Catholics advised to distance themselves from Vosen book

THIS JUST IN!!.. Catholics advised to keep eyes shut during sex.. film at 11:00

It is true that the jury believed that the priest raped the victim while the victim was child. If they didn't believe it, they would have found in favor of the priest. That was the whole issue. That was what the trial was about. There's no other explanation for the jury's finding.

I attended the entirety of the trial and the jury stated its belief.

"The jury believed that the priest raped the victim while the victim was a child."
.
That may or may not be the case.
.
Unless you were on that jury (or have firsthand knowledge from a juror) you do not (but obviously will presume to) know why the jury decided the way they did.
.
They can decide a case based on nothing more than "just because they want to," and leave everyone to guess why.

As much as billnewbie benefits from being off-point here, this blog is about:

A jury decided to believe the victim in a legal dispute between a priest and the victim. The jury believed that the priest raped the victim while the victim was a child.

An interesting aspect to all this is the speculation that the priest is innocent. If the priest is innocent then the jury's finding was a declaration of guilty re: the Catholic Church's institutionalization of child rape (there's no other explanation for the finding). The priest's own attorney made a statement that mirrors this viewpoint. He said the jury found against the priest due to how the public and the jury view what's going on in the Catholic Church.

Of course, even if the jury arrived at the correct finding, that finding would also be a de facto finding of guilty re: the Church's organized criminality.

Be courageous, admit your cheapshot. It will only sting a little.

Fairness to thekid, billnewbie? well, unlike you I never called him a criminal. And, as far as his being alright, I know for a fact that he is alright because he told me, sometimes he's on the mark. Do you have any idea how obvious your ploy is?

And, again, you're projecting in your inability to ratiocinate clearly.

If Gazettefan had any real concern for fairness to Thekid, he would never have brought him up.
.
What powers of rationalization Gazettefan has. As long as he can contend that Thekid has a sense of humor, he can slam him unawares with a backhanded insult and then shrug it of with the excuse that "Thekid is alright". Is Gazettefan sure Thekid is alright? How does he know this? Gazettefan presumes to answer for Thekid. Accurate presumptions are based on accurate perceptions, and Gazettefan’s powers of perception are quite defective.
.
Gazettefan claims for himself that he has “the courage to face reality”. The reality is that he insulted Thekid unawares and without provocation and when called to account, his much bragged about courage failed as he rationalized away his dirty deed. Way to “man up”, Gazettefan!

edsci- You are of the mentality that if YOU can not see, hear, or feel something it does NOT exist. It is a good thing that the rest of the world does not have the same thought processes. If that was the case, The Germ Theory would not have been proposed, we would not have antibiotics and Florence Nightingale would have never thought that washing your hands could fight infections.
+
I have an idea. You should really watch "Horton Hears A Who." It might help you to open your mind and give you a good laugh at the same time. It might even be therapeutic for you.

sorry sarah B I had a bad day the other day.. my apologies.

Now, don't be bringing chickens into this debate!

billnewbie, thekid is alright. He has a sense of humor about his habit. And I respect him enough to know that he can handle himself in a debate and is not in the degraded state of being tormented. He should be insulted by your description of him. With your propensity for projection, it is obvious that it is you who is tormented.

And in more fairness to thekid, I should have described the two of your posts in question as the products of too much xmas eggnog.

And now Gazettefan wants to pull Thekid into this. The way Gazettefan torments that man is shameful. He may not be the most articulate of posters, he certainly has problems recognizing his obligation to follow the law, but he believes in his cause and he is no more obstinate in his position than Gazettefan is about Catholics. Was it really nessissary to disrespect Thekid in Gazettefan's pathetic attempt to slander me? I think not!
.
Hey Gazettefan, take all the graceless shots at me that you like but there's no justification for backhanding another unawares, in fact it's quite cowardly of you. I hope Thekid never sees it.

Mslindyk:
I never wrote nor meant to imply that you wrote that I used the word "stupid". I apologize for my lack of clarity. I wrote that if I had used that word it would be in reference to something that someone else wrote and not in reference to their character. And I then wrote that I don't believe I ever used that word which was meant as a general statement and not directed at you. You can be sure that if I had used that word my many fans would have quickly pointed out my duplicity.
.
Feel free to be as negative as the Gazette gate keepers will allow you to be as I am very difficult to offend.

billnewbie-
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I never said that you said stupid. I said it was a stupid response to someone calling you stupid. Sorry if it seems as though I was taking a negative tone with you. Apparently you are the only one allowed to do that to others.

billnewbie, your last two posts look like you've been into thekid's stash.

Who wouldn't?

What, billnewbie? Does SarahB want your phone number?!!!

Billnewbie: I was referring to the nurse, not you. Happy holidays!

I’m not a grouch, SarahB. You can castigate me all you like, as Gazettefan is slowly discovering to his ever increasing chagrin. But you can’t have my phone number as we devout Christians don’t use modernistic products developed by atheistic science. (I recognize the absurdity of that last statement but using absurdities to illustrate the absurdity of the statements of some is an effective debating tool even if some would prohibit its use as sinful)

I have to agree with you there Edsci. We don’t know the day or hour of Christ’s birth or even the exact year. But we know he was born and we all celebrate it on Christmas Day. It is known as Christmas Day the world over. So, like it or not, all who celebrate the day pay homage to Christ no matter how they rationalize it. I wouldn’t always call that hypocrisy though as many non-christians are compelled to honor the day and the Person unwillingly.
.
Personally, I don’t know if Mother Teresa was a hypocrite (and neither do you), but that’s some august kinship you claim for yourself. Her compassion for the poor, her disdain of the accolades offered her as well as her own poverty are well documented and, I suspect, overshadows your accomplishments a hundredfold and perhaps more. I would say that was yet another poor example for you to use particularly since your rather shameful attempt to denigrate the woman, and Catholicism, is so transparent.

Gazettefan continues to “chase his tail” in his characterizations of the content of my opinions, my character and my abilities. I reject them all. The reasons I make my “bizarre declarations of victory” are due to his obviously frustrated assertions of me as he casts about for something caustic enough to silence me. While I do find his dilemma pitiable, I have no consideration for one such as he who shows no sympathy, no restraint, no charity and no respect for those who disagree with him. He is both a rude and harsh proselytizer of anti-Catholicism and in his own crusade against God. His protestations of same on my part are laughable. All this appears to escape his notice. “That he's indignant, 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true—a frustrated figure”. (I just had to throw in that Shakespearian paraphrase due to perceived popular demand)

Maybe? Yes, maybe. However, not bonafide. Bonafide would require a scientific inquiry which would require the use of a null hypothesis so ensure your "miracle" wasn't just a coincidence. It is possible it was a miracle it is just not very probable. There is a huge difference between being able to cut and paste from the wikipedia and being able to understand what it says.

I have said this before, you seem to have a confirmation bias towards perceiving events as being miraculous. How do you propose to correct for the obvious bias in your research? In other words have you looked at ALL possible scientific explanations? In a study you would present your case as a miracle and then present ALL possible scientific explanations and then explain somberly why the "miracle" is the best explanation and make your case. However, that isn't what you want. You just want people to believe, well that's what Mr Madoff wanted his investors to do too.

What a grouch.

Or maybe if you haven't anything to contribute to this forum maybe you should NOT post?

Wouldn't it be easier if the few of you continuing this forum just call each other on the phone?

edsci- I wil throw you a bone here ( I figured I would stick to the dog similes)..
+
A suggestion of mass hysteria? Possible, I will grant you that. However, some of those visitors were from other areas that were skeptics just like you are. I would think that the contrary could at least be plausible. That maybe, just maybe, a BONAFIDE actual MIRACLE did occur in that little village of Fatima Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917.

Since a qualitative research method is usually reserved for human behavior I fail to see how that field of study would include how a miracle occured.
+
"Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters [1]. Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The discipline investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed rather than large random samples.
+
Qualitative research was one of the first forms of social studies (conducted e.g. by Bronisław Malinowski or Elton Mayo), but in the 1950s and 1960s - as quantitative science reached its peak of popularity - it was diminished in importance and began to regain recognition only in the 1970s. The phrase 'qualitative research' was until then restricted as a discipline of anthropology or sociology, and terms like ethnography, fieldwork, participant observation and Chicago school (sociology) were used instead. During the 1970s and 1980s qualitative research began to be used in other disciplines, and became a significant type of research in the fields of education studies, social work studies, women's studies, disability studies, information studies, management studies, nursing service studies, human service studies, psychology, communication studies, and other. Some qualitative research occurred in the consumer products industry during this period: researchers most interested in investigating consumer new product and product positioning opportunities worked with a handful of the earliest consumer research pioneers including Gene Reilly of The Gene Reilly Group in Darien, CT, Jerry Schoenfeld of Gerald Schoenfeld & Partners in Tarrytown, NY and Martin Calle of Calle & Company, Greenwich, CT. In the late 1980s and 1990s after a spate of criticisms from the quantitative side, paralleling a slowdown in traditional media spending for the decade, new methods of qualitative research evolved, to address the perceived problems with reliability and imprecise modes of data analysis.[2]

In the last thirty years the acceptance of qualitative research by journal publishers and editors has been growing. Prior to that time many mainstream journals were prone to publish research articles based upon the natural sciences and which featured quantitative analysis (wikipedia)."

edsci- It would seem to me that I have provided enough data to at least create a hypothesis correct?
+
Finding first hand accounts would be quite impossible at this stage of the game considering the event occured in 1917.
+
I use The Nursing Process everyday that I am at work. The Nursing Process is remarkably similar to the scientific approach. Therefore the State of Wisconsin thinks I am qualified enough in that department in order to issue a License to practice.

billnewbie, you continue to make rude remarks and avoid the intellectual challenge of posts that oppose what you've said while making bizarre declarations of victory.

The difference between how you present your beliefs compared to how nurse4u presents her beliefs is telling. Her presentation is vibrant and joyful. While yours is along the harsh continuum of the proselytization of the crusades (though thankfully you and your kind have toned the crusade-thing down a bit by resorting only to rudeness and violent allusions).

That is interesting billnewbie. Because, we really don't know when Jesus was born so the church affixed the date to the same time as the winter solstice which was worshiped by those nature loving Pagans, Easter at Spring and Jesus being reborn are also set to seasonal events. The church was trying to convert people. So, it would seem that Christians are actually celebrating Pagan holidays and not the other way around.

Though I am a hypocrite. A hypocrite like Mother Theresa was, a hypocrite for love and charity.

nurs4u, find a peer-reviewed journal, read it, understand the format needed. You would be doing a qualitative study on the miracle of fatima. You will need many first hand accounts and submit it online to the PLOS (The Public Library of Online Science) and see what happens. I you really love science then explain your miracle in the appropriate format. Otherwise it is just some comments on a blog.

nurse4u:
I seem to be misunderstood. I used Aleister Crowley’s philosophical statement “Do what thou wilt” to show that atheism is a parallel philosophy to the Wiccans. Wicca was established by a man named Gerald Gardner, an associate of Crowley’s who himself was a Satanist and who was an influence on Gardner and Wiccan philosophy as it was Crowley who first published the term “magick” which the Wiccan’s adopted as their own in an effort to delineate their “magick” from the conventional understanding of it. The Wiccans worship gods who are representative of nature, the sun, the moon, the earth, etc. Atheists too revere the natural world and the science that studies it as they would a deity. So I am not saying that Wiccans are atheists, but that atheists are not as atheist as they would like to believe. Their hostility to all things religious is proof of that. If they really thought there is no God it seems to me that they would be much less militant which is why I contended that they are actually anti-deists and that they are angry with God or hate Him for reasons even they may not know.
.
Don’t worry, I would actively oppose having you or any Wiccan burned at the stake. But Justsaynotomath….. , just kidding!

Mslindyk:
It seems that the post you object to is still there. I guess the Gazette staff doesn’t see things quite the way you do. Neither do I.
.
My “classless condescension” has always been aimed at the substance of an opponent’s argument. That may seem like a rather fine distinction, but it is true never the less. If I were to use the term “stupid” (I don’t believe I have ever used that term), it would always be a characterization of a statement and not the person who wrote it.
.
In spite of the rudeness of your tone, I have nothing rude to respond to you in kind. I am gratified that you appreciate my “clever little analogies” though.

That has to be about the 10th time Gazettefan has contended that I have a “comprehension problem”. Repetition of the same ineffectual barbs (chasing one's tail) while expecting different results is indicative of something but just what I don’t care to speculate about other than that he’s spectacularly lost yet another round of debates.

one more note billnewbie, you claim to be a christian so you should do the christian thing and agree to disagree and love me anyways.

Billnewbie, as an atheist i have no problems with Christmas. i do not celebrate it in any way. i do not except gifts, i do not have a tree. we do nothing different on the 25th that we would do any other day. i do not say merry Christmas and the same goes for Easter. so you see i do not buy into your christian beliefs, nor do i attend them. what is sad is that you and others choose to push your views on everyone else as if it would change our minds, what an ego you have. as i have said before god's people are the walking dead unable to live for today because they are always living for the after life.

billnewbie-

How very mature of you to joke about committing suicide (see 12/24 comment if not yet deleted - as it should be). Suicide is nothing to joke about. Have some compassion. You may have never said that you were "going to commit suicide" but you did say that you were going to slit your wrists which, correct me if I'm wrong (and we all know you will), is one of the many ways one would go about committing suicide. A stupid response to someone calling you stupid, in my opinion. Maybe you could've taken the higher road in this case and handled it a little more maturly.

Speaking of opinions... While I am fully aware that we are all entitled to our own opinions, sometimes those opinions are better kept to yourself. Maybe you could be a little nicer when making your point instead of using your big vocabulary just to put others down. Just because you have a vocabulary full of big, fancy words does not mean that you have to be so classless and condescending towards others.

I'm sure you will have something rude to say in response to my post. I hope it includes on of your clever little analogies!

I am a RN. I have the utmost respect for science and the MIRACLES that it provides to us..and I am grateful.
+
Science & Miracles can go hand in hand.
+
For example, the ability that science allows a person to be revived after 45 minutes submerged in water at a temperature below zero. Can that not be construed as a miracle also?

billie-I am not an athesist yet I have some beliefs that would be considered "Wiccan." So you are saying that everyone who practices Wiccan is considered an athesist? Do you have any knowledge of the Wiccan beliefs? Or do you just hold the belief that Wiccans need to be burned at the stake for their devil worshipping ways?
+
The Wiccan way of life is about being respectful and loving of other human beings.
"Most Wiccans believe in a single ultimate reality that pervades the universe and is expressed in the Goddess and God. Most traditions worship the two deities as equals where none deserves more importance than the other. An attempt is usually made to reflect this balance in the coven, although men tend to be a minority in the Wiccan religion."
www.religionfacts.com/neopaganism/paths/...

billnewbie, finding yourself right back where you started while reading indicates a comprehension problem on your part.

It's like watching a dog chase its tail.

billnewbie, only someone whose thinking is polarized can refer to my thinking as something of a flip-flop. My thinking is comprehensive. It is only the spurious findings of psychiatry and psychiatry's wild application of those findings that I oppose. However, the psychiatric and psychological industries have studied the human mind long enough to have gotten some things right, even if by chance. The defense mechanism of projection (borrowed from Shakespeare) is a useful finding of psych-biz and perfectly explains your irrational and anti-christian rants against me.

Then you get into the cultural and philosophical christian thing with no exploration as to what that is. It is humanist christianity. Humanist christianity regards christ as a historical figure who had some pretty good ideas. There is nothing supernatural about it. Your severe need to shirk the issue at hand with the self-serving psychological ploy of believing your opponent is actually on your side once again exposes you as someone who is overwhelmed by the weight of your own internal clap-trap.

The above goes toward explaining the ongoing friction here: An important cause of that friction comes from your need to embrace the supernatural. Such an embrace does mortal damage to the ability to reason; and is therefore responsible for your taking this discussion down to the depths of an earthly hell where nothing of your claimed christianity is allowed to survive. The absence of polarization on my part allows me to expose you as the psychologically cornered, disorganized sophist that you are.

The most glaring example of your cornered status here is your adamant denial that the organized criminality in the Catholic Church is the abomination of institutionalized child rape. (An interesting subject for the future here could be why you persist on a path that causes the repetition of this fact: The Church is a place of organized crime and institutionalized child rape.)

My deep sense of existential responsibility trounces your wiccan claim. I try to live by the golden rule which, by the way, is a humanist tenet. I confess, though, at times I fail in my christianity. But if someone like you, with the belief that Christ is the supernatural son of god, can fail, I guess it's okay if I fail once-and-a-while.

Another example of your polarization is that you can only comprehend the word "hellish" in the supernatural sense. If you're supposed to be a Shakespearean, get literary.

It's not clear to me from your post whether you believe all non-christians will go to to hell. Do you believe all non-christians will go to hell?

As me for me, I wouldn't go to hell if you paid me, I've already spent enough time with insurance agents.

edsci-Yeah, They had video footage in 1917
(Note the sarcasm here).

What a monumental flip-flop, Gazettefan! Or were you just kidding!
.
For someone who has so little faith in the science of psychiatry you seem to have no qualms about relying on it when it suits you. Rather than wasting your prescience on me, physician, heal thyself as you have much to do. Your absurd claim to be "a cultural and philosophical christian" borders on either extreme hubris or perhaps schizophrenia. I suspect the former.
.
Other posters who have experienced your “Christ-like” ministrations will no doubt be just as amused as I am at your most recent bizarre claims of yourself. Your true philosophy is, I am sure, defined by these few words, “Do as thou wilt” which makes you and all so called atheists close philosophical and cultural brethren with Wiccans but not Christ.
.
“Another hellish exploration” Gazettefan? That from you, a denier and ridiculer of the supernatural? Of all things spiritual I would think that you would most avoid such discussions. But your latest diatribe revels something I’ve suspected about you for some time. I believe you are not the atheist you pretend to be. You are an anti-deist though. You either hate God or are angry with Him, probably both. I think you may well know that Christ is Lord, too. Don’t worry about being condemned to Hell though. Hell is populated mostly by the willing. That is to say that hell is filled with people who choose not to be in the presence of the Lord. If hell is where you are headed, it’s because you would have it no other way. Milton wrote in “Paradise Lost” of such as you who say “It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.". If hell is what you insist upon, the Lord will accommodate you.

Pictures of people staring at the sky? A single picture of the sun in bw? I don't see a crowd of 50,000 people. The accounts say the sun was spinning and "seemed" to fall from the sky. First, that doesn't prove God caused it. Second, the sun is always spinning in the sky and "seemed" to fall from the sky is incredibly vague. In your first depiction that was posted you will notice the description is loaded with religious terminology that is quite a bit different than the other descriptions. Most of the links don't provide any real evidence. Is there video footage?

edsci- More evidence? Ok -such as images and newspaper accounts? Here are some links for you to follow up on.
www.miraclesceptic.com/solarmiracle.html...
+
www.fatimaconference.org
+
christcome.net
+
timotheosprologizes.blogspot.com
+
www.todayscatholicworld.com
++++
There ARE more links, but I would think you are quite capable of determining from these links provided that there was indeed photographs & newspaper accounts of the Miracle of fatima.
+
I rest my case.

And yet another hellish exploration of the ragged, jagged, godforsaken terrain of billnewbieland. Both the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations should put your photo next to the definition of projection.

Projection: A stress relieving psychological defense mechanism by which the individual attributes to others the very characteristics that torture the self. (Translation: Like Freud, you can't see past your own mountainous effluvia.)

I'm a cultural and philosophical christian but I totally reject that tenet of christianity that says all non-christians will go to hell. What about you? Do you believe all non-christians will go to hell?

The scoffer doth protest too much, methinks. (Oh yes, yet another tired paraphrase of a cliché from that mediocre wordsmith, William Shakespeare (he’s got a great first name though!)).

It looks as though my barb hit a little too close to the mark. I must have underestimated Gazettefan’s discomfort. Still, it’s notable that he didn’t deny the fact that he was about to honor Christ yesterday, upsetting as that obviously was. His reaction to what I wrote is puzzling though considering his oft repeated claims that he has the courage to face the truth. When faced with that difficult truth, he figuratively squealed like a puppy having its tail docked. Still the facts are what they are, he no doubt celebrated Christmas yesterday with family and/or friends, exchanged gifts and pleasantries all while trying very hard to ignore his conundrum, that on that day we celebrate the birth 2008 years ago a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. He can call the day Xmas, he can call it festivus, he can even call it nothing at all but he now cannot willfully ignore the reason for the holiday and that he apparently lacks the courage of his convictions to leave it alone as the humbug he would no doubt say that it is in the fashion of Scrooge. When a person is forced to confront a flaw in his philosophy or in his character, he quite often assigns dark motives to his perceived tormenter.
.
And so I close with yet another quote from that font of wisdom, the Bard of Avon, “And since you know you cannot see yourself, so well as by reflection, I, your glass, will modestly discover to yourself, that of yourself which you yet know not of. (Don’t worry, I’m not having an identity crisis)

Yes, that is correct it didn't fit into the box. In a court of law it is referred to as the rules of evidence. You in fact provided some kind of vague account and no links to photographs or footage. You only provided one account and I can't tell if it was written on the exact day, a week later or when. The other secret simply dictates that it predicts the attempted assassination of John Paul II after the fact? What was the exact phrasing of the prediction? The other secret isn't really described in any detail either. Also, when you are making a claim the burden of proof is placed on the claimant. I don't have to prove you're wrong. You have to prove your right and attempt to try to prove yourself wrong. This is why researchers use double-blind randomized studies that have to be repeatable. Technically, you would need more than one eyewitness account and the accounts would have to be made in writing immediately after the event. This is why police officers like to get information immediately after the crime or accident has taken place.

Facts are hypothesis that have been proven.
+
I provided examples and sources and you shoot them down because they did not fit into your box.
+
I said the same things about Jesus.

