Why is Satan invisible like God?

[SimpleCaveman]

I would like you as a theist to add your opinion…

Sure. I hadn’t before because I thought others had answered it decently enough. I’ll give you my thoughts, but, if you don’t mind, I’ll not argue them. It’s an interesting enough question, but the answers, as far as I know, are speculation.

Off the top of my head, the thoughts that make sense to me are

• As an angel Satan is a spiritual being and so has no physical form.
• Angels can take the appearance of human form, though. Maybe Satan does as well. The Bible has him doing that. Since we don’t very often hear people saying they saw Satan, if he does, then he doesn’t seem to let people know who he is. Or they don’t want to tell, or they can’t. Who knows.
• As some have pointed out it would likely work against Satan’s cause if people knew that Satan existed, assuming that Satan’s cause is to get people to reject and disobey God. If they knew Satan existed, then more would know that God existed.
• It seems possible that God could be limiting Satan’s abilities so that he can’t appear in physical form and make himself known, or some other, similar limitations.
• Finally, maybe Satan can do the most damage without needing to physically appear. The 20th Century has a lot of evil in it. It seems like he does just fine without making a physical appearance.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope they help. I joined in because it was a very interesting question. (The kind best discussed over a beer.) Sorry I didn’t respond directly before.

[12 Monkeys]

1) So why all the graphic pics of Satan
2)where are you getting this info from
3)Then what is God keeping him free for,If he cant ruin the plan anyways?
4)Then where do all the stories and images of Satan come from? Are they all made up....like the Bible?
5)There was a lot of church made evil long befoe the 20th century,does Satan NOT work for God?

[screwtape]

SC   WTF does any of your posts have to do with why Satan remains hidden like God?

That train left the station in August back on page 2.  The overwhelming majority of this thread has nothing to do with why satan remains hidden.  But, if you would like the off topic conversations split out, let me know.

Regards,
Screwtape

[SimpleCaveman]

Good Morning 12 Monkeys,

Happy Monday! 

1) So why all the graphic pics of Satan
2)where are you getting this info from
3)Then what is God keeping him free for,If he cant ruin the plan anyways?
4)Then where do all the stories and images of Satan come from? Are they all made up....like the Bible?
5)There was a lot of church made evil long befoe the 20th century,does Satan NOT work for God?

Good questions. Here are my thoughts corresponding to your numbers above.

• I think we have to have something to represent him. We have many paintings and such and when we want them to include invisible things (Satan, angels, God, love, ideology, etc), we have to represent that some way. We think of angels having wings because, as non-material beings, we think they can move very quickly.
• Some of it is from Church teachings, whether that's through the Bible or Tradition. Some of my thoughts about the devil are from C.S. Lewis' phenomenal book, The Screwtape Letters. Whether it's accurate or not, he does a great job of presenting a representation of devils that is coherent and consistent Church teachings and our daily experiences. Anything else is either from pop culture or my own thinking about it. I would ignore those parts, if I were you.
• Good question. Many people much wiser than I have given serious thought to it. I think the prevailing view (from St. Thomas Aquinas?) is that more people will get to heaven with Satan in the picture than without him. Or something close to that.
• No, not made up like the Bible. Made up in a completely different way. I certainly don't know "all the stories and images of Satan." Some of them come from the Bible. I'm sure some have been "made up" either for fiction or for moral teaching. People used to talk  a lot about Satan, sin, evil, etc. We're more "enlightened," so, unfortunately, we have gotten away from it.
• I don't understand the first part of #5. However, no, Satan does not work for God. There is no evidence of any teaching by the Church or theologians to that effect. Those theories are born out of bias or ignorance.

I hope I answered your questions.

[Add Homonym]

As some have pointed out it would likely work against Satan’s cause if people knew that Satan existed, assuming that Satan’s cause is to get people to reject and disobey God. If they knew Satan existed, then more would know that God existed.

And as I pointed out, all God would have to do to wreck Satan's plan of being hidden is to show himself. It's not a hiding competition.

