Why are so few amputees healed?

[screwtape]

Hi Consular

Before we go any further, and because you are new here, I would like to point out that the green text I am using indicates I am assuming my role as a moderator, not a normal participant.  That means I am not here to argue.  I am here to help you be a better member.  That also means if you disagree, we carry on the conversation via private messages. 

If my conviction-filled preaching was honest, why do you assume my short apology was dishonest?

I told you why in my post.  I suggest you go back and read it more thoroughly and remember how corresponding via written bulletin boards is different than an oral conversation. Hint: when you type something you can delete it before posting.

Do you want me to say "I beg you to forgive me" on my knees?

Don't get sarcastic with me, kid. Go back and read my previous post. If you have a question, send me a PM.

do you guys have an aversion to typing "Christ"? I certainly don't say "xmas")

It is a shortcut and not meant in a derogatory way.  link

You don't know anything about me, other than that I am angry at atheists.

I don't need to know anything other than your behavior was a problem.  If you are telling me it was a lapse in judgment and you acted rashly and you are not going to do it again, then great.  You are welcome to stick around.  Is that what you are telling me? 

[Consular]

Oh dear, this'll be a huge one...

Is that what you are telling me? 

Yes.

I take it you've never read the Bible, eh?

See, that's the kind of statement that just irks us. I might as well sarcastically say "I take it you've never read Cosmos, eh?", or "I take it you've never read the Origin of Species, eh?"! We Catlicks take Scripture + Tradition as the Magisterium. We are not Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone), as we know a tempering or balancing Office is needed to clarify things. Even if you don't believe the Catholic Church has any right to this office, it's surely a sensible, logical requirement for just about any any ethical system.

Leviticus...

What's your point? God offers people a chance to cover their sins by some sacrifice in each instance. Perhaps if it said "If an X sins, he shall be snuffed forthwith", there would be a cause.

As for the last one: the priest is to pay, from his own pocket, for the propitiatory sacrifices of a man who sins out of ignorance? That's not exactly my idea of oppressive. A priest lives to give up his life for the service or others, ideally. He knows what he signs up for; if not, and he finds out later, he quits. That's is a just law, because it's the priest's duty to educate people about sin! If he fails, he pays.

You are missing an important point in this Leviticus 4 stuff: this is the Old Covenant. Why do you think God directs all these lambs, calves, and such to be sacrificed? It is His ritual way of covering the sins of man with the blood of innocent animals. Say what you want regarding this, but it's certainly logically consistent throughout the entire O.T.! Christ, ever-consistent with the O.T., is considered "The" Lamb of God, who not only covers our sins but scrubs them out somehow. As silly as you may think it sounds, it certainly isn't an idea that changes with time.

When Christ said "not a jot or tittle shall pass away from this Law until all is fulfilled", He later said "it is fulfilled/consummated" on the Cross; therefore, the Old Law passed away at the Crucifixion. No more shrimp bans or cloth restrictions. You cannot accuse Catholics of having the same obsession with the O.T. as fundamentalist Baptists and such.

The Catholic holds 4 things in high regard. [...] Tradition since the Pope is infallible.

You do not understand Papal Infallibility. Read Vatican I's declaration of infallibility from July, 1870. It's a very, very small and compact paragraph that doesn't say much.

The Pope was never considered vice-God. This is madness! The Pope also does not have "moral" infallibility. His infallibility is limited to officially sealed documents that say at least four things: 1. "I declare and define" 2. "by virtue of my Office" that 3. "X is to be believed by all Christian faithful", 4. "on pain of excommunication/anathema". You will always see this formula on infallible declarations. Only two have been made in history. He is not considered infallible in economics or politics, and never was.

Keep in mind, some of us were Catholic, and some of us still have Catholic relatives trying to reconvert us.

Sorry if I sound terribly prissy here, but: if you were Catholic and left, you probably didn't have a very good reason. Had you ever believed it is THE Body of Christ, you simply wouldn't leave at all; you couldn't, in good conscience, because no matter what rubbish went on in there, you'd know it was for the greater edification of the One Body at some point. This is the logic, anyway.

Although you have convinced yourself of this, and I am unlikely to dissuade you, I will point out that, famously, the difference between you and me is that I believe in one fewer gods than you.

I am wont to point out that another difference between you and me is that you're wrong and I'm right. Don't take it as pride; it's just a fact. God exists; He cannot not exist, or else none of us would exist. It's quite plain and simple. I came to believe God exists because things which do not explain their own existence do exist. The fact that you are alive and exist to say "there is no God" is a proof that God exists. You do not "believe in" one fewer god than I do, because there can be no reduction. It is just as illogical to reduce from One God to no God, as it is to multiply One God into two, three, or fifty thousand gods. These are equally untenable.

I am sure that you know that this request is ridiculous, as, apparently, only you know what, “the light of pure truth” means.

The light of pure truth = fact. Please don't feign ignorance. Just because I used a poetic term for "truth" doesn't mean you have to say "I don't know what you could possibly mean by that".

Were that to be accepted, you are, of course entirely correct in any statement that follows... well, at least, right up until the point at which your opponent requires the same condition from you and then makes his statement.

Thankfully, that's not at all close to what I said. Just because I think I believe in something that's true doesn't mean I want you to get stuffed and go to Hell because you haven't accepted it yet.

Your equating atheism with nihilism is observationally faulted, as we see philanthropic, altruistic, generous atheists, who do their works out of kindness and a perceived need to relieve suffering. They do it without having to resort to a mythical being.

My opinion is that they do this out of a sense of peer pressure, or subconscious influence from the culture around them. We only laud charity because of the Christian bubble in which the West grew up, and formed its essential sociology around from A.D. 500 - 1200 or so. Without this firm glue, atheists would do no charity (I think). Unless you can come up with charitable atheists in a culture that never had any Christian or religious assumptions implanted into them from a very early age, I will continue to believe this.

Consular - [...] you are still factually wrong about atheists.

This is all true, but I was going on what I have experienced of atheists. Almost every one I have met has fallen into X, Y, and Z categories very neatly; thus, I can say almost every atheist is X, Y, and Z. My experiences may be wrong, but they're all I have to go on at the moment.

Everyone here realizes that the sexual abuse within the Catholic clergy does not make all priests bad, [...]  But sadly, adult humans like yourself would rather ignore it and point out that the church is still somehow good.

You have no idea who I am or why I am Catholic, really. As it was unjust of me to say "all atheists are X" (and I am sorry), it is also unjust of you to say "all adult humans who remain Catholic must be willfully ignoring the facts and mindlessly think it's still good". I would most certainly not "rather ignore it", and I am taking vigorous steps to assure that prosecution does occur in future. My own archdiocese has been drenched in such despicable behaviour. Must you paint all Catholics as mindless sheep who happily follow the priest that's getting a B.J. under the parish office desk? Be better than your enemy.

Not to mention the fact that you are simply choosing from tens of thousands of unique Christian sects.  You are choosing the one that you like the best.  Unless you are prepared to defend exactly why you chose correctly, and why everyone else is wrong, your salvation may be in grave danger!

My salvation is in grave danger every second. It wouldn't matter whether I was in the right denomination, church, or sect. Christ demands moral reformation and perfection from each person firstly. Were I in the True Church and a happy cad, I'd remain a cad and probably go to Hell or spend a looooong time in Purgatory. Right now, I'd be happy for 50 000 years in Purgatory!

By the way, I think it's hardly fair to call Catholicism just another "one of tens of thousands of unique sects", as it certainly existed long before any of the branches of Anglicans, Calvinists, Methodists (itself an Anglican branch), Baptists, and non-denom. churches. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are really the only two that are ancient enough to be fair claimants. Please read the history of the schisms to see this more clearly!

You don't know me personally, [...] concerned about gods.

