Truth of Mother Teresa

[SurlyPIG]

However, for a Church that has hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions?) of priests worldwide, these are only isolated cases. The overwhelming majority of priests are honest, moral people who live to serve God and do their best to help people in their local community and beyond.

It is unfair to judge all of these decent people according to the actions of a few madmen.

I'm not at all judging the other priests. I'm speaking of the leaders and managers of the organization. I mean the people at the top. The ones that aren't in uniform. They've been proven to perform cover-ups more often than not.

You are also ignoring the fact that there are many more paedophiles and child abusers among NON-clergy than among clergy.

What makes you think that? Have you seen a statistic that says that sexual abuse is committed in a smaller percentage by clergymen than the average population? Perhaps in some religion where celbacy is not required, but not the Catholic church, thats for sure. I would estimate that it's actually more prevalent because of what they are expected to give up. This is one of the main reasons my mother turned away from the Catholic Church.

It may be that they are simply using reverse psychology. It seems insane to think they are frauds, so this gives them virtual immunity from criticism.

But for what purpose? To what end? Perhaps this priest has done something to anger them, and they are seeking revenge, but how often would that happen? I'll bet it has, but it can't be very prevalent because it's so illogical.

there are plenty of examples of civil wars and other kinds of in-fighting started by atheists against the religious:

{several examples}

By my definitions, an atheist is different from an anarchist. An anarchist does not believe in any god, but does not believe in law and order either. An atheist does. The people you listed are in great violation of international law, so calling them atheists, while still accurate, is not the most accurate term you can use. They are dictatorial anarchists, IMO.

I never tried to defend Islam. As for Hitler, he had his own religion, with himself as "god".

Right, Islam is rather indefensable. To this day, Hitler's religion is still widely speculated. Some say he WAS a Christian (a rather bad one), but I wasn't referring to that. His selective slaughter of the Jews is more of what I was talking about. And he wasn't anti-theist because he would have slaughtered Christians too, if that was the case. It's hard to say what was truly in his head.

In that case you must also agree that the crusades and the inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity.

Very well. But then you mustn't hold the actions of Stalin and co. against atheism.

Arbitrary or not, you have to admit that a good Christian would never do one of those things.

Neither would a law-abiding atheist. Though anarchy is technically a subdivision of atheism, it's fundamental difference is monumental.

But there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" atheist. Therefore, Christiany (if properly "implemented") can reduce the number of that sort of events, while atheism cannot.

Yes there is. A good atheist is someone who believes in and abides by law. Law and order can reduce the number of that sort of events too, but without all the religous "filler".

I never said such a thing. I'm not calling all non-christians immoral. I'm only calling immoral those of them who live for pleasure and self-gratification. (and also any christians who do the same thing)

Uhh...I'm confused now...What exactly were you trying to say here:

Does one turning away from their religion make them morally decadent?

Yes.

The people I'm calling immoral are hedonists, nietzcheians, and all those who support and engage in acts which are deemed immoral by the Bible (and by myself, I might add - I had a very similar moral code even before I became a christian).

While these are technically subdivisions of atheism, like anarchy, they are more specific and do not include all atheists. For instance, you can't assume an atheist is a hedonist or an anarchist. Atheism is too broad a term.

Well, I would appreciate their good intentions and show my respect by trying to convert them in return. ;D

But in the end I'm sure we'd end up being great friends, if our beliefs are fundamentally the same.

If you were fundamentally the same, all this converting would seem so silly, wouldn't it? And if it went on and on and on, wouldn't it get annoying?

But getting back to atheism - if you saw someone drowning and who didn't want to be rescued, what would you do? ;)

That's a much different situation. If you don't save them from drowning, they will die. But you don't know God exists. Or that there's a hell for an atheist to go to. Or a heaven for you to go to. You took a leap of faith and made that choice. They did not. If you want to try and convert them, thats fine, but after a certain point, let them live their life the way they choose.

I fully acknowledge that religious organizations do fantastic work around the world from feeding the hungry and housing the homeless to just being there in the community for anyone who needs them.

Well, then why exactly are we arguing again? :)

The point I'm making is not to anyone is "holier than thau" just because of their religion. And likewise, don't assume an atheist is automatically a hedonist or an anarchist.

[zamboe]

So many useless posts, of some guys that never practiced or followed Christianity, and they think that their opinions have some sense, that's total non sense.