The absurd Christian assumption is that knowledge of God suddenly makes things easier, like it's primarily a test of faith. The winners are people who can deduce the existence of God, with the least evidence. God doesn't like scientists! God will punish 500 years-worth of mankind, because we realised that God was not holding up the moon. Prior to science understanding gravity, the rotation of the moon was perfect proof of God, so God was revealing himself, and apparently cheating by not cheating. Currently, we cannot explain consciousness and the Big Bang, so God is still revealing himself to us in things we cannot understand. God of Gaps revelation.

Why doesn't Satan have this advantage? Why did we not look at the moon and assume that Satan was making it rotate? Is Satan not powerful enough to rotate a paltry moon? I think it's time we liberated Satan and ascribed all mysterious things to him. Obviously, mysterious things are mystifying, and only Satan would mystify us.

What if God showed up, and said "I'm here! But I'm not going to tell you which religion is true. Maybe none." We would learn nothing from that appearance. It would take a lot of hints and good shows, for us to even guess what God wanted from us, or whether we were even supposed to worship him at all. It would cause a lot of conflict, as extremists vied for the true religion.

We might ask God a question : Do you want us to love each other?
God would reply: Yes, because if you don't, you will kill each other and wipe each other out.
We would reply: So, we were right! You do want us to love each other.
God would reply: That's not a religion, it's just a survival strategy. Chimps and rats have managed to survive. Bravo!

God or Satan could reveal himself an awful lot, without giving us an idea of what we were supposed to do. Satan could appear as the Indians depict Kali. We would be screwed. Everyone would conclude that the Indian religions were true, and flock to them, like idiots.

A plausible reason why God does not reveal himself is... wait for it.... He does not want to be worshiped, or to cause conflict by speculation.

Another plausible reason is that neither of them can reveal themselves, because our notions of God and Satan are so childish and stupid that it would be as pointless as revealing the source code of Linux to a caveman. We want to be congratulated for doing what rats do.

[Nam]

I find it funny that Satan has done more wrong-doing outside of the Bible than in it.

-Nam

[12 Monkeys]

I find it funny that Satan has done more wrong-doing outside of the Bible than in it.

-Nam

So simple and elegant isn't it. Satan without proof is responsible because theists assign the blame to him,much like storms and earthquakes are assinged to an angry God. Even though there is scientific proof of why natural disasters occur,

[velkyn]

• Some of it is from Church teachings, whether that's through the Bible or Tradition. Some of my thoughts about the devil are from C.S. Lewis' phenomenal book, The Screwtape Letters. Whether it's accurate or not, he does a great job of presenting a representation of devils that is coherent and consistent Church teachings and our daily experiences. Anything else is either from pop culture or my own thinking about it. I would ignore those parts, if I were you.

oh yes, those daily experiences that show demons and debbils are real 

[screwtape]

Some of it is from Church teachings, whether that's through the Bible or Tradition. Some of my thoughts about the devil are from C.S. Lewis' phenomenal book, The Screwtape Letters. Whether it's accurate or not, he does a great job of presenting a representation of devils that is coherent and consistent Church teachings and our daily experiences. Anything else is either from pop culture or my own thinking about it. I would ignore those parts, if I were you

But it's all pop culture.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi pianodwarf,

Thanks for your patience. Glad to hear things are going well. Same here.

I will have to break this up into multiple posts. Besides being long, my lists within lists within lists, my dear Thufir Hawat, were causing problems with the renderer.

You had made these claims as the reason I should leave the Catholic Church.

The church leadership shields these priests from law enforcement, denies and minimalizes the allegations, and shuttles the priests from parish to parish, which enables them to continue raping children.  This is an institution-wide policy, created in part by none other than the pope himself.

I do not argue against these claims about shuttling and such to the degree that they are true, and they are true to a certain degree. Where they are true, I stand with you in claiming that what was done was wrong. Children are most precious and abusing any of them is an evil. There has been and still is a lot of pain and suffering that I can’t even imagine. Honestly, I can’t dwell on the situation in anything other than a clinical manner for very long.

However, I do not agree that the blanket statement above is true. The facts (see following posts for references) show that

• The horrible reality of shuttling or ignoring is found in other places such as our public schools.
• The problem of shuttling or ignoring is not an institution-wide policy.
• While nothing is perfect, stronger policies have been put in place, particularly after an understanding of the magnitude of the situation, that are specifically designed to protect our children.
• The behavior of shuttling or ignoring was not created nor engaged in by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, he has always been a strong advocate for appropriate response to abuse allegations.

