The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Suzie Sue

PDN wrote: »

So when you posted "Jesus also taught that for every 12 apostles one will turn out to be a Judas", you actually meant "Jesus didn't teach this at all - but Suzie Sue thinks there will be a percentage of wrongdoers in all walks of life."

While I will accept your protestation that is actually what you meant, you can hardly call someone a chancer for taking your statement at face value and assuming you were making a claim that Jesus had taught such a thing.

You are silly !

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You got that arseways.... evil doers use the Church as an equal opportunity policy!

Because they can!

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

Because they can!

People murder because the can!!!

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

People murder because the can!!!

Are you making a point? What is it?

Suzie Sue

himnextdoor wrote: »

Because they can!

Name a structure or institution that cannot be abused ?

wolfsbane

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

There are estimated to be 2.2 billion Christians in the World.
1.1 Billion of them are Roman Catholic, and about 240 million are Eastern Orthodox. Therefore most are.
The remaining 860 million belong to one of the 33,000 (and rising) Protestant interpretations.

I'm not questioning the sincerity or decency of most who profess the name of Christian - but I do question their actual possession of true faith in Christ.

Most Protestants and Catholics I know - and I'm not counting the atheist 'Protestant' or 'Catholic' - are mere religionists. No different from practising Hindus or Muslims. Just folk who think that doing their best morally and keeping membership of a church is enough to make them right with God.

Perhaps a devout attempt to justify themselves before God, but not accepting His righteousness alone as the basis of their salvation:
Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.


And no heart-felt forsaking of their old life; no willingness to follow Christ in the face of all opposition/ridicule/loss. Yet the Lord Jesus makes clear that only those who do so are His followers:
Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

himnextdoor

Suzie Sue wrote: »

Name a structure or institution that cannot be abused ?

The point is that I can name one or two institutions that can be easily abused.

Let's go with what we know, huh?

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

The point is that I can name one or two institutions that can be easily abused.

Let's go with what we know, huh?

And these are just the tip of the iceberg!!

ALL Protestant denominations - 838 Ministers

147 Baptist Ministers

251 "Bible" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)

140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers

38 Lutheran Ministers

46 Methodist Ministers

19 Presbyterian Ministers

197 various Church Ministers

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not questioning the sincerity or decency of most who profess the name of Christian - but I do question their actual possession of true faith in Christ.

Most Protestants and Catholics I know - and I'm not counting the atheist 'Protestant' or 'Catholic' - are mere religionists. No different from practising Hindus or Muslims. Just folk who think that doing their best morally and keeping membership of a church is enough to make them right with God.

Perhaps a devout attempt to justify themselves before God, but not accepting His righteousness alone as the basis of their salvation:
Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.


And no heart-felt forsaking of their old life; no willingness to follow Christ in the face of all opposition/ridicule/loss. Yet the Lord Jesus makes clear that only those who do so are His followers:
Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Is that to say we should all become monks and nuns? (or equivalent)

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

And these are just the tip of the iceberg!!

ALL Protestant denominations - 838 Ministers

147 Baptist Ministers

251 "Bible" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)

140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers

38 Lutheran Ministers

46 Methodist Ministers

19 Presbyterian Ministers

197 various Church Ministers

Which just goes to show that religion ain't good for kids!!!

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which just goes to show that religion ain't good for kids!!!

Wrong!!! It goes to show that there is evil everywhere!!! I was abused twice as a child by two different people, and they had nothing to do with religion!!!:(

smokingman

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

The problem is weeding out the evil cardinals and bishops from the genuine. Concrete evidence and proof is required to determine beyond all reasonable doubt who they are, and don't for one second think the evil ones are not clever enough at lying and accusing other Cardinals and Bishops to protect their own power and necks.

So, given that the letter Ratzinburg sent to the bishops telling them to keep the abuse from the authorites is in the public domain and has not been denied, is that proof enough that the pope is one of these "evil ones" you speak of?

Suzie Sue wrote: »

The state needs to start doing its job and convict those it has evidence and proof from the reports. Everyone else is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, that’s the golden thread of justice.