You might show yourself to be an atheist the moment you opened your mouth. Essentially, someone would eventually bring up some topic that would merit your speaking. Anyone can tell a fundie Christian from an atheist once that happens. You really can't identify anyone by appearances, of course! I'm not moved or concerned about gods, either, by the way. One God is ontologically different than a plurality of gods, since infinity is uniform. Two infinite things cannot exist, after all.

Sadly, you're in good company with your bigotry, [...] And people like you are not helping.

"Just trying to live our lives in peace and harmony" is not exactly parallel with joining a forum that exists to raise a defiant question to all theists. The very forum of which you're a member invites conviction, zealotry, fanaticism from all-comers who disagree. Your attitude about God leaves the door open for passionate replies! Don't bring out this peace and harmony excuse. If you want peace and harmony, make this an "atheists only" forum.

What is this bigotry you mean, by the way? Hate? I'm here saying I think you're wrong about the Cosmos. Why do high tempers make me a bigot or hater? I don't hate you at all. I want everyone to see what I see, at least, exactly because you're my beloved brothers and sisters on Earth. If you don't like it, fine, but don't call me a friggin' bigot. Do you call your brother a bigot or a hater when he smacks you on the head for doing something wrong? I have no right to hit you, but I'm doing what I think is urgently required.

Maybe so. [...] Pope himself?

They were hoping to postpone it while deciding what to do. I wouldn't take long to decide (kick 'em out), but since Vatican II, bureaucracy and immobility has become a very critical problem. Do you know the history of the Church's government since 1965? 80%+ of these abuse cases are from years after the Second Vatican Council. There was no such thing as a bureaucratic Episcopal/Bishops' Conference before Vatican II, so the matter would have been dealt with immediately and swiftly by one bishop or by a cardinal in the Congregation for Holy Orders/Religious. Today, though, individual National Councils have become glued together, tyrannically dictating every last Catholic policy in each country. It is a huge mess, and it is not prudent for dealing with these cases.

The current Pope is not my favourite Pope; however, we are not meant to be peons for the Pope anyway. He is supposed to be our Prime Minister, not "Vice God" (as someone else put it).

If you could somehow convince me that my soul was on the line, [...] After all, what does a man have if he doesn't have his principles?

How brutally honest of you! Sadly, you're making an equivalency that is not real. The Church itself does not have a doctrinal rape-quota. My Italian priest-friend, ordained last December, does not have a specific number of altar boys to be abused every month. The Scripture, Tradition, saints' writings, canon law, and statutes of the Church are the point of its maintaining order among Christians. Do not conflate the organisation with its members - as sordid as that sounds, it makes sense when you think about it.

Just because evil men rape boys in the organisation doesn't mean the organisation trains them to rape boys. This is a set of immoral men in separate cases that is disturbingly prevalent since Vatican II. I think it's the Church's open, tolerant, mushy style since the 1960's that has raised men to be effeminate and pleasure-bent, which has given us so many priests who are absolute perverts.

If Christ founded this Church, I'm staying put, no matter how tiny it gets. I'd rather someone started kicking out the jerks sooner than later, but I have confidence someone will do it. Were it to be ignored, I'd become a damn cardinal myself and start kicking priests out left and right. We agree that this is crucially important.

No, no, I don't blame you for verbosity.

I appreciate how anxious you are not to insult me, but please don't be so soft on me. People with too much free time need to get up and change the world, not argue with strangers like I'm doing.

[Mr. Blackwell]

It also says in the bible that you must have the faith of a mustard seed, and i dint know many people like that.

Mustard seeds don't have faith, silly, they're just mustard seeds. 

[12 Monkeys]

I have never been a member of any church consular......and what anybody in power did to avoid the responsibility to the children in care is WRONG. These children were taken away from their families by the police under court order(yes the Government had a hand in it as well).... They were taken and sometimes shipped far away from family.....no escape,no recourse.

People like you( as I read in your posts) just dont care if anybody gets held responsible for their henious deeds. Just like the starving children around the world,you just DON'T CARE unless of course it affects you. Should we still be hunting Nazi's?,by your reasoning each one is accountable for his deeds and should be put in a monastary

 Keep wearing those very dark sunglasses,stumble around your corner of the world blind to the crimes against humanity and the lack of accountability. I am sure your god is very happy with your behaviour,making it Gods responsibility for punishing the wicked that speak FOR HIM.
 Tell me something why is it when God does good (cure cancer) you praise him but he fails to punish the wicked you let him off the hook and blame it on free will?

 The children taken from their families at gunpoint by the police did not have this free will not to get molested. If the parent did not allow the police to take their children away they were arrested....this went on till 1980. NONE of the perp's have been held accountable.

[jaimehlers]

Consular:  Your arguments are not especially convincing.  You come across as someone who is arguing mainly because they're angry.  This is not a very sensible way to argue about something.  It's telling that several of your main points are not very strong.

They're not; I'm working things through as I go.

However you work through things, it still makes sense to go over it after you've written it and make sure that you're saying what you want to say.  Several times, if need be.

For example, you used Aristotle as an example of a great genius who concluded that there was a being responsible for existence.  Leaving aside the latter conclusion, Aristotle was just plain wrong in a number of his conclusions, such as his argument in favor of five basic elements (earth, fire, air, water, aether), and against the idea of atoms within an encompassing void (which is surprisingly close to modern atomic theory).  Furthermore, one of the reasons that Aristotle (and Plato before him) argued against atomism was because of their belief that the universe had to have been created.

He only believed it had to have been created based on what he saw. Being a "one creator"-ist back then was pretty unpopular.

The point is that he came up with an idea of elemental organization (classifying substances based on their temperature and humidity) that was rather thoroughly wrong, because of his belief that the world had to have been created.  In other words, he dismissed the idea of atomism (more correct) for the idea of elementalism (less correct), without anything more substantial than belief to support him.

In other words, Aristotle supported a wildly-incorrect theory about elements because of his belief in a Creator.

I'm sorry, this is wrong. We should look at his arguments, not him. This is the point I was trying to make. I do apologise for having not been clear. Aristotle's genius arguments, which do define "him" to us, are very good. It doesn't matter why he made them, but whether they are true.

Yes, my point is that a number of his actual arguments are based on wrong ideas or wrong beliefs.  Logic's great flaw is that it is utterly dependent on its premise, and if the premise is wrong, then everything that follows from it is also wrong, no matter how correct each subsequent step happens to be.  To put this another way, Aristotle's ideas about elementalism were well-reasoned and quite convincing, but because his premise - that an object has an elemental nature that depends on its temperature and humidity - was faulty, the whole concept of elementalism was inherently flawed.  The fact that he was good at making arguments was itself an inherent flaw if he used those arguments to support a faulty premise, like building a well-made house on a sandstone or limestone foundation.

Next, I'm extremely annoyed by this tendency some believers have to attribute nihilism to atheism[1].  This is little more than an attempt at rationalization, and not a very good one at that.  Instead of looking to pin the 'blame' for the rise in atheism on things that you already dislike, your time might be better spent examining the things that you largely dismiss as being real causes because you approve of them.

1.	I am not an atheist, but it annoys me because it comes across as trying to portray atheists as 'bad', possibly even as subhuman.

I believe nihilism is inextricably connected with atheism. There is, in fact, no way to separate the two. Nihilists believe there is "nothing" of meaning because there is nothing to give meaning to anything (i.e. God). Please turn the sensitivity-gears off for a moment and see this through the light of pure truth. I'm not here to dehumanise anybody, for goodness' sake. A public declaration of FAIL is not a declaration of EVIL.

And I believe nihilism has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to atheism, except for the purely artificial one you're expounding on here.  The only basis I can see for your statement is that the only way to give meaning to life is to have God do it.  But that is wrong.  Saying that the only way for something to have meaning is for God to give it meaning actually blocks us from coming to a truer understanding of the real reasons that it happens (its true meaning, as it were).