[SimpleCaveman]

Evidence for #1 The horrible reality of shuttling or ignoring is found in other places such as our public schools:


• A report by the U.S. Dept of Education.
• An article by the NY Times.

Evidence for #2 The problem of shuttling or ignoring is not an institution-wide policy:

• The primary responses were in line with and based on psychiatric and psychological methods of treatment for sexual offenders.
• A “comprehensive plan for response to victims and the harms of sexual abuse [had been developed] by the mid-1990’s, [though] diocesan implementation was not consistent or thorough at that time. Yet, the decrease in incidence of sexual abuse cases by clergy was more rapid than the overall societal patterns.
• John Jay College of Criminal Justice News Story and the actual JJCC report, The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010, particularly Part Five: The Response from the diocese and religious communities.

Evidence for #3 While nothing is perfect, stronger policies have been put in place, particularly after an understanding of the magnitude of the situation, that are specifically designed to protect our children:

• See the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Child and Youth Protection site. Particularly, the site has Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. It has information for parents to know their rights, know Church law and learn about child safety. It has reports commissioned to understand the problem and track how well the charter (above) has been implemented. It also has other resources and victim assistance information.
• “The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. (National Catholic) created the programs. Monsignor Kevin McCoy, past board chairman of National Catholic, asked whether child sexual abuse could be prevented and, if so, how? In March of 1998, National Catholic invited prominent national experts—experts in many disciplines—to discuss these questions at a forum in Washington, D.C. From those discussions, the initiative for the VIRTUS programs was created.” – See Virtus Online Every U.S. diocese has to use the Protecting God’s Children Program. The program provides information to “increase the public awareness about child sexual abuse, and to provide adults with the knowledge and tools they need to help prevent and, if necessary, to respond appropriately to child sexual abuse.” Everyone, regardless of religion, who works with our kids, even on a part-time basis, has to go through this program and a background check. Even someone who “only” works with the non-Catholic scouts in the troop sponsored by our parish. There is also a version for the kids to give them “the tools they need to overcome the advances of someone who intends to do them harm.” The Church wants to ensure that everyone is safe, that everyone knows the warning signs of abuse, and what to do if they see it.
• ‘Investigative journalist Michael Harris has seen a "tremendous policy change" in the [Canadian] Catholic Church since he broke the story of sexual and physical abuse at the Mount Cashel orphanage in the late 1980s.  "There has been a true response to the real problem instead of musical parishes, private deals and chequebook dispensations," said the author of Unholy Orders: Tragedy at Mount Cashel. "I have a good feeling that the next generation of Catholic priests will not be in this position."’ Cornwall Inquiry

[SimpleCaveman]

Evidence for #4 The behavior of shuttling or ignoring was not created nor engaged in by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, he has always been a strong advocate for appropriate response to abuse allegations:

The “evidence” given for the claim by your blogger is based on sly remarks and innuendo. Some of her “references” are merely other articles that also make vague accusations without references. Let’s look at one of them.

She says “[the deliberate shuttling of child-raping priests] was a widespread, institutional practice, authorized by high-level Church officials. Including Cardinal Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI.” Her reference for “widespread, institutional practice” is an article by James Carroll in The Daily Beast from March 11, 2010. He says “The nearly universal response of church authorities to these crimes, rising to the level of the papacy itself, is so consistently to protect the abusers and re-victimize the victims as to qualify for the crime of co-conspiracy.” However, if you look at the John Jay Report Part 5 above, “nearly universal” is a gross exaggeration.

He then tries to point the finger at then Cardinal Ratzinger by saying

After the scandals began breaking a decade ago in the United States, that tradition was explicitly (if secretly) continued by an order issued in 2001 by Joseph Ratzinger, then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Crimes “perpetrated with a minor by a cleric” fall under church jurisdiction, not civil law enforcement. “Cases of this kind,” Ratzinger warned, “are subject to the pontifical secret”—the violation of which is punishable by excommunication.

