide, or in war? There's sort of a moral difference there. Also, did he make that argument because he was Christian, or was he a Christian who made that argument? Your not claming that any immoral action or belief held by any Christian is the fault of the Catholic Church, are you? And the chronicler I'm talking about is Fulcher of Chartres, who you mentioned in that other thread (and who does report of the crusaders doing some pretty bad things).

[tomndebb]

The justification of slavery also came from the bible. And the druids had universities before the christians took over England Some of the buildings were turned into monastaries. Sure, so the druids also killed people, but so did many other religions. I am not saying it was right, but thye didn't do it for as long a period of time as the christians. As for texts being keep alive during the middle ages. What can I say? It is plainly and simply true. And who do you supposed caused the dark ages? The church. No. Slavery simply existed in nearly all societies throughout most of history. It was never "justified" in the bible.
Now, in the U.S., there were a few people who attempted to use the story of Noah and Ham to rationalize the enslavement of blacks after slavery was condemned by various Christian groups in the middle to late 18th century, but they were only grasping at straws to use quote mining from a religious source to counter opposition from a separate religious source. No "justification" involved.
(And, given the small number of Catholics in the U.S. at the time and the mild persecution they were suffering, they had nothing to do with that issue, anyway.)

Your druid "information" is mostly drawn from New Age revisionists with little bearing on reality. (This is not to say that the druids were uneducated, but your claims are exaggerated.)

The notion that the Catholic Church "caused" the "dark ages" propagates legends that were manufactured by anti-Catholic historians in the 19th century. That you would repeat such drivel is further evidence that you need to study a lot more history before you dance in here spewing errors along with bad spelling and incoherent syntax.
Rome fell because it did not have a viable infrastructure to maintain an empire while it was overrun by successive migrations of pre-literate peoples with no vested interest in maintaining the imperial infrastructure. Had it attempted to integrate Western Europe into a cohesive nation rather than simply controlling it by edicts and armies, it might have been able to either repel or assimilate the barbarians, much as the (church dominated) Eastern Empire was able to do throughout the so-called "dark ages." To the extent that Western Europe degenerated, it was simply a failure of secular infrastructure.

[gobear]

gobear, I'm not sure what your specific problem is, and I don't have my DSM IV handy, so I'll address what I see in your post with regard to me and to my Church.

Nice ad hominem. Very Christ-like of you.

First, I did call Scott_plaid an asshole. His comments- basically, "I don't like the Catholic Church, I have no cites as for exactly why, but I don't- and I don't see how anyone can disagree with me," brand him as such.

Does that make me a bad Christian? Absolutely, unequivocally, not. It would make me a bad Christian if I hated him for his views. It would make me a bad Christian if I were violent with him because of his views. But it doesn't make me a bad Christian to call a spade a spade. In your very own quotes, you quote Jesus as calling the scribes and Pharisees much, much worse than "asshole," yet you're calling me un-Christian for my negative description of Scott_plaid?
<snip>
"Turn the other cheek" is not an instruction to ignore self-preservation- it is an exhortation to continue giving your fellow man a chance to demonstrate his goodness. Have I given up on Scott_plaid? Let's just say that no one is irredeemable, but there are some I'd bet on more readily than others when it comes to redemption.

Again, typical. Caught redhanded violating Jesus's clear commands, you use the "not perfect, just forgiven" escape clause, revealing that your faith is naught but Antinomianism revived.
Matthew 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Luke 6:27-29
"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.


Sorry, pal, but the Bible clearly says that insulting people who insult you is wrong. Now I personally applaud you standing up for yourself, but then I'm a Hell-bound sinner.


Then explain the hospitals, hospices, universities, and outreach programs.

I didn't say they didn't exist, but per the example of the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, these so-called charities were often anything but charitable.



Sure, there are priests who molest children. Sure, there are priests who embezzle. Sure, there are members of the clergy who have embraced pride or money as motivation. And there have been people who covered for them. Yes, these people are of the Church. But these people are not the Church.