Anyway, what causes do I seem to like that I dismiss as causes of atheism? At least say what they are.

As you wish.  "I think people are leaving not because of hypocrisy" and "I seriously doubt hypocritical bishops and snobby Christians have more than 10% to do with the new atheist rise" are the ones I was specifically referring to in my post.  Instead, you blame it on things like "nihilism", that "Bertrand Russell, Sartre, and their atheistic kin have so ruined any hope of finding true meaning behind appearances", and that "most of it is broadly cultural thanks to Existentialists mixed with Kant."  Such statements come across as glib, off-the-cuff rationalizations that are made to justify an existing belief, rather than firm conclusions based on sound research into the subject at hand.

Now ironically, even if you do think calling atheists "nihilists" leads to feelings that they're subhuman, they really shouldn't care, because they're nihilists. Do you realise what full philosophical nihilism entails? Those who are honestly nihilists will just give me the finger and continue doing what they were doing. TRUE Nihilism rejects MEANING and the ability of human beings to see the truth of meaning or substance behind anything at all. It is descended from Kant, who I seriously doubt most regular atheists have read.

And that is exactly the problem with your equating atheism with nihilism.  You apparently consider it axiomatic that the two are the same, so you don't have a real argument  to support your contention in this matter.  Your best argument is that without God (atheism) to give meaning to things, nothing can give meaning to them (nihilism)  And that argument is fragile.  It depends solely on God being necessary for anything to have meaning.  But that ignores the fact that things can have their own meanings without having to impose some meaning on top of them.

The reason I get so angry is because this mindset is so blatantly obviously from one particular point. Everyone acts as if they're very original and unique for rejecting God, but the roots control their minds from long ages past. It's the pure smuggery (if you will) that irritates me. I am certainly smug in my own way, but at least I don't think I'm an original genius for coming up with arguments for God's existence that are actually really old.

In other words, you got upset because of their perceived attitudes.  Which is why I told you earlier that you needed to make an effort not to annoy the people who you eventually intended to try to convince of things - because your perceived attitude would affect how they reacted to you.  The other half of that is, did you consider the possibility that maybe you're conflating the behavior of a few bad apples with the rest of the bunch?  I don't doubt that there are some who act in the way you describe, but you owe it to yourself to not use those few as an excuse to get mad at everyone else.

[jetson]

"Just trying to live our lives in peace and harmony" is not exactly parallel with joining a forum that exists to raise a defiant question to all theists. The very forum of which you're a member invites conviction, zealotry, fanaticism from all-comers who disagree. Your attitude about God leaves the door open for passionate replies! Don't bring out this peace and harmony excuse. If you want peace and harmony, make this an "atheists only" forum.

What is this bigotry you mean, by the way? Hate? I'm here saying I think you're wrong about the Cosmos. Why do high tempers make me a bigot or hater? I don't hate you at all. I want everyone to see what I see, at least, exactly because you're my beloved brothers and sisters on Earth. If you don't like it, fine, but don't call me a friggin' bigot. Do you call your brother a bigot or a hater when he smacks you on the head for doing something wrong? I have no right to hit you, but I'm doing what I think is urgently required.

I have already stated that outspoken atheists on the internet are biased, just as outspoken theists on the internet are biased.  But I choose to be outspoken, and the internet is an effective forum for doing so.  The difference here, is that there is no doctrine, no books, no gods, no clubs, no fees, no tithing, nothing at all but rejection of god assertions, and most especially defense against real hatred and bigotry against us.  You have already stated your anger towards atheists, and you have offered no reason whatsoever for this anger, other than we don't follow your delusion.

The plight of atheism is the very real hate and bigotry brought upon them by mindsets such as yours.  You came into this forum and made it clear that all atheists are x.  You spoke for all of us, without knowing any of us.  And again, the difference is this:  atheism is the default position for humans.  Humans created gods for all sorts of reasons over the centuries.  Some gods stuck round longer than others, but all of theme eventually die, because they fail to fulfill their original purpose as humans get more knowledge of how the world works.  The subtle difference between us though, is that theists created an unfalsifiable, unknowable assertion of a god, and have used that lie for centuries to control and delude thee masses using fear, guilt, and shame.  Atheists are simply rejecting the whole thing as preposterous and imaginary.  Just like Santa.

There was never a time in human history when a human stood up and proclaimed that there is no god, until the first god assertion was made.  So, theists created this mess, and people like yourself just perpetuate it.  And you literally have nothing to back it up except personal belief, and false faith.  It's exactly the same thing as clinging to Santa after the age of 8.  If you can show me a difference, I'm all ears.

I don't have all of the answers regarding the Cosmos by the way, and I don't know any atheists who would claim differently.  This is another problem you have in trying to assert what atheists think.  The truth is, "I don't know" is a far better answer than "there must be a creator."  To say otherwise is an unfortunate by product of your delusion.  You don't have enough strength within yourself to admit you just don't know something.  And placing a god in the natural equation of what we see so far in our world and universe is a cop out, and a shame.

[12 Monkeys]

 Consular

 is it your idea that it matters not if pedophile priests or pastors should not be held accountable,or the ones in charge are also exhonorated for allowing it to happen soley because God will deal with it at the end?

 What about a normal citizen who does it,should they be free til judgement also? why have a court system? These guys are scary as fuck (the molesters) because they are doing it knowing that God is aware of it. So they either don't feel there is a God to worry about or just don't care about the consequences.

 And what about addressing my point a few post back where I said if priests that molested children were held accountable,the priest today would not be looked upon in the same light.

[Ivellios]

You are missing an important point in this Leviticus 4 stuff: this is the Old Covenant.

What's the point of learning about 1620 Mass. since that's before the Declaration of Independance and thier laws are not relevant now and our laws are not relevant to them?

What's the point of God having a group to KILL and Coerce and otherwise make them follow all these laws and to suddenly say, "Hey! All this stuff no longer matters go and let your daughters get pregnant out of wedlock! 10 Commandmants? Pish, it's only in the OT!"

When Christ said "not a jot or tittle shall pass away from this Law until all is fulfilled", He later said "it is fulfilled/consummated" on the Cross; therefore, the Old Law passed away at the Crucifixion.

So every single Old Testament Prophecy was fufilled when Jesus died on the cross? I guess Daniel sure as heck didn't get THAT memo! He talks about the Anti-Christ and such... are you sure it was fufilled by the time Jesus died on the cross? Because John kinda repeats some of it in Revelation (Apocalypse) like it pertains to still some future event so it cannot have been fufilled by the time Jesus died on the cross.

The Pope was never considered vice-God. This is madness!

I was wrong it's actually this:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/osv1915.htm

The letters inscribed in the Pope's mitre are these: Vicarius Filii Dei, which is the Latin for the Vicar of the Son of God. Catholics hold that the church which is a visible society must have a visible head. Christ, before His ascension into heaven, appointed St. Peter to act as His representative. Upon the death of Peter the man who succeeded to the office of Peter as Bishop of Rome, was recognized as the head of the Church. Hence to the Bishop of Rome, as head of the Church, was given the title "Vicar of Christ."

Vicar is latin for 'vice' so in context he's Vice Jesus, not Vice God. Somewhere along the line I forgot about the 'Filii' part. Which means he's Jesus' stand in. So he's the Christ who is not Christ.

Sorry if I sound terribly prissy here, but: if you were Catholic and left, you probably didn't have a very good reason. Had you ever believed it is THE Body of Christ, you simply wouldn't leave at all; you couldn't, in good conscience, because no matter what rubbish went on in there, you'd know it was for the greater edification of the One Body at some point. This is the logic, anyway.