The state this, the state that....all this is a very bad attempt at distraction that I've seen proliferate from a select few posters since the report came out. Are you really going to follow your leaders down the path of denial, deception and distraction from that facts as well? Are you really going to leave behind the core of what the historical Jesus taught? Are you going to do anything to fight the corruption in your church?.....or will you still bend your knee to those who damage your church?

philologos

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I didn't mention a 12/1 ratio!!! The original Church with the 12 Apostles had one devil, and I implied that there will always be some percentage of evil in the Church

I believe that Judas fulfilled prophesy concerning Jesus' death. Judas played an integral part in the salvation of mankind. Without Judas in the Gospels, the full price of sin would not be paid. The idea of Judas as necessarily evil results from the opinion that Jesus wasn't meant to die on the cross and that it is a tragedy that Jesus would die on the cross. I believe that Jesus' death and resurrection on the cross results in great joy for all mankind.

Whenever I read the Bible, I generally find something I haven't paid attention to enough before. This particular passage of John's Gospel blew my mind wide open again concerning Jesus.

John 16:17-24 wrote:

At this, some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying.”

Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, “Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me’? Very truly I tell you, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.

gimmebroadband

smokingman wrote: »

So, given that the letter Ratzinburg sent to the bishops telling them to keep the abuse from the authorites is in the public domain and has not been denied, is that proof enough that the pope is one of these "evil ones" you speak of?



The state this, the state that....all this is a very bad attempt at distraction that I've seen proliferate from a select few posters since the report came out. Are you really going to follow your leaders down the path of denial, deception and distraction from that facts as well? Are you really going to leave behind the core of what the historical Jesus taught? Are you going to do anything to fight the corruption in your church?.....or will you still bend your knee to those who damage your church?

From a poster in another forum:

"It was the National Board for Safeguarding Children set up by the Hierarchy in Ireland that brought the situation in Cloyne to light, so the Hierarchy are doing what they said they would. The media are choosing to ignore this fact. The report also states that the Churches child protection guidelines are clearer than the states own (see page 49 of the report). "

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=580043&page=7

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Judas fulfilled prophesy concerning Jesus' death. Judas played an integral part in the salvation of mankind. Without Judas in the Gospels, the full price of sin would not be paid. The idea of Judas as necessarily evil results from the opinion that Jesus wasn't meant to die on the cross and that it is a tragedy that Jesus would die on the cross. I believe that Jesus' death and resurrection on the cross results in great joy for all mankind.

Jesus was meant to die on the Cross.

I personally that the Eternal Word meant to taken human nature, but the Passion only happened because of sin and if something is a necesscity it cannot therefore be sin. Sin is a break, a disruption in the cosmic order.

No one is necessarily evil, not even Judas, however people choose to be evil and God chooses to bring good out of evil. Just because that God choose to bring the ultimate good out of Judas's evil doesnt make him not evil.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding you.

smokingman

gimmebroadband wrote: »

blah blah blah

Are you really going to follow your leaders down the path of denial, deception and distraction from that facts as well? Are you really going to leave behind the core of what the historical Jesus taught? Are you going to do anything to fight the corruption in your church?.....or will you still bend your knee to those who damage your church?

gimmebroadband

smokingman wrote: »

Are you really going to follow your leaders down the path of denial, deception and distraction from that facts as well? Are you really going to leave behind the core of what the historical Jesus taught? Are you going to do anything to fight the corruption in your church?.....or will you still bend your knee to those who damage your church?

Sure wasn't it on RTE radio yesterday morning about the recent media scandals, and a topic came up about fact-finding or lack of it when it comes to the CC. That the media for the most part is unregulated!!!

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Wrong!!! It goes to show that there is evil everywhere!!! I was abused twice as a child by two different people, and they had nothing to do with religion!!!:(

Okay, it shows that the Church has no more resistance to evil than any other section of society. Is it acceptable to have criminals in the police force?

That can't be right, can it?

So who actually is standing guard against evil if not the Church in particular?

Suzie Sue

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Judas fulfilled prophesy concerning Jesus' death. Judas played an integral part in the salvation of mankind. Without Judas in the Gospels, the full price of sin would not be paid.

Jesus was going to be arrested, tried, tortured and crucified with or without Judas.

himnextdoor

Suzie Sue wrote: »

Jesus was going to be arrested, tried, tortured and crucified with or without Judas.

I'm sorry, the betrayal of the son of man was central to the prophecy. Not to mention the other part of prophecy concerning a 'field of blood' being completed through Judas.