I honor the life of Jesus and his personal philosophy of love and charity. I honor his skepticism of money and the way the Romans used it and taxes to subjugate the Hebrew people and how the merchant class were duplicitous in that subjugation. I honor his skepticism of authority and those who follow blindly. Just as I honor the life of Gandhi, Dr Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa. You see I believe in love and its power to change people. However, I do not believe that "God did it" is an acceptable explanation of natural phenomenon.

billnewbie, another perfect revelation of the stuff that is really billnewbie, despite the cloak of "christianity." Does your Christ read these posts? What do you think he'd say about the malicious intent of your last one. Maybe with a wink he'd say "Way to go, my son."?

It's revealing that one of your themes is that of going through the motions. Continue with the act, maybe someday you'll actually become a true christian.

"I called you stupid because you are stupid".
How profound. And soooo effective! My self image is damaged beyond repair! I have to go now and slit my wrists.

billnewbie, are you actually oblivious to the fact that you are insulting. I'm aware that when I'm provoked I might rip into someone, but you seem to be unaware that you rip into others without provocation.

This must be a difficult time of year for Gazettefan and the like. They are sure to be exchanging presents with someone and sharing some Christmas cheer, perhaps saying the unthinkable, "Merry Christmas", in honor of a person they despise whose memory they detest and whose nature they deny. A paradoxical time for atheists who don't want to spoil the holiday for others so are forced to pay homage to that person whose birth we acknowledge every year at this time with sentimentality towards each other which is meant to convey a sense of how God feels about us. There is no escape from those reminders, even though the holiday has been secularized as much as it has by those who think like Gazettefan yet still they cannot co-opt it entirely. How uncomfortable this must be for them.

I called you stupid because you are stupid. You claim that evolution is a fraud but provide no evidence to support your ridiculous claim. You provide no examples of these fraudulent scientist or why their work is fraudulent. Here is a good example. Currently, the research dealing with mercury poisoning and autism is less than perfect. The FDA studies, for example, had faulty interval selections for subjects. The study included children as young as six months old and outside scientist are not allowed to view the data sets. However, when the studies are presented by people like Dr. Offit on Science Friday he only mentions the size of the sample. You see in a scientific study you are required to present methods, raw data sets and everything that is needed to recreate the experiment or study. You provide no such details. You simply make shotgun statements about fraud with no supporting details and then try to goad me into making an absolute statement about all scientists and their motivations. Scientific frauds are always discovered and corrected because the scientific method requires repeatability. Remember cold fusion. Those experiments couldn't be repeated so they were ignored. In evolutionary science there are mathematical equations that help predict how fast mutations will occur under certain circumstances. There are even theories that have helped conservationists determine which birds of prey will benefit from egg removal and which ones won't. You see these are details and facts. I didn't just state it as such.

fldpan:
Gazettefan proves yet again that gracelessness in defence of fanaticism is no vise, in his estimation.

Yes, billnewbie, is certainly windy -way too adjectival.

Again he's guilty of gaffes like indicating that a belief that the clicker will turn the TV on is the same as the belief in the supernatural. I straightened him out on his deliberate misassignation of the definition of the word "theory" re: the Theory of Evolution and now he tries to pull the same baloney with the word "belief."

Then he gets into some nonsense that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Then he attacks the validity of the term "transitional fossils" while his most important personal psychological foundations are based in the terrorized, manipulative ramblings of ancient, unwashed maniacs.

Then he makes the mistake of bringing in the element of fraud into the conversation knowing full well that much of our discussion has to do with the institutionalization of child rape in the Catholic Church.

Then there's the meandering where he seems to indicate that I share his faith!!!

He's almost finished with yakage claiming that when something malfunctions its a contradiction to science, what!!! Anyone who understands science knows that anything that goes wrong with anything is explainable by science. Even protons break down!!!

Finally, he says that he prefers his faith over science. Isn't that the oxymoronic Christian Science something or other? So, I guess, when he needs heart surgery, he'll just pray and not go to a hospital. Then there's something about praying is more likely to get you want than the clicker will actually turn the TV on!!! Leading to the conclusion that it's more reliable to pray for the TV to turn itself on than punching the power button on the clicker. Hey, no battery problem, ever!!!

Come now Edsci, is calling me stupid the best you can do? Does your faith fail you if some of your august scientists are found to have less than pure motivations and methods? Are the foundations of your "faith" destroyed so easily that you can't even admit that some evolutionists are frauds? Certainly you must be aware of these frauds, unless you aren't as well read as you would like us all to think. I can see why ridicule is the cornerstone of your debating technique since you seem to have so little else to rely on.

fldpan, re: your comment that you couldn't have said it better yourself:

I don't doubt that for a minute.

Notice that billnewbie likes to use the word "facts" and then fails to actually provide any. If you had actually read the Origins of Species which I am willing to bet you have not you would see the facts. Transitional fossils are a fraud? How so and what transitional fossils are fraudulent? All of them? Well give me some examples. You seem to be able to make accusations but not provide any actual facts of your own. What was the last peer reviewed journal you read that dealt with transitional fossils and what specifically was the problem you had with it? Let me guess you haven't because its all a fraud. If its a fraud you could take any number of institutions to court including the companies that make your medicines which are based on evolutionary models when being tested. Because you're all just blah blah blah. Why did the Creationists lose the Dover Penn case? Was that a conspiracy too? Your lack of specific details means that you are too stupid to present a coherent argument other than that there is a huge conspiracy against your beliefs.

Gazettefan confuses “extrapolation” with faith. His asserts that what he extrapolates (believes) is based on “fact”, as he accepts such fact, and that his acceptance of such “facts” are different than what Christians do when they accept the “facts” of Christ. The only difference is his assessment of credibility. He accepts evolutionary sources as unimpeachable, as though no evolutionist could possibly have any ulterior motive. He refuses the possibility that evolution scientists findings may have very little to do with the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions, assumptions Gazettefan, and Edsci share such as the existence and credibility of transitional fossils, a term that is as highly debatable as it is unprovable. Some evolutionary zealots have gone so far as to perpetrate fraud to advance their chosen beliefs, and to enhance their standing among their peers, particularly with counterfeit “transitional” fossils. It is telling of the underlying attitudes of such as Edsci when he perceives an insult at the insinuation that what he accepts as truth (evolution) is actually an act of faith, while Gazettefan pretentiously denies his faith unequivocally, prefering to call it courage (don't you think that's a little self-aggrandizing their Gazettefan?).
.
Gazettefan’s extrapolation example is more than pedestrian (ordinary?), it was not at all well thought out as it makes not a compelling argument in favor of science, but rather an argument opposed to it. Who among us has had a TV, or any other marvel of modern scientific construct, that is absolutely dependable? Do they not all degrade over time and with use? Is not their failure imminent from the very first time it is used? Every time one depends on such a devise it is an act of faith, in that we suspect the thing will eventually fail, either from its own built in defect or from the failure of its external support system (as with TV’s, the power company). Therefore one can extrapolate that it is an act of faith to depend on science just as one knows that using the “clicker” is an act of faith that may not deliver the desire results. What do we all say at a time like that? Something like “just when you need the thing it breaks”. I know where I prefer to put my faith and it ain't on modern marvels.

fldpan, you have "faith" confused with extrapolation. To extrapolate is to come to a reasonable conclusion from hitherto observed facts e.g. gaps in the fossil record.

A pedestrian example of extrapolation might be: You know nothing as to the science and technology that makes your TV work, but from previous experience, which includes observation, you extrapolate that when you hit the power button on your clicker that the damn thing is going to go on.

This is not faith, it is extrapolation. If it were faith, you wouldn't have that sense of certainty you feel when you're holding that clicker.

To soothe the painful existential dissonance that comes from the certainty that you will not be able to live your life without the usual hardships of the human experience, you rely on the bromide of religious faith for comfort. Some of us don't need that faith, some of us receive our comfort from knowing that we have the courage to face reality.

So, your put down to me is that I am as stupid as you. You got me there Einstein. Oh wait he was a scientist so you probably didn't know he existed.

There are thousands if not millions of transitional fossils. In fact one appears on the cover of last years National Geographic and was featured in the main stream press. The current Scientific American is on evolution. You should try reading it. What do you think the purpose of DNA is? Here is a list of transitional fossils at the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra.... Just because you're unaware of a fact doesn't mean the fact doesn't exist. You believe what you want to believe and ignore the facts http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/... here is another. At one time religious people believed that Dinosaur bones were the bones of giants. We now know different or do you still believe in giants.

Skepticism is naive. I think you need to look up the word naive. Being naive is believing in something without question. You seem to have created a flaccid world where everything is miraculous. You seem to have a very low threshold for miraculous events. No miracles do not exist and you haven't proven that they do. You simply dictate that they do and that I am naive for not believing in something that you can't prove? No, we call that smart. What you have is called confirmation bias. You have a belief system and you look for events that support that belief system. This is also known as dogma and is the difference between science and religion. Science takes facts and formulates hypothesis and then theories based of facts. Theories are reliable and predictable or they change or are discarded. I highly doubt that you have ever or will ever say "Well maybe that wasn't a miracle." I too find wonder and beauty in the universe. I just don't use the easy way out and say God did it. If you really believe in miracles then we does your child have surgery? It seems you are misrepresenting yourself. You say you believe in miracles but when you really have to pony up you save your child with science. Surgery is not a miracle it is the end result of the empirically based scientific methods. So, you say you believe in miracles but your actions say otherwise.

A more concise definition (same source):
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur.

Plus who is to say that some of the things that you question do not exist? They could. Are we that naive to believe that we are the only living planet in all of the galaxies or that we know every species on this planet? Or that every phenonomen that has been experienced is untrue?
+
The Bermuda Triangle is just as unexplained as Area 51. Some say Ghosts walk among us. Others say we are reincarnated.
+
Our brains alone can not be 100% explained. Just because we have not mapped it out yet does it mean that our brains only function at what we know about?
+
At one time the Earth was thought to be flat. We now know that it is round.
+
"In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive reasoning). It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction may also invoke statistics and only talk about probabilities(Definition Wikipedia)."

Maybe we just do not have all the data yet.. Maybe we just need more knowledge.

edsci- I have VERY strong beliefs in science. I question the politics of organized religions. But sometimes, there ARE miracles. Whether YOU believe that they can occur or not.
+
I have experienced miracles every time I gave birth. I experienced a miracle every time my daughter lived through a surgery that could kill her, or beat the odds that were against her.
My daughter Alexis is a miracle.
+
So yes, there are little miracles occuring everywhere around you. Open your eyes.
+
Not every miracle is going to make the sun dance in the sky or imprint the face of Jesus on a Shroud of Linen or make a statute cry or give St. Assisi the Stigmata.
+
Open your heart & open your mind. Life in itself is a Miracle.

"Believing in god is not a weakness its just easy like taking Home Economics instead of Physics. Skepticism is very difficult. "-edsci

********

A naive statement that could only be made by someone who has never believed.

Wow, nice outlook on life!
+
By the way, Merry Christmas everyone!

How do pictures prove something is moving since a picture is a still image. To have evidence of dancing it would have to be a movie, otherwise the camera could be dancing and not the sun. However, even a movie camera can be tricked without a frame of reference. If you remember this time period also brought forth photographic proof of fairies which no else could provide - miraculously. There is also photographic evidence of big foot, the Loch Ness monster, UFO's, Aliens and ghosts. There are many more probable explanations of what they witnessed other than "God did it". Thousands of soldiers witnessed a fire ball in the sky in the New Mexico desert. In fact some people predicted this event. If you don't understand nuclear fission does that make it a miracle? No.

People are happier when they feel they are a part of something bigger than themselves. So, if it feels good do it? However, happiness does not necessarily equate to goodness. For example, some people feel happiness in a revenge situation or when people accidentally hurt themselves as in America's Funniest Videos.

Believing in god is not a weakness its just easy like taking Home Economics instead of Physics. Skepticism is very difficult. Our whole culture supports an ideology of belief. Santa Claus is a good example of this. Oprah, the Secret, Positivity are all examples of a culture that promotes belief over facts. Thousands of American Idol contestants believe they can sing like Kelly Clarkson that belief does not make it so.

I never said that I believe Jesus was risen from the dead. Please stick to the facts. I was simply referring to the story line.

I don't believe I am weak because I believe. Why do you assume that people who are religious are weak?
+
To me, believing in something on faith requires strength.
+
It certainly seems to be the defense used most often by those that don't understand. Probably as much as gazettefan uses "institutionalized".
+
I would probably say people who are religious tend to be happier because they realize there is something bigger than what is here on earth. I believe there have been studies on this type of thing (probably biased will be the defense of the naysayers)

I seriousely doubt that three young children would be able to make or predict the sun dancing in the sky at the exact day near the exact time that they were instructed that it would occur, in the year 1917. I Believe that it was in fact a Miracle. FROM GOD.

edsci-
Questioning God but you Believe that Jesus was Risen from the Dead? Is that not an oxymoron?

A great man is defined by being able to influence others through his teachings. Yes, Jesus was a great man. Just as Martin Luther King Jr was a great man. Both were killed becaus eof their teachings.
+
Everyone doubts God at some point in their lives.

Physical evidence? Like say, the photographs that were take of the sun dancing in the sky?
+
Thousands of people. HHmm. Seems to me that should be enough EVIDENCE for you.

edsci- Three children in Fatima claimed they witnessed an apparation that revealed three secrets from God. On Oct. 13 1917 a Miracle of the Sun appeared just as was told to them by a messenger from God. Thousands saw this miracle.
+
This Third Secret was to be released in the Year 1960. The Vatican did not release it until May 13,2000. This "Secret" is controversial because it was released forty years after Lucy was instructe dto release it.
Altered? Maybe.

You still haven't proven that it was god who caused the optical illusion. You seem to think that a cover up is evidence of a god causation. It is not. You also need more than eye witness accounts, you need physical evidence. You have nothing except what seems to be religious references.

Jesus was great? No, he was not great. He was just a man. Making him great has allowed the self-righteous to do horrific things in his name. He was intolerant of the money changers, pharisees and rich people. In fact, he specifically says that rich people will have a hard time getting into heaven. He also doubted God several times. He didn't invent the ideals of love and charity these are traits that have evolved in our species. Jesus was just a man. He doubted god and didn't know he would be resurrected from the dead.

I never said I worshipped Jesus. Please reread my posts from Dec 8 & 9. I believe that Jesus was a great man and teacher who tried to influence the people of his time to do better.
+
I do believe in God, Miracles, & Angels.

Pretty sure in that he taught that all humans are humans and should be loved and treated with respect. Jesus visited many countries and took teachings from ALL the organized religions of his time. Can not say the same for his followers that came centuries later and murdered in HIS name for the sake of religion.
+
Charles Manson is a teacher of murder& mayhem. Similiar to Hitler. Who also was a GREAT man in the sense that he murdered millions of people based on his beliefs.
+
Greatness has different meanings.

Pwrtrip- I agree with you in the sense that predictions that are vague enough can be construed as interpertations after an event has occured similiar in nature to what was foreseen.

edsci-
Yes Charles Manson was a GREAT man to his followers. HOWEVER, he was an EVIL man who condoned murder.
+
I am pretty sure that Jesus was a GREAT man in that he taught Love & tolerance. Two different areas of GREATNESS would you not agree?

The third part of the secret was written down "by order of His Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and the Most Holy Mother ..." on 3rd January 1944.[8] Bishop Silva, visiting Lúcia on 15th September 1943 while she was bed-ridden, first suggested that she write the third secret down to ensure that it would be recorded in the event of her death. Lucia was hesitant to do so, however. Finally, in mid-October, Bishop Silva sent her a letter containing a direct order to record the secret, and Lúcia obeyed. In June of 1944, the sealed envelope containing the third secret was delivered to Silva, where it stayed until 1957, when it was finally delivered to Rome.[9]

It was announced on 13th May 2000, 83 years after the first apparition of the Lady to the children in the Cova da Iria, that the third secret would finally be released. The text was published on 26th June 2000:

The second secret is a statement that it predicted the assassination attempted of Pope John Paul II in the year 1981

J.M.J.
The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fátima, on 13 July 1917.
I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.
After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God

Along with the text of the secret, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger published a theological commentary,[11] in which he states that:

"A careful reading of the text of the so-called third 'secret' of Fatima ... will probably prove disappointing or surprising after all the speculation it has stirred. No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled."
After explaining the differences between public and private revelations, he cautions people not to see in the message a determined future event:

"The purpose of the vision is not to show a film of an irrevocably fixed future. Its meaning is exactly the opposite: it is meant to mobilize the forces of change in the right direction. Therefore we must totally discount fatalistic explanations of the “secret”, such as, for example, the claim that the would-be assassin of 13 May 1981 was merely an instrument of the divine plan guided by Providence and could not therefore have acted freely, or other similar ideas in circulation. Rather, the vision speaks of dangers and how we might be saved from them."
He then moves on to talk about the symbolic nature of the images, noting that:

"The concluding part of the 'secret' uses images which Lucia may have seen in devotional books and which draw their inspiration from long-standing intuitions of faith."
As for the meaning of the message:

"What remains was already evident when we began our reflections on the text of the 'secret': the exhortation to prayer as the path of 'salvation for souls' and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion."

Third Secret Controversy
The Vatican withheld the third secret until June 26, 2000 – despite Lúcia's declaration that it could be released to the public after 1960. Several sources, including Canon Barthas and Cardinal Ottaviani, said that Sr. Lúcia insisted to them it must be released by 1960, saying, "by that time, it will be more clearly understood." When 1960 passed without any such announcement, immense speculation over the content of the secret materialized. According to the New York Times, speculation over the content of the secret ranged "from worldwide nuclear annihilation to deep rifts in the Roman Catholic Church that lead to rival papacies."[12]

There are some groups who dispute that the full text of the third secret has been officially published. The most prominent among these is The Fatima Center, which is run by Father Nicholas Gruner.[13] Gruner was suspended as a priest by the Avellino, Italy diocese. The Congregation for the Clergy announced on September 12th, 2001, that Gruner's suspension was "confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature."[14] Father Gruner rejected the validity of the suspension and continues to perform the functions of a priest.[15] On November 22, 2006, the Italian author Antonio Socci published Il Quarto Segreto di Fatima (The Fourth Secret of Fatima) in Italian, which also argues that the Vatican has not formally released the entire Third Secret.[16] These critics, for example, point to the fact that Lucia's vision, as recorded in the officially released text, does not contain any words from Mary, as one might expect, and says nothing about a crisis of faith in the Church.[17]

The Vatican has maintained its position that the full text of the Third Secret was published in June 2000. A report from the Zenit Daily Dispatch dated December 20, 2001, based on a Vatican press release, claimed that Lucia told then Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, in an interview conducted the previous month, that the secret has been completely revealed and published, and that no secrets remain.[18] Bertone was entrusted by John Paul II with the publication of third part of the secret of Fatima.

It is held by Fátima researchers Dr. Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada [19] that the events described in the third secret of Fatima did occur exactly as foretold, with one exception: at the end, the "Bishop dressed in White" was saved from certain death. This research concludes that the "Bishop dressed in White", of whom Lúcia says "'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'", who "prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way" was Bishop D. Ximenes Belo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate; the "big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow" was Dili in East-Timor, an ex-colony of Portugal and a territory of people long devoted to Our Lady; the timeline of the mentioned events of atrocity is claimed to have occurred during the month of September, 1999.[20]

[

References
1.^ Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra L., Encountering Mary (1991), pg. 199
2.^ Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra L., Encountering Mary (1991), pg. 203
3.^ Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra L., Encountering Mary (1991), pg. 204
4.^ Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra L., Encountering Mary (1991), pgs. 208-209.
5.^ Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I (2003), pg. 123.
6.^ Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I (2003), pgs. 123-124.
7.^ Nickell, Joe. Looking for a Miracle (1998), pg. 179.
8.^ "The Message of Fatima" from the Vatican
9.^ Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra L., Encountering Mary (1991), pgs. 203-206.
10.^ "The Message of Fatima" from the Vatican. See also Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I (2003), pg. 215.
11.^ "The Message of Fatima" from the Vatican. See also Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words I (2003), pgs. 221-233.
12.^ Vatican Discloses the 'Third Secret' of Fatima, New York Times, May 14th, 2000.
13.^ www.fatima.org
14.^ Controversial Fatima priest suspended by Vatican
15.^ "Fatima Priest" is not Suspended
16.^ "The Fourth Secret of Fatima"
17.^ The Fatima Crusader, Issue 87, August 2007, pg. 29
18.^ No More Fatima Secrets
19.^ d'Armada, Fina (Dr.), Fernandes, Joaquim (Prof.), Fátima, Nos Bastidores do Segredo, Âncora, 2002 & other previous publications (Bertrand, Estampa)
20.^ d'Armada, Fina (preface by Prof. Joaquim Fernandes), O Segredo de Fátima e Nostradamus [The Secret of Fatima and Nostradamus], ISBN 972-8605-37-4, Edições Ésquilo, Lisbon, April 2004, 238 pages

Is volume really a measure of greatness? So, if there are a lot of books about Charles Manson that would make him great under your guidelines?

-

Also, huge numbers of people claim to have been abducted by UFO's yet there are no historical accounts of UFO abduction until these stories appear in print. Again, I think your confusing correlations with causation. Because events correlate to one another doesn't mean that God was the cause. You haven't proven that God was the cause of the miracle you simply state that a lot of people witnessed something so therefore it must be an act of God. And you didn't answer any of my other questions about the nature of miracles.

Edsci-The posts that I refer to about the Gospels were posted on Dec 8 & Dec 9. Please reread them and get back to me about your thoughts.
+
Gfan-The Immaculate Conception can be explained by what scientists refer to as "Parthenogenesis."
Which would show that Mary was in fact a virgin.