My father got custody and I had no choice and resigned to it, but my older brother really freaked out, mental probles lasting years. Every Sunday we didn't go to Mass he thought God was going to burn him to a crisp and send him to hell for it. The mental anguish he went thru. I figured that if God was really real, either he should understand or we were where he wanted us to be. Hoever, in the end it didn't bother me any though, my mother already told me that I sent Jesus to Hell, and I figured if Jesus couldn't save himself from a 10 year old, he sure as hell couldn't do shit for me.

Too bad your God didn't know that, because if you opened yourself up to him he would have said the words I needed to hear even if you didn't have a clue about what you were typing. So either your God is not real or you're just another person who thinks they know but doesn't. By the way, Baptists are The Real Body of Christ™ everyone else are just posers. Nah, I don't believe that, but it's what you'll get from everysingle of the 38,000 different sects of Christianity. Yes, even the fundy baptist preacher told me I was going to go to Hell because I was Southern Baptist.

Every religion that ernestly tries to convert people, every sect of Christianity. Same old story, same old claim... if all 40,000 religions/sects seem equally real, it's possible that none of them are real, especially considering they're all mutually exclusive.

[Ivellios]

Consular

 is it your idea that it matters not if pedophile priests or pastors should not be held accountable,or the ones in charge are also exhonorated for allowing it to happen soley because God will deal with it at the end?

 What about a normal citizen who does it,should they be free til judgement also? why have a court system? These guys are scary as fuck (the molesters) because they are doing it knowing that God is aware of it. So they either don't feel there is a God to worry about or just don't care about the consequences.

I worked at a place where one of my coworksers didn't care at all about anything with politics. His philosophy was, "Jesus will Rapture me before it gets too bad then you will get stuck with the mess you DESERVE." Since I was once a Christian, this frame of mind is basically what we were taught. Jesus would come like a thief in the night, be ready, any second...

Looking over history I saw something that happened once before that looked like it was about to happen when I had that discussion. The Pagan Roman Empire lasts almost 1,000 years. Sure they had thier ups and downs, but for the most part the Government was accountable to the Citizens of Rome. If someone was corrupt and others didn't like it, they ended up getting removed. After converting to Christianity, seemingly overnight... Rome fractures, then starts to fade away. I've wondered if this is what happened back then: Those Christian Romans no longer caring about politics or corruption in government because they thought any day Jesus would rapture them, no matter how bad it got, instead of activism, they just dropped onto thier knees. Then one day, the Roman Empire was no more.

Sit back and do nothing because Jesus will reward me and punish them. "He'll get it in the end." All Government is put in place by God, so saying anything against the current government is speaking against God. So, I'll take everything they throw at me, because I know, in the end, I'm on the winning side. No need to worry myself about those who are in positions of power or authority, or those who abuse it. Just going to keep my head in the sand, and one day Jesus will save me from this ****.  Soon™! Very Soon™! Within Paul's Lifetime, even!

[Consular]

I'm sorry, there are just too many posts for me to answer without stretching the page beyond recognition...

I have never been a member of any church consular......and what anybody in power did to avoid the responsibility to the children in care is WRONG. These children were taken away from their families by the police under court order(yes the Government had a hand in it as well).... They were taken and sometimes shipped far away from family.....no escape,no recourse.

Well, how can anyone call this right?

People like you( as I read in your posts) just dont care if anybody gets held responsible for their henious deeds. Just like the starving children around the world,you just DON'T CARE unless of course it affects you. Should we still be hunting Nazi's?,by your reasoning each one is accountable for his deeds and should be put in a monastary

Lovely! Oh yes, I love Nazis and paedos and every evil person on Earth. Let's let 'em all go free... is that what you want to hear me say? Stop goading.

Keep wearing those very dark sunglasses [...] blame it on free will?

I don't blame anything on free will. Free will is a fact. Those who chose to rape children and gleefully die without one care will go to Hell. Those who murder 2000 Jews at a time in Auschwitz and happily go to the grave are going to go to Hell. What more do you want me to say? Evil is evil, but we can choose it. I won't praise God when cancer is cured - I will praise the scientists who come up with the cure. He made us able to cure cancer, but it's our choice to pursue the technology and research that makes this possible. I am a Humanist first and foremost, because I believe in God.

The children taken from their families at gunpoint by the police did not have this free will not to get molested. If the parent did not allow the police to take their children away they were arrested....this went on till 1980. NONE of the perp's have been held accountable.

Shame!

is it your idea that it matters not if pedophile priests or pastors should not be held accountable,or the ones in charge are also exhonorated for allowing it to happen soley because God will deal with it at the end?

My contention is that even if they slip through human justice, God will deal with them exactly as they are merited in the end. If there is no God and they get away free, who cares? They'll die and go into the same black hole of nothing that you go into. Either way, it's a win-win situation for those who care about the good. I would protest if they left without justice, but I'm not too worried in the end because God will do what is right for those poor people who did such a great evil.

What about a normal citizen who does it,should they be free til judgement also? why have a court system? These guys are scary as fuck (the molesters) because they are doing it knowing that God is aware of it. So they either don't feel there is a God to worry about or just don't care about the consequences.

True evil!

And what about addressing my point a few post back where I said if priests that molested children were held accountable,the priest today would not be looked upon in the same light.

Well, you were right. Sorry, I forgot to address the post! We can hardly blame religion or one Church for this. Human nature tends towards lust, and those individuals who don't control it will do evil things.

I have already stated [...] your delusion.

My anger is based on past experience, and your attitudes here. All of you get very indignant at the idea that anyone could believe in God. Those who believe in God are naturally not particularly jovial at this snarky mindset you guys all have. Listen to the way your most famous mouthpieces and luminaries speak. Dawkins always has that utterly smug smile on his face, and Hitchens is endlessly smoking cigars and swigging back alcohol as if we're just having some fireside chat. It's all so nonchalant, and they act as if it's just an excuse for meaningless drollery. I can't stand this.

Obviously you're not all responsible for your biggest stars, but they seem to represent a zeitgeist amongst you all.

The plight of atheism is the very real hate and bigotry brought upon them by mindsets such as yours.  You came into this forum and made it clear that all atheists are x.  You spoke for all of us, without knowing any of us.

Such as mine, but thankfully not mine. I don't hate you - perhaps there is some bigotry, but stereotypical beliefs are not necessarily bigoted if they're just rash or ignorant. Teach me by your behaviour, and I'll have to conclude that atheists can be tolerable too.

And again, the difference is this:  atheism is the default position for humans.

Indeed it is. So is greed; so is the wish to murder. Many things are natural or default; it does not make them particularly good or bad. It's the default, natural mode of transport for us to walk, but I find cars very convenient. Planes are not a bad invention either! Don't deny scientific progress.

Humans created gods for all sorts of reasons over the centuries. [...] Just like Santa.

Derp, belief in Santa = belief in God. Yes, thank you! What a marvelous insight! How ridiculous!

Remember that the ontological truth of One God is far more convincing than the notion of multiple gods. Polytheism fails philosophically because it posits more than one infinite being. Monotheism is substantially different, and takes a different stroke to fall. I doubt whether it will ever truly fall.

There was never a time in human history when a human stood up and proclaimed that there is no god, until the first god assertion was made.

The majority of the classical ancients had too much sense to say that there is no God at all. Your assertion is quite a new one - not that novelty or ancientness particularly matter, though... what matters is what is true.

So, theists created this mess, and people like yourself just perpetuate it.  And you literally have nothing to back it up except personal belief, and false faith.  It's exactly the same thing as clinging to Santa after the age of 8.  If you can show me a difference, I'm all ears.

I'm really tempted to tell you to F. off, because you don't have any idea why I believe in God. You assume (ass + u + me?) we're all just blind-faith intellectual midgets raised from birth to believe in Christ? PLEASE! Have a little trust, a little less cynicism.