Just as there are plenty of homosexual child predators, pornographers, and perverts within the homosexual demographic, and just because there are plenty of gluttons and slovenly people among the overweight community, and just because there are plenty of overreactionary bleating idiots among the online-posting community, that doesn't mean that every overweight homosexual onilne poster is a porno-peddling, KFC-guzzling, shrill-shrill-Betty either.

I could grant your analogy if we were talking merely about individual acts--no rational person can hold an institution guilty of the sins committed by a few members--but these acts were covered up by the Church itself, by the cardinals and bishops who protected the pedophiles and shuffled them to different parishes without warning the parents of their victims.

Moreover, gluttony and slovenliness are not crimes,--pedophilia, kidnapping, and child abuse are, and the Chruch itself at the highest levels connived at those crimes.

The aberrations do not define the group, gobear, and it is irresponsible and beneath the intellect you have displayed to suggest that they do.
When the people running the group aid and abet the "aberrations," then I submit that, yes, they do define the group's organization.

I'm not blaming the individual Catholics, but I definitely blame the priests, the bishops, the cardinals, and the Pope himself, all of whom knew what was happening and did nothing to protect the peopole who were in their care.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

"Not perfect, just forgiven?"

Hardly.

I am imperfect, yes. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is contingent upon repentance, a necessary part of which is desire to change.

When it comes to calling Scott_plaid an asshole, I am unforgiven. I am unforgiven because I am unrepentant. I am unrepentant because using an accurate descriptor for someone is not a sin. What Scott_plaid did was an asshole thing to do, and I call him an asshole for it. I'm not insulting him, I'm describing him. It would be wrong of me to call him "good" when he is not.

Am I angry with him? It'd be immature of me to be angry with him. I'm certainly disappointed in him, but when I go home tonight, this isn't going to keep me awake.

But remember this: Jesus had no problem calling a spade a spade. Jesus had no problem rebuking those sophists and one-quote wonders who attempted to trick him. And I have no problem following his example there either.

As for your other points, gobear, my sticking point with you is "utterly." To make an absolute statement about the Church is ridiculous. To say that everyone up to and including the Pope knew... cite?


Dislike the Catholic Church all you want to, gobear, Scott_plaid, and others. I have my own problems with it. But I choose to express my faith within that community, and I choose to work to make that community stronger in Christ as I try to be.



But anyway, this isn't a defense of the Church. This is refutation of Scott_plaid's idiot statement.


You're at least with me on that, yes?

You want to open a thread devoted to disputing the balance of the "scales of the soul" of the Catholic Church as an organization? Go right ahead, and I will gladly participate. I'll even make it a priority.

You want to open a thread indicting me as a poor Christian? Go right ahead, and I will defend myself and my Christianity and my Catholicism as best I can.


But let's stop adding pages to this moron's post- it gives the false impression that he's interested in debate.

[gobear]

"Not perfect, just forgiven?"
As for your other points, gobear, my sticking point with you is "utterly." To make an absolute statement about the Church is ridiculous. To say that everyone up to and including the Pope knew... cite?

And there you have me. Certainly, I can show that major figures in the Chruch knew (Cardinal Law, for example), but I can't prove that they all did, (although I'm convicned that is so. If the Pope didn't know during his entire career that this went on, then he must have been exceptionally dim.)

Dislike the Catholic Church all you want to, gobear, Scott_plaid, and others. I have my own problems with it. But I choose to express my faith within that community, and I choose to work to make that community stronger in Christ as I try to be.

And that's commendable. I would prefer that humanity abandon religion and belief in the supernatural, but we are not ready to take that step. If you are doing your best to improve your corner of the world through your faith, I can't argue with that.

But anyway, this isn't a defense of the Church. This is refutation of Scott_plaid's idiot statement.


You're at least with me on that, yes?

Absolutely, He's a clueless uneducated dipshit who posts nonsense.