The Gospels were not written by God-they were written by men. Some were excluded by Constatine because it directly contradicted what the Catholic Church would have us practice.
See posts below.

edsci-
If you reread my posts earlier in the blog you would see that I made many of the same points that you made regarding the Gospels.
+
The Miracle of the Sun was witnessed by thousands in Fatima on Oct 13, 1917.
YOU can NOT explain that with science or deny that was a true miracle. The Vatican did NOT release the secrets told to Lucy until they felt like it and who knows if what they even told was accurate? It would stand to reason that if the Miracle was that important the secrets would be of more significance than what the Vatican would have us believe.
+
The fact that many wrote about Jesus proves he was a great man.

billnewbie is confusing correlation with causation. Lois Pasteur being a Catholic in France is a correlative event and not the reason why or the cause of why we Pasteurize milk. We pasteurize milk because of empirically based methods that led Pasteur to Germ Theory and allowed wine to last longer and not spoil. Clearly you do not like facts.
-
There is nothing wrong with any religious groups having hospitals that use empirically based secular methods for treating peoples illnesses or injuries.
-
Of course science has not yet explained everything but as a matter of FACT it has a much better track record than saying "God did it" which is ignorant to say because it denies the FACTS.
-
There are approximately 17 different versions of the god's son from an encounter with an earth woman who then has to be sacrificed to save the world. How do you know Jesus was a great man? Did you talk to him personally? How come Paul whose letters were written before the gospels provides no specific details of Jesus' life? We know this because the concept of authorship came sometime after Jesus' life, so they in fact were not written at the time of Jesus' life. This would then mean that the gospels are hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.
How do you know the Vatican is covering up miracles? If miracles exist why are they bestowed on some and not others? Why so arbitrary? How come many of the gospels contradict each other if the bible is the word of god? How can an all knowing god not keep his story straight?

Pwrtrip-
So what are your thoughts on December 21 2012? The Mayans & ancient Chinese believe that is the End of Days. Astronomers state that the poles are going to shift...geomagnetic reversal.
I am just hoping that Wisconsin will end up with Florida's climate...
+
Nostradamus?

I believe in Miracles. I believe in God. I believe that God is everywhere we are. I do not think we need organized religion to dictate how we worship.
+
Jesus was a great man and a great teacher. He believed in finding the light within. The path that YOU choose to find that divine light within is up to YOU. Son of God? Maybe, maybe not.
+
There is a proposed theory that scientists believe can happen in that a women may be able to give birth without fertilization from a father, thereby creating a Virgin Birth. However, scientists agree that is next to impossible but not improbable. The term is "Parthenogenesis."
+
If Parthenogenesis occured with the Virgin Mary, could that not be construed as a miracle in itself??
+
With that being said, I do believe that miracles have occured that the Vatican has covered up & locked up. If God graced us with miracles, should we not all be able to enjoy them instead of ONE religion holding the secrets under lock and key?
+
As for evolution, I believe that God's time has a far different concept than what we consider to be our time.
+
The belief is that antimatter and matter collided to bring about life on this planet. God could be the catalyst that caused that collision.
+
Science & religion fascinate me. I look forward to these debates.
No matter what YOU believe, HAPPY HOLIDAYS & A SAFE NEW YEAR!

Religious people adjust to the ongoing exposure of religion as glorified superstition by adopting, and adapting to, contra-religious things like science.

Whether it be science or junk-science, religionists' claim to be enlightened to "science" is an act of giving-in to pressure from without; this is especially true of the Catholic Church. There is nothing intrinsic to the Church that allows for positive change from within. There is nothing intrinsic to the Church that allows its adherents to see the world as it really is.

Such is the case of institutionalized child rape in the Church. Upon its exposure the Church only conspired and connived to keep that institutionalization alive and well within its own realm of immorality and lawlessness. Any positive change toward eliminating the Church's organized criminality comes from outside pressure.

The Church is an entity that cannot inherently sustain itself.

When Edsci explains why Catholics (or any Christians) should not drink pasteurized milk (a process invented by Louis Pasteur, a Catholic) or avail themselves of medical services at St. Mary's or Sacred Heart Hospitals (Catholic founded and supported institutions for the advancement of medical science and the alleviation of suffering even for atheists), then he would have a basis for his contention of my lack of scientific understanding. Until he demonstrates some historical acumen, his assessments are just as nonsensical as his "scientific" assumptions.

Oh that's right religious people are ignorant too. Science can't explain everything but that is conveniently forgotten when discussions like this occur.
+
Hopefully someday you non-believers will have an awakening. I'll pray for all of you.

Yes JSNTM, Catholics do not believe in science. We think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. As for the Catholic schools just take a look at the top twenty lists from Craig and Parker. These parochial school kids make up a much larger percentage of that list then they do of the student body. In my oldest daughters class 2 of 5 valedictorians were from a class of less than 20. I think they are now in medical and pharmacy schools.

Catholics should distance themselves from everything that is not Catholic. This would save us the time of explaining science to you. something you clearly have no grasp of anyways. I can see why you need special schools just for Catholics to shield you from science. i remember the nuns giving me candy to not speak up and say why this or why that. they wanted my silence too but i will not be silenced ! science is a fact deal with it !

Clearly, billnewbie and why_the_fuss do not have a basic understanding of science. Quotations are not facts. Analogies are not facts. Metaphors are not facts. Think of it like a secular court of law. Metaphors, analogies and statements that don't provide specific factual examples would all be thrown out.

Here are some facts:
1. Priests raped children.
2. The Catholic Church covered up these crimes and did not report them to the police.
3. When criminals cover up crimes it means more crimes have occurred that we haven't been made aware of because of said cover up.
4. Criminal conspiracies are covered under the RICO act.

These are FACTS. Calling me a fanatic and whatever other adjectives you looked up in the dictionary does not change these facts. I am a fanatic though, a fanatic for facts and the truth.

I find the Shroud interesting. Here are some more facts. Every time the Church has tried to explain a natural phenomenon they say its God, science then comes along and explains it otherwise and allows man to better his life. In every case where science and the church have collided the church was proven wrong. Not once, not twice, every time. In light of all the evidence the Catholic Church has even sided with Darwin and agrees that evolution is the best explanation for all that we see in biology.

nurse4u, the strong "implication" is that the Catholic Church was/is lying about this.

Shocking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, apparentely the Shroud of Turine was carbon dated by a scientist Mr. Rogers who had tested a piece of the linen in the bottom corner (he himself had not obtained the sample. the sample was removed by others in the smallest area). Carbon testing put the Shroud at 1260-1390. It was accepted as fact, and a hoax of Medievel times.
+
Here's the twist-two people proposed a theory. The theory was that perhaps the fabric had been interwoven by the nuns in the 16th century who had tried to mend the fabric.
+
Mr. Rogers exclaimed, "No way! I can prove it in five minutes." However after examining the fabric he did find evidence of different fibers interwoven. He prepared a paper to disclaim his previous claim that the carbon dated only to 1260-1390. However, nobody was listening. He was dieing of cancer and begged a collegue to help prove his claim.
After his death, this other scientist found conclusive evidence that it was two different types of fabric. he pleaded with The Vatican to release the Shroud for more testing.
+
However the Vatican had placed the Shroud in a box that contained a chemical that would alter the linen to make carbon dating impossible.
+
EXCEPT in the areas of the Shroud that was burned. Because of the fire damage, those areas of linen are still able to be tested for carbon dating.
+
Scientists are pleading with the Vatican to release these patches to be carbon dated...
+
So, Is the Shroud of Turine really the Face of Jesus??? It just may be...
+
Science & Religion just fascinate me.

The Discovery Channel right now goes more in depth about the Shroud of Turin. I am going to watch it now.

In 1357 The Shroud Of Turin came to light. It was 14 feet of complete Linen, with the face of a bearded man on it believed to be Jesus. The height of the man on the linen was about six feet. Typical height of a Jewish man was about 5'5" in Jesus' time.
Jewish Law speaks of strips of linen to bind the corpse of men (NOT women), & not one complete sheet.
The Gospels contradict themselves. Some speak of strips, some speak of one long piece of linen to bind Jesus' corpse. So is the Shroud of Turin in fact proof of Jesus and His Rise from the Dead? Or is it just a hoax?
There was little time to bury Jesus as the Sabbath was fast approaching. The women looked on from afar. Mark 15:30
+

Gospels contradict themselves about his cleansing. Some gospels say it was done at the time of the burial, others say the women came back on Sunday after the Sabbath. A simple burial was done with a rolling stone at the tomb's entrance (usually a rectangular stone was used).
The Burial of Jesus was rushed. First Century Jews were NOT to be buried alone. Yet, Jesus was buried in a tomb near His crusifiction-alone. It was considered a shame. Mark has a simple burial,without mourning. John and Peter make the funeral more elaborate to make it a more honarable funeral.
First Century Jews believed that Rising from the Dead would have brought about the End of Days. Christians use this to state that Jesus was the Messiah.
Maybe it does not really matter HOW Jesus was buried, only how he LIVED and what he TAUGHT others.
So many contradicting stories. Regardless, it is VERY intresting.
Source:
National Geographic Channel "Jesus' Tomb."

Outrageous and inaccurate statements in defense of the fanatical is no vise, in the opinion of the fanatics. Don't expect a fair-minded debate from Gazettefan or Edsci. Whenever you point out their excesses or offer a compelling counterpoint they simply ignore what you have written, Why_the_fuss, while attempting to force you to respond to and debate nonsense. They are as indefatigable in their fanaticism as they are in their unreasonableness.

gazettefan - how about calling out your buddy edsci for generalized insults?

Where is the intelligent talking points in that post?

Generalized insults - something we are all guilty of including yourself gazettefan. (just take a look at your last post)
+
You want intellect? How about actually spouting something other than your wild accusations about the Catholic Church being an organized crime ring.
+
I have drawn you a comparable situation in the school system yet you continue to blow it off.
Everything you state is solely based on your opinion - not hard evidence. You keep stating that there are many more priest who haven't been caught, well there is an intelligent statement. My guess is that there are plenty of criminals (not priests) who haven't been caught. No one ever denied that point. Just because not all have been caught doesn't mean that they are all guilty as you are inferring.
+
As far as why I left the Catholic Church - I have stated my reasons - that would actually require you to read my posts though.
+
I leave you with a few parting thoughts
+
“You can educate a fool, but you cannot make him think” -Talmud
+
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:44)
+
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:32)

whythefuss is a professor of rhetoric at George Bush University. Conviction is more important than reason, repetition is a substitute for facts, and you can read minds.

whythe... you want to engage in a dialogue about this but your last post, like a lot of your posts, show an intellectual breakdown on your part. You make generalized insults that have no basis. I make the effort to explain the position of those who reject the institutionalized rape of children in the Catholic Church.

You are certainly wrong as to how I feel about people. I consider everyone an interesting phenomena of nature and one-of-a-kind. I'm not a misanthrope. But I'll point something about believers. The tendency of believers to give god credit for everything good and blame humans for everything bad is misanthropic.

What would be wrong with telling us why you left the Catholic Church?

"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke

Peace, good will toward men.

Merry Christmas!

Thanks again for proving my point over and over.
+
Your irrational repeated rants continue to show the lack of understanding that you have on this subject.
+
The difference between you and I is that I believe that most people are good, you on the other hand belive most people are evil.
+
My reasons for leaving the Catholic Church had nothing to do with your accusations. My reasons were much deeper than that. Not that I would expect you to understand.

edsci, yes, and an important element for the use of the RICO act is that the organized criminality exists for the purpose of keeping and acquiring money. That is, the Church's criminality exists, in part, for financial reasons i.e. not pay out civil suit settlement awards and to acquire money by way of donations (even donations from the parents of victims).

From the facts of what the Church did they should be charged under the RICO act. They actively conspired to cover up crimes knowing full well that what they were doing was illegal. All Church assets should be seized. If you can't follow the secular laws of our nation then these religious organizations should leave or dissolve themselves.

Guilty in the sense of committing the acts (not a legal determination). I rationally do not believe that the only priests who rape/raped children are the ones who've been caught. Do you believe that the only priests who raped children are the ones who've been caught?

You are framing this in a way that miraculously has all the rapist priests caught. To frame it this way, you have to ignore the organized criminality of the Church: Transferring rapist priests to other parishes unbeknownest to the new victims.

My opinion that there are more rapist priests than have been caught is rationally drawn from the facts i.e. institutionalized child rape -passing rapists along to new parishes- covering up child rape by priests -the humiliating nature of the crime. A rationally drawn conclusion from established facts IS proof. (You are claiming I've said things that I didn't say. Don't clutter up the conversation.)

It's interesting that you maintain many of the odd-ball beliefs of christianity and religion but you cannot extrapolate the fact that there are more rapists priests than the ones who've been caught.

Do you currently entrust your children to a priest(s) regularly over a sustained period of time? If not, why not? I recall that you said you left the Catholic Church over differences as to how the bible is taught. It seems to me that that problem is infinitesimally less import than the child rape. The parents of the victims of child rape in the Church were certain those children were safe in the Church.

The following statement by you is what leads met to the guilty until proven innocent statement
+
"it is a mistake to believe that the ones who've been caught are the only ones who are guilty"
+
You are framing this in a way that all Catholic priests are guilty.
+
As far as the burden of proof - you're the one making the wild accusations - why should I have to offer the burden of proof that it isn't the majority of the priesthood. You have no facts to back your statement - just your opinion.
+
And finally I would entrust my children to a be in the presence of a priest, I am not nearly as cynical as you are. As a parent, you have to have some faith and can't watch them 24 hours a day no matter what. With that being said it doesn't mean that you aren't involved in your child's life and their activities. You need to be aware of who they are with it doesn't matter what the profession is.

Your first question doesn't rationally follow from anything I've said.

Your second question only compels me to say that I regard all organized crime the same way.

Item three: Your only concern with having me on your jury should be whether you did the crime or didn't do the crime and whether the prosecution or your attorney made his or her case. Try to be good, though. All the other jurors might not be as fair minded as I am.

Item four: Statistics? The burden is on you to show that the institutionalized child rape occurring is the Catholic Church is only present to a degree that is tolerable to a normal person. Here's two questions: Would you regularly entrust your children to a randomly chosen priest over a sustained period of time? If your answer in "no", what proof would you rely on as the basis for your decision?

So your philosophy is guilty until proven innocent?
+
Do you look at other crimes the same way or is it just because you have such disdain for the Catholic Church.
+
I certainly hope if I am ever on trial for anything you aren't on the jury.
+
So what statistics do you have that show or prove that there are more pedophiles within the catholic church compared to any other organization or are statements just your biased opinion?

Yes, the priesthood is a magnet for pedophiles. If priests were allowed to marry and have children, the priesthood wouldn't attract pedophiles, it would attract males in a more normal range of sexual proclivity. The same goes for nuns.

The question of how the Church designed itself to be what it currently is is a huge disturbing topic. I have nothing to say about that that would be pleasing to the Church.

By the way, re: the subject of the proportion of pedophilia being the same in the Church as it is outside the Church, it is a mistake to believe that the ones who've been caught are the only ones who are guilty.

So your argument is that because priest are not allowed to marry/have sex, that the Catholic Church's by doing so has created a safe haven for pedophiles and sexual deviants. And because of that the majority of priest are this type of person and are or are drawn to the priesthood?
+
So do you believe if priest were able to marry this whole problem would go away?

all this fuss over words.... words are just harmless expressions. If you read this one word or that word or book you are damned. they are words! Like I said earlier, if you give to organized religion, i hope you get your money's worth!

whythefuss:

Women are inherently more capable of controlling sexual desires, what ever the nature of those desires may be.

The priesthood is custom made for males who repudiate sex with adults, especially sex with woman. The children of the Church are, by deduction, perfect targets for the type of males the priesthood attracts. Sexual desire doesn't just disappear or become manageable with abstinence.

Whether they be nuns or priests, females or males, the unnatural repudiation of normal sex by these people is indicative of deep-rooted psycho-sexual disturbances. There is nothing about life in the Church that reconciles turning away from normal sex at the height of human sexual desire and potency.

The Church currently makes the specious plea that the perversion taking place there is merely a reflection of society as a whole.

However, the Church is supposed to be the bulwark against horrible behavior, not a place that proportionally represents such behavior. Conclusion, there is something inherently rotten at the core of the Church.

billnewbie, is that your idea of getting back on topic?: stating something about me that isn't true and mischaracterizing me.

I stated earlier that, in principle, I am opposed to book burning and book banning. (The Church has a history of book banning.) I'm against the Church's banning of Vosen's book. Though I am also opposed to Vosen's motives for writing it: His continued attempt to bamboozle the world and his persistent need to torture his victims.

Our solace re: Vosen's book is that his self-published crap's most important function will be to serve as insulation along his garage walls.

As so Gazettefan, to pull you back on topic, you do support the edict of the Catholic hierarchy as they fanatically condemn this book and all who read it. Fanaticism makes strange bedfellows.

JohnDoe, you, like a few others here, are befuddled by the term "in effect." Maybe the term is too INTRICATE for you. Here's the dictionary definition:
-----------
Adv. 1. in effect - in actuality or reality or fact; "she is effectively his wife"; "in effect, they had no choice"
--------------------
Here's what happened: Vosen sued the victim for libel and slander because he, Vosen, claimed the victim lied when he said Vosen raped him. The point of the trial was to determine who was telling the truth, Vosen or the victim.

After hearing all the facts, the jury decided that Vosen wasn't telling the truth and that the victim was telling the truth -the two things are mutually INclusive. There's no other explanation for the jury's finding. This, effectively, in effect, was a finding that Vosen was guilty. SETTLE DOWN NOW, DON'T GET YOUR FINGERS IN AN UPROAR.

The effective finding of guilt was not a legal determination like "guilty" at the end of a criminal trial. The finding of guilt in this matter (drawn from the conclusions of the jury) is the guilt of actually, in the real world, committing the crime.

It's akin to the fact that you haven't been found guilty as a result of a criminal trial for failing to grasp the meaning of the term "in effect", but, instead, in the real world, you are certainly guilty of such.

I attended the entirety of the trial as a writer.

I wasn't necessarily calling out the Gazette in sensationalizing. That was more of a general statement of the media in a broader sense. People are influenced by what they see and hear whether it is true or not. (plenty of evidence of that with the gazettextra blogs)
+
This is still an article about one priest not all catholic priests. And I still don't believe you can persecute the entire Catholic Church because of the action of a few. I have tried to parallel this to other organization who have similar types of issues.
+
It seems that you believe that just because this is a religious group, it should be perfect and something like this should never happen. Unfortunately it does. As I have said before, I don't believe the school system should have pedophiles either and children should feel safe, however I am not about to condemn the entire school system because of a few teachers who rape children and administrators that turn a blind eye.
+
On a side note, I really think the bishops decree is somewhat ridiculous, I don't think it proves your institutionalization of child rape though.
+
Honestly I am not defending the Catholic Church as much as I am defending those that are innocent. You want to convict everyone because they are Catholic. I guess I'm not willing to do that.

Were you on that jury? Or do you just presume to know what their reasoning was in not finding for the petitioner?
.
Which, by your reasoning, means that they "in effect" found him "guilty".
.
I would suggest that you spend less time posting, and more time educating yourself on the intricacies of civil law.

JohnDoe, welcome back from the Bat Cave.

Vosen sued the victim because the victim said he was raped by Vosen. The jury ruled against Vosen which means they didn't believe Vosen which means they believed the victim. That is, the jury believed that Vosen raped the victim. If this isn't clear enough for you, which jury do you believe made the correct decision in the OJ trial, the jury in the criminal trial or the jury in the civil trial?

In a civil trial...the outcome relies on the "burden of proof"...which is the responsibility of the petitioner.
Lack of such "proof" (in the eyes of the jury) does not "in effect" relegate guilt. It only means that for whatever reason, the jury was not convinced that totality of circumstances as presented in the civil suit justified the damages sought.
.
"In effect" is a meaningless term in this context used by someone who cannot effectively convince others that their drivel has any merit.
.

whythefuss, a few members of the jury said that they might not find Vosen guilty under the strictures of a criminal trial. Such strictures aided the jury in the OJ trial who found him legally "not guilty". But in a civil trial, another jury found him responsible for the deaths of two people.

The above story has its basis in the organized criminality of the Church. There is a good argument that goes: If Vosen is innocent then what the jury, in effect, did was find the Church guilty of the institutionalized rape of children i.e. they were influenced by the pervasive criminality in the Church re: their decision. The Gazette and I would argue against your claim that the Gazette sensationalize this story.

Given your celebration of free expression on the GazetteXtra site, I find your acquiescence to the de facto book-banning of the Church curious.

Is this on topic enough for you?!!!

And unsarcastically, I appreciate your effort toward staying on topic, unlike some people who will remain nameless but whose initials are BILLNEWBIE!!!

Gazettefan-if you want to talk about the article where does it speak of the institutionalization of child rape in the Catholic Church?
+
It is about one priest who was put on trial, found guilty, had some jurors that said there wasn't enough evidence (maybe the jury was influenced by the over-sensationalization done by the media), priest is no longer allowed to be a priest, former priest writes book which includes references to his trial, bishop tells people who read book are committing conical crime (something Catholics believe).
+
No where does it go into this great conspiracy that you continually bring up. It is about one priest who may or may not be guilty according to some on the jury.
+
Now who's off topic?

billnewbie, if you go back and look, you'll see that the problems started when I got slammed for criticizing the Church. Then I responded to that criticism.

Right now I'm trying to get us back on point and there you are with the mindless insults again.

This story is related to the fact that the Church is a place of institutionalized child rape.

The higher ups in the Church have a practice of transferring rapists to other parishes. The new parishioners, including new victims, have no knowledge that the new priest in their midst is a rapist. This is organized criminal activity. Tell us why you believe it isn't.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I told Gazettefan that he "seem(s) to be unable to present counter-points but instead just slam(s) the posters who do". Now he’s back at it while he chides others that they “seem to be unable to present counter-points but instead just slam the posters who do”. He also has adopted the tactics of propagandists in that he repeats "institutionalized child rape in the Catholic Church" long enough then we will all begin to believe it. He’s also still clinging to that outrageous tactic that if you don’t accept his assessment of the Catholic Church then you are promoting child rape. There really is only one word that describes his unreasonable condition, fanatic.

thediplomat, if I'm criticizing the Church and you slam me without counter-points, what conclusion should be drawn?

thediplomat, what's the point of attacking me? Address the issue.

You're like a lot of posters here who seem to be unable to present counter-points but instead just slam the posters who do.