Here, read my last response to the last quote in my post: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19130.msg435296.html#msg435296 , and at least acknowledge my faith isn't based on B.S. from childhood.

I don't [...] and a shame.

Actually, my answer is: "I don't know, but it seems more likely there is a creator than not". This is why I don't actually condemn any of you to Hell or judge you, particularly. My anger stems from your lack of basic causal thinking, even though it's right in front of you. Pushing a ball off a table requires a hand - pushing a nothingness into the big bang takes God. 

What's the point of learning about 1620 Mass. since that's before the Declaration of Independance and thier laws are not relevant now and our laws are not relevant to them?

There's a difference between secular history and history that pertains to human salvation...

What's the point of God having a group to KILL and Coerce and otherwise make them follow all these laws and to suddenly say, "Hey! All this stuff no longer matters go and let your daughters get pregnant out of wedlock! 10 Commandmants? Pish, it's only in the OT!"

Well, Christ came to teach the height of the Law (being the same God all along), all things before Him being something like a preliminary. What He said still stands, but the stuff He fulfilled upon the Cross is overwith. In Matthew, Jesus says adultery is still wrong, and divorce is wrong; thus, we do not do those things.

Anyway, God's huge killing spree in the O.T. is specifically to fulfill one goal: a stable line from Adam to Moses to Abraham through David to Jesus. He knows our nature perfectly. If anything threatened the stable line which gave Christ credibility to the ancient Jews, it had to be eliminated. For all you know, all the people God totally pwned in the O.T. went to Heaven, but were just nuisances on Earth that would have screwed the line up had something not been done.

So every single Old Testament Prophecy was fufilled when Jesus died on the cross? I guess Daniel sure as heck didn't get THAT memo! He talks about the Anti-Christ and such... are you sure it was fufilled by the time Jesus died on the cross? Because John kinda repeats some of it in Revelation (Apocalypse) like it pertains to still some future event so it cannot have been fufilled by the time Jesus died on the cross.

He said no jot or iota should pass from the Law. Daniel's prophecies are not the Law, but... well, prophecies.

Vicar is latin for 'vice' so in context he's Vice Jesus, not Vice God. Somewhere along the line I forgot about the 'Filii' part. Which means he's Jesus' stand in. So he's the Christ who is not Christ.

That's more sensible, then.

My father got custody and I had no choice and resigned to it, but my older brother really freaked out, mental probles lasting years. Every Sunday we didn't go to Mass he thought God was going to burn him to a crisp and send him to hell for it. The mental anguish he went thru. I figured that if God was really real, either he should understand or we were where he wanted us to be. Hoever, in the end it didn't bother me any though, my mother already told me that I sent Jesus to Hell, and I figured if Jesus couldn't save himself from a 10 year old, he sure as hell couldn't do shit for me.

Dear me, a shame about all that. Perhaps God wanted you to grow and become strong from all that, not reject Him and go off to do your own thing. I don't know what God wants for you, but it certainly isn't very fortitudinous of you to just give up like that.

Baptists are The Real Body of Christ™ everyone else are just posers. Nah, I don't believe that, but it's what you'll get from everysingle of the 38,000 different sects of Christianity. Yes, even the fundy baptist preacher told me I was going to go to Hell because I was Southern Baptist.

At least the Catholics were saying it before the Baptists even existed. It's a fair bet that you have a greater claim to something if your opponent wasn't even extant when you started. Have some context for the establishment of credibility, not just endless cynical jokes.

Every religion that ernestly tries to convert people, every sect of Christianity. Same old story, same old claim... if all 40,000 religions/sects seem equally real, it's possible that none of them are real, especially considering they're all mutually exclusive.

You're right, but it isn't 40 000 sects in practicality. Christ said that the Church He founds shall not fall prey to the "Gates of Hell", or to destruction. If the Baptists were the true Church and were somehow destroyed/hidden prior to the 17th century, then their own beliefs are contradictory and Christ was wrong. Either Christ was wrong they they were right, or Christ was right and they are wrong. I tend to trust Christ here, not a bunch of neo-Christians.

I worked at a place where one of my coworksers didn't care at all about anything with politics. His philosophy was, "Jesus will Rapture me before it gets too bad then you will get stuck with the mess you DESERVE." Since I was once a Christian, this frame of mind is basically what we were taught.

I hope you don't think all Christians are rapturists... !

[One Above All]

I just decided to reply to this part because it's so simple

Derp, belief in Santa = belief in God. Yes, thank you! What a marvelous insight! How ridiculous!

Oh, really? To quote myself "God=Santa on steroids"

Santa: Knows when you're sleeping and awake, knows if you've done good or bad things and at a certain date of the year rewards you based on that information. He can go around the world in 24 hours and fit presents for billions of children in one single bag and has a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.

God: Knows everything, including but not limited to: when you're sleeping and awake, knows if you've done good or bad things and at the end of your life rewards you based on that information. He can do anything, including but not limited to: going around the world in 24 hours, fit presents for billions of children in one single bag and send his flying angels to help people

Are they really so different?

[Graybeard]

Keep in mind, some of us were Catholic, and some of us still have Catholic relatives trying to reconvert us.

Sorry if I sound terribly prissy here, but: if you were Catholic and left, you probably didn't have a very good reason.

I'm still laughing at this one!

Really, Consular, the number of possible reasons would probably fill the internet and be entirely valid for each and everyone who realised that nothing more than superstition supported the largest and best organised scam on earth.

"Keep us employed and fed and housed and you can go to heaven. If there is no heaven, all your donations will be refunded if you come back and tell us."

[JeffPT]

I don't blame anything on free will. Free will is a fact.

Nope, free will is an illusion. You are a slave to the chemistry in your brain.  Sorry.

Those who chose to rape children and gleefully die without one care will go to Hell.

No, they won't.  You're wrong again.  That's wishful thinking. 

Those who murder 2000 Jews at a time in Auschwitz and happily go to the grave are going to go to Hell.

Wrong again.  What's with you? 

What more do you want me to say?

That you're wrong.

Evil is evil, but we can choose it.

Evil is a perception, and it's based on the individual who judges it.  If there were a planet wrong, you'd reign supreme.

I won't praise God when cancer is cured - I will praise the scientists who come up with the cure.

Because God isn't real.  But if you believe he is, you should be praising him for giving us the gift of cancer in the first place.

He made us able to cure cancer, but it's our choice to pursue the technology and research that makes this possible.

Jesus man.  You hold the monopoly on wrong.  Why would God be so kind as to give us cancer only to then allow us to take it away? 

I am a Humanist first and foremost, because I believe in God.

You're a humanist because you believe in God?  This is new levels of wrong.  This is wrong squared.  Belief in God puts humans second, God first.  Humanists put humans first.  To say you're a humanist is an insult to humanists. 

My contention is that even if they slip through human justice, God will deal with them exactly as they are merited in the end.

Massive wrong.  This is your wishful thinking. 

If there is no God and they get away free, who cares?

The victims care.

They'll die and go into the same black hole of nothing that you go into.

Finally some RIGHT!

I would protest if they left without justice, but I'm not too worried in the end because God will do what is right for those poor people who did such a great evil.

And we're back to wrong again. 

My anger is based on past experience, and your attitudes here.

And our anger is based on exactly attitudes like yours. 

All of you get very indignant at the idea that anyone could believe in God.

Wrong soup.  We just think you're incorrect.  And when we try to show you how incorrect you are, we get comments like we are being smug and arrogant.  That's what you perceive, but in the end, it's just that we're correct, and you are not.  It's like having a neighbor who constantly comes to your house trying to say 2 + 2 = 5.  At first you treat him like a child and show him 2 apples with 2 apples, and that when you put them together you have 4.  After you go through the same argument for a year, you get pretty tired of his excuses as to why 2 + 2 = 5.  All the while, the neighbor thinks you're being smug and arrogant for disagreeing that 2 + 2 = 5.  This is where you are.  You are the 2 + 2 = 5 neighbor.  And after we are done laughing at you, all that's left is to feel sorry for you. 