It's like If I'd make an opinion about some film/movie that I've never seen, my opinion (no matter what I say) is totally useless. To post some objective ideas about something like religion you must have had inside experience.

What's more funny is that they make forecast for today's situation based on historic events that took place more than 500 years ago.

Also funny is how this persons posts and discriminate like this: When they mention some ilegal acts they mention "the church / catholic church" as the guilty or suspicious, when in real, those were persons that commited ilegal acts, but when they mention atheist they say "people".

It's pretty clear that they try to downgrade the Catholic's Church by quoting only some ilegal acts that some members commited, when they are completly unable or ignorant about the inmense majority that commited good acts since the Church existed.

It's like this detractors only appear when there is something they'd like to say, but they don't say anything when there is something good to say, maybe they think like this " I know that only a few Catholics members commited ilegal acts, I know the majority do live like good citizens and practice good behavior, but let's make an opinion about Catholic Church based only on those non good members". That's exactly what they do, they take the 2 or 3 only bad apples out of the basket, to generalize about the rest of 97 apples.

[Acriku]

Zamboe, the atheists are not a body of people defined by beliefs. Christians are a body of people defined by beliefs. Simple as that. And who are you talking to? Edric? Using 'they' leaves me to question this. Anyways, if you find it funny, laugh then, but if you have something to contribute then by all means post it.

[zamboe]

Zamboe, the atheists are not a body of people defined by beliefs. Christians are a body of people defined by beliefs. Simple as that. And who are you talking to? Edric? Using 'they' leaves me to question this. Anyways, if you find it funny, laugh then, but if you have something to contribute then by all means post it.

If you think that some subjects I posted about fit you, then I am talking about you, if not then I am not.

[Edric O]

Edric you don't understand. Atheism has no body to be in the name of something. It's simply the lack of belief. The lack, not the existence. Nothing, not something. Stalin did it in the name of Communism, and that's it. Communism is something. Atheism is nothing. Get it?

Oh, I see, people can rape and murder in the name of atheism, but it doesn't matter, because atheism is not a system of beliefs. But when someone does the same in the name of a religion, you immediately point the finger to the "evils" of that religion. ::)

And if it is so against the teachings of Christianity, why does the Bible set so many examples of killing, murdering, stoning, etc, to people such as adulterers, adultresses, sons who curseth thy father and thy mother, etc. The Bible is full of killing and punishing, it isn't some flower-sprouting-tree-hugging-book.

Uh-huh, then how do you explain this:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

- Mark 12:28-31

Remember, Jesus changed many of the Old Laws. Read the New Testament to get a picture of what Christianity really means.

[Acriku]

So what the OT says about what God did is wrong? So anything could be wrong in the OT? What makes the NT better than the OT? Anyone who follows the OT is morally deprived now, and the followers of the NT better?

[Edric O]

That's not what I said. The OT is still very much morraly correct. I was only saying that the NT takes precedence over the OT. But the OT does not condone any immoral activities either.

Just take a look at the 10 Commandments, the core of OT teachings.

[Acriku]

Why would you make ten commandments, and then break them in examples throughout the bible?

[Edric O]

Yes, a great number of people broke them - and they are negative examples. They show us what NOT to do, and how easy it is to give in to sin if you're not careful.

[Edric O]

Ace, we seem to agree on some points, and on the rest it's just a difference of opinion. Couldn't we simply agree to disagree?

Anyway, here's my answer to your last post:

I'm not at all judging the other priests. I'm speaking of the leaders and managers of the organization. I mean the people at the top. The ones that aren't in uniform. They've been proven to perform cover-ups more often than not.

Power corrupts. The more power you give someone, the more likely it is that he will eventually become corrupt. They are only human.

Perhaps in some religion where celbacy is not required, but not the Catholic church, thats for sure. I would estimate that it's actually more prevalent because of what they are expected to give up. This is one of the main reasons my mother turned away from the Catholic Church.

Other Churches have lower standards, that is why it seems that Catholic priests are worse. (I'm not talking about child abuse here, I'm talking in general) You said this yourself: milder laws make it seem as if people are being more honest.

Regardless of the problem, lowering your standards is NEVER a solution. That is why I support the Catholic high standard of celibacy.

I hope your mother's decision didn't influence your own path in life... right?

But for what purpose? To what end? Perhaps this priest has done something to anger them, and they are seeking revenge, but how often would that happen? I'll bet it has, but it can't be very prevalent because it's so illogical.