So anybody that posts in this forum needs to post AGAINST the Catholic Church? I guess the gazette should post in the "Before you post a comment, consider this:" section that you must post with the same view as gazettefan the almighty ruler of the gazette forums. Could you please supply a list of your views on abortion, politics, and other religious sects somewhere so everyone can follow your rules? You should probably post your views on which sports teams are far superior to the others as well. Thanks!

It beats trying to get you to answer the questions posed to you.

whythefuss, I do believe you're enjoying this!!!

He does it again-way to go Gazettefan...

thediplomat, are you aware that your off-the-point rants here put you in the corner of those who defend institutionalized child rape in the Catholic Church?

What else explains your unwillingness to rant against the Church?

gazettefan,

You have to have a better response than that. I will tell you what, try again. This time, take two hours in between posts to really think it out. Make sure to exit your browser so you are tempted to monitor this site. And no cheating! And again, great authors don't waste their time posting on a small town newspaper site all day. Guess we know what kind of author you are.

Thanks for proving my point...

Yes, tjncj and whatthefuss, just stick with the bible and leave the real world to those of us who can handle it.

tjncj,

thanks for the advice. I actually find gazettefan to be quite amusing. It is actually interesting to watch the spectacle. Kind of like watching a boxer who only knows how to jab.
+
Hey maybe gazettefan would be available to play dodgeball. Probably too low brow though.
+
Nite all!

Thanks, OkieFed, tjncj is about one inch from book burning. The intense, complicated stuff gives him a headache.

thedipomat, instead of countering point for point just slings insults based on how stressful it is for him to write relevant posts. And he inserts the idea of great authors like he's actually a reader. Ha!

These people sidestep the issues at hand here like the Catholic Church sidesteps the issue of institutionalized child rape by its priests.

Wow. Catholics really are sheep. Do what they're told, when they're told. Is getting a "canonical crime declared” on you worse than double-secret probation?

To billnewbie, fldplan, why the fuss, thediplomat et al. A couple of weeks ago I began ignoring any post made by Gazettefan. I read the posts of others if I am interested, but if he posts I skip over it. I gotta tell you it is the way to go. Avoiding his visions of grandeur, rude comments and continual sidestepping of direct questions. I highly suggest you try it.

gazettefan,

Just because you write a paragraph in every response doesn't make your view point intelligent. In addition, your constant posting discredits you. Your high volume of daily postings in each story has become the equivilant of SPAM. Get back to that book. Great authors don't waste their time posting on a small town newspaper site all day.

fldpan, do some googling and get independently educated on the subject. If I tell you, you'll just make up non-sense to be disagreeable.

thediplomat, like I told someone else, or was that you? attention on my post-count reveals something troublesome about whoever is worried about it. For one, if it's easier to complain about my post-count than it is to respond intelligently to my or other people's posts then you are tapping-out too easily and you are the one who has a problem re: posting.

It might help you to look at it as a hobby, a convenient one in my case. It's not a bad one either. It sharpens analytical skills as well as debating skills. You should have discovered something by now: Writing is thinking. Writing is thinking as long as you're not merely typing-out stuck-points in your thought processes.

Speaking of typing, posting also does wonders for your typing skills. But if thinking and typing is drudgery for you and you can't hang in there enough to overcome that sense of drudgery you then end up revealing your difficulty with posting here by complaining about me.

Forgive me for burdening your world with yet another post. Maybe you should contact GazetteXtra for the purpose of restricting a person's ability to post here to a number you can tolerate.

gazettefan:

You will never finish that book you are claiming to write if you are busy posting on here constantly. What is your total post count up to now? If it is over 500, you may want to admit you have a little problem.

Thank you-it means a lot!

There should be a screening process whether it is a church, school or any other organization that works with children. However you and I both know that this won't solve the problem, because it isn't as simple as that.
+
Once someone is discovered it should be dealt with quickly and sufficiently. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Catholic Church isn't the only organization that is sweeping these people under the rug. However you continue to glaze over the comparison, because your sole purpose is to blast the Church.
+
If you truly wanted to debate you might actually consider this point instead of blowing it off as unrelated.
+
I have known several priests in my lifetime and did not feel threatened or feel like they were trying to take advantage of me. That is why I have an issue with you trying to lump them all together.
+
I do have issues with them not marrying. However my reason has more to do with understanding. If I am having marital problems how am I suppose to go to my priest who has no idea what it is like to be married. I also believe it would be easier to recruit new priests. The church I belong to allows its pastors to marry, and I don't feel it is a disservice to the congregation.
+
Finally - you can use whatever words you want, your choices however only strengthens my opinion that you like to come across as condescending and better than your fellow posters.
+
Here are a few words you can try to fit into your next post

inane

vacuous

virtuous

inculpable

supercilious

If you need more let me know

whythefuss, as an ultimate tribute to a fellow, though oppositional poster, I'm thinking about reposting your post below, warts and all.

By the way, you left out lucid, logical, and incisive.
-------
Ok, I've made up my mind. Here's your unaltered post again.

There should be a screening process whether it is a church, school or any other organization that works with children. However you and I both know that this won't solve the problem, because it isn't as simple as that.
+
Once someone is discovered it should be dealt with quickly and sufficiently. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Catholic Church isn't the only organization that is sweeping these people under the rug. However you continue to glaze over the comparison, because your sole purpose is to blast the Church.
+
If you truly wanted to debate you might actually consider this point instead of blowing it off as unrelated.
+
I have known several priests in my lifetime and did not feel threatened or feel like they were trying to take advantage of me. That is why I have an issue with you trying to lump them all together.
+
I do have issues with them not marrying. However my reason has more to do with understanding. If I am having marital problems how am I suppose to go to my priest who has no idea what it is like to be married. I also believe it would be easier to recruit new priests. The church I belong to allows its pastors to marry, and I don't feel it is a disservice to the congregation.
+
Finally - you can use whatever words you want, your choices however only strengthens my opinion that you like to come across as condescending and better than your fellow posters.
+
Here are a few words you can try to fit into your next post

inane

vacuous

virtuous

inculpable

supercilious

If you need more let me know

whatthefuss, tell me what the Catholic Church is supposed to be doing. Also comment on the allegation that the nature of the priesthood might, just might, attract pedophiles.

Re: your problem with "big words." These must give you a real headache:

Ecclesiastes

ecumenical

Deuteronomy

Gazettefan,

Ok now read this very slowly so you understand what I am saying instead of continuing to ignore my point and spouting your 2 or 3 trite phrases
+
Is there an issue within the Catholic church with priests who are pedophiles- YES
+
Are there other instititutions that should be considered safe for children where pedophiles exist - YES
+
Are all Catholic priests pedophiles - NO
+
Are all Catholics evil - NO

+
Enough said

whythefuss, it says a lot about how you think for you to complain that I have a problem with the Church as though that problem isn't the issue at hand. Of course I have a problem with the Church. It's the Church's institutionalized rape of children. For you to believe otherwise reveals that the institutionalized rape of children in the Church is something that doesn't concern you.

I've seen the effects of what the priests are doing. But apparently you haven't.

Gazettefan, what in your post is worth responding to? It is the same thing you have rehashed over and over.
+
YOU fail to understand the bigger picture, and continually bash an institution you have a personal vendetta against.
+
Unless a person is on your bandwagon, you won't even listen to what others are saying. You avoid answering the hard questions by using your big words in hopes that you will sound superior to the rest of us.
+
It may work with some, but you are the one with thinly veiled motives. Your posts show you have no real concern for the victims; you are using them solely to accomplish your mission which is to bash the church.
+
If I am wrong, than I apologize, however I am pretty sure I am not. Not that I would expect you to admit that I or anyone else might be right.

Yes, lakennedy, I been insisting on that point. The priesthood with its celibacy and other odd beliefs and practices is tailor-made for attracting pedophiles. More so than any other element of society that I can think of.

Gazettefan, I recently learned that in other countries, especially in latin America, catholic patriarchs actually have children, have wives (in every sense but the law), etc. There is also a huge decrease in child molestation etc. I wonder if the fact that the lack of celibacy down there is so much more understood than up here is one of the reasons why we have so many of these horrifying issues to deal with.

Your post is non-responsive to mine.

Blinders? Exploit?
+
You're the one who was blinders on in you quest to take your frustration out on the Catholic Church.
+
I am not defending the church as you say I am, however I also am not so narrow minded that I choose to ignore the bigger issue of child molestation.
+
Go ahead and throw your $10 words at the rest of us bloggers, does it make you feel more important than all of us? Maybe you could get your dictionary out and use some new ones instead of the ones you continue to rehash.

I wouldn't want to be in the position of understating the horror of institutionalized child rape in the Church, but you seem to be comfortable in that position.

You have blinders on and you exploit child rape elsewhere for the purpose of defending the Church.

Even if it were true that the incidence of child rape in the Church is on par with the incidence of child rape outside the Church, given what the Church is supposed be -the bulwark against such behavior-, it is still an abomination worthy of condemnation.

Yes it is being overstated.
+
You are obsessed with the subject and are unable to open your eyes and ears.
+
The Catholic Church is not full of pedophiles (no more than any other institution) like you continue to state.

billnewbie, well then, does our dispute boil down to a claim by you that the criminality of institutionalized child rape in the Catholic Church is being overstated by others and me?

Your juvenile obsessions with all things sexual is really quite sad as is your dependence on the popular culture for your references. I just can't take anything you write seriously, testy.

Sorry to move away from your nonsense, Billnewbie, but important discussion must be made at some point. My Question here: As per the actual story, I just wonder what avowed Catholic Attorney Pat McDonald will do with the copy of Vosen's book that was "given to him as a gift". He said that he is not at liberty to discuss that though. The Christmas holiday is coming up, so it will possibly be a "regift" to one of his Jewish friends, or maybe even to a homeless I suppose. But otherwise, Attorney Pat McDonald will surely go to Hell if he cracks the cover according to the Diocese of Madison. And I wouldn't wish that on anyone!!!! But then Catholic Attorney Pat McDonald will go home and read the Holy Bible, and his head will be filled with images of sexual depravity that the Diocese of Madison not only approves of...but that the Diocese of Madison actually makes it's profits from. Good Lord man, that Bible is a dirty book!! Lot's of dirty sex in that tome. No wonder it is a bestseller!!!! In the words of Sonny and Cher, "And The Beat Goes On...On and On and On...."

What about Vosen, you ask there Gazettefan? Do you actually read anything I’ve written beyond the first line or two? That would explain why you ignore point after point. Here is what I wrote on my first post way down below:
.
“This edict reminds me of what the Muslims did about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". The difference is that instead of sentencing Vosen to death, they sentence anyone who owns the book to hell. Or is it a few more millennium in purgatory?
.
Either way it seems to violate the words of the Lord in Mark 4:21-23 "And he said unto them, 'Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.'" Does the hierarchy hear this? Or do they think they know better?”
.
Concerning the devil and the Trinity you are quite right, those subjects are far too complex to discuss with one such as you who has difficulty grasping the basics, particularly since your motive is so transparent, that you are just trying to find something that you can ridicule due to the fact that your previously ridiculous arguments have failed so spectacularly. Those subjects are beyond your grasp. Besides, if your “proof” against God is so good, why are you so eager to change issues?
.
Don’t care for my “victory dance”, eh? I’m not surprised. If I had lost as badly as you have here, I would be irritated too. It is funny though, coming from you since you have “shaken your booty” on this board more than once. I am of the type that the more forcefully you command me to do something (“Respond to the issues and refrain from the victory dance”) the less likely I am to comply. Your commands are as impotent as your reasoning is flawed. (Testy, stop snickering, there is nothing “dirty” implied in my use of the word impotent)

Billnewbie...I am not trying to "outrage" you. Boy, you give me a lot more credit that I would expect a mansard like you to offer. This whole exchange reminds me of the scene from TOOTSIE, where Dustin Hoffman is not interested at all in helping Teri Garr get the job of the nurse in the soap opera, but she begs and begs for his inspiration, and he finally says..."Okay, I'll Pick You Up At 10 O'Clock And Enrage You". I guess I am your inspiration, sir. I am your Dustin Hoffman. You are my Teri Garr. There would be no purpose otherwise for you to suggest that I would enrage you. To put this into perspective, it didn't work out well for Teri Garr either, if you remember the film. But Dustin went on to fame and fortune. Yes, yes, it is true, he had to put on a dress to achieve his fame. But on a message board such as this, believe me, I am only wearing a flimsy nightgown. And only ONE pastie....

I doubt that a shoe would be your preferred projectile, just as reason is not your preferred debating tool and the results of your assault would be just as ineffective as your immature efforts to offend. Really, after all these futile attempts to outrage me, if you had any sense at all, you'd change tactics rather than continue trying to do what has been convincingly demonstrated as ineffectual.

BillNewbie...HOW DARE you try to suggest that my inappropriate appropriation of this message board has not resulted in a full and complete success on my part. My MISSION has been ACCOMPLISHED, sir. If this was not cyberspace, I would throw a shoe at you.

Testy, your depth of perception is as striking as your maturity level.

It has been well over 12 hours since the last post here. I guess BillNewbie just gave up. Thusly, it appears that this message board has finally reached it's limit. I am glad to see it end, to be honest. Too much time has been wasted by people blathering here. I am proud to say I was a part of it. Amongst the nonsense spouted here over the last few weeks, I am proud to say I was one of the few that not only spoke the truth, but also truthfully spouted. For that, I am grateful. But I would also like to thank Jesus. Whenever someone wins an Oscar or scores a touchdown, they always thank Jesus, so why should I not follow suit? It only seems appropriate.

billnewbie, I think you covered it all. Though it's strange that in place of countering my posits you instead insist on claiming some sort of victory. What about the Devil? There's no law that says you can't give your opinion. And what about Vosen? Did he write a good book that people should read? Is it justifiable for the Church to ban it? Stuff like that. I know this is tricky stuff for believers to defend. Especially that darn Trinity. (Skip the Trinity for a while and respond to the less difficult stuff.)

You are in a difficult position. In order to have an intelligent discussion you have to use reason. But how do you employ reason when what you're defending isn't based on reason?

Respond to the issues and refrain from the victory dance.

By the way, Hothands addressed that question to Catholics, which excludes you and me, unless you've had an epiphany of late.

After reading your less than impressive mumbo-jumbo, I'm not at all inclined to take your advise nor am I inclined to accept your assessment of how impressed anyone with “any sense” (your supporters I suppose) may be with me. Now, can you recall what topic we were discussing? You've changed subjects so often while searching for something that works, it must be hard for you to keep track. First it was Vosen's book, then it was institutionalized child rape, then misogyny, then whether God exists and whether those who think so are crazy, the absurdity of the Immaculate Conception, then the sexual repression of nuns (I’m sure I must have overlooked something), and now after loosing those debates as badly as you have while insisting otherwise you want to change the subject yet again after you have ignored point after point as if they were never written.
How Amusing!

billnewbie, I responded to hothands' question. Why don't you answer the question about the Devil?

What is your stance on the Church and Vosen? Do you agree with its condemnation? or do you agree with Vosen?

Your windy, adjective laden posts are ridiculous.

No one with any sense is impressed with your selective and copy and past of junk-science.

Yet another act of desperation on Gazettefan's part, to embrace a change of subjects once more. The devil is such a fun subject to raise. I guess that when one casts about in futility for an effective rebuttal, one tends to latch on to whatever may float by, like a ship wreck survivor to flotsam.
.
Now, what was it that we were all discussing?

hothands:

"The Devil" is merely another device to coalesce people into the fold. That device and other devices of religion comes with an interesting mix of benevolence and malevolence. Ancient story tellers who also possessed the need to organize people into groups both knowingly and delusionally made up stuff for that purpose.

The story tellers as leaders adroitly figured-out that the effort to get people to be good was aided by the threat of the Devil and the threat of the suffering the Devil would exact. It is a more severe form of one approach for disciplining children: the threat of a spanking, for example.

The intent of the leaders was aided by the fact that threats such as the Devil were contrived during the pre-scientific era of human history and human intellectual development. Fear of the unknown during this early period of human psychology compelled the people, the followers, who needed an explanation and a structure to comfort them during lives that were harsh, brutal, and short, to embrace the idea of the threat of the Devil.

In tragic tandem with the kind of males that the bizarre nature of the priesthood attracts, the threat of the Devil is doubly perverse. And we've come to learn that that perversity is of exponential proportions.

The explicit and implicit threat to the victims of rapist priests is: The priest walks with the Lord; if you don't do what he says, the Devil will get you. The Devil, indeed.

The lie is yours Edsci. You should know very well who it was that initiated the practice of medicine. It wasn't atheists who live their lives to satisfy themselves.
.
By the way, I know the hospital in Janesville is called Mercy, but aren't most hospitals named after some religious icon such as St. Mary's or St. Luke's, St. Michael's or Sacred Heart, Mt. Sinai and the like? And why is that? Were the atheistic doctors who established them short on names? Hardly. It's because it was religious organizations such as the Catholic Church that actually sponsored the science of medicine and caring for the sick. After all, the practice and philosophy of medicine is much more compatible with the Christian philosophy of "love thy neighbor" than it is with the atheist's philosophy of "do as thou wilt".
.
The ability of a bird to adapt its beak size over time is no different that the ability of a moth to adapt its spots to hide itself on a tree. That’s evidence of the adaptability of the species, which I’ve covered before. Sorry you and Gazettefan missed it. Did you see what I wrote in response to you below on Dec.12 at 9:20 pm? I didn’t clearly address it so I’ll add it here so that you won’t have to look it up:
.
“Evidence has been offered but rejected without consideration by the atheists as they invariably do (an act of willful ignorance). As I have stated before, evidence exists of God, but not proof since His existence is a matter of faith as He meant it to be. We are free to reject that evidence just as so many do. Evidence also exists of the adaptability of the species which some extrapolate into proof of evolution and the repudiation of God. That adaptability is a survival tool given His creatures by our Creator so they can adapt to their environment. Similarly, we have the ability to invent (but not create) tools to adapt our environment to our purposes. Examples such as "Computer(s) engineered by science, medicine engineered by science, (pasteurized) milk (I hate the stuff though my mother's milk was unpasteurized and provided by our Creator) pasteurized by science (and named for its inventor Louis Pasteur who was a Catholic (not as eloquent as Shakespeare I realize) (probably not the best choice of examples there Edsci )) " are mere tools hammered out as it were from the world provided to us by our Creator just as we first hammered out stone axes. Its not as though we actually created any of these things, we simply refined God given raw materials using our God given intellect and built on the accumulated knowledge of our predecessors over as many as 10 millennia. The vast majority of those predecessors recognized and honored God in some form or another. The modern atheist picks and chooses through that accumulated knowledge, accepting that which benefits him while rejecting that which indicates God.”

More nonsense from Gazettefan!
.
The fact that you endorse the Catholic hierarchy's condemnation of Vosen is proof that your contentions are nonsense since you otherwise condemn everything Catholic.

I suggest to the testy juvenile that to cure his irritation he should go find his mommy and have her pat his back until he belches which will provide him with much amusement thereby lightening his spirits, figuratively speaking.

BILLNEWBIE said this to me..."Yep, I've got you pegged, testy. Just another juvenile with a dirty mind demanding to be taken seriously." Billnewbie, how DARE you suggest that I demand to be taken seriously. You are quite the scholar to make this observation so late in the debate. On a serious note though, only an ignoramus bible-thumper like you would make a hilariously doofus-like statement like that and think he was making a good point. To be honest, this latest evidence of your ignorant pomposity has not only given me a good laugh here to start my day, but invalidates any of your pomposities heretofore seen. Have a nice day, you mansard...

I have a question to toss out there to the Catholics due to myself not being one, why is the Catholic Church using the devil as a recruitment tool? It is my understanding that the devil was initially created by the Christian religions as ‘fear factor’ or a ‘guilt trip’ to get people to conform and follow suit. I just find it ironic that the church itself would turn to a symbol that they preach continuously for their followers to avoid. Is this the do as I say not as I do rule? Just a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

Another good one, edsci. But get ready for the junk-science nonsense to follow from billnewbie and the apostles.

billnewbie, the story is about the Church banning a book. The book is a continuation of the abuse that not only Vosen's victims suffered but is also a continuation of the abuse that all the victims of the Catholic Church suffered.

The story is about the Church's condemnation of Vosen.

The story is also directly and indirectly about the institutionalized rape of children in the Catholic Church. And I submit that that criminality is inextricably tied to the Church's misogyny and bizarre beliefs.

What is ironic is that the Catholic Church actually agrees with evolutionary theory. Evidently, they will admit to being wrong when they read facts. There is an excellent modern day book entitled "The Beak of the Finch". It methodically presents the evolutionary process that takes place on the Galapagos amongst the Finch populations, beak sizes evolve in accordance with seeds sizes which change depending on the weather. There are many peer reviewed evolutionary journals as well. I am sure you can find them at the library. The medicine you take is tested on animals because we have evolutionary similarities. If you take medicine prescribed by a doctor you are either not very smart or a hypocrite. Remember your God is watching you and he knows what you say and what you do. Is your life a lie?

Yep, I've got you pegged, testy. Just another juvenile with a dirty mind demanding to be taken seriously. Perhaps one day you'll grow up youngster, but today is not that day.

Oh, sorry GARYPRIMER, I forgot...and then...he farted

I have to get to bed now, but I will just leave you all with the words of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as he died on the cross. He said "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani" according to Mark. Loosely translated, it means "I would never want to belong to an Afterlife that would accept me as a member".

Speaking of the pompous, I would never impugn your "impugnity", there is no need as you handle that job quite well yourself there testy.
.
You seem to have an unhealthy fascination with bodily functions. Just another pseudo-comedian with a dirty mind who, like a small child, just can't stop giggling when someone passes gas. You go ahead and keep expertly mischaracterizing scripture and I'll do what I can to correct your debasement thereof what with my limited intellect and all.