Those who believe in God are naturally not particularly jovial at this snarky mindset you guys all have.

Vice versa.

Listen to the way your most famous mouthpieces and luminaries speak. Dawkins always has that utterly smug smile on his face, and Hitchens is endlessly smoking cigars and swigging back alcohol as if we're just having some fireside chat. It's all so nonchalant, and they act as if it's just an excuse for meaningless drollery. I can't stand this.

Have you listened to some of yours?  It is nonchalant for most of us because we know you're not right about God.  It's just a fact.  God isn't real, and that's it.  The only reason that more of us aren't like that is because it's DANGEROUS to be like that.  Christians will cut a bitch.  Atheists won't.  The reason for this is simple.  We just feel sorry for you.  We don't want to hurt you, because we know people make mistakes.  But you Christians... oh, no.  Not the same thing.  Have you read any of the comments after the 9/11 cross lawsuit fiasco?  There are plenty of you who would think nothing of killing the whole lot of us. 

Such as mine, but thankfully not mine. I don't hate you - perhaps there is some bigotry, but stereotypical beliefs are not necessarily bigoted if they're just rash or ignorant. Teach me by your behaviour, and I'll have to conclude that atheists can be tolerable too.

Can you tell me when the last atheist riot was?  Can you tell me the last time an atheist attacked someone who believed in God?  Can you tell me the last time an atheist group persecuted another group?  You see, that's the funny thing... you want us to teach you that we can be tolerable, but your actions, and the actions of your church SCREAM intolerance.  YOU are the one who should be showing US your tolerance.  You think you have the monopoly on "good" but that is complete bullshit.  YOUR group is the group full of ass holes who do things in the name of God.  YOUR group has been killing people for thousands of years.  YOUR group preaches hatred and bigotry.  What's our crime?  Smugness in the face of retarded beliefs? 

Indeed it is. So is greed; so is the wish to murder.

So is love.  So is the desire to take care of each other.  We don't need religion for that either. 

Derp, belief in Santa = belief in God. Yes, thank you! What a marvelous insight! How ridiculous!

It's the same thing.  You even have your God sporting his cosmic naughty and nice list?  You can almost see him now.... "Oh, little Johnny masturbating in the bathroom... tisk tisk."  /check naughty.  "Oh little Johnny helping his mom with the groceries".  /check nice.  The only difference is that Santa has characteristics attached to him that we can check on, such as his home at the North pole and that he brings presents once a year.  Give us a characteristic of God that we can check on, and God will fall apart too. 

Remember that the ontological truth of One God is far more convincing than the notion of multiple gods.

No.

The majority of the classical ancients had too much sense to say that there is no God at all. Your assertion is quite a new one - not that novelty or ancientness particularly matter, though... what matters is what is true.

It was easier to believe in God back then.  It's a lot harder now, because we know more about the universe, and a God is just not necessary to explain anything now.  The majority of classical ancients also thought that lightning was unexplainable in natural terms.  So were volcanoes, hurricanes, rain, disease, famine, drought, and just about everything else.  We aren't that group of people anymore. 

I'm really tempted to tell you to F. off, because you don't have any idea why I believe in God.

Don't be shy.  Fuck you.  See, it's not that hard.  It doesn't matter why you believe in God unless you can prove that God exists.  If you can't convince others with it, then it's not useful, and it's most likely all in your head.

You assume (ass + u + me?) we're all just blind-faith intellectual midgets raised from birth to believe in Christ? PLEASE! Have a little trust, a little less cynicism.

Most of you are.  Indoctrination is a powerful thing.  You might not be intellectual midgets in other realms of your life, but with religion, you are.  Take that as smug if you want, but you're belief in God is stupid.

Actually, my answer is: "I don't know, but it seems more likely there is a creator than not".

There might be, or there might not be.  The difference between us is probably the simple fact that we value science more than you, and know how lots of things work, and how they don't require a god in the first place.  The more things that you put in the "understood naturally" column in your brain, the less things appear in the "Godcouldonlyhavedoneit" column.

This is why I don't actually condemn any of you to Hell or judge you, particularly. My anger stems from your lack of basic causal thinking, even though it's right in front of you. Pushing a ball off a table requires a hand - pushing a nothingness into the big bang takes God. 

And ours stems from your foolish assumption that "if I don't understand it, then it must be God".  If you can't think of a natural way in which the big bang could have occurred, then you haven't a single ounce of creativity in your brain.  Without knowing what exists outside our universe, to say "there is a God, and it's the Catholic God" is the leap of all leaps.  It's pure stupidity. 

Dear me, a shame about all that. Perhaps God wanted you to grow and become strong from all that, not reject Him and go off to do your own thing. I don't know what God wants for you, but it certainly isn't very fortitudinous of you to just give up like that.

God's not real.  Good and bad things happen to people all the time. 

At least the Catholics were saying it before the Baptists even existed.

So your reply is "nuh uh, we said it first"? 

It's a fair bet that you have a greater claim to something if your opponent wasn't even extant when you started. Have some context for the establishment of credibility, not just endless cynical jokes.

Time of discovery has no bearing on whether something is true or not. 

You've been a smug arrogant ass hole since you started on this forum, and you don't deserve the respect that people have been showing you.  You're first few posts were horrible, mean and completely unnecessary.  You aren't here to learn, or to further a dicussion; you're here to be a prick.  Mission accomplished, prick. 

God isn't real.  Get over it.  Move on with your life.  Everyone in your life who thinks God is real... is WRONG.  Every one of them, including you.  I just don't understand, in the year 2011, when we know so much about the universe, that anyone could still think God is real.  It's pure stupidity.

[Graybeard]

You're right, but it isn't 40 000 sects in practicality. Christ said that the Church He founds shall not fall prey to the "Gates of Hell", or to destruction. If the Baptists were the true Church and were somehow destroyed/hidden prior to the 17th century, then their own beliefs are contradictory and Christ was wrong. Either Christ was wrong they they were right, or Christ was right and they are wrong. I tend to trust Christ here, not a bunch of neo-Christians.

My position is, "A curse on all your houses." Your claiming that papists have done it right for 2000 years, holds no water at all. Have you ever considered that you were doing it wrong all those years? There's nothing to indicate that there should be a pope, nothing to indicate that the position should be passed on, that men cannot speak to God directly, that intercession is required for the forgiveness of sin, that transubstantiation is other than a biblically unsupported con-trick, etc., There are graven images in your churches and on crucifixes, the vast riches are not put at the disposal or the poor, sin in the RCC is hidden, and science is ignored.

I could go on... but be not down-hearted - all other cults are equally as mad as the cult led by the vicar of Rome. Why else would other sects and cults spring up around and from your "one true church" cult? Surely if you had it right, no one would have rebelled and God would have given bounty to you and smitten the heretics[1]?

Or do you rely on the "No True Scotsman" argument, "If a catholic did that, then he wasn't a true catholic." and how possibly can you say, "Only we are right."

1.	Instead of the RCC smiting the heretics

[Ivellios]

You're right, but it isn't 40 000 sects in practicality. Christ said that the Church He founds shall not fall prey to the "Gates of Hell", or to destruction. If the Baptists were the true Church and were somehow destroyed/hidden prior to the 17th century, then their own beliefs are contradictory and Christ was wrong. Either Christ was wrong they they were right, or Christ was right and they are wrong. I tend to trust Christ here, not a bunch of neo-Christians.

a) I wasn't just referring to Christianity, there are older religions in this world.
b) If the RCC is more right because they were here before Baptists then the Annunaki are the true gods since they are inscribed into the earliest known writtings.
c) The RCC hasn't been around for 2,000 years... but sometime between 360-460 CE. Created by some Roman Emperor who decided to call himself 'Bishop' and his council. Nice little gap there.