You want to open a thread devoted to disputing the balance of the "scales of the soul" of the Catholic Church as an organization? Go right ahead, and I will gladly participate. I'll even make it a priority.

You want to open a thread indicting me as a poor Christian? Go right ahead, and I will defend myself and my Christianity and my Catholicism as best I can.


But let's stop adding pages to this moron's post- it gives the false impression that he's interested in debate.[/QUOTE]
Done.

[Scott Plaid]

Ok, 3rd try. Even shorter this time. My computer is huccuping. I don't see myself debating this. That is why it is in the pit. You can. I started a thread called The Balance of the "Scales of the Soul" of the Catholic Church (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305365)

Feel free to dabate there. I won't as I am going away for the weekend. Even after that, I will not post in it unless asked to.

[dangermom]

Maybe you should just spend your time painting quarters red, if your message is "I hate Catholics, 'cuz they're evil." At least then I would understand what you're trying to say. You make less sense every time I see a new post. (Starting a GD in order not to post in it?)

[Estilicon]

gg What can I say? It is plainly and simply true. And who do you supposed caused the dark ages? The church.

It wasn't the Catholich Church, Voltaire and specially Gibbons, (not that you read them), blamed the church and the barbarians for the destruction of the Roman Empire, and the dark ages.-
The truth is, as usual, more complicated. Spengler would tell you that Rome fell because it was it's time to die, Marx would blame the capitalist pigs; myself I like Toynbee's imput, (although I admit he is as partial to the church as Gibbons is against it), Rome's empire was the last stage, (universal state), of a society that had killed itself. His argument is that after achieving economic unity, the greek-roman society failed to achieve political unity, the result: The Peloponesian war in which the greeks managed to comit suicide. Rome peace was a peace of exhaustion, the empire was an artificial entity without a single spark of viality left.
Rome was destined to fail, the church simply replaced the burocracy, (in a much reduced sphere), with it's own and it actually managed to put some order in the chaos, that's the reason why the church was all powerfull in the middle ages, no on likes chaos and in a disordered world only the church represented unity and order.
You say that nothing good ever came out of the church, the only way you can say that is if you are an illiterate moron:
First of all the church won where rome failed. It managed to convert the barbarians woh afterwards were it's biggest defenders.
The church preserved a lot of the ancient world art, literature, science, and law. Afterwards, 13 century in Italy and 14 to 15 everywhere else in europe, that knowledge was the material with which the renaissence was built.
Recently if it weren`t because of the influence of the church Chile and Argentina would have waged a war in 1978.
To conclude in the way things are finished in the pit I'll only add: FUCK YOU!!!

[Estilicon]

Ok my post should begin with a quote and finish with FUCK YOU. I am sorry, I messed up with the code.

[Blue Ruin]

Given the number of deaths attributal to atheist, protestant, hindu, and even Buddhist teachings, I think we can assume that no human religion except total apathy is "safe". And total apathy rarely confins itself merely to religion, leading to other problems.

None of my worshippers have killed anyone. Don't plan to have them start either, though I make no promises (I'm not an omniscient god).

[Marley23]

Even after that, I will not post in it unless asked to.
Even if it hadn't been immediately locked, I don't think anybody was going to ask. In fact I feel pretty sure nobody's ever going to ask you to post at all.

[FinnAgain]

Or As Bill Hicks put it:

"... later, when I was hanging from the tree..."

[Yeticus Rex]

Awesome. The heathens hate when we do that!

For an encore, tell him Jesus loves him and watch his head explode!
Whoosh or not, I sincerely meant it.....it was not a jab.

[smiling bandit]

None of my worshippers have killed anyone.

Fair enough. It should be notied that most of the worshippers of most of the major prophets were usually fairly well-behaved, at least until after the master dies. Then its off to partying and killing the heathens. Sad to say it, but it's just human nature.

[Scarface Z]

Aww, come on guys!

What could be better than a religious institution that says I create life every seven seconds?

Nothing that's what, not even "a nice MLT, a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, when the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that." :)