The spin he puts on this is amazingly typical. Christopher Hitchens made similarly venomous attacks in the National Post addressing the Munich case in particular. This article responds to them with full references for anyone to read. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm

Some key points with some references. Full references are in the above site. Carroll has nothing of the sort.

• ”secretly” – the 2001 directive (or instruction) he’s referring to appeared in English in 2001 and was disclosed and discussed by Catholic media January of that year. It’s been “exposed” multiple times by various agencies about every year or so since then.
• The purpose of the directive was to clear up confusion about how reports of clerical sexual misconduct were to be handled. There were earlier instructions, in 1962 for example, on this subject. These instructions are reviewed to ensure they are accurate, up to date, answer all questions, etc. The 2001 instruction was published after a review of the earlier instruction to enhance the directive. The 2001 document, for example, actually extended time limits that had previously hampered prosecutions.
• Most of the (about one page) instruction from then Cardinal Ratzinger deals with situations involving the Sacrament of Reconciliation (or confession). These are particularly sensitive, because the Church wants to respond, but the seal of confession cannot be violated. These crimes do fall under church jurisdiction, but you’ll have to show me how it says they don’t fall under civil law enforcement. Neither the letter nor the 1962 document it refers to make any reference to “civil law enforcement.” That’s not their purview.
• What does the letter and 1962 instruction say about reporting these “unspeakable crimes”? The letter doesn’t say anything. The 1962 instruction says that “lest it remain occult and unpunished” anyone who has certain knowledge, particularly the victim, must report the accused priest. (para 15 – 19) This obligation does not cease whether the priest confesses, is presumably reformed, is transferred, promoted, or condemned. (para 21)
• There are oaths of secrecy for protection of all involved in investigations of sexual abuse by priests. (The article points out that analogous oaths can occur in secular investigations and gives references.) The officials investigating or involved would be excommunicated if they violated this oath. There is no such penalty on the witnesses or the victims. It provides quotes and references from canon law specialists who “while properly critical of wrongful conduct by bishops and priests, have dismissed the theory that the document was meant to cover up clerical wrongdoing, or that it was used for that purpose.”
• Finally, then Cardinal Ratzinger was instrumental in improving the way these cases were handled. Besides actions like extending the time limits, he moved the responsibility for disciplining the priests away from the local diocesan bishops to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See this document by Pope John Paul II. Why? Because bishops were not handling them strongly enough.

I know this is long, and I hope that whomever is reading these posts has read this far. As before, I am not defending any crimes or abuse. I am looking for the truth as I hope we all are. Given the facts and evidence I’ve presented and referred the reader to, the truth is that the events are more horrible than they should ever have been, they are much less than anti-Catholics want them to be, the Church is much better than it was in preventing and dealing with these situations, and Pope Benedict has been a beacon of reform, cleansing and reconciliation.

So why are you still Catholic?

Because of my last paragraph above; because even with the scandals, it’s the best thing out there; because denying the Church would be to deny Jesus Christ who loves me in ways far beyond what I can imagine.

Regardless of the many stupid and evil things people have done, Christ’s Church still stands, still does so much good in the world and still brings salvation to so many, and it will until the end of time.

[Ambassador Pony]

Your great grandchildren will see otherwise. A quaint artifact of their personal family history to look back on with a bemused fascination, that's what they will see.

Your one truth until the end of time, has an end date. Nothing special.   

[12 Monkeys]

HEY SC  how many child-raping fuckers have actually been put in jail? can you give me a %? maybe a handfull?

 STOP just STOP defending an orginization that hides and moves child rapers so they cant be held accountable for their actions

 If your neighbor was a child raper I doubt you would defend his actions............why have these child rapers not been brought to justice like your neighbor would?

[albeto]

However, I do not agree that the blanket statement above is true. The facts (see following posts for references) show that

• The horrible reality of shuttling or ignoring is found in other places such as our public schools.

Fact: The RCC believes this problem can be addressed through the sacraments and prayer (namely the sacrament of reconciliation and the eucharist).  This is addressing a physical problem with a non physical solution, something the public schools do not entertain.

Fact: IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT EXCUSABLE. 