As you know, like the Book of Enoch, The Book of the Dead, The Epic of Gilgamesh, early people had no concept what-so-ever of 'Fiction.' If it wasn't important History, they would not have written it down... but they did proves it's so important that succeding generations needed to know it. 

[12 Monkeys]

Thanks Graybeard and JeffPT for putting it better than I can,,,this guy is a new level of stupid

[12 Monkeys]

Consular,how come you have no interest in bringing these pedophile priests to justice or the pope for hiding it when he was a bishop?

 You still have failed,you share my shock and anger maybe but have little or no interest in holding them accountable. The fact that they will suffer a final judgement in the end says absolutley nothing for those victimized. Not to mention the fact that without counselling may also become perpatrators as well furthering the chain of victims

**added**
  The Government of the day felt it was ok They sanctioned the residential schools and turned a blind eye to rape and murder,they cured the heathens

 Consular,the guys raping children are men of God,if they have no fear,is it because they don't fear God or they know in the back of their minds he is not real?

[Ivellios]

Consular,the guys raping children are men of God,if they have no fear,is it because they don't fear God or they know in the back of their minds he is not real?

I think, the same reason a local pastor blew his brains out. I guess this one felt guilty lying to people all these years after realizing the truth. Or maybe he had exploits he didn't want to reach the light of day? No one knows but him, but his brains were splattered in a building during a camping trip.

If it's only one's choices one makes during thier life... what's the point of praying for the dead? Isn't it said that once you're dead and face to face with god, it's too late to ask for forgiveness?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Evil is a perception, and it's based on the individual who judges it.

I have a problem with this. I can't explain very concisely what my problem is but I will attempt it in layman's terms.

To an extent I do agree with you. Morality is subjective and thus subject to change with the times according to society. However, our sense of evil seems to be a universal phenomena, much like our sense of fairness. These things don't have to be taught or ingrained as diligently as, oh...say, business acumen. Harming people for the sheer pleasure of harming people is not good. It is unacceptable, unproductive, selfish, wrong, offensive, insensitive, vile, bad, despicable....evil.

A corporate CEO who changes insurance providers for his company in order to save a buck or two on his bottom line despite the fact that it hurts his employees is insensitive, greedy or selfish...but he has a *reason* for making that kind of cold calculating decision. It doesn't make him evil.

Wayne Gacy was evil.

Evil represents the most vile and heinous acts...crimes that have no reason other than it gives the perpetrator personal pleasure. Now, you might say that committing an evil act in revenge of something could bring pleasure but you would be wrong. There is no pleasure in vengeance, only pain that is sweetened by a dash of justice.

What is your personal motivation for trivializing evil?

 

[velkyn]

To be perfectly honest, he's not my 'beloved Pope'. He celebrates Mass facing the people, uses Italian instead of Latin, and isn't particularly big on Thomism. Our current Pope is a big Augustinian, which may explain some of his cynicism about the hope for humanity. I feel bad for him, with his quasi-protestant theology. He's still the Pope, though, and it takes a lot of study and work to get there, so why not listen to him, eh? It's better than invectives.

It seems that consular thinks that his god made a mistake in picking this pope.  And that supposedly all it takes to "get there" being selected by God and God making the cardinals vote for him.

[Hatter23]

Evil is a perception, and it's based on the individual who judges it.

I have a problem with this. I can't explain very concisely what my problem is but I will attempt it in layman's terms.

To an extent I do agree with you. Morality is subjective and thus subject to change with the times according to society. However, our sense of evil seems to be a universal phenomena, much like our sense of fairness. These things don't have to be taught or ingrained as diligently as, oh...say, business acumen. Harming people for the sheer pleasure of harming people is not good. It is unacceptable, unproductive, selfish, wrong, offensive, insensitive, vile, bad, despicable....evil.

A corporate CEO who changes insurance providers for his company in order to save a buck or two on his bottom line despite the fact that it hurts his employees is insensitive, greedy or selfish...but he has a *reason* for making that kind of cold calculating decision. It doesn't make him evil.

Wayne Gacy was evil.

Evil represents the most vile and heinous acts...crimes that have no reason other than it gives the perpetrator personal pleasure. Now, you might say that committing an evil act in revenge of something could bring pleasure but you would be wrong. There is no pleasure in vengeance, only pain that is sweetened by a dash of justice.

What is your personal motivation for trivializing evil?

The issue is "Evil" really is a judgement call, ultimately. I'm going to invoke the obvious example; The Holocaust. While we agree that this act was "evil" those the designed, planned, and implemented it didn't rub their hands together and go "Mwwhhhaahhahhah, I'm so evil;" they thought they were doing good, and ultimately it was the twin dogmas of Nationalism and Religion that allowed them to justify said acts as not evil.

This is fact. It does not trivialize evil; it states it in clear terms evil is what OTHERS do that YOU so very disapprove of you consider it twisted, sick, and heinous. There is no objective standard, and in a way, I feel if there was, that would ultimately trivialize evil as force like eletromagnitism; just another component of the universe. Rather than just a component of the universe, it is the force of your will that allows you to make that judgement call as far as the universe in your brain.

[screwtape]

Harming people for the sheer pleasure of harming people is not good. It is unacceptable, unproductive, selfish, wrong, offensive, insensitive, vile, bad, despicable....evil.

Half of those are objectively true.  It is unproductive, selfish, and insensitive.  All the other things you labeled it with are subjective judgments.

A corporate CEO who changes insurance providers for his company in order to save a buck or two on his bottom line despite the fact that it hurts his employees is insensitive, greedy or selfish...but he has a *reason* for making that kind of cold calculating decision. It doesn't make him evil.

By my subjective morality, it does.  He is putting profit margin and stockholder dividends above the welfare of his employees.  Either way, it is an amoral decision decision at best.

What is your personal motivation for trivializing evil?

What is your personal motivation for trying to elevate and promote your opinions as universal absolutes? 

[JeffPT]

I have a problem with this. I can't explain very concisely what my problem is but I will attempt it in layman's terms.

I am going to be honest with you here.  I have a problem with it to.  But it's not a logical, rational problem.  It's an emotional one.  I would like to say that some things are inherently evil, but I can't do that, because I really don't believe it.  It's just not true, and I'm not going to live my life under the notion that what I want to be true, actually IS true.  It doesn't work that way. 

To an extent I do agree with you. Morality is subjective and thus subject to change with the times according to society. However, our sense of evil seems to be a universal phenomena, much like our sense of fairness.

Without morality, our society wouldn't have survived as long as it has.  I do not believe that makes it objective, however.  Only useful to the species.  I'm sorry if that seems cold, but I do not think that at all.  I find it beautiful to think that a completely blind process, over billions of years, has led to the generation of a species called homo sapiens, and that one of the pillars that this species is unmistakably built upon is the coveting of fairness, love and respect.  (Though, I do understand that in another world, in another time perhaps, I might have coveted hate, greed, and disrespect if it gave me a survival advantage.  Who knows, maybe somewhere out there my alter ego is waxing nostalgic about the beauty and wonder of a world evolved on the pillars of death and destruction).

Let me say here that evil, IMHO, is an adjective.  It shouldn't be defined as a noun.  Without religion, I believe it would only be defined as an adjective.  It can only describe things... but as a noun, it asserts that evil is some sort of tangible, detectable, malleable thing.  This just isn't true; or better yet, there is no evidence that this is true at all. 