Hey Gazettefan, been there, done that, won big.
.
When you were loosing the debate you refer to you changed subjects repeatedly while searching for a "silver bullet" that would shut down your adversaries. Now that your position is weak on the currently "evolved" discussion you want to play moderator and redirect the debate while instructing the rest of us to “avoid the wacky small-minded, ill thought-out insults and misperceptions as to what's going here” as though your own posts are not filled with “wacky small-minded, ill thought-out insults and misperceptions”. Your pomposity is astounding.
.
The story above is about an edict by the Catholic hierarchy for their members not to read or own Vosen’s book, an objective you agree with though not for the same reasons. You have attempted to use this discussion to attack the Catholic Church as an institution that promotes child rape and as an opportunity to denigrate religious faith. You never were on subject and your complaint is as hilarious as it is disingenuous.

BILLNEWBIE..how dare you impugn my impugnity with your post. Is it your assumption that YOU know more about the GOOD BOOK than I? I quoted Leviticus. You obviously found the quote. You have no need to know EXACTLY what all three numbers meant. My purposes were served, with an extra dose of "subliminal incontinence" if you know what I mean!! My point was made. I challenge you to take any quote of mine in this message board, and find an appropriate biblical reference to refute, deny or even attempt a surprise "Statue of Liberty" play for a two-point conversion to win the game. Christians loves conversions. Give it a shot, you mansard.

Adios, dub, by the way, all that stuff has already been dealt away.

billnewbie, and the rest of you bent-kneed defenders of the Church, what's with the avoidance of the issue?:

The institutionalization of child rape in the Catholic Church and how its misogyny and odd beliefs are inextricably tied to that criminality; and banning books.

Please avoid the wacky small-minded, ill thought-out insults and misperceptions as to what's going here.

Yes DUB190...I WILL ARGUE AGAINST YOUR POINTS!!!!!!!!! How dare you! Mickey Rooney told me...oh hell, what is the point? Your posts are boring, and I cannot take them. Fine, fine, DUB190, and all the rest...you can all believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and walked on water, and appeared fish, and slapped a waiter at Ponderosa for accidentally putting Ranch on his salad...that is fine with me. I will simply focus on the real world, and I will believe that the Lions will beat the Colts this weekend. Well, to be honest, I am thinking of betting the spread, so they don't ACTUALLY have to win. Or like it says in Revelations 13:45:11..."No Team Has Ever Gone Undefeated In A 16-Game Season, So Picketh The Lions In Weeketh 14 Againsteth The Spreadish". God Help me.....

Now I am truly done. I am gonna go try to stir up a big doe to fill my freezer.
Good Luck BillNewbie. Though I don't think you need it, with the debate competition you have here...

READ THIS- The discipline of evolutionary biology today resembles astrophysics when Galileo was attempting to explain the planetary orbits and the oceanic tides but lacked the concept of the force of gravity. His observations were accurate enough, but explanations awaited an Isaac Newton.

**Evolutionary biology awaits its Newton. And until such a thinker emerges--to provide a fuller conception of the history of life and especially the forces at play that explain how things happened as they did--those who would expel all challenges to the Darwinian narrative from the high school classroom are false to their mission of teaching the scientific method.**

Scientists as they engage in dialogue with others should abhor attempts to close off the conversation by excessive claims for any privileged access to truth. **Scientists should tell what they actually know and how they know it, as distinct from what they believe and are trying to advance.** If all of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, accepted that guiding principle, the 80-year history of attempts to use law to stifle the teaching of science could perhaps finally be brought to a close.

Now the membership of the defamation league is standing up to be counted! (I know, my clever joke went unnoticed but it amused me no end.) Their quivers are full of the usual armaments, cynicism, condescension and outright denial of what even they claim is unprovable while congratulating each other's "brilliance". I guess it's an act of wisdom and superior intelligence to reject the unproven but abject foolishness to embrace it, in their view, unless it happens to substantiate what they choose to believe such as life evolving from rock (which never happened and never will either in nature or the laboratory).
.
I’m particularly amused by the argument offered that “God is a pervert” and the numerous variations on that theme that member has offered before. I suppose he thinks that if he repeats it often enough that some may actually begin to give it credence since they have read it before. That was an interesting passage of scripture that was referred to although it was badly written (was that chapter 9 verses 12 through 14 or was it chapter 9and 14 verse 12? I guess I’ll just chalk that up to the writer not actually having much experience reading scripture much less understanding it) as that passage in chapter 9 refers to the legs of a calf being burned as an offering. Maybe the testy one thinks of that as sexual but then that speaks volumes of his mindset as he continues to show with his subsequent posts.

Anyone going to argue against my points? Or just keep claiming Christians are crazy and desperate?
SURELY AT THIS POINT the friendly reader might agree that, like any historical account, the Darwinian narrative can fairly be challenged--not to say that it must be wrong, only that it needs more supportive evidence. Perhaps there are statistical proofs or engineering concepts that could be found, or something else that might emerge that would be subject to verification by the scientific method.

But our would-be friend to evolution will soon discover that any questioning of the Darwinian narrative, no matter how sympathetic, is shouted down. If mathematicians try to say that even with the immense span of geological time available for random genetic variations to act, there is not time enough to produce the human eye, the response--typical for historians, who routinely argue backward from observations to their causes--is, Since the eye exists the math must be wrong.

-Atheists affirm the Darwinian narrative by restating it, not by offering compelling proof that it is true.-

Official science is too much at ease with the Darwinian narrative--primarily because it can't come up with anything better. As a result, many scientists are driven by an ideological bias and by fear--the thought that any challenge to the narrative will plunge the republic back into some dark age. Richard Dawkins and his associate Niall Shanks predict that, as Shanks wrote, "discriminatory, conservative Christian values [will be imposed] on our educational, legal, social and political institutions" should the public schools permit any airing of questions about the Darwinian narrative. This fear is way over the top, but it's of long standing, and in the past has provoked some loss of judgment among scientists.

When the most distinguished biological scientist of the 20th century, Francis Crick, saw the same complications as Michael Behe, he also concluded that time on Earth and random variation were not adequate to produce the viable cell. Crick resolved the dilemma, in a fascinating book called Life Itself published in 1981, by suggesting that living cells arrived on an unmanned spaceship from another planet, perhaps sent by intelligent beings facing extinction. He called his concept "directed panspermia," and this strange concept (I prefer to call it "life from Krypton") received a respectful hearing from biologists. With this imaginative device Crick could keep the narrative alive. He explained life's cellular origins without worrying about time, kept the God he hated out of the picture, and preserved the possibility of random variation and natural selection working their magic from these "seedlings" from a "galaxy far far away."

DUB190 is kind of like a Chatty Cathy doll that pulls it's own string. Maybe if Father Vosen had pulled his own string...well...I will cease and desist. Even atheists have their standards....

Great posts, edsci:

It would be interesting to see how shaky the believers would become if all the products of science they depend on so much just suddenly disappeared.

testerific, yes, good point, the christianity of the christians sure runs thin when they can't handle the stress of a debate.

They can't face the hard fact of why they find it so easy to attack science: Attacking science is easy compared to taking the effort and having the intelligence to understand science. All that's required to attack science is to make stuff up; and that's what they're good at, making stuff up; that's what religion is: just making stuff up.

And attacking science is also easier than staying on the difficult point here: The institutionalization of child rape in the Church and how odd beliefs and misogyny are inextricably tied to that criminality.

Oh, NOW you want me to be done. I only responded because you asked so nicely. May I respond again sir?
At this point, the sympathetic reader eager to secure Darwin's narrative might resort to searching the "biochemical record." Surely the molecular structures of DNA, RNA, and proteins contain the long-sought evidence. Again, though, molecular biology helps in some ways in that it shows commonalities across species--just as other aspects of anatomical structures show commonalities--but again it's the distinctions--and the means by which they are generated--rather than the similarities that must be explained to support the theory.

If one turns to DNA to show how Homo sapiens gradually emerged by small and random variations from predecessors, one faces an immediate problem. At the level of DNA, humans and chimpanzees differ by a mere 1 percent, yet the chimpanzee is not 99 percent human in body, brain, or mental faculties--far from it. We need something more than the DNA record to support a narrative linking chimps and men.

Perhaps it's enough for the friendly guardian of the Darwinian narrative to propose that the genes that control the switching on and off of other genes simply changed in some random way, allowing humans to branch off the primate line. And maybe they did. But again, notice, this is a molecular narrative, not a proposition demonstrable by experiment. It's a story that fits the facts--but so might another.

Way to take the high road Testerrific! Good argument.

Oy Vey, I just tried to read DUB190's response (after DUB190 said they were done with discussions of evolution by the way) and I got so bored I actually started playing Solitaire on my computer. DUB190, at least "I" include wonderful anecdotes about Mickey Rooney in my rambling, endless posts. Your posts are simply unbearable. I would suggest to you that you either get an editor, or start making hilarious references to Hollywood's Golden Age in your posts. Or even better...when you say you are done with a subject...BE DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This the definition of "theory" that applies to the use of the word "theory" in the term "The Theory of Evolution.":

In scientific or technical use, theory refers to a general principle or set of principles, based on considerable evidence, formulated to explain the operation of certain phenomena.

CRAFTY...as you are defending your Christianity, it probably isn't smart to say things like "Way to hand out the "b%$*hslaps" BillNewbie!" Even atheists like me can decifer the coded vulgarities you are saying here, and I can only say it is quite UNCHRISTIAN of you to use such language on an anonymous message board. Jesus would not approve, I can assure you. I am proud to say I am an atheist, and I would never attack another message board poster in such a vile way, YOU MANSARD!!!!!

You my friend, are confusing Evolution, with the ability to adapt. Given to us by God.
Beginning with the reasonable presumption that the hereditary mechanisms involved in producing these enhancements in the barnyard must be available and randomly active in nature, Darwin proposes that from such random variation can spring new species. Variation--repeated ad infinitum down the ages, with its products culled by natural selection rather than by artful human breeding--is the process by which Darwin links up all of biologic creation. This is the Darwinian narrative in its clearest form--history by extrapolation--and it is not problem-free.
MANY OF US were taught these Darwinian extrapolatory links to the evolutionary narrative in high school, usually with photographs of the European peppered moth (Biston betularia), which became darker with environmental pollution and thus less conspicuous to bird predators in industrial areas. The same idea springs up in discussions of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or of the transformation of the beaks of finches under the pressure of drought. We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes."

But not everyone agreed with this conclusion. Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation--whether in the barnyard or in nature--demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits. The original species picture reappears when either the farmer's selective enterprise or the natural environmental pressure on the species population stops and crossbreeding recurs. The finches' beaks never turn into pelican pouches but revert to their original shape when the rains arrive. No farmer or experimental scientist has ever produced a new species by cultivating variations.

i did not write this story or tell you what to read or not to read in this case. nor did i molest a boy. so how exactly am i attacking Christians ? i would say none of you on here are Christians. Christians do not push their god on others and they love everyone no matter what they believe. so for the record you should stick with Catholic not Christian. as for evolution you did not read origin of species or you wouldn't make such a stupid comment. People have blind faith because they are afraid of death. living for death is not living. you miss out on the now when your only focused on the after life. it's sad and i feel bad for anyone who lives like this. i call it the walking dead !

I don't blame you all for being Atheists, it was what they taught you to be in school. Too bad though.

Way to hand out the "b%$*hslaps" BillNewbie!
==
WHERE IS THERE "EVIDENCE" OF EVOLUTION?
You Atheists who claim the THEORY of Evolution is fact, are just as faithful as Christians. More so, because the Bible, and stories involved, goes back way farther, and has many more authors than The Origin of Species (and theories involved) -Which is a bookload of crap.
Christians are all a bunch of crazy people...Sure, they only formed our whole world...
==
Backed into a corner huh, Gfan? That's right go back to the original subject when BillNewbie makes you all warm and tingly inside...
==
Dub, In the same Chapter IX, Darwin also acknowledged that the fossil record does suggest the "sudden appearance of whole groups of allied species all at once." He noted that if this fact were to stand, and "numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, . . . it would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." He forestalled that fatal blow to his theory by asking his readers not to "over-rate the perfection of the geological record."
Any sympathetic reader of Darwin's history would readily allow him the point--that earlier life forms might have all come and gone elsewhere than where later forms emerged and might have done so without leaving a fossil record to demonstrate the smooth gradation between species. But such a reader should admit, as Darwin did, that the absence of the record is a serious matter--especially when it persists to this day, nearly a century and a half after Darwin's book was published. This imperfection of the historical record was, after all, sufficiently embarrassing to provoke some evolutionary biologists nearly 100 years ago to try to improve on the record by manufacturing the counterfeit fossil Piltdown Man.

DUB190...it is funny that you take a whole paragraph to try to convey your thoughts about evolution, and then end it with a statement that it is "all you will argue about Evolution". That is very close-minded of you, sir. How dare. I think your arguments should evolve naturally, just like evolution does. But then again, that would discredit your thesis. But even though I know you have said you will no longer argue this issue of evolution, I will still ask the question..."If Evolution Does Not Exist, How Do You Explain The Fabulous Legs of Ann Miller, Ann Jillian, and Mary Hart???". If your non-secularist statement is true, then God just arbitrarily decided to give THEM good legs, but my Aunt Blanche has been cursed with the roadmap of the Jersey Turnpike running up and down her gams??? I think the proof in the pudding here, sir, is that I have just established an undeniable truth of "natural selection" in our universe (which includes Janesville, even the Fourth Ward), not the concept of "the Dad of Jesus always choosing 'HOT LEGS' (in the words of the late, great, and still very much alive Rod Stewart)." But then again, anyone who has read the Bible knows God is a "leg man". I refer of course to Leviticus 9:14:12. Your play, DUB190......

Atheism is the religion of attacking Christians.

Edsci, How does an ignorant person explain Evolution, when there is no proof? Evolution is theory not fact. Where are the transitional fossils? In our universe, things are falling apart, aging, slowly destroying itself. Not becoming better.
Yes I have read Origin of Species. In later writings he says himself that some of the theories he had were probably false, or required supernatural events.
Darwin's "tentative reconstruction" is not only a theory but a special kind of theory, one lacking the telling and persuasive power that theories built on hypothesis-generated experiment and public prediction can garner.
DARWIN HIMSELF UNDERSTOOD that questions raised about his narrative had substance. In Chapter IX of On the Origin of Species, he noted that the fossil record had failed to "reveal any . . . finely graduated organic chain" linking, as he proposed, existing species to predecessors. He called the record "imperfect" and went so far as to say, "This, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin presumed that the problem rested on the "poorness of our palaeontological collections" and would be answered when more of "the surface of the earth has been geologically explored."
Looks less like science than exercises in thought control.
This is all I will argue about Evolution. this is not the topic.

Catholicism is a mentality. That mentality pre-dates the formalization of the Catholic Church. That lawyerly, bureaucratic formalization was adopted to accommodate the Catholic mentality.

The conception of the Immaculate Conception takes place inside a woman's body free of the dirt of sex (Immaculate) or "stain", use your imagination there. The correlation is that a woman who has sex even while married and even for the purpose of procreation is dirty (not immaculate or unstained); this is misogyny. What kind of mentality would adopt or create a belief like that?!

It's nice that apparently Eve is no longer solely blamed for "original sin" (giving the "apple" or fruit to Adam). But Eve as the culprit for centuries in something so misanthropic as original sin is another manifestation of the Church's misogyny.

For anyone to rely on "the teachings" or the Bible or theocracy to explain a believer's point of view on any of this is akin to the blind man holding the tail of an elephant and declaring that it is a rope.

The Immaculate Conception never happened and never will.

The love for mother preached by the Church is only the love for a woman who is not allowed to control her body etc.

Where is the love for motherhood in the Catholic Church when its priests and leaders turn away from turning women into mothers and instead choose to rape the sons of mothers and sometimes the daughters of mothers?

Good Lord man, this debate still rages!!! I don't mean to change the subject, but something about this endless cyber-banter reminded me of a horrible yet wonderful experience I had in the late 1970s. I remember I was vacationing in Guyana, and a nice man in sunglasses offered me some Kool-Aid. Actually, it wasn't Kool-Aid, but it looked like Kool-Aid. It also kind of looked like wiper-washer fluid. Either way, he offered it, and I almost drank it, but then I noticed some of the flock amongst me began to drop like flies. And I thought to myself "Good Lord Man, I don't want to drop like a fly. I want to flutter like a butterfly". On a side note, to explain this apparent non-sequitor, I have always thought that butterflies were better than regular flies because they had a dairy-based product attached to their name. Hey, I grew up in Wisconsin, son, and I stand by my boys!!! LOLOLOLOL. Just kidding!!! But to be honest, I REALLY DO love dairy products from Wisconsin!!!!! LOLOLOL. So anyway, the standoff in Guyana continued, and I pretended to drink the slop, but then I ran to a nearby helicopter amongst gunfire, and I made it out of there my friends!!!! I MADE IT!!! Here is where the story takes a weird, almost spiritual turn that I can only attribute to the existence of a God in heaven!!!! Many years later, while I was attending a posh and elegant Hollywood dinner party at Bobby Evans' pad in the Hollywood Hills, Mickey Rooney appeared out of nowhere and pulled me aside and told me he was proud of me for doing what I done. He actually called me "A Snarky Whippersnapper" and offered me some Doublemint Gum. I took it proudly. And I will never forget those spiritual and arbitrary words from the Mickster himself, my friends. Never...

One can beleive in God and not practice a faith guided by dogma. I have found the organized religions I was raised in to be what I would describe as guidance and direction for those unable to posess a sense of inner direction. Blind faith is faith nonetheless but still blind.

Atheist first line of defense - call the religious guy crazy.
+
The evidence you all speak of is in the Bible - oh wait that's right it was written by men who were also crazy. (I figured I would save you the time in posting that as a reply)
+
If I look at life from an atheist point of view, I actually get depressed because I really begin to wonder what is really the purpose of being here? What good does it do to gain the whole world yet when I die it all stays here. Think of the Egyptians who were buried with all of their possesions-yet all of those things are still here. hmmmmm..... seems pretty pointless.

You may call me delusional all you want, it certainly won't change the outlook I have that this life here is such a short time in comparison to eternity. I am just glad I have faith that there is so much more after here.

See what I mean atheists? Look at the wealth of talent on your side. Justsaynotomath wasn't one of the members I thought would show up but her poignant criticism is welcome just the same.

the time of "i have no evidence it's a matter of faith" is over, that's for sure. today in the real world you need evidence to prove your case no matter what the subject. in this case the bishop and the church is out of control, not to mention the pedophile. as an atheist i see it as one and the same, crazy ! if you could see outside of religion and observe it as i do, you would see the crazy too. otherwise know as billnewbie.

It looks like a meeting of the defamation league of D’nai (the) B’irth has convened. I knew what I wrote would provoke a hateful response. I expect that perhaps other members of the league may show up soon.
.
Evidence has been offered but rejected without consideration by the atheists as they invariably do (an act of willful ignorance). As I have stated before, evidence exists of God, but not proof since His existence is a matter of faith as He meant it to be. We are free to reject that evidence just as so many do. Evidence also exists of the adaptability of the species which some extrapolate into proof of evolution and the repudiation of God. That adaptability is a survival tool given His creatures by our Creator so they can adapt to their environment. Similarly, we have the ability to invent (but not create) tools to adapt our environment to our purposes. Examples such as "Computer(s) engineered by science, medicine engineered by science, (pasteurized) milk (I hate the stuff though my mother's milk was unpasteurized and provided by our Creator) pasteurized by science (and named for its inventor Louis Pasteur who was a Catholic (not as eloquent as Shakespeare I realize) (probably not the best choice of examples there Edsci )) " are mere tools hammered out as it were from the world provided to us by our Creator just as we first hammered out stone axes. Its not as though we actually created any of these things, we simply refined God given raw materials using our God given intellect and built on the accumulated knowledge of our predecessors over as many as 10 millennia. The vast majority of those predecessors recognized and honored God in some form or another. The modern atheist picks and chooses through that accumulated knowledge, accepting that which benefits him while rejecting that which indicates God.
.
Gazettefan doesn’t think God showed up when He was summoned in Vietnam. I suspect he projected his expectations on to his experiences.
.
So your personal experience is the only definitive one, Gazettefan? Didn’t others find God there? How would you know if He had shown up? How do you know He didn’t since you obviously are here now? Maybe He has more patience and hope for you than you ever had for Him. You still have a date with your fate, maybe He’s waiting to reveal Himself at your last curtain call or sometime between now and then. Patience Gazettefan, the Lord may surprise you yet.

billnewbie, has presented an argument, however, no evidence. None. He has repeatedly presented statements of wonder and magical beliefs but no evidence. billnewbie uses a computer engineered by science, takes medicine engineered by science, drinks milk pasteurized by science, sees a doctor who studies science and then has the ignorant hypocrisy to proclaim that he has put forth a better argument and uses Shakespeare as his example of an intellect. Yes, an intellect like his own - fictional.

billnewbie its ok to doubt god. St Mother Theresa did .

billnewbie, I am a staunch anti-communist, especially of the Soviet kind. Contrary to popular belief, Soviet communism was behind the brutal North Vietnamese regime, Maoist China only to a lesser degree. That's why I willing served in Vietnam as an infantry combatant, I was wounded twice.

Here's something you should understand re: how the Soviets and Marx accurately regarded religion. Even though communism is an atheistic ideology the Soviets allowed the church to exist throughout its 70 year reign. Why? Because as Marx said: Religion is the opiate of the people. Did the church and its adherents there do anything to overthrow the Soviets? No! The only thing your superstitious counterparts did there was allow themselves to be debilitated and numbed with crazy ideas of the supernatural while getting chronically jacked on vodka as they mumbled over their beads.

As for all the cries for god I heard in Vietnam, he never should up once! Say hello to the Easter Bunny.

billnewbie, are you familiar with the psychological defense mechanism of projection? Look it up.