• The problem of shuttling or ignoring is not an institution-wide policy.

Fact: The Cloyne Report from Ireland shows evidence to the contrary.

• While nothing is perfect, stronger policies have been put in place, particularly after an understanding of the magnitude of the situation, that are specifically designed to protect our children.

Fact: Whatever policies were placed after decades of lack of policy (or policy that focused on the sacraments and shuttling, ignoring, and blaming the victim) does not change the reality that until there is exposure to the public (and even then), are these policies designed and administered. 

• The behavior of shuttling or ignoring was not created nor engaged in by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, he has always been a strong advocate for appropriate response to abuse allegations.

Fact: It doesn't change the reality that you are aligned with a body of believers who genuinely believed (and advocated both publicly and privately) that these things could be prayed away and the suffering of innocent children would somehow be redemptive to the suffering of all by uniting to the suffering of christ.  When you sit in on Mass you show your support of this system of fantasy.  When you drop your money into the collection you support it financially, including orphanages and schools around the world that have not yet been exposed to the public.  When you cross yourself or partake in any of the sacraments you align yourself with a belief system that willfully ignores reality and hopes for the sake of hope that the most pleasant parts of the faith will be right in the end.  When you teach your RCIA class you instruct the next generation to ignore these upsetting facts and distract themselves with the emotionally rewarding experience of believing the eucharist is really the body and blood, soul and divinity of christ himself.  You're teaching more people to willfully embrace ignorance and look for the next emotional high. 

Why not use those ideas you find valuable and virtuous in the faith and apply them without this organization?  Why not advocate peace and patience and selfless giving to those in need without the fantasy story of a supernatural being that increasingly is becoming understood as more idealistic and mystical than factual?

[albeto]

Evidence for #1 The horrible reality of shuttling or ignoring is found in other places such as our public schools:


• A report by the U.S. Dept of Education.
• An article by the NY Times.

The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the bride of christ itself.  The bishop of Rome is understood to be the vicar of christ, that is, christ works supernaturally vicariously through him.  Of all institutions in the world, of all human beings alive, surely the vicar of christ himself would have understood that shuttling and ignoring and blaming the victims isn't actual charity.  Surely these priests who believe with the laying on of the hands of the bishops who ordained them (in an unbroken line back to the very apostles), would have had the strength and love of the holy spirit to come between their sinful urges and the innocent children who became their constant and repeated victims. 

I can't believe it needs to be said to an adult, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Evidence for #2 The problem of shuttling or ignoring is not an institution-wide policy:

• The primary responses were in line with and based on psychiatric and psychological methods of treatment for sexual offenders.
• A “comprehensive plan for response to victims and the harms of sexual abuse [had been developed] by the mid-1990’s, [though] diocesan implementation was not consistent or thorough at that time. Yet, the decrease in incidence of sexual abuse cases by clergy was more rapid than the overall societal patterns.
• John Jay College of Criminal Justice News Story and the actual JJCC report, The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010, particularly Part Five: The Response from the diocese and religious communities.

If the church of christ has any supernatural effect at all, there would have been no sexual abuse!  Don't you think a priest endowed with the holy spirit would have sooner thrown his own body on the sword, as it were, than to put a child through such a terrifying ordeal?  How can you think that just because not every priest was hidden, these events are in any way justifiable or excusable?  It's human nature, pure and simple, and there is no evidence for anything supernatural involved here. 

Evidence for #3 While nothing is perfect, stronger policies have been put in place, particularly after an understanding of the magnitude of the situation, that are specifically designed to protect our children:

• See the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Child and Youth Protection site. Particularly, the site has Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. It has information for parents to know their rights, know Church law and learn about child safety. It has reports commissioned to understand the problem and track how well the charter (above) has been implemented. It also has other resources and victim assistance information.

You are missing the point.  There shouldn't have to BE a policy of ANY KIND if priests are truly acting vicariously for christ in their roles as ministers of the sacraments.  Just as christ didn't allow the temple to be defiled by moneylending, he wouldn't allow the human "temple" to be defiled by such an angry, ugly, tormenting violation on children. 