Jesus said He would be betrayed by one among them, if there was no betrayal then Jesus would have got it wrong.

Did Peter have to deny Jesus before the cock crowed? Of course he did. Even if he didn't he would have to say that he did.

Ambersky

Abraham and Issac
Abraham the father of three religious systems - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The image below is of Abraham being tested to see if he would carry out a request from god to kill his son Issac and thus prove his unquestioning obedience.
The message of this story seems to be that anything, any act, can be excused and overlooked and indeed justified, if it is in service to the central theme of obedience to authority.
Abraham is the first grand patriarch the model for all authority and heirarchies.
This story has been a favourite theme of artists and religious teachers for centuries.
I would consider this image and story to be the foundation stone of institutional child abuse within both the church and the family.
Its erotic potential was seldom missed by artists and seemed to have been appreciated by their religious patrons.

PDN

Ambersky wrote: »

Abraham and Issac
Abraham the father of three religious systems - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The image below is of Abraham being tested to see if he would carry out a request from god to kill his son Issac and thus prove his unquestioning obedience.
The message of this story seems to be that anything, any act, can be excused and overlooked and indeed justified, if it is in service to the central theme of obedience to authority.
Abraham is the first grand patriarch the model for all authority and heirarchies.
This story has been a favourite theme of artists and religious teachers for centuries.
I would consider this image and story to be the foundation stone of institutional child abuse within both the church and the family.
Its erotic potential was seldom missed by artists and seemed to have been appreciated by their religious patrons.

Hardly, for several reasons:

1. Jewish tradition records that Isaac was 33 years old at the time of this event. So, it was more about a strong young man submitting willingly to being a sacrifice offered by a geriatric old man.

2. In Christian tradition the message is certainly not that any act can be excused, but rather than Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead.

3. All branches of the Christian faith (Catholic, Reformed and Orthodox) teach that Abraham's actions were under the Old Covenant, whereas we live under the New Covenant. Therefore Abraham's actions certainly do not provide a model for authorities or hierarchies.

4. If you find anything erotic in that picture then I would strongly advise you to seek medical help quickly.

santing

PDN wrote: »

1. Jewish tradition records that Isaac was 33 years old at the time of this event. So, it was more about a strong young man submitting willingly to being a sacrifice offered by a geriatric old man.

Which makes the offering of Isaac by Abraham an even better type of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus.

himnextdoor

santing wrote: »

Which makes the offering of Isaac by Abraham an even better type of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent; it's okay to murder your children if a voice in your head says it is.

I think that a test of faith in man is actually a test of God's omniscience. There is no need to test what is known.

Also, while I understand that Abraham's contemporaries were somewhat barbaric living as they did in cultures practising human-sacrifice and incest, it seems that God was equally uncivilised; His demands of Abraham reinforce barbarism.

Why did God require blood-sacrifices then and does He still require them today?

Was God more ignorant the day before He tested Abraham's faith than He was the day after?

What did Isaac learn from the experience?

What would have happened to Abraham if he'd said, 'No way Hosannah'?

Wouldn't it have been a more effective test of faith to have Abraham throw himself off a precipice?

Why does willingness to cause children to suffer in His name please God?

The answer to the last question will probably explain why 'the one true Church' has legislation in place that can protect those who cause children to suffer.

santing

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think it sets a dangerous precedent; it's okay to murder your children if a voice in your head says it is.

Not at all - you can't really force your will on a 33 year old ... The story in Gen 22(:6,8) highlights that the two went together, they were in it together.

It was a test of Abraham's faith because God's promise was:

And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. (Gen 17:18-19 ESV)

And that is also how it is explained in the New Testament:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Heb 11:17-19 ESV)

gimmebroadband

Abraham was to sacrifice his son at the behest of God the Father.
God the Father stopped Abraham at the last moment, and said that He Himself would provide the sacrifice. - His Only Begotten Son, Jesus.

The temporary sacrifice the ram, had it's horns caught up in some thorns,
Jesus Sacred head was crowned with thorns.

Isaac carried the wood up the moutain for the altar.
Jesus carried the wood of the Cross up the mountain.