Since when are people logical? :)

Lots of people do lots of illogical things on a daily basis. Just because something is illogical doesn't mean people won't do it.

By my definitions, an atheist is different from an anarchist. An anarchist does not believe in any god, but does not believe in law and order either. An atheist does. The people you listed are in great violation of international law, so calling them atheists, while still accurate, is not the most accurate term you can use. They are dictatorial anarchists, IMO.

I can agree to that, if you also agree that the people responsible for the crusades and the inquisition were not Christians. After all, they went directly against the teachings of Christianity.

To this day, Hitler's religion is still widely speculated. Some say he WAS a Christian (a rather bad one), but I wasn't referring to that. His selective slaughter of the Jews is more of what I was talking about. And he wasn't anti-theist because he would have slaughtered Christians too, if that was the case. It's hard to say what was truly in his head.

Yes, I agree. He was probably too insane to have a coherent belief system, and that must be why we can't find it.

But he treated the Jews as a "race", a different species even - not as a religious group.

In that case you must also agree that the crusades and the inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity.

Very well. But then you mustn't hold the actions of Stalin and co. against atheism.

Good. We have an agreement. Neither Christianity nor atheism can be blaimed for the actions of a few madmen, which went directly against the values of the majority of people in their respective group (in the case of Christianity, also went against the core of the very religion they were supposedly defending)

Uhh...I'm confused now...What exactly were you trying to say here: {followed by a quote from me}

Sorry about that. I made a sweeping generalization by mistake.

That's a much different situation. If you don't save them from drowning, they will die. But you don't know God exists. Or that there's a hell for an atheist to go to. Or a heaven for you to go to. You took a leap of faith and made that choice. They did not.

Very well, then add this to my comparison: the man who is drowning might or might not know how to swim.

And perhaps you don't understand my way of thinking, but this isn't just a "leap of faith" for me. I *know* God exists.

But, of course, other people might not see things the same way, and I never tried to force my beliefs on anyone.

The point I'm making is not to anyone is "holier than thau" just because of their religion.

...but no one is "holier than thou" because of their atheism, either.

And likewise, don't assume an atheist is automatically a hedonist or an anarchist.

Unfortunatelly, a very large number of them are... at least that has been my experience.

[Caid Ivik]

To this day, Hitler's religion is still widely speculated. Some say he WAS a Christian (a rather bad one), but I wasn't referring to that. His selective slaughter of the Jews is more of what I was talking about. And he wasn't anti-theist because he would have slaughtered Christians too, if that was the case. It's hard to say what was truly in his head.

As you should know, Hitler was a Christian as a child, like famous atheists Nietzsche or Darwin (altough this isn't sure for him) were too. Many people convert or loss their believe, if they fail to find the sense and very core of it. But these created atheistic nihilism, causing that human lost sense of life and was thrown into hands of nature. Which wants stronger to survive, without "miserable nonsense barriers like morale". This was Hitler's religion. Perverted, as its creators were. Practised, as it was perverted.

And if it is so against the teachings of Christianity, why does the Bible set so many examples of killing, murdering, stoning, etc, to people such as adulterers, adultresses, sons who curseth thy father and thy mother, etc. The Bible is full of killing and punishing, it isn't some flower-sprouting-tree-hugging-book.

Old Testament is hard book, you must READ EXPLANATIONS. But murderers, adulterers and cursers are always punished by God in it. That means something. Like today. Murderers end mostly by other murderer, adulterers on AIDS, cursing are soon fallen under hate of others. Don't seek our believe here. Where it's told about our codex, you see "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", but also "love ye your enemies" - Lk 6,35; and, primarily, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." - Lk 10,27; That's all sense of Bible, in this verse.

[Anathema]

Unfortunatelly, a very large number of them are... at least that has been my experience.

Ah, but is it atheism that makes them hedonists and anarchists? You could also say that hedonists and anarchists simply cannot be christians, and thus are atheists. Some immoral people were christians to begin with, but weren't raised by their parents to be good citizens. When they become murderers and rapers, don't blame me for it.

As you should know, Hitler was a Christian as a child, like famous atheists Nietzsche or Darwin (altough this isn't sure for him) were too. Many people convert or loss their believe, if they fail to find the sense and very core of it. But these created atheistic nihilism, causing that human lost sense of life and was thrown into hands of nature. Which wants stronger to survive, without "miserable nonsense barriers like morale". This was Hitler's religion. Perverted, as its creators were. Practised, as it was perverted.