• “The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. (National Catholic) created the programs. Monsignor Kevin McCoy, past board chairman of National Catholic, asked whether child sexual abuse could be prevented and, if so, how? In March of 1998, National Catholic invited prominent national experts—experts in many disciplines—to discuss these questions at a forum in Washington, D.C. From those discussions, the initiative for the VIRTUS programs was created.” – See Virtus Online Every U.S. diocese has to use the Protecting God’s Children Program. The program provides information to “increase the public awareness about child sexual abuse, and to provide adults with the knowledge and tools they need to help prevent and, if necessary, to respond appropriately to child sexual abuse.” Everyone, regardless of religion, who works with our kids, even on a part-time basis, has to go through this program and a background check. Even someone who “only” works with the non-Catholic scouts in the troop sponsored by our parish. There is also a version for the kids to give them “the tools they need to overcome the advances of someone who intends to do them harm.” The Church wants to ensure that everyone is safe, that everyone knows the warning signs of abuse, and what to do if they see it.

So now we know the sacraments really aren't of any use.  Confession, the eucharist - no effect.  Prayer - no effect.  Offering up suffering, mortification - no effect.  It's almost as if there's no supernatural component to the faith at all and the church has to hire an organization to take care of this through practical (purely natural) means.  It's almost as if, your god really work through his "bride" because he doesn't exist. 

• ‘Investigative journalist Michael Harris has seen a "tremendous policy change" in the [Canadian] Catholic Church since he broke the story of sexual and physical abuse at the Mount Cashel orphanage in the late 1980s.  "There has been a true response to the real problem instead of musical parishes, private deals and chequebook dispensations," said the author of Unholy Orders: Tragedy at Mount Cashel. "I have a good feeling that the next generation of Catholic priests will not be in this position."’ Cornwall Inquiry

Why would that come as any surprise?  No one likes to be caught with their pants down.  ESPECIALLY INNOCENT CHILDREN DAMMIT![/list]

[albeto]

I know this is long, and I hope that whomever is reading these posts has read this far. As before, I am not defending any crimes or abuse. I am looking for the truth as I hope we all are. Given the facts and evidence I’ve presented and referred the reader to, the truth is that the events are more horrible than they should ever have been, they are much less than anti-Catholics want them to be, the Church is much better than it was in preventing and dealing with these situations, and Pope Benedict has been a beacon of reform, cleansing and reconciliation.

But you are.  You are trying to claim that the abuses weren't *that* bad, all things considered.  You're trying to demote the crime to acceptable levels.  There's nothing acceptable about them and that they happen by god's very own priests, covered up frantically by god's very own bishops, is evidence that this organization is no more supernaturally endowed than any other organization. 

Because of my last paragraph above; because even with the scandals, it’s the best thing out there; because denying the Church would be to deny Jesus Christ who loves me in ways far beyond what I can imagine.

Regardless of the many stupid and evil things people have done, Christ’s Church still stands, still does so much good in the world and still brings salvation to so many, and it will until the end of time.

The "salvation" the church brings works only against the condemnation the church first administers.  Without the idea of "sin" there would be no idea of "salvation."  "Sin" only works until one understands human behavior, no different than the idea of "god's wrath" only works until one understands weather patterns and plate tectonics.  Information does away with superstition because explanations make sense.  The only reason to remain in the church is for the emotional rewards of feeling close to divinity.  You can experience these same emotions without doing anything that contributes to the abuse of people physically or emotionally.  You needn't give up helping people and experiencing deep joy and tranquility when you leave the organization.  I completely understand why you're there.  I hung on to my faith for a long time even after the logic was no longer persuasive to me because the emotional experiences couldn't be denied.  I mistakenly believed they couldn't be found outside the faith either, but they can.  They truly can, and they can be obtained at no cost to anyone else. 

[12 Monkeys]

Well said Albeto,thanks +1

[velkyn]

I know this is long, and I hope that whomever is reading these posts has read this far. As before, I am not defending any crimes or abuse. I am looking for the truth as I hope we all are. Given the facts and evidence I’ve presented and referred the reader to, the truth is that the events are more horrible than they should ever have been, they are much less than anti-Catholics want them to be, the Church is much better than it was in preventing and dealing with these situations, and Pope Benedict has been a beacon of reform, cleansing and reconciliation.