The place where Abraham was to sacrifice his son was called Mt. Moriah.
The place Jesus was crucified on Calvary which was a part of, Mt. Moriah.

himnextdoor

santing wrote: »

Not at all - you can't really force your will on a 33 year old ... The story in Gen 22(:6,8) highlights that the two went together, they were in it together.

It was a test of Abraham's faith because God's promise was:

And that is also how it is explained in the New Testament:

Exactly, so it wasn't a test of faith was it; if Isaac is to have descendants, he has to be alive. In actual fact, Abraham called God's bluff.

God told Abraham that Isaac would spawn a nation. God says to Abraham, 'Take Isaac, set up an altar and the kill Isaac on the altar'. Abraham thinks, 'That's odd, how can Isaac have descendants if I kill him? Ah, God will bring Isaac back to life; He's going to show me a trick. Yay!'

Now, Abraham might well go to Isaac and say, 'I was chatting with God and He has chosen you to start a great nation. Thing is, I have to perform a ritual whereupon you must be sacrificed and delivered into the hand of God. Are you up for it?' Isaac says, 'Let's do it.'

Bosh! Right there, both Abraham and Isaac have shown their faith. No questions; just perform the ritual and trust in God. No more free-will, no fear, only singlemindedness, knowledge they trust. As soon as they submitted to the deal God would have known that their faith was strong.

So, it was God who was to be tested. He implied He was going to perform a miracle; that's why Abraham went for the deal. God wouldn't lie therefore Isaac must live. And Abraham thinks, 'All I have to do is kill Isaac, a moment of pain for the birth of a nation.'

God could have called the whole thing off anytime from the moment Abraham agreed in his heart to the moment He got someone else to do so. (He must have been busy. Or embarrassed.)

This story would be more convincing if Abraham had killed Isaac and God had resurrected him.

Abraham must have been very disappointed to have come all that way for nothing. And Isaac must have been confused too, 'Dad, am I still going to be a nation even though you didn't kill me? Why did God change the deal? Do you think He lost his magic wand? Huh, dad?'

It wasn't a test of Abraham's faith by God, it was a test of Isaacs faith by Abraham.

And it was cruel.

Ambersky

This reminds me of recent arguments about the difference between pederasty and incest that Norris has been going on about.
The arguments go along the line of when exactly at what age and with what degree of willingness is it ok to harm. abuse or kill your children.



More artistic erotocising of the subject, as I say its a favourite and I could keep going

himnextdoor

santing wrote: »

Not at all - you can't really force your will on a 33 year old ... The story in Gen 22(:6,8) highlights that the two went together, they were in it together.

It was a test of Abraham's faith because God's promise was:

And that is also how it is explained in the New Testament:

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Abraham was to sacrifice his son at the behest of God the Father.
God the Father stopped Abraham at the last moment, and said that He Himself would provide the sacrifice. - His Only Begotten Son, Jesus.

The temporary sacrifice the ram, had it's horns caught up in some thorns,
Jesus Sacred head was crowned with thorns.

Isaac carried the wood up the moutain for the altar.
Jesus carried the wood of the Cross up the mountain.

The place where Abraham was to sacrifice his son was called Mt. Moriah.
The place Jesus was crucified on Calvary which was a part of, Mt. Moriah.

So it's a 'copy-cat' murder then?

santing

himnextdoor wrote: »

Exactly, so it wasn't a test of faith was it; if Isaac is to have descendants, he has to be alive. In actual fact, Abraham called God's bluff.
...
Now, Abraham might well go to Isaac and say, 'I was chatting with God and He has chosen you to start a great nation. Thing is, I have to perform a ritual whereupon you must be sacrificed and delivered into the hand of God. Are you up for it?' Isaac says, 'Let's do it.'
...
Abraham must have been very disappointed to have come all that way for nothing. And Isaac must have been confused too, 'Dad, am I still going to be a nation even though you didn't kill me? Why did God change the deal? Do you think He lost his magic wand? Huh, dad?'

It wasn't a test of Abraham's faith by God, it was a test of Isaacs faith by Abraham.

And it was cruel.

I think you somewhere lost the plot. The promise to make Isaac into a great nation happened a year before he was born, with no conditions attached. The request to offer Isaac 34 years later could not nullify God's promise - both Abraham and Isaac knew that. But to know something and to act on it in faith is something different.