Gazettefan acts as though he’s too unfamiliar with the arguments of his own position to craft a credible debate. He stoops to aspersions and ridicule in an attempt to silence. He seems to lack the courage of his convictions as he ignores most counterpoints made by opposing protagonists while claiming they have some defect of intellect, never debating their opinion point by point even though all his points have been meet and refuted, while he only responds to what he thinks he can ridicule. Then he decries the poor treatment he receives while ladling out derision by the barrelful. It appears as though he can’t make sense, other than of his own frustration, at his failure to convince.
.
I am convinced that there is a God but more than that, I am convinced that Christ is Lord. I am content in that truth and I can defend it far better and more effectively than you can defend the “truth” that life evolved from rocks as I have shown here on these boards in spite of your scorn. I have the vast majority of the greatest intellects that ever lived in agreement with me to some degree or another (Shakespeare being just one), while you seem only to have a collection of angry, frustrated egocentrics (Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc.) agreeing with you. It’s too bad that someone poisoned you to the possibilities. Yet it’s not too late. All you need do is open your mind and take a fresh look. It can be done, I’m proof of that.

dub190 your story, however possible is not very probable and only exists to reinforce what you already believe. Throughout history when ignorant people have been unable to explain natural phenomena they say "It must be God." Then science comes along and describes it and is able to make predictions about the phenomena and we as a society are able to utilize this phenomena for good or bad. Slowly your world of magic erodes away.

Evolution is not random nor accidental. It moves towards life. Even minerals evolve. Have you ever read Darwin's book? I would guess not.

if it was your test I flunked, than I think I will be just fine gazettefan.

My concerns are genuine, not irrational diatribe that you continue to post.

billnewbie, you're too befuddled by the mumbo-jumbo to make any sense out of anything.

whythefuss, you flunked the test, your interest in the school problem was not sincere, it was only a tactic to take attention from the criminality in the Catholic Church. Peace.

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that
the "accident of evolution" had created. "What majestic trees!
What a powerful river! What beautiful animals!" he said to
himself.

As he walked alongside the river he heard a rustling in the
bushes behind him. He turned to look and saw a 7-foot grizzly
charging towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He
looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on
him. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his
eyes. He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even
closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run
faster still. He tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over
to pick himself up, but saw the bear... right on top of him...
reaching for him with the left paw and raising his right paw to
strike him.

At that instant the atheist cried out "Oh my God, please help
me..."

Suddenly, time stopped. The bear froze in motion. The forest was
ever so silent. Even the river ceased to move. A brilliant ray of
light emerged from the sky and shone upon the man. A powerful
voice spoke to him,

"You have denied my existence for all of these years; you teach
others that I do not exist and you credit creation to a cosmic
accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?
Am I to count you now as a believer?"

The atheist blinked directly into the light "It would be
hypocritical of me to convert to a Christian after all these
years, but could you instead make the bear a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice from above. The bright light
disappeared. All of a sudden, life resumed around the man. The
river ran again. The forest became alive once more with the
gentle sounds of nature.

The bear stirred. Slowly, he lowered his right paw, brought both
paws together, bowed his head and graciously spoke:

"Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly
thankful."

Christians realize there is a higher purpose beyond this life, that doesn't mean they ignore human laws.

Those that don't follow a religion live in the here an now and only have that to look forward to.

I am happy that I know there is more than this life here. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy life, in fact I am very thankful for everything I have. I am saddened to think that there are many who won't even give faith in God a chance. All I can do is hope that someday they have some event in their life that will change their mind.

Peace everyone!

"Think about how you can only survive in a limited space in the Universe and how things have to be just right for you to survive on Earth." Sounds like proof of God to me. I see you haven't thought this out.

Human laws are more important than God's laws because groups define their "God's" laws differently. For example, one might say that there are only two commandments love god and love your neighbor(no exceptions for homosexuals). Some might say that it is the ten commandments ignoring the idea of a new testament. And some might want a more pure version of their faith. This is why well defined secular human laws are at the core of our society because Christians hated each other first and sought to persecute each other first.

The other problem with God's laws is that devout people of faith then believe they are only answerable to God and in so being will violate all kinds of human laws. This in the belief that God will have a special place for them in the afterlife.

billnewbie, all you did was reveal why you need religion.

All I've done here is rant against the criminality of the Catholic Church; its odd beliefs about the supernatural and women are inextricably tied to that criminality. This blog keeps going on because you and your ilk are throwing daggers in the wrong direction at the wrong thing.

Pharisees? I'm not a Pharisees, I'm a English-German American.

Though humans sprang from the materials of the Universe, the Universe is overwhelmingly hostile to humans. (Stare at the sun for five minutes and you'll see what I mean.) Such is life here. Think about how you can only survive in a limited space in the Universe and how things have to be just right for you to survive on Earth. You never really thought this stuff out.

Human emotions are all tied to the physical. There's nothing supernatural about them. Though I describe as transcendent some of the things that humans do. Like altruistic behavior and great works of art.

Why do we exist? you ask. Finally something existential. It's difficult to attribute positive meaning to Hobbes' harsh, brutal, and short human experience. Some people can only rely on religion to buffer and shirk the awesome responsibility of putting value on the human experience.

Yes, being able to debate these thing is another example of transcendence. Too bad you get so hostile so easily.

I appreciate all the wonders of the Universe and the human experience without the supernatural and religion. I don't need the hocus-pocus.

Gazettefan. your characterization that what I wrote is hate is laughable considering your works and motivations. But, for the sake of argument, I’ll accept that I have some hatred, hatred of what you assert, hatred of your methods and hatred of your motivations, but you personally I find pitiable. You find my hatred to be unchristian? You show how little you understand Christianity. Don’t you remember what Christ did to the money changers in the temple or how he mocked the Pharisees? Just think of yourself as a Pharisee and you’ll understand. That’s an interesting ploy though as you allow yourself, an anit-christian, a license to hate, but would deny your adversaries the same. There’s nothing like an unfair advantage, especially when your argument has so miserably failed.
.
I'm amused that you appeal to a sense of morality in spite of your recent assertions to why_the_fuss. On what do you base the existence of a sense of morality in a malevolent universe that displays none? What in creation could possibly explain such a phenomenon? You embrace a sense of morality yet you deny any possible supernatural source of it just as you deny any supernatural source for emotions such as love and hate. If the universe that spawned us is truly out to kill us then why do we exist? And thrive? What shields us from that malevolence? Even our own sun is lethal to us but for the unique characteristics of our biosphere, the earth. Not only should we not be alive, there should never have been life at all due to the nature of that lethal universe, yet here we are, debating its nature and it source without any defense for the power that you say is trying to kill us. And yet we are defended. We can identify those defenses. We know what keeps the radiation of the sun at bay. You just refuse to recognize the source of those defenses. If archeologists we like you they would look at the walls of an ancient fortress and marvel at the wonderfully coincidental rock formations.

I believe that belief in God and God's laws leads to a better citizen ergo a better society.
+
If I believe that there is no God, since there are no consequences (after I die) for doing what I feel like, laws become looser and society as a whole is weakened. Why do people cry out in greater rage over a thousand soldiers that are killed over a year, or the people that are killed by drunk drivers but don't bat an eye at a million abortions that occur over the same time period. They are all tragic in my eyes, but many will justify that it is acceptable to abort a human life. Why is that? Because they have decided that human laws are more important than God's laws.
+
I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion, I am just trying to say that the moral lines blur the more we rely on our human nature to interpret them and less on belief in a divine being. Once again human nature will lead us to do what feels good as opposed to maybe what is right.

whythefuss, my criticism here is of one church, the Catholic Church.

You are in err to believe that religion goes hand-in-hand with a healthy orderly society. Consider the lawlessness in the Catholic Church.

tjncj, I think it's important to note that this was a court case in 2003, which by MY math could be one of the reasons that they (Catholic Churches and Schools) started doing the background checks, by your account 5 or 6 years ago.

I am NOT saying by any means that all churches (or even just Catholic Churches) are responsible for child sexual assault. I am, however, asking that ALL institutions take responsibility for the actions within. Educate people on the indications of child sexual abuse and eradicate child abuse of all types where it exists. Exonerate the innocent, but take responsibility for and make appropriate changes (ie: don't cover up) when issues arise. I don't think anyone is expecting the Catholic Church (or ANY church) to be perfect, as we live in an imperfect world. Please don't patronize me though and attempt to make a claim that they handled it appropriately, when it is apparent that they did not.

Gazettefan, I believe we can agree to disagree. You obviously have strong feelings about organized religion.
+
You want to punish/condemn the church not because you truly believe everyone is guilty but because it is a church. I'm not sure what purpose that serves other than making you feel better.
+
I also don't believe there are two definitions of faith as much as there are varying degrees of faith. I don't consider my faith to be about something abstract as you are inferring.
+
I would definitely agree that the world is moving towards unbelief - it is evident in church attendance and public behavior. I wouldn't take this as a sign that there is some great awakening happening. I don't believe the freedom to do whatever you want regardless of consequences mentality is all that great for society. There are many references in the Bible of what occurred to societies that lived in a free for all. But I guess according to you these accounts were willingly made up or delusional.

billnewbie, I understand your jokes. It's just that they don't have the effect of clever literary devices.

Also, what kind of a "christian" would write the hateful post you wrote below?!!!

tjncj-glad to hear it. that doesn't, imo, remove the right/responsibility of the parent to do his/her/their own research as well. (it never hurts to have an extra tool in the toolbox.)

best scenario is that everyone your child comes in contact with will give your child the appropriate amount of love and concern. best case scenario doesn't always play out in real life the way we would like it to, though, unfortunately.

My post below is for whythefuss.

Regarding my sentence:

"The number of pedophiles in the Church makes everyone in it suspect. The Church's institutionalized criminality causes this"

The sentence is very clear. But this reference should help. The people who defend Vosen say that the victim lied. But that wouldn't fully explain why Vosen lost his case. Vosen's lawyer said the jury came to the wrong conclusion due to the public's perception of the Church these days.

Important to this conclusion by Vosen's own lawyer is that the Church caused that popular perception. (The public didn't just spontaneously decide to have that perception.) Even if every priest in the Church isn't a pedophile, it is its institutionalization of pedophilia that caused the public's perception. (This description of the Church has been born out by its victims, the media, and court decisions, and members of the Church itself.) If it's possible that Vosen is innocent, then what the jury did, in effect, was find the Church guilty as an entity re: institutionalized child rape.

I have openness to your concern about schools. I can join you in a rant against what's going on in them. But none of that would change the fact that the Church is a finite entity that is clearly rotten to the core and that it is an abomination that can be reckoned with.

Lastly, you're not making a distinction about the two main meanings of the word "faith." If I know you're a dependable person and you tell me you're going to do something tomorrow, then I have faith that you will. Nothing supernatural there.

Faith in the sense of believing something that has no basis in physical universe is something else. In ancient times people who heard voices were considered oracles and prophets and emissaries of god or gods. Now people who hear voices are medicated and/or institutionalized. Do you now believe those people are oracles, or prophets, or emissaries of god or gods? I doubt it.

This illustrates that the human race is in a transition period from severe belief in the Almighty to leaving the Almighty behind altogether.

People still cling to the comfort that religion offers. But it is possible to live without comfort from that source. A true take on the universe is that every square inch of it is out to kill you. This truth is exponentially intensified for the soldier in combat. Soldiers who take on that danger with dignity are heroes. Be a hero.

ms sassy- The Catholic Church and Cathoic schools have been screening ALL teachers, aides and volunteers for 5 or 6 years now. Contrary to what some say here the percentage of offenders in the Catholic Church is no more than any other religion or profession.

Amen billnewbie. I don't have to read GF's comments to know what he is reiterating, but I think you have hit the nail on the head. Maybe during this holiday season three ghosts can visit him before he must carry for eternity the chains he has forged on this earth. Sorry Dickens.

another comment I have may appear, at first, to be blaming the victims and their parents, to which I apologize upfront. I only can imagine the pain that the victims have experienced at the hands of sexual predators:

but, I think way too many parents have dropped off their children to school, church and other functions ASSUMING that their children will be safe without doing the legwork to ENSURE they will be. Too many people have "looked down their noses" at people who didn't attend a church or church functions, falsely believing that their child was better because their child participated in "good" activities--when they, the parent, didn't participate/volunteer/oversee the activity themselves, didn't ask their children questions about said activity, rarely believed their child's comments/concerns/fears over those of "the adult", etc.

After all of this scandalous information has been released to the public, I don't think much (enough?) has changed regarding the parents' involvement. Are parents checking out the backgrounds, lifestyle and motives of the people they put in temporary charge of their children or are they just expecting the personnel department of the school, church or agency to do it for them? CCAP, the National Sex Offender Registry and other resources are available at no charge. Do your own legwork. Go to the library if you don't have a home computer. Check out the pastor, teacher, bus driver, etc.

I would MUCH rather have someone approach me and say they know about my court history because they looked me up on CCAP than to not know anything about me, if I am in their child's life.

BTW: the links to CCAP and Sex Offender Registry are included here.

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl

http://www.familywatchdog.us/Search.asp

Something else that is very important to be said on this topic: It is not wise to assume that if a person does not have a "hit" that they are ok, either. Get to know the person and trust your gut. If you don't have a good feeling about someone's trustworthiness, don't leave your child alone with that person, ask questions of your child and talk to that person's supervisor (or at the VERY LEAST another adult who will be in attendance) to explain your concerns and insist that your child never be left alone with that particular person.

I truly am not blaming parents for the child molester's actions, but loving, proactive (rather than reactive) behavior goes a long way to the health and happiness of a person's childhood, and a happy adult life, as well.

Not long ago you tried to ridicule me for being to serious and now you claim you couldn't deduce the meaning of my humorous analogy. Are you really that clueless? I doubt it. I think it more likely that the point hit a little too close to home.
.
Your crusade is ignoble and your purpose is despicable. You may well seek solace for that emptiness in your soul by spreading your misery but only the self-serving would call that courage.
.
The things you write when spirituality is raised suggests that you are the one who lives in fear, the fear of one who faces the abyss at the end of his life, an end of existence or worse, alone, without hope. In contrast, we Christians face a doorway, an upgrade if you will, a renewed existence on a higher plane, in short, we have hope which is something you have not and have willingly rejected and that you would now like to deny all whom you can influence. That is truly sad indeed.

So if my argument isn't logical or doesn't fit the discussion at hand, please explain the following statement from you so I can understand it.
+
"The number of pedophiles in the Church makes everyone in it suspect. The Church's institutionalized criminality causes this"
+
The word suspect to me, means more or less guilty until proven innocent.

As far as the relevance of my school references, unless I can draw a picture for you, you will continue to deny that the issue is very similar.
+
Finally, your statment about common sense is exactly why many refuse to believe. If someone can't explain something, it obviously cannot be true. Have you never taken anything on faith alone? My guess is probably not.

billnewbie, re: your 12:12 post, why didn't you just say it that way? and drop the allusions. Makes your posts a lot less laughable.

Re: your "crusade" post. What are you so frightened of that you have to insulate yourself with supernatural effluvia?

My solace comes from having the courage to face the truth about life.

whythefuss, my statement re: the "supernatural" is common sense. The supernatural doesn't exist. So, they either knowingly or delusionally made it up.

The other parts of your post are non-sequiturs.

Gazettefan is on a crusade. His faith was destroyed years ago and he is now on a mission to destroy as much faith as he can. Misery loves company.

Gazettefan, where is your proof in this statement?
+
"They either knowingly or delusionally gave attribution to the supernatural."
+
Also based on your logic any organization that has more than one criminal should be accused of institutionalizing the crime and everyone that belongs should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
+
Wow, that is a pretty negative outlook on life. If I was suspect of everyone around me I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

I'd have to respect you to take your advise, but you blew any chance of that.
.
By the way, you don't really think I think your breath stinks do you? That's an analogy, it means that your assertions are based on faulty assumptions and that you are willfully oblivious of same which, while that may be perceived by you as an insult, is actually an accurate evaluation of your opinion.

OK, whythefuss, I read it but just didn't remember. I sit corrected.

I have news for you as to what's written in the Bible. Men wrote that stuff. They either knowingly or delusionally gave attribution to the supernatural.

The number of pedophiles in the Church makes everyone in it suspect. The Church's institutionalized criminality causes this.

billnewbie, good progress on the wordiness. Now you have to direct your attention to appropriateness. Talk on point. Drop the insults; they only make you look foolish.

P U

Gazettefan - you obviously don't read posts very well (that's right you did say that in a previous post).
+
I never said I was a current member of the Catholic Church, I was raised Catholic but I belong to another Church that follows the Bibles teachings, not what mankind dictates (because mankind is sinful).
+
I also never said that I defended the Catholic Churches actions. I find it deplorable that priest would do something like this just as I find it deplorable when teachers do the same thing. I am just not ready to go off the deep end and convict the entire Catholic Church because of the minority. There are many good priests out there as well as good Catholics. They are not all pedophiles as you like to accuse.

billnewbie, once again a cumbersome, inappropriate allusion on your part. You're better off dropping that stuff.

Read ms...sassy's fine post below and the dozens of others here that react to the stink coming off you and the Church.

Your goofy stuff just pops into your head and you don't think it out, do you?!!!

You know, Gazettefan, if your neighbor tells you your breath stinks, you may be able to assume that he has something wrong with his sense of smell. But, if all your neighbors are offering you breath mints it would be wise to reassess your assumptions.

My two cents worth is that I am a Christian woman who has sometimes questionned my faith, but ultimately return to my strong belief that God made himself into a human being (Christ) and was placed here on earth to be the example of how humans should behave.

It is my opinion that the Catholic Church erred when it established the "rules" that human beings can live a pure life. A human being IS a sinner and no matter how much Godly "paint" you try to put on us, we are STILL sinners.

I believe it was Jesus who said it is better for a man to marry than to have lust in his heart and then commit sexual sins.

The Catholic Church, by forbidding its priests, nuns, bishops, etc. to marry and have normal sexual thoughts and normal sexual lives HAVE CREATED the problem we are seeing in the church today with priests denying themselves a natural response to a natural desire: human sexuality.

I firmly believe that churches would MOST DEFINITELY better serve their communities if when they learn they have a problem of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that they immediately acknowledge that there are immoral issues that they are appropriately dealing with through both the justice system and social service programs to assist the people involved instead of denying the problems exist within the organization, continuously "sweep them under the carpet" (and actually HORRIFICALLY HURTING the children who come to their church instead of helping them) due to the embarrassing backlash of public knowledge.

I think any church (or individual, for that matter) who shows honesty, true compassion and a genuine desire to care for their neighbor receives the true forgiveness that is offered by God.

By the way: these priests who have, imho, committed these acts of abuse against children have NOT paved their way to heaven by their "good works", no matter what they want their parishioners to believe from their outward display of "priestly" behavior.

whythefuss, my position seems odd to you because you're insensitive to the criminality in your Church. Your religiosity contributes to your lack of sensitivity. Look within yourself and remove the mumbo-jumbo of the Church and be appalled at what's going on there. It is the mumbo-jumbo that distracts people from the truth.

I am one of millions of non-Catholics, recovered Catholics, and Catholics who see the truth about the Church. Your only salvation is to join us in our outrage at the Church. It's what Jesus would want. Even billnewbie shows signs of coming over from the dark side.

We all hope for your redemption.

Gazettefan haven't I seen that post somewhere?
+
You obviously have some deep seeded hatred for the Church that is probably not going to be solved by posting here.
+
I am sorry that you feel this way, instead of lambasting the Catholic Church; you should maybe look on the inside and see why you are so angry.
+
The teachings of the Bible are taken on faith, something that you seem to have very little of. Maybe if you took time to study the Bible you may begin to understand why people follow these teachings. They are filled with stories of hope, love and forgiveness. They also show what happens when you blatantly disregard them.
+
I'm sure I'm not convincing you right now (since you said you don't take reading assignments) but maybe someday.
+
Best of luck!

Catholicism is a mentality. That mentality pre-dates the formalization of the Catholic Church. That lawyerly, bureaucratic formalization was adopted to accommodate the Catholic mentality.

The conception of the Immaculate Conception takes place inside a woman's body free of the dirt of sex (Immaculate) or "stain", use your imagination there. The correlation is that a woman who has sex is dirty (not immaculate or unstained); this is misogyny. What kind of mentality would adopt or create a belief like that?!

It's nice that apparently Eve is no longer solely blamed for "original sin" (giving the "apple" or fruit to Adam). But Eve as the culprit for centuries in something so misanthropic as original sin is another manifestation of the Church's misogyny.

For you to rely on "the teachings" or the Bible or theocracy to explain your point of view on any of this is akin to the blind man holding the tail of an elephant and declaring that it is a rope.

The Immaculate Conception never happened and never will.

The love for mother preached by the Church is only the love for a woman who is not allowed to control her body etc. etc.

Where is the love for motherhood in the Catholic Church when its priests and leaders turn away from turning women into mothers and instead choose to rape boys and sometimes girls?

Wow. I had no idea my attempts to make sense of this small town religious flame war by quoting the words of the great Mickey Rooney would cause such upheaval. But come on, EDSCI!!! Are you really suggesting that Mickey Rooney is a member of the Hollywood Liberal Elite???? That is just HOGWASH, sir...and I apologize for my French! I remember one of the first movies I EVER saw in a movie theater was in 1955, and it was called "Andy Hardy Goes To A Restaurant". It was a later installment of the Hardy series, and most of the cast members were clearly "phoning it in" at his point, but I will always remember the moment early in the film when the waiter asks Mickey Rooney what he would like to eat, and he says "Gee..Golly...I think I'll have the patty melt, because I LIKE IKE!!!!". BLATANT right-wing propaganda to be sure, but I didn't see a gun to the Mickster's head while he said this line. And later in the film, Andy Hardy gets his townsfolk all worked up about the dirty Commies, and leads his townfolk into the home of none other than Alger Hiss. If you, SIR, will remember, this scene leads to a merciless beating of Mr. Hiss from Andy Hardy HIMSELF with a fresh whitefish across the face, while Judge Hardy dons a Richard Nixon mask and begins to dance about in both a strangely maniacal, yet religiously peaceful manner, combining both the prepubescent syle of the early Charleston and the post-pubescent style of the much later phenomenon known simply as the Macarena. Yes, yes, my message board friend, it is true that in his twilight years, Mr. Rooney has become suspiciously non-political in his rantings, but his past rantings cannot deny his true convictions. And NEITHER SIR, CAN YOU!!!!!!!!