So why are you still Catholic?

Because of my last paragraph above; because even with the scandals, it’s the best thing out there; because denying the Church would be to deny Jesus Christ who loves me in ways far beyond what I can imagine.

Regardless of the many stupid and evil things people have done, Christ’s Church still stands, still does so much good in the world and still brings salvation to so many, and it will until the end of time.

I’m still wondering why your God does nothing, SC.  Per your supposed holy book, your god took great offense if people did something that he didn’t like. He killed people for merely trying to keep his magic box upright when the wagon carrying it lurched.  How is it your god can’t do a thing against these abusive priests before they harm someone?  JC says that just the thought is sin enough for this god to act.  So why aren’t they being acted upon to keep others from suffering? 

I would suspect you’ll try to claim free will.  That will fail.  And I see that you are far more interested in getting your magic present at the end of your life than you are about actual justice and fairness.  You claim that this JC “loves you in ways far beyond what I can imagine.”  However, this being sure must hate the children that it allows to be harmed.  You want these crimes by the church to be considered “less than what anti-Catholics want them to be”.  Sorry, they are as horrible as any I can imagine, short of genocide.  And your church and your god, if it would exist, are culpable for them.  But you are too afriad to admit it. 

[12 Monkeys]

There is always a way for them to excuse their God,either for the horrible acts he did or the punishment(hell) he puts decent people into. It is never God's fault he acts like a spoiled child. If any child acted the way God acts he would surley be punished. Then he lets it rest on the shoulders of his "son" and pulls a vanishing act just as science comes round the bend.

[One Above All]

There is always a way for them to excuse their God,either for the horrible acts he did or the punishment(hell) he puts decent people into. It is never God's fault he acts like a spoiled child. If any child acted the way God acts he would surley be punished. Then he lets it rest on the shoulders of his "son" and pulls a vanishing act just as science comes round the bend.

If a child acted like God does, they'd be in jail. Murdering 99% of the world's population, sending plagues, more murders... The kid would be in jail (or maybe even get the death penalty) faster than you can say "Amen"

[gonegolfing]

SC:

I know this is long, and I hope that whomever is reading these posts has read this far. As before, I am not defending any crimes or abuse. I am looking for the truth as I hope we all are. Given the facts and evidence I’ve presented and referred the reader to, the truth is that the events are more horrible than they should ever have been, they are much less than anti-Catholics want them to be, the Church is much better than it was in preventing and dealing with these situations, and Pope Benedict has been a beacon of reform, cleansing and reconciliation.



Quote from: pianodwarf on September 18, 2011, 09:54:35 AM

So why are you still Catholic?



Because of my last paragraph above; because even with the scandals, it’s the best thing out there; because denying the Church would be to deny Jesus Christ who loves me in ways far beyond what I can imagine.

Regardless of the many stupid and evil things people have done, Christ’s Church still stands, still does so much good in the world and still brings salvation to so many, and it will until the end of time.

^^^It just doesn't get any more pathetic than this.

You've not only put your stamp of approval on a disgusting and devious organisation, but you've also defended your right and intention to stick with it as a rank and file member with pride. This is done even in spite of your admittance that the organisation has corrupt and cancerous elements. Your claim that it's the best of the worst and in spite of that still worthy of adherence, is a sure sign of your weakness of mind and an obsession with submission to religious authority. Your continued attachment to this spurious organisation drunk with the idea of its own power, convicts you of being a loyal supporter of a group that is suspect at best and prone to criminality by its members at worst. Part of the group--part of the problem. Until you leave the group:--you have nothing to say worth listening to.

Do you think you've educated us ? Do think we're impressed or have had our minds changed on Catholicism and its many faults ? Think again if so. We already know the truth about your religion. That truth is that it's no religion at all. It just another piece of rotten to the core ideological fruit that has fallen from the tree called "god idea".

Cheers   

[velkyn]

a good guest post on the "Why Evolution is True" blog on the subject of the Catholic Church and its tactics (including its supposed "beacon of reform" as SC claims: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/guest-post-normalizing-catholic-torture/

[SimpleCaveman]

FYI, I am not ignoring the recent posts. However, it was pianodwarf who brought up the topic. Out of respect for him, I'll wait until he's ready to reply.