This is where there may be a slight divergence between you and I, I think.  In defining evil as only an adjective, I am left asking what the term "sense of evil" actually means.  If it were a noun, then a "sense of evil" to me sounds like you have this radar in your mind that tells you that something evil is nearby.  If you have that, that would be pretty interesting, but I personally don't.  As just an adjective, the phrase makes no more sense than saying you have a "sense of blueness" or a "sense of quickness". I do not possess what I would call a "sense of evil" anymore than I would have a "sense of dark blue".  I easily define ACTIONS as evil, just as I define other ACTIONS as fast or slow, based on a variety of factors.  I don't sense that something is evil; I think it.  Perhaps the difference between a moral opinion and an opinion not in the realm of morality is the emotional attachment we have to it.  Perhaps that emotional attachment you have to your morals is what makes you think you "sense" evil.  I just don't see it that way at all.  I have the same emotional reaction that you do when I see that awful picture that floats around here with the little black boy and the vulture, but I rationalize that it is my opinion that drives my emotional response, not the other way around. 

I have said in many other places that morality is just an opinion that helps guide our lives, and thus we have more of an attachment to "Killing is wrong" than say... "Blue is a nice color".  Make no mistake though... "I think killing is bad" is an opinion.  Much like "I think blue is a nice color" is an opinion.  Would you ever say that you "sense that blue is a nice color" or that you "sense blue"? 

These things don't have to be taught or ingrained as diligently as, oh...say, business acumen. Harming people for the sheer pleasure of harming people is not good. It is unacceptable, unproductive, selfish, wrong, offensive, insensitive, vile, bad, despicable....evil.

All adjectives.  All opinions.  Not a noun in the bunch. It's really as simple as that. 

A corporate CEO who changes insurance providers for his company in order to save a buck or two on his bottom line despite the fact that it hurts his employees is insensitive, greedy or selfish...but he has a *reason* for making that kind of cold calculating decision. It doesn't make him evil.

It might to some.  And they might find his reasoning to be evil. 

Wayne Gacy was evil.

An opinion.  The problem is in knowing that he probably didn't see himself as doing anything evil, while the rest of us could hardly think of something more evil.  The truth that it boils down to, however, is that his brain chemistry and life experiences accounted for his actions and accounted for his personal opinions about his own actions.  You may say he's evil, but I just think it's a little grammatically wrong to say it like that.  His actions were evil.  To say he "was evil" is to say there is a tangible, detectable component within him that differed from the rest of us, and that component is a thing we call evil. 

What is your personal motivation for trivializing evil?

Again, you're using the term as if it were a noun.  It really isn't.  Unless you can prove it does, then evil as a thing doesn't exist.  How can I trivialize an adjective?

And I don't think my stance trivializes evil.  It just puts the word in it's proper place.  I still have opinions that are very powerful motivators in my life, probably same as you.  I can still have those powerful feelings without having to say they are somehow bound to the cosmos in some way.

My only motivation here is to understand how things work and to deal with the consequences of the truth, regardless of how difficult it is personally for me to know it.   I don't like that it is this way, but I really believe it is.  I'd like to think that harming people for pleasure is frowned upon by some sort of cosmic being or even by the cosmos itself as a thing, but I think that's just wishful thinking.  So I deal with it. 

I have a coworker that tells me maybe I'm too logical sometimes.  That I go way overboard with it from time to time.  Maybe she's right.  Or maybe my logic is just flawed. 

/shrug.  I hope that helped explain my position better.

[albeto]

I have a problem with this. I can't explain very concisely what my problem is but I will attempt it in layman's terms.

To an extent I do agree with you. Morality is subjective and thus subject to change with the times according to society. However, our sense of evil seems to be a universal phenomena, much like our sense of fairness. These things don't have to be taught or ingrained as diligently as, oh...say, business acumen. Harming people for the sheer pleasure of harming people is not good. It is unacceptable, unproductive, selfish, wrong, offensive, insensitive, vile, bad, despicable....evil.

A corporate CEO who changes insurance providers for his company in order to save a buck or two on his bottom line despite the fact that it hurts his employees is insensitive, greedy or selfish...but he has a *reason* for making that kind of cold calculating decision. It doesn't make him evil.

Wayne Gacy was evil.

Evil represents the most vile and heinous acts...crimes that have no reason other than it gives the perpetrator personal pleasure. Now, you might say that committing an evil act in revenge of something could bring pleasure but you would be wrong. There is no pleasure in vengeance, only pain that is sweetened by a dash of justice.

I'll offer another thought, if you don't mind.  One thing I've learned working with ABA tutors in my home (tutors who teach social skills for children who are challenged with autism) is that every behavior has a function.  In short it means that every behavior is employed to solve a problem in some way.  Those of us with children on the autism spectrum or other neurological challenges like ADHD, NVLD, ect know that these skills to solve problems don't click in the expected way.  A child who is hungry and has verbal skills generally asks for a snack.  A child with autism may not ask (or demand or make any indication), but may try to solve this problem in another way.  When that problem solving technique negatively impacts another person (taking food from someone else), we assign a value to that behavior.  It's "wrong" or "impolite," but in essence it's simply not effective because it has created another, sometimes greater, problem.  A child with autism isn't understood to be "evil" by anyone who knows autism because we know there are processing glitches in the neural make up, inspiring these ineffective and dysfunctional problem solving skills.

Clearly not everyone has autism or other neurological challenges, but everyone does have a neurology that has evolved to identify patterns from experiences.  It is these patterns that inspire the prefrontal cortex to determine (in less time than it takes to blink and eye) which of the many possible outcomes projected will provide the most pleasure and avoid or reduce the most anxiety.  In this way, the person with autism is really doing the best they can with the skills they have (which is why therapy is so important), but I suggest that each of us is really doing the best we can with the skills we have. 

Your example of the CEO changing insurance is an example of a person who makes a deliberate decision because the projected outcomes are raised to the conscious level, providing time to attend to the various possibilities.  However, once that decision impacts another person (an employee who can no longer afford therapy for her autistic child), the value of that decision is assigned subjectively (insensitive, selfish, evil).   The psychopath who tortures innocent victims does so to solve a problem - overwhelming anxiety that has been reduced within this pattern of torture.  The social skills necessary to avoid this pattern, namely empathy, are simply lacking in proper context.  His problem solving skills are now not only ineffective and dysfunctional, they are dangerous to society.  Research is showing how people with sociopathy are not able to recognize the facial features that indicate fear.  If this contributes to a lack of empathy, their skills are terribly insufficient, and dangerously so, but ultimately they do what we all do - solve problems (seek pleasure, avoid pain) to the best of our abilities.  Here is an article that explores this idea in context of criminal behavior and society's responsibility to keep itself secure, but at the same time attend to the needs of those whose problem solving skills are deficient (the brain on trial).

What is your personal motivation for trivializing evil?

I agree with JeffPT that "evil" is a subjective term used to describe the value of a particular act rather than an objective concept such as hope or liberty.  Because of that, I think it's valuable to understand the function of any given behavior in an attempt to offer more effective, functional problem solving options.  We're finding as a society that the more attention we give to these problem solving deficits in children, the less dysfunctional behavior we see in adults.  There's a correlation there between social skills and social adaptation and "evil" denotes the idea that one solution is maladaptive to society. 

[Hatter23]

Derp, belief in Santa = belief in God. Yes, thank you! What a marvelous insight! How ridiculous!

Remember that the ontological truth of One God is far more convincing than the notion of multiple gods. Polytheism fails philosophically because it posits more than one infinite being. Monotheism is substantially different, and takes a different stroke to fall. I doubt whether it will ever truly fall.

I do notice you just mocked the statment and changed the subject. Appeal to Mockery is a logical fallicy. So is Non-sequitur.  You have still failed to differentiate between Santa and God. Until you do, I will treat them as intellectually equal concepts.