Technically the Catholic Church is a criminal organization because it knew of crimes being committed and covered them up. This is the nature of a criminal organization.
-
The Universe began with the Big Bang not life. The microwave background radiation created when the big bang occurred can still be heard and was by two AT&T scientist who won a Nobel prize for their research. Life exists currently so it must have evolved at some point in time in the past.
-
Quoting Mickey Rooney? Quoting the liberal Hollywood elite for lessons on morality?

Gazettefan - my point exactly.
+
Children should feel safe in church, school or the many other places that parents entrust others to watch over them.
+
My only issue is attacking the entire entity doesn't solve the issue, especially when we are talking about the minority within the entity that are guilty.
+
Regardless of where it is occuring, it should be dealt with swiftly and justly. Unfortunately there will be those that will be protected and not convicted because others (not all) in the organization are just as corrupt.
+
However, I have faith that if mankind is unable to punish them, they will get their punishment from God.
+
That is where I am sure you and I will differ but in principle I think we agree that these things shouldn't be occuring in places we believe to be safe.

whatthefuss, I usually don't take reading assignments but I did you the courtesy and had a look. I see what you mean. It's important to note that the nature of the relationships are similar in the Catholic Church and the school systems: Adults in positions of power abusing that power to take advantage of children. That the schools systems of this country aren't a single entity like the Catholic Church makes the school problem much more difficult to deal with. Maybe a Federal governing body is in order following a Congressional investigation.

Still, it can't be overlooked that the Church is supposed to be a religious, spiritual experience for children. And the crime taking place there is potentially much more preventable than it would be for thousands of school systems.

Make up my mind about what? My position hasn't changed.

Nice try though.

tjncj, at what time during his eight marriages did that runt have his "Born Again" experience?

billnewbie and whatthefuss, make up your minds.

Yes it was the key and not the strawberries.

Why can't you be as accurate about the real issues here?

My favorite Mickey Rooney quote:

"All the muddy waters of my life cleared up when I gave myself to Christ."

tjncj:
Maybe the Gazette staff has difficulty taking seriously the ramblings of one who quotes extensively from the collective works of that great philosopher and moralist, Mickey Rooney.
.
Myself, I say let their blather stand as written. Nothing illustrates the banality of their viewpoint better than their own words.

I think you are reaching when you say institutionalized. By doing that you are condemning the entire Catholic Church. The Catholic Church hasn't done themselves any favors by not adequately addressing the issue and punishing those found to be guilty.
+
I still say what you are doing is no different than if I were to say all teachers are child molesters and the school system one big molestation factory.
Check out this article
+
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextr...
+
Apparently what you say isn't happening in other elements of society actually is...
+
Aren't schools supposed to be a "bulwark against that criminality"?

The key was the object of the search, not the strawberries. Why do I find myself correcting you so often.

tjncj, if you're worried about "fair game", think about the real victims.

For reasons stated many times here and in newspaper accounts and other media accounts and courtroom rulings, the Catholic Church has brought this on itself.

The Church has created the atmosphere.

billnewbie, given a little more time I would have found those purloined strawberries!

whythefuss, At least have the courtesy to read the posts you're complianing about. I made the point that the Church is not supposed to be a refection of the criminality in society. You keep talking as though what goes on in society in general is to be expected in the Church.

Instead the Church is supposed to be the bulwark against that criminality. If you've been doing your reading here, you'd know that child rape in the Catholic Church is institutionalized. The higherups, some of whom are rapists themselves, pass rapist priests on to other parishes where the new victims and their parents don't know about the new guy's past. (Even billnewbie acknowledges that.)

This is not the case with the other elements of society you mentioned.

Testerrific states all priests are pedophiles but some just haven't been caught yet and the Gazette allows the libeling of the 99% of priests who are truly men of God on its page? I read their so-called rules and find it has broken rules 3, 4 and 6. I guess the remove offensive posts button is broken or the author and editor figure the Catholic Church is fair game here.

Oh yes, the very font of human understanding. The taunts you express are just a natural byproduct of your geometric logic. Do you roll steel balls in your hand while you type this stuff out?
.
I never thought I'd see you admit you were out-reasoned. Sorry you feel bad but it only feels like an insult.

out-reasoned?

Your position is if you can't prove it, it must not be true. Stop being so condescending.

You are not superior just because you find it foolish that someone accepts something on faith.

Can you prove how life began? Scientist explain it with the big bang- where is the reason or facts in that. Since you can't prove it ,life must not really exist or be true.

As far as getting back to your point about the church harboring child molesters; your logic is a priest molested a child therefore all priests must be molesters. You obviously don't read the posts because as I explained there are bad people everywhere-just because it is a church you expect that it wouldn't happen there. What about doctors or teachers that molest children? Well we better persecute the whole school or medical system too.

I am hardly justifying child molesters, I am simply making the point that they lurk in places you might not expect. You simply want to hang out one group simply because you don't believe in what the institution teaches as a whole.

billnewbie, What?!!!

When someone has been out-reasoned, they feel bad. But that's not the intent. The intent is to clearup murky thinking. You're not making the effort; that's the problem. But at least you're getting this thing back on topic.

By the way, when it comes to direct insults, it's you and your ilk here that are paving the way.

You should at least face the fact that you are in the untenable position of trying to argue in favor of something that isn't based on reason. I think whathefuss and others have touched on that.

Gazettefan has made every effort to understand everyone's point of view. That's why he continues to assert that the Catholic Church is misogynistic and that it has institutionalized child rape. Oh yes, he is quite reasonable and understanding. Anyone that thinks otherwise he understands to be mentally and emotionally inferior. How could one such as that not have friends the world over?

The problem is: You're responding to the wrong thing. And it is you who isn't making the effort to understand the other person's point of view.

I'm not perfect and do things that are unchristian sometimes.
+
Belligerent people sometimes bring out the worst in me.
+
Since that is the case, I think it is best I avoid responding to your nonsense, you're obviously not going to try and understand mine or any other Christian’s point of view. (Notice I didn't say agree)
+
Your goal on these posts is simply to antagonize those that disagree with your point of view.
+
PS. I'm glad you have friends, hopefully you are nicer to them.

Yes, whythefuss, I have lots of friends. Friends all the over the country. What about you? do you have friends? Why don't you tell us about them.

And while you're at it, why don't you explain the christian intent of your last post?

I cannot believe the ignorance being spewed forth on this blog.

Nurse; if you go to the Vatican web site (www.vatican.va) and search "secrets of Fatima" you will find a link that presents all three "secrets", in Sister Lucia's original entries and translated into English. Basically, what it comes down to is "shape up", or if you choose to "ship out" instead, you probably won't like the ride.

MaryFan, I will join you in your prayers for these and all others that the Holy Spirit will touch their hearts, minds and souls and bring them to the truth.

charming personality Gazettefan, I'm sure you have lots of friends.

testerific, I think you're on to something.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is a pretty good book too.

whythefuss, thank you for your kind words.

Doglover...you are completely overlooking Mickey Rooney's insights here. Please read my ENTIRE post before responding.

Escuse me...by "ALL" I mean your statement on "all priests".

Tersteriffic:"ALL" is a mighty big word. Where do you get your data/proof to make such a generalized statement?

Good Lord man, I can't believe this particular meaningless and pointless message board is still going and going and going...like the Energizer Bunny utilizing noxious gas as it's batteries. To put this all into perspective, let's all take a deep breath and remember the sweet and insightful words from Mickey Rooney when he was queried as to the "Meaning of Life" by a reporter from Life Magazine on the red carpet at the premiere of Blake Edwards' classic film BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S in 1961. The Mickster took a step back, looked meaningfully into the eyes of his inquisitor, and said..."Winkie, Winkie, Winkie, You Blinkie Blinkie Winkin' Blinker!!!" I think you can all see what the Mickster was saying here...you can talk and scream and scream and talk on a meaningless message board, but the only thing you will accomplish is nothing. So in closing, I will simply say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles, and the only ones who are not considered pedophiles have not been caught...yet. And of course, the Vatican acted in a "Corleone-esque" fashion in covering up abuses. Can't we all finally agree?? So let's all just remember Mickey Rooney's kind words and let this message board die. And in the words of the great Rodney King..."Can't We All Just Get It Wrong???"

Gazettefan -what would we do without you? I can't wait for you to teach me to how to blog properly since you seem to be the expert.

You continue to show your ignorance and disdain for anything to do with religion. I can only hope some day you may open your eyes and ears.

Good luck to you!

Oh my god!!! I prayed for you to get therapy!!!

Actually, your comebacks are showing promise that one day you'll be hip.

I look forward to disappointing you even more in the future. Or were you just kidding?

billnewbie, I had high hopes for you, but, alas, you disappoint me to no end.

whythefuss, real judgment will be made by god?!!! I don't think so. Judgment day is here and now. The victims are not waiting.

Also, the rest of your post shows you're behind on reading posts here. Go back and do your homework.

Gazettefan you want to trash the whole religion because of a small number in the church (If you believe that the majority of the membership of the Catholic Church is made up of pedophiles you are more delusional than I thought). I am by no means condoning the behavior of priest or those that cover-up, however the bottom line is that the real judgement will be made by God, not by anyone here on earth. So while they may cover their tracks here they will pay the ultimate price if they don't repent.
+
There are bad people all over, even in groups where you should feel safe (in the church), that doesn't make the whole organization bad.
+
There are plenty of other examples in our society where certain members of a group commit crimes but get off with a slap on the wrist (professional athletes, politicians to name a few). Are all professional athletes and politicians evil?

Thanks Gazettefan, you didn't disappoint me. I effectively rebut your absurd statements and what's your response? "Just kidding". How lame. But it was absolutely hilarious. I laughed for ten minutes before I could see clearly enough to respond.

Me too.
+
:)

Nurse4u, I would agree that I, too, find some acts of the Catholic Church unacceptable. But, I am not Catholic.
---
I just spoke up on this thread because I wanted to challenge some of your assertions about what is fact. It's been an interesting debate, but I think I've said enough.

whythefuss, In relation to the story above, I'm focusing on the crimes against children in the Catholic Church by priests and higherups in that Church. I also have a problem with Catholics and other people who downplay what's going on there.

MaryFan, re: your comment: "deviants everywhere": The Church is supposed to be the bulwark against such behavior, not a reflection of it or a sampling of it.

The belief by many in the Church in a lot of odd ball things is to some degree inextricable from the crimes against children and the free pass the Church is getting just because it's the Church. Such criminality would not be tolerated in any other entity like it is tolerated in the Church.

I did NOT literally mean that Criss Angel was Jesus..LOL

buckyfan- Your argument sounds reasonable, except that I would beg to differ about what Jesus' "true" gospels were when he is not who chose what books went into the New Testament.
+
Jesus would never had condoned or accepted the acts that were put forth in His name by the Catholic Church by those that I spoke of earlier.
+
The Vatican was rumored to pay off the man that stated he forged the documents.

When reading Matthew 16:13-28, I take the statement "upon this rock I will build my church" to mean Jesus is saying he is the Christ, the son of the living God, not that Peter is going to be the leader of the church. Jesus is just changing Peter's name when he says "you are Peter,' IMO. Read the verses at www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MAT...
---
Also, nurse4u, if you read in the New Testament (1 John and elsewhere), it's clear many sects of "Christianity" were forming in the days of the early church (including Gnostics). John, Paul and others warn the early church to beware of these false teachers who would lead them astray, and they give them information to help them determine who those false teachers are. So, while the gospels you spoke of are very, very old, I believe they were rejected from inclusion in the bible because they were proven to be false gospels.
---
As you probably know, each book of the New Testament had to pass a litmus test of sorts as to whether it was valid (whether it was written by an apostle or direct associate; agrees with the other books and letters that are proven to be from an apostle or a direct associate, and recognized and quoted by early church members. The books you mention have teachings that do not jibe with other new testament book, nor do some of the teachings correlate with the old testament. Therefore, they were not included.
---
I find it difficult to discuss the "facts" put forth in some of your posts. As I have said before, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is discounted by historians, news sources and others. Its arguments are based from forged documents (the forger admitted this in later letters) and brought forth by a con artist who wanted the world to believe he should be the king of France. That you then claim the Catholic Church is behind each and every one of the historians'/news sources' conclusions makes it impossible for me to continue the debate.
---
And Criss Angel can bring a man back to life, appear to others after his own death, calm the seas, heal people by just saying it will be and save our souls? I'd like to see that!

I never said that I did not believe in God. I believe that God can be found everywhere and we do not need an organized religion to worship. I understand that others need it as a way to find their own divine light...

Gazettefan you obviously dislike anything to do with organized religion and choose to label anyone who believes as weak and foolish.

I was raised Catholic and I questioned some of the rules, I have since switched faiths because the church I belong to follows the teachings of the Bible and doesn't impose rules defined by mankind. I am not saying that Catholic's are bad, many in my family still belong to the Catholic church. All I am saying is the message is sometimes lost in the translation.
+
If you read the Bible, mankind is sinful and always has been and does many things that are against God's wishes. Even one of the great kings, King David, did things that were against God's laws. But one of the wonderful things is that God offered us forgiveness by sending his Son Jesus to die for our sins. It is only by believing in Him that I will be saved.
+
As far as your comments about "just in case" - it is meant to make a point, I certainly don't believe "just in case" the Bible is true.
+
It is certainly hard to stay true when there is constant questioning of what I believe. The Bible certainly speaks of many false prophets - so not everything you read or hear is true...

MikeF- Funny website. LMAO Point taken.

The Miracle of the Sun is recogonized by the Catholic Church as a Bonafide Miracle. Thousands in 1917 saw it occuring because three little children in Fatima had Faith. I believe in Miracles. I see them everyday.
The Vatican withheld those Three Secrets from everyone. All I want to know is Why?

I agree..Faith is wonderful.

nurse4u- You keep talking about the third secret of Fatima, and claim that it is being covered up and not released by the Vatican. If this is the case, then how do you have so much knowledge about what the secret is? Where you there? Did someone tell you and you believed it? Did you read it in a book and you believed it? Did you read it on the internet and you believed it? Unless you were actually there and heard the secret yourself, you are accepting something without needing proof, which sounds a lot like something known as FAITH.
.
A lot of people give the answer "google it" when asked to give proof. I googled something and got the page http://www.venganza.org/, should I believe it because it is on the internet?

Maryfan-
I think you are a wonderful person who generally cares about others. I think what you believe matters to you, and I think it is an important part of you. AND that is a wonderful thing.

"Upon this rock I shall build my Church."

Perhaps Jesus meant the Rock as literally being the Rock being nature and that No church is needed to find God?
The movie "Stigmata" (which I know is fiction, but based on the Third Secret of Fatima, withheld by the Vatican) states along the lines of, "Move a stick, I am there, Uncover a rock I am there." (Not sure of the exact quote) Implying that God is everywhere, and we do NOT need a church to BELIEVE in him or worship Him. That He is found in nature-and yes in the birth of a baby.
*
On another note, St. Francis of Assisi was blessed with the Stigmata after 40 days in a cave. Does any one find it ironic that the church built in his honor has been destroyed by not one but two earthquakes?

The world is full of deviants. Just because a few priests chose to sin and act on those deviant thoughts does not make the rest of them at fault as well. This stigma is so large because it has been sensationalized and perpetuated by the media. Only in this great country of ours is this happening...you know, the land of me, me and what's in it for me. I feel and pray for All victims of abuse, no matter where it came from.

I do not believe for just in case. I believe because it's the truth. My point is why persecute me for my beliefs? How is it hurting you?

The Vatican is corrupt and always has been. JMO
*

With that being said, many individuals do great things for our world based on what they believe(ie Mother Theresa). Religion is great, in theory.
*
Jesus was known to travel to many regions and provided teachings based on what he learned from Hindus, Jews, and the Ancient Egyptians. I am sure he used teachings from all the known religions of his time.
Unfortunately, through murder and destruction, what survived or was included into the New Testament was the work of power hungry men with motives other than goodwill towards men. If Jesus was without sin, his followers centuries later sure were. Is it so hard to believe that Jesus' teachings could have been twisted to promote the religion known as Catholicism, and known throughout the world as The Church?

MaryFan, if you ever get the chance, why don't you ask the victims of the Catholic Church's institutionalized rape of children what they lost.

Yeah, right, be a believer "just in case." Do you really think you're going to sneak that one past the "Lord?"

tjncj-Also google the Gospels of Mary Magdalene, The Gospel Of Thomas and the gospel of Judas.
Don't stop there-do your research and get back to me will you? I REALLY look forward to hearing your answers.

Well for all you non believers out there I'll be praying for your souls...and if you find that humorous, then I guess I'll have to pray harder because you need it.

And for all of you that think that choosing your religion is like choosing an ice cream flavor, the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church and Jesus was the first Catholic. Jesus said to Peter...And upon this Rock I will build my Church...the Rock being Peter, Jesus's disciple the first Pope. Over 1000 years later, some people decided they didn't want to follow the "rules" anymore and started their own religions. While it may be easier to live without all these "rules", those who choose to live this way will pay with their souls after they leave this earth.

One last note...If I believe and you are all right that it is just a myth, what have I lost?..nothing...But if I don't believe and it's real, I don't want to find out after it's too late.

And I am not scared by Bishop Morlino. I do not always agree with all of his decisions, but I do respect him and his decisions and know that I must abide by them. I also felt it would be wrong to read this book way before he decreed it.

tjncj- you can google any of that info that I provided and you should be able to determine that they are indeed factual. Numerous websites and books bear witness to Charlemagne (aka Charles the Great), Constatine, Philip the Fair, and the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.
*
Bashing Catholics? No, I am just saying that you are blindly following without opening your eyes and questioning. You believe what you have been taught. I questioned what I was taught and still question, and yet no one can provide me with the answers that I have asked..

whythefuss, I don't think the "Lord" will hold much respect for your "just in case" ploy.

This is all about how the power of the supernatural is usurped by humans in the Church and is then used to do ungodly things. This matter is not just the concern of non-believers.

The issue with non-believers is that they try to apply human logic to explain something that requires faith not logic. Where religion fails is that sometimes man made laws supersede God's laws.
+
I ask you, how can you look at a tree, the skies, or a baby and not believe that some higher power had soemthing to do with it. It didn't just randomly happen as non believers like to explain it. Faith is a mighty powerful thing.
+
I certainly don't have all the answers, nor am I without fault, however as I heard one person explain it - when it all ends and if I am wrong I will be no worse off than someone who didn't believe, however if I am right, well...

Going to the true psychology behind the contrivances of the virgin birth and the Immaculate Conception is legitimate given the issues at hand. These bizarre beliefs with their element of the supernatural go a long way toward explaining the monstrous behavior of the Catholic Church toward its children, its children's parents and indeed the hopes of all humans.

How can we disregard the assumption of power by certain humans that comes from the belief in the supernatural? How can we detach misogyny from the weird belief that a woman who bears a child without sexual intercourse is worthy of worship?

tjncj, The real reason you don't read my posts (if you're being truthful) is that you can't adequately respond to them point-for-point. Not reading them is a soft-core version of book burning on your part. Of course this comes easy to you as it is a practice of your Church. Note that the story above deals with another form of book burning: The Church and Morlino attempting to terrify you and your fellow Catholics by saying that you and they are committing a crime, an egregious affront to the Church, if you read Vosen's book. Are going to obey?

billnewbie, even after all this time, I can't believe that you didn't understand that my references to Guantanamo and Shakespeare were jokes. Are you that square?

Your posts are always quickly reduced to generalized complaints and insults when you can't effectively deal with my reasoning point-for-point.

It is no accident that people who defend superstition and the supernatural do so by saying things that aren't true.

Nurse4u, where is the backup for your "FACTS"?

****************
Also if, "it doesn't matter what religion or spirtual practices that you practice only that you believe in them and that they promote goodwill towards your fellow man/woman" why are you bashing Catholics and the Church? To promote goodwill?

With that being said, it doesn't matter what religion or spirtual practices that you practice only that you believe in them and that they promote goodwill towards your fellow man/woman.

futureteacher- LOL Correct!

Criss Angel can do everything that Jesus did. His he the Second Coming of Christ, or perhaps, he was able to figure out how Jesus achieved his "miracles" through scientific research. magic, etc etc..
The world may never know..

earthmother-I was a good Catholic too. Then I asked too many questions. :)
*
In all of my arguments, no one has addressed why some of the gospels were excluded in the New Testament. Why? Because they went against what the Catholic Church needed us to believe. FACT. Thomas and Mary Magdalene's gospels were perhaps closest to what Jesus wanted us to know and share with our fellow humans.
In those gospels, women are addressed as equals to men and given appointments to preach.
They also stress nature and how to become closest to God. FACT.
In ancient times, people would go to caves to meditate. FACT. Similar to what is being done in sensory deprivation chambers today.
*
King Charlemagne (768-814) became the papacy's #1 recruit,and protector, destroying EVERYTHING that would not be tolerated by the Church. He took over countries and forcibly converted them to their form of Christianity-Catholiscm. FACT.
*
Also, what about Bloody Friday October 13th in 1307 where the Knights Templer were murdered after being entrusted with important documents and yes, the Holy Grail? FACT. And the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima on Oct. 13 1917 where the Vatican hid the secrets that Lucy was told. FACT. Why? Do you not think it odd that one of the greatest miracles ever experienced by thousands occurred on the same day that thousands were killed by Philip the Fair and tortured and killed for their "pagen" beliefs? FACT.
*
Or that Christmas was not actually Jesus's birthday, but in ancient Babylon was the Feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature). FACT.
*
I have researched this and read many novels. I understand at this time they are looking at exploring DNA evidence to see if a proposed bloodline actually did come from Mary & Jesus. Can't comment until I know those results.
*
Instead I get Holy Blood, Holy Grail was false and I forgot to include the site on all of my copy & posts..
*
The research that was discredited I am sure came from the Vatican..If I remember correctly it did, when the book was first published and the outcry came from the Vatican itself. Money can buy alot of things, and we all know the Vatican has alot! Also, the Vatican has perhaps the most extensive archives of documents that NO ONE is allowed to have access to. Hhmm. Makes one wonder.
*
I can get into the anatomic weight of gold and how it actually can cause levitation, FACT. And medical possibilities that the crucifiction (notice the fiction at the end) (changed to crucifixion)could have been a hoax that Jesus survived, and many other things. THEORY.
I can discuss antimatter and matter-which is the proposed theory of the Big Bang theory.
I can also point out that Criss Angel can perform stunts that only Jesus could do...