In the meantime, there are other sub-threads lingering on.

First, I owe Screwtape a response.
Then, contrary to the opinion of 12 Monkeys, I'll work on figuring out what Ambassador Pony is trying to get at.

I am also waiting on velkyn's response for our discussion. She may have missed my question among the other posts.

I’m not sure if Add Homonym is done with our discussion or not. I think I answered all his questions, so we may be done.

If I’ve missed any other posts to which someone would like a response, please forgive me. I mean no disrespect. Let me know and we’ll continue.

[SimpleCaveman]

Great bolshy yarblockos to thee and thine.

Just watched that movie a couple of weeks ago.

Let's stick with your definition here (excepting that Maslow silliness):

Make the connection between that, sin and "salvation".

I actually made that connection in the post with the definition. I understand that you do not view sin as I do. Fair enough. My statements are based on the deposit of faith. The definitions of sin and salvation confirm the connection that I made. As a former churchgoing Catholic, I’m surprised that wasn’t clear to you.

Do you want to go back to any of the other comments or questions?

[12 Monkeys]

Great bolshy yarblockos to thee and thine.

Just watched that movie a couple of weeks ago.

Let's stick with your definition here (excepting that Maslow silliness):

Make the connection between that, sin and "salvation".

I actually made that connection in the post with the definition. I understand that you do not view sin as I do. Fair enough. My statements are based on the deposit of faith. The definitions of sin and salvation confirm the connection that I made. As a former churchgoing Catholic, I’m surprised that wasn’t clear to you.

Do you want to go back to any of the other comments or questions?

You say former Church going catholic like it was  a criminal act........what is different before and after church life? What were they teaching you disagreed with? what does God teach you ,that you disagree with? How does the "catholic" view Satan? Like one post said "Satan" has done far more outside the "bible",either by word of mouth,story,teachings(that have NOTHING to do with biblical Satan),posession and a myriad of other doings associated to him that can't be proven real.

[pianodwarf]

FYI, I am not ignoring the recent posts. However, it was pianodwarf who brought up the topic. Out of respect for him, I'll wait until he's ready to reply.

No, go ahead, I think I'm done here.  I don't think I can improve on anything that anyone else has said.  I'm also becoming too angry to maintain my objectivity.  I'm going to let cooler heads prevail.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hello pianodwarf,

No, go ahead, I think I'm done here.  I don't think I can improve on anything that anyone else has said.  I'm also becoming too angry to maintain my objectivity.  I'm going to let cooler heads prevail.

Thank you for the response. I understand your situation, not directly and maybe not completely, but at least clinically and from other experiences. I wish you the best. I know some thing I am defending the kinds of things that happened to you, but the truth is far from that. When anyone is hurt, especially children, I am very angry at those who did the hurting and deeply sorrowed for those hurt. If I could take their place, or take their hurt, I would do so.

I will respond to the other posts and if you want to comment, please don't be concerned. I know you don’t want to rant and rave and that’s appropriate in this setting. However, know that from you I will take no offense.

I think you’re being kind when you say that the others have “cooler heads.” At least (I took it that) you would read my posts with the purpose of understanding what I say even if you don’t agree. I think that’s the best that we can do here. However, when reading other’s posts, I don’t get that same impression.

Thank you again for the conversation. I wish you the best and I look forward to speaking with you again in the future.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi 12 Monkeys,

I’m not sure to whom these questions are directed.

You say former Church going catholic like it was  a criminal act........what is different before and after church life?

They seem like they’re directed to me, since I’m the last one you quoted and I used the phrase “former Church going catholic.” However, and this is a problem with the partial quoting advised in the forum guidelines, I wasn’t the originator of the phrase. I used that phrase because that’s how screwtape described himself in an earlier post. (Discussion forums are hard to follow well, aren’t they?) It was not meant with any negative connotations. And he surely meant it in a positive way!

However, maybe you caught all that and are directing the questions to him? Fine. I’ll shut up. (Yes, I know. Difficult to imagine, isn’t it. )