These people were either raised very badly or were insane to begin with. Don't blame non believers for their actions.

adulterers on AIDS

One on five people in Africa have AIDS. So now the 2 year old boy who has aids because his parents had it is being punished? And woman who are raped are being punished for...being raped?

[Acriku]

Is that an error, because I didn't say that first quote of Caid's?

[Caid Ivik]

These people were either raised very badly or were insane to begin with. Don't blame non believers for their actions.

They were raised by good people. When Nietzsche lost his mind, his mother wasn't doing nothing else than for him. Hitler's family was protestantic and liberal in religious things. But all three mentioned people grown their pubertal ages in very powerful atheistic influence in their schools. That caused their convertion. True or not, their creations and actions were purely atheistic.

adulterers on AIDS

One on five people in Africa have AIDS. So now the 2 year old boy who has aids because his parents had it is being punished? And woman who is raped are being punished for...being raped?

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." - Mt 27,25

Hard to believe, but we all have responsibility not for only ourselves, but also for our children, for our world. That's why hedonism is dangerous. About rapes, it's show of reality in pictures of "black death" from plague epidemy. It's blind, but bloodlusting. Attacked women aren't punished by God, but just hit by this power. For commiter it is a double sin - not only he adulter, but also kills.

[Anathema]

True or not, their creations and actions were purely atheistic.

The persecution of witches and pagans in medieval times were purely christian in nature. Even though the bible doesn't allow it, it still was done by christians and in the name of the bible. But that does not make it representative for all christianity, as do atheist mad men not represent me.

[Caid Ivik]

Not exactly, such superstitions as witch works aren't based on christianity. Altough some of them really practised occultism, it wasn't Church, which executed. Church just said they were guilty of heresy, if they were then killed or imprisoned, it was will of state.

I am not saying Hitler is representing you. Just atheism is based on nihilism, and Hitler's morale too. Today's atheists aren't pure, they still have (thank God) some morale, at least they see it "natural", not like an enemy to mind, how Nietzsche and such did.

[Anathema]

Pure? Who are you to say what atheism is about? Atheism is not a way of living or some cult, it is a collective noun for people who lack belief in a god.

"some morale"? So I am barely civilised?

[Caid Ivik]

Pure atheist is only an animal. You are more religious, because you are a human, following given morale laws. How much of them, I don't know, but I hope much ;) Believing to God won't make you a good one; following His orders will. That's why even atheist can be redeemed.

[Anathema]

So if you don't burn everything to the ground and don't kill people and don't believe in God, you are still religious?

[Caid Ivik]

Not religious, but moral. As you are following moralty, you believe in some kind of order, which is good for world. That's why you can't be pure atheist, without any religious influence. In core, you don't need to be religious (altough it helps). But you must more than only stop commiting sins, but doing any good for your society and world.

[The_Sadukar]

Edric you don't understand. Atheism has no body to be in the name of something. It's simply the lack of belief. The lack, not the existence. Nothing, not something. Stalin did it in the name of Communism, and that's it. Communism is something. Atheism is nothing. Get it?

as far as I konw it's nilihist who belive in nothing, an atheistjust dsn't belive in a god.

[Acriku]

That's what I mean, atheism lacks a belief in god. Nothing in atheism to have someone do something in the name of it, because there is nothing there! Stop making lemonade out of frootloops. ;)

And caid, being pure atheist is not being an animal. You care confusing atheism with animal instincts, or something as stupid as that.

[SurlyPIG]

Pure atheist is only an animal.

An animal? LOL. There's some typical theist intolerance. "If they don't believe in my God, they're not human"

An atheist is different from a hedonist or an anarchist.

[Edric O]

Obviously, Caid has no idea what he's saying.

He only speaks for himself, so please don't generalize your comments.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, what you mean with that? If something isn't questioning your problems, it does not mean it's a crazy word. That quote was put from context. I mean that no one is pure atheist. Everyone has some spirituality within, who is trying to have no, will soon try to find it. Also it wasn't idea of that post. I hope I won't have to explain every my post, before that rumun will try to push me out of dicussion.

You just seek for signs of intolerance, for someone who hates you, because YOU WANT to hate. Possibly. Use mind before replying.