MikeF, you are right, I am not a Catholic but I wasn't trying to define Catholic doctrine when I claimed the immaculate conception referred to the child, I was defining the words where immaculate is defined as pure, without blemish, clean, and conception which refers to that which is conceived, the child, which I wrote in rebuttal of the ridiculous contention that the immaculate conception is misogynistic.

Spirituality really irritates you, Gazettefan. Maybe if you hold your breath and stomp your feet people will stop writing about the supernatural as you keep insisting they do. To bad you can’t send them to a re-education camp, maybe in Guantanamo since it seems you are the one on a crusade, a crusade to stomp out all things spiritual.
.
Shakespeare’s work is full of clichés? You really do see things inversely. Shakespeare’s work is the source of many clichés but they weren't clichés until after he wrote them, they were turned into clichés because of their profundity. You just don't think much of him because he embraced the supernatural which you reject proving why your philosophy is deficient. After all, do as thou wilt is only superficially attractive, it lacks what most people seek.
.
So then, if I believe in something you don’t that makes me a Guantanamo torturer? Feeling tortured? You should as the logic of your argument is quite tortured. Does it make you feel better about yourself to think of me as someone who would hold a torch to your feet until you say something we both know you don’t believe? Maybe you feel better about yourself to think that I would like to pull out your fingernails to satisfy my God?
.
Now that your argument has degenerated to a childlike tantrum I can’t wait to read what comes next. And yes, your next post is permitted regardless of how shrill it is, or whether you believe what you write or not.

The first post actually was quoted from the religioustolerance. org site and I did post that afterwards, & then the second one also which was in " marks thought you knew it was from the same site, my bad- and the third was quoted from Amazon. Which it states.

Let me play devils advocaste for a moment. The number one SELLING book of all time is the bible. how sad. In 2000 years I wonder if a steven king book will become the next gospel and billions of people will argue over what is the truth that should guide us all! I think it is all fiction conceptualized from within a writers circle and controlled by organized religion in order to preserve their existance. If someone told you that the things written in the bible happened in todays world you would all rip it to shreds. You are being led like cattle, blindly. SO burn your Vosen books like good little sheep and reserve your seat on the good ship lollypop for eternity.

MikeF-The key is to discontinue reading anything Gfan writes on any blog. Try it, you'll like it!

It is really interesting, and sad, how the non-Catholics are trying to tell the Catholics what Catholics believe. The worst part about it is that they are misstating the Catholic beliefs, and are too stubborn to admit it even after being told otherwise. Gotta love those armchair experts!

Mumbo-jumbo aside, let's get back on point:

The Catholic Church regards women, even married women, other than Mother Mary, who have been impregnated as a result of sexual intercourse (and not "Immaculate Conception") as unimmaculate, dirty, and stained.

Because this characterization has no equal in regard to men it is misogynistic. Meaning it is hateful toward women.

Let the comments follow from this.

Jesus Christ is not a perfect human. He is God.

Ok, it is really ridiculous to keep arguing about something when you all have the facts wrong! Mary's parents were Anne and Joachim. Anne and Joachim had sexual intercourse (or relations as they say in the bible) and conceived a child. This child was named Mary. Every person conceived in the world carries the stain of original sin as a punishment for the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This is why Christians are baptized, to remove original sin. At the point of conception, Mary did not receive original sin. God was making her a special person who would grow up and never commit any sins. THIS is the Immaculate Conception. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus other than this made Mary ready to be the mother of Jesus.

I don't know, dub190, maybe you should ask billnewbie.

What about Mary's mother, and her mother? They were impure. They share the same DNA.

Also, science corrects itself from within. Science discovers and discards its mistakes.

Religions, especially in the matter of the Catholic Church, are corrected from without. All the changes in the Church's past came from pressure from without. If the Church is changing now, it is only changing as a result of outside pressure.

Immaculate refers to virgin birth. Which means in the eyes of the Church Mary was not soiled (stained) by sex re: the birth of Jesus. The corollary is: if Mary produced a child as a result of sex, even though she was married, she'd be unimmaculate, soiled, stained. This is misogynistic. There is no such corollary in "the teachings" for men.

Lose the supernatural and really think about this!!!

dub190, my point is that the Church is tailor made for male pedophiles, that by design it is a magnet for pedophiles. The institutionalized child rape and misogyny in the Church proves that point.

Science focuses only on what can be observed. Belief in the supernatural is just a matter of making stuff up.

We are all sinners. Jesus was the only perfect person. Mary was a sinner, we all die because we are imperfect. The conception is the conception of Jesus. He died for our sins not Mary. If the conception refers to Jesus, how does the Immaculate part refer to Mary?

Catholicism is Paganism and Christianity put together. The more they pray to Mary (as some call "Mary Queen Of Heaven") the more they stray from true Christianity. Jesus said so himself.
Jesus is the Immaculate one. Mary was just a person, she was not Immaculate, she went on to have other kids.
I think there are men who are already child predators, who become Catholic Priests for the very reason of molesting children. I don't think the Church or celibacy makes them that way.
Billnewbie good point on the immaculate Conception. In order for the "Big Bang" to ever have happened, you would need a "miracle".
Christians believe in Immaculate Conception, Evolutionists believe in something coming from absolutely nothing - Both unproven beliefs or theories. To be an evolutionist is to believe. There is no proof.
The Apostle Paul said: There is no Jew, no Greek, no slave, no free, no man, no woman, we are one in the same.
The Bible was written a long time ago in the Middle East. How are they with women today? If women would have started teaching back then, there would have been an uproar. The whole Catholic Church worships Mary, no? Why would they worship and pray to someone they are supposed to hate?

Yes, garyprimer, and there'd still be room left over for a thousand page explanation of the triple-talk of the Trinity.

billnewbie, spiritual teachings?!!! Is that what you've been doing?!!! I thought you were in training to go down to Guantanamo to torture the prisoners.

And once again you take a dig at me for conveying my points as though I believe them. I think that's permitted. Look it up!

And talk about things being outdated, when did your people stop going on pogroms and crusades?

Speaking of Billy Spear, he also said: There's something rotten in Denmark.

But it's not good to rely to heavily on Shakespeare: His work is overrated; it's full of cliches.

Back to who's doing what here: I notice that whenever you tap-out on your attempt to go point-for-point you toss the digs crazily.

Did we ever definitively decide how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? If they were really small, I bet that a bunch of them could.

Oops, my bad, I misspelled the Bard.

Nurse4u, it would also be helpful if you would reveal that the copy in your posts is copied directly from religioustolerance.org. Yes, you provided the link as one of your posts, but it seems to me like you're cheating by not crediting the site each time you copy and paste.

Yes I know Gazettefan, you reject all things spiritual. Your assumption that your own opinion is actually fact and your assumption of error and foolishness of all who disagree seems very Catholic of you. Remember that today's scientific truth may very well be tomorrow's source of amusement, as has happened so many times before. To paraphrase the Baird “There are more things in heaven and earth, Gazettefan, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. “ Yet I see it futile to attempt to convince you of such so I’ll say this, another paraphrase from the same source, “I will cease my council of spiritual things which falls into thine ears as profitless as water in a sieve.” But don’t expect your unreasonableness to go unchallenged just the same.

Nurse4u, do you realize that Holy Blood, Holy Grail has been debunked as a hoax? The papers the book are based on were written by a con artist. The authors jumped chasms as wide as the Grand Canyon in making their conclusions. It might be interesting reading, but it's been discredited time and time again by reliable historians and new sources (and these are not people who have a vested interest in proving the authors' claims as false).
---
See the U.S. News and World Report's "Secrets of The Da Vinci Code" for info. Or do some searching on the internet.

The problem with the doctrine of the immaculate conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).
http://www.gotquestions.org/immaculate-c...
What do I know I was kicked out of Catholic School in 8th grade for asking too many questions.
love and light

Who is it to say that "the actual teachings of the Church" are even correct??

candyapplered, the supernatural explanations for any of this don't fly.

My explanations clarify the psychological motivations for topic mythology here.

Bill and gfan; Mike is correct in stating that the Immaculate Conception refers to the Blessed Virgin. All people are born with the original sin of Adam and Eve on their soul. Jesus could not be born to a woman virgin or otherwise with this sin on her soul. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception without original sin on her soul. Sexual intercourse has nothing to do with it. You would do well to educate yourself with the actual teachings of the church instead of getting your information second hand

billnewbie, Catholicism is a mentality. That mentality pre-dates the formalization of the Catholic Church. That (lawyerly, bureaucratic) formalization was adopted to accommodate the Catholic mentality.

MikeF touches on the important fact that the conception of the Immaculate Conception takes place inside a woman's body free of the dirt of sex (Immaculate) or "stain", use your imagination there. The correlation is that a woman who has sex is dirty (not immaculate or unstained); this is misogyny. What kind of mentality would adopt or create a belief like that?!

It's nice that apparently Eve is no longer solely blamed for "original sin" (giving the "apple" or fruit to Adam). But Eve as the culprit for centuries in something so misanthropic as original sin is another manifestation of the Church's misogyny.

For you to rely on "the teachings" or the Bible or theocracy to explain your point of view on any of this is akin to the blind man holding the tail of an elephant and declaring that it is a rope.

Yes, the Immaculate Conception never happened and never will. Your best bet at redemption on that score is to shake that belief altogether or least convert it into one of your wacky, cumbersome metaphors.

The love for mother preached by the Church is only the love for a woman who is not allowed to control her body etc. etc.

Where is the love for motherhood in the Catholic Church when its priests and leaders turn away from turning women into mothers and instead choose to rape boys and sometimes girls?

Mass hysteria caused many to be burned as witches. "Against God."
Is it not possible, that while many were being burned as witches that the "proof" was also burned?
Just because someone says it is so, does not make it correct.
All I am saying is those who are blindly led and who do not question, are not going to find any true answers.

Elaine Pagels, "Beyond Belief: The secret gospel of Thomas," Vintage, (2004). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store Amazon customer rating: 3.5. The Amazon.com review reads, in part:

"At the center of Beyond Belief is what Pagels identifies as a textual battle between The Gospel of Thomas (rediscovered in Egypt in 1945) and The Gospel of John. While these gospels have many superficial similarities, Pagels demonstrates that John, unlike Thomas, declares that Jesus is equivalent to "God the Father" as identified in the Old Testament. Thomas, in contrast, shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but, rather, is a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels then shows how the Gospel of John was used by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon and others to define orthodoxy during the second and third centuries. The secret teachings were literally driven underground, disappearing until the Twentieth Century. As Pagels argues this process 'not only impoverished the churches that remained but also impoverished those [who Irenaeus] expelled'."

For instance, the Gospel of Mark ended abruptly. Now whether the ending was lost or intentionally destroyed, it is not known.
"Mark simply ended the gospel at this point, for an unknown reason.
Mark was interrupted in mid-sentence, and was never able to return to finish the gospel. Perhaps his death intervened.
The original scroll was damaged, and the ending was lost.
The original ending was intentionally destroyed by unknown Christians, perhaps because it included details of later meetings between Jesus and the disciples that directly contradicted the accounts in the other gospels. The ending might have been deleted to maintain an apparent harmony among the gospels.
The original ending was intentionally destroyed because it contained an account of the disciples' doubt that the resurrection really happened. One would expect the author of Mark to have emphasized the disciples' doubt; it would be consistent with many other negative comments that he made about them. Both Matthew and Luke appear to have incorporated this lost ending in their gospels. Matthew describes how some of the disciples doubted the resurrection at their meeting in Galilee (Matthew 28:24). Luke explains how they did not believe because of their emotional state (Luke 24:41). Most Biblical scholars believe that large portions of the text of the gospels of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark. It would be reasonable to assume that these two instances are simply another indication of this use of material from Mark.

Various forged endings were added them to the original text, by unknown authors pretending that they were Mark."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_nt...

These are the books which describe the life of Jesus. The word "gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news." About 50 gospels were written in the first and second century CE; each was believed to be accurate by various groups within the early Christian movement. Four of them (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) were accepted by the early Christian movement as inspired by God. They were approved for inclusion in the official canon during the 4th century CE, and are found today in every Bible. Why were there only four? St. Irenaeus explained: "There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

The Gospel of Thomas is growing in acceptance among liberal theologians. It includes many sayings of Jesus that are not found in the four canonical gospels.

All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of a few passages from an unknown gospel. Another ancient manuscript, a portion of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about 125 CE. Remaining gospel manuscripts date to the third century CE or later.

Virtually all sources speaking of Jesus and Mary Magdelene having a child are fictional. There is zero evidence anything of the such occurred unless you throw in lots of fiction to fill the holes of credible evidence.

Constatine chose what Gospels were to be included in the New Testament. Some were left out, including those of Mary,Thomas & Judas. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was not included, possibly because of its threat to the Church's teachings.
Thomas was perhaps one of Jesus' closest confidentes. Stands to reason that his work alone should hold more truth to what Jesus wanted to share with the world.

Sorry MikeF, but conception refers to that which is conceived, a child and in this case, an immaculate child as in one who is without blemish. It is the perfection of this particular child (Christ) that makes the conception immaculate.
That feast you refer to is part of the deification of Mary, a Catholic doctrine. It may be true that Catholics assign some credit to Mary for the Immaculate Conception but it is notable that she does not claim any such credit for herself as is apparent in the first chapter of Luke.

Dan Brown's book was based on actual research conducted by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The book is fascinating, but time consuming. But worth the time. That is one example.

There are many sources besides Dan Brown. Dan Brown's book is fiction, based on fact. The Holy Grail was entrusted to the Knights Templer, who were then killed for their beliefs.
Why kill so many for heresy if there was not an actual threat to the Church?

Nurse4u, where are you getting the information on the Holy Grail? It's my understanding that the Holy Grail is fictional (conjured in fictional books around the 12th century) and then carried forward in other works. If you're getting your information from Dan Brown, remember that's a work of fiction.

Actually, billnewbie, Immaculate Conception does refer to Mary. In fact, today, December 8, is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.h... : 'the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."'
While it is related to Jesus' birth, the Immaculate Conception is referring to the conception of Mary, not Jesus.
As for the deification of Mary, that is not true. She is highly respected and revered, but there is only one deity, namely The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
.
Now, as for what that has to do with this news article, I do not know, but I am not the one that brought it up.

FYI-The Holy Grail was NOT a cup. It was the bloodline that came from the union of Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

I was born on Oct 13. Ever hear of were Friday the 13th came from? On Fri. Oct. 13, in 1307 the Knights Templer were arrested, tortured, and killed by Philip the Fair and forced to "admit" heresy.
In 1917, The Miracle of the Sun occured in Fatima, Portugal, witnessed by thousands.
The Catholic Church has been accussed of hiding and changing the meanings of the three secrets given to Lucy.
Kinda weird huh?

Proto-Catholics, Gazettefan? I've seen it speculated that the Pharisees of Christ's time were proto-Catholic, but they were Jews, and the term refers to their legalism, and their lawyer-like maneuverings to avoid the spirit of the law while attempting to appear as thought they uphold the letter of the law, writing law as they go to fit the situation they find themselves in to encumber those whom they lead while exempting themselves, a very Catholic trait. I don’t believe I’ll accept your credentials as a Catholic Church historian though, no insult intended
.
I find your qualifications as a theologian in doubt as well. The Immaculate Conception is impossible (we think, after all you cannot assume a thing impossible just because it has never been observed which is the very basis of evolutionary doctrine) from the naturalistic viewpoint (your viewpoint, I believe) but there are many of us that accept the possibility of the super-naturalistic (God and his ability to intercede in nature (miracles)) and from that viewpoint the Immaculate Conception is quite possible. By the way, the words Immaculate Conception refer to the child (Christ), not the mother. You seem to be confused by the deification of Mary by the Catholic Church (a strange act for such a misogynous group), an act that is by no means universally accepted by Christians.
.
How could a religion that orders its adherents to love their mothers also hold them in misogynistic contempt for having had sex?
.
You left out a few words when you wrote “There's no other explanation for it.” I think that what you should have written is that there's no other explanation for it that you’ll accept.

futureteacher, the Catholic Church is certainly getting its money's worth out of that money. The Church is using it to pay off settlements (in the billions) for child rape suits.

billnewbie, your most recent post is a good one. I would only add that the higher-ups not only move rapist priests to new parishes for bureaucratic reasons but because they are like minded rapists too. Maybe you meant that too.

It looks like we're also in agreement with the fact that the structure and mentality of Catholic Church is not much more than a magnet for male pedophiles.

billnewbie, the Catholic Church began before its formalization. Before that formalization, proto-Catholics contrived and adopted the non-sense of Immaculate Conception.

Yes, an Immaculate Conception is impossible. But the real issue is the psychological dynamic behind such a belief. It is the misogynistic idea that a woman who has had sex is dirty, hence the word "immaculate." There's no other explanation for it. It's promulgation is that nuns must remain sexless so as to stay clean.

For all you who have contributed money to the church, i hope you have gotten your money's worth.

I used to go to Catholic church. Now I go to a church that actually reads the Bible and follows Christ's teachings, rather than trying to control their congregations with their own perverted version of Christianity.

The real problem within the Catholic Church is its authoritarian structure. Its hierarchy exists in an insulated environment. They answer only to each other. That church is essentially a huge bureaucracy. Like any other bureaucracy, the bureaucrats within spend their lives climbing ladders, protecting turf and keeping secrets. When the pervert priests committed their disgusting acts, their superiors’ inclinations seemed to be to chastise the culprit, extract a solemn oath to never do it again and move them to a new location to quietly resolve the problem with a minimum of embarrassment that might inhibit future career goals. And since all oversight and control is in the hands of likeminded bureaucrats, it’s easy to see how these outrageous acts were never appropriately resolved. What’s gone on here is “institutionalized butt covering”, which is insidious and all encompassing. Its scope is boundless within that church and it has lead to many outrageous excesses over nearly 2 millennia, including what was done to Galileo which was an effort to silence him so that the hierarchy wouldn’t have to admit that they were in error, something the Popes preposterously claim they could not be in.

Gazettefan, your penchant for overstatement is beyond excess. You confer upon your opinions the mantle of fact, as if there were no other opinions worthy of consideration.
.
First I’ll address your contention (that is, your expressed opinion) that the Immaculate Conception is contrived by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Immaculate Conception predates the Roman Catholic Church by hundreds of years (in spite of its claim, that church did not exist until Emperor Constantine established it around 312 A.D.), and the Immaculate Conception was also foretold by Isaiah the prophet around 500 B.C.
I suspect that the basis of your contention about the Immaculate Conception is its unbelievability, that since no such event has ever been observed or documented with any credibility anywhere else (and that it cannot be recreated, even in a laboratory) then it must be a hoax. I’ll admit that the Immaculate Conception cannot be proven (that does not automatically discredit it, but it does move it into the realm of faith), but I do find your incredulity hard to understand considering your well established acceptance of the theory of evolution and its contention that life evolved from minerals (life from lifelessness), an immaculate conception if there ever was one, wouldn’t you say?
.
Now on to your contention of misogyny in the Catholic Church.
Misogyny, the hatred of women. An interesting term and one used, as you have used it, to stifle debate, just as you use your contention of “institutionalized child rape”. While you may actually believe what you have written, you are well aware, I believe, that such terms are meant to try to force those who disagree to defend the indefensible, such as when you contend that those who don’t accept your contention of “institutionalized child rape” as being in favor of child rape. In this case, you throw around the charge of misogyny in and effort to make Catholics (and adherents to all Christian sects) defend what you contend is hatred of women. There may actually be misogynists within the Catholic Church, just as there are child rapists, but to contend that the whole institution is so inclined (based on your less than reasonable list of evidence below) is absurd and it is evidence of you unreasonably assigning the mantle of fact upon your opinion.

OK, billnewbie, you got me there. The transition from the tropics to Janesville has been bewildering.

Interesting attempt at deflection when the Church came clean on the Galileo matter: The Church crucified Galileo for going against its preachment that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun with the implication that the sun was the center of the universe. When the Church came clean, astronomers had long established that the sun and our solar system revolved around the center of our galaxy, and so on. What did the Church say? It said that there were mistakes on both sides. Ha!

Now back on point.

I'm surprised, Gazettefan, as well read as you claim to be that you seem to have mistaken Da Vinci for Galileo. Da Vinci died in France in 1519 while in the service of King Francis I. That would be hard to do under house arrest in Italy, wouldn't you say?

Evidence that the Catholic Church is misogynistic:

The Church contrived the Immaculate Conception. The women of the Church can't be married or have children or be priests and can only be sexually neutered nuns. Priest can't be married or have sex with women. Males enter the priesthood at the height of their sexual potency and a large number of them rape children, mostly boys. The Church conspires to keep its child rape secret and transfers rapist priests to new parishes with new and unwary victims.

"...the misogyny of the Catholic Church" ?? Please explain why you think the Catholic Church is misogynic.

In a very perverse way the misogyny of the Catholic Church is at the core of its institutionalized child rape.

At the height of a young male's sex drive what kind of person is attracted to the so called celibate life of the Church with its ample supply of victims?

Yes, and the Catholic Church also tortured and put under house arrest for the rest of his life Leonardo Da Vinci for saying that the earth revolved around the sun.

Sorry, meant to write "authors", not others. Just correcting myself.

Didn't the Catholic Church ban the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown? He is now one of my favorite others.

the catholic church never has been an ally of free speach. i remember as a child in catholic school the teachers (usually nuns) telling us to look for the "impremature" at the beginning of the book which was the churches approval of that book for "good"catholics to read. lets just say when i looked for the catholic stamp of approval at the beginning of "CANDY" IT JUST WASN'T TO BEE SEEN.

I agree that sweeping things under the rug, or "out of sight,