Pope apologizes for Christian violence in history

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How long will he go on a single set of batteries?

Are you insinuating Seth is a dildo?

I think she's suggesting he pick a direction and just keeping going and going and going...

[Jason]

How long will he go on a single set of batteries?

Are you insinuating Seth is a dildo?

I think she's suggesting he pick a direction and just keeping going and going and going...

[Seth]

But you haven't presented any evidence with which to disagree. You've merely asserted there is some, but you're suspiciously reticent about what it is.

Pettifoggery, the evidence is self-evident: Do you dispute that Catholic priests are commanded to be celibate? Do you dispute that the Pope issues such commands to priests? Do you dispute that the Pope claims to be the Vicar of God who gets his instructions from God?

So it's just Popes that command priests to be celibate. Where's the evidence that those Popes got those orders from a god, which is what you claimed? Where's your evidence for a god?

The Popes say they get there instructions from God, either from the Bible, which is, according to them, the word of God, or through prayer in which God speaks to them. Again, you are free to dispute the veracity of the evidence and ask the Pope for more evidence if you like, but at the moment you have no better evidence that God does not exist than they have that God does exist. Therefore, the Pope's claim that God told him priests have to be celibate is based on the evidence before us ("evidently"), which are the claims of Catholics and a lack of countervailing evidence disproving those claims from you, where he gets the commandment.

A verbal statement by a person, or the known claims or actions of persons are "evidence" because they are "something indicative; an outward sign; to be visible; seen" by others. The evidence is clear that Catholics believe that the commandment that priests be celibate comes from God. Whether that is true is not relevant to the statement I made.

Keep in mind that "evidence" is not "proof," and it doesn't have to be very good or reliable evidence in order to fit the use of the word "evidently," which is precisely why I used the word in that context.

evidence
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]
evidence [ˈɛvɪdəns]
n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication his pallor was evidence of ill health
3. (Law) Law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc. See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence
(Law)
turn queen's (king's, state's) evidence (of an accomplice) to act as witness for the prosecution and testify against those associated with him in crime
in evidence on display; apparent; conspicuous her engagement ring was in evidence
vb (tr)
1. to make evident; show clearly
2. to give proof of or evidence for
evidence, proof - Evidence—from Latin e-, "out," and videre, "to see"— is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion.
See also related terms for proof.

[Seth]

"As a Christian I want to say at this point: yes, it is true, in the course of history, force has also been used in the name of the Christian faith," he said in his address to the delegations in an Assisi basilica.

"We acknowledge it with great shame. But it is utterly clear that this was an abuse of the Christian faith, one that evidently contradicts its true nature," he said.

Do you suppose this will put an end to the Wayback Machine fallacies here?

"True Christianity" has always adapted to social conditions at the time.

To some extent, yes.

Today's relatively humane versions of mainstream christianity is no more truly christian than the ones that advocated the killing of infidels, heretics and witches in previous centuries just because it happens to suit you better.

According to whom? You? You don't get to make that determination, only Christians get to make it. If they want to reject certain practices of the past, they are no less Christian for doing so because THEY define what Christianity is. There are many different sects of Christianity, that much is obvious.

While both the old as well as the new testament are parts of the bible on every pulpit to cherry-pick from, nothing prevents followers to change from focusing on the so called new covenant to reverting to the jealous, cruel, god of the OT.

Right, nothing prevents it, but doing so would be to violate the new covenant that Jesus set out, which would mean they are not Christians.

In fact, they don't even have to the old testament to do that. They could simply quote, to pick a couple of examples, Jesus from Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

So much for "True Christians" and the "Wayback Machine fallacies".

Liar. You have just proven that you will "cherry pick" and use out of context quotes (like many other Atheists) in your bigoted and prejudiced arguments.

Here's the ENTIRE parable from Luke 19:

The Parable of the Ten Minas
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

It's a parable, and the dishonestly mendacious quote-mining you did is not a direct commandment by Jesus to kill anyone. Do you even know what a parable is? Evidently not. Here, let me educate you:

par·a·ble /ˈpærəbəl/
noun
1.
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2.
a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

In it, Jesus is QUOTING the "man who became king" in the parable, he is not literally commanding his followers to kill his enemies.

or if they want to totally disenfranchise women politically, socially and personally, they could refer to Ephesians 5:24 "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

Yes, so what? Nobody's forcing anyone to be a Christian, and so women can choose to be "disenfranchised" (submissive to their husbands) if they choose to be, can they not? If they wish to obey the commands of Jesus in that manner, who are you to interfere with or complain how they live their lives? If you don't want to be submissive to your husband, then don't. But you cannot force "women's lib" onto people who don't want to be liberated, and many Christian women live their lives happily without your dogmatic assistance. It's up to them because it's strictly a matter between husband, wife, and Jesus, and it's none of your business.

And you say you've "studied" the Bible.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are actually contrarian enough to support the monstrosity that is the Church?

[Seth]

You are actually contrarian enough to support the monstrosity that is the Church?

Sure, because on balance it does far more good than evil, which is the case for most religions these days. Those few who are responsible for criminal acts should be prosecuted for those acts, but that doesn't mean that religion, even Catholicism, is bad for society overall.

I also am contrarian enough to defend the reputations of the billion or so Catholics and 400,000 or so Catholic priests who, unlike the 4000 or so corrupt Catholic priests involved in the pedophile scandal, have done nothing wrong and merely wish to live their lives and worship as they choose free of the sort of mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew against them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are actually contrarian enough to support the monstrosity that is the Church?

Sure, because on balance it does far more good than evil, which is the case for most religions these days. Those few who are responsible for criminal acts should be prosecuted for those acts, but that doesn't mean that religion, even Catholicism, is bad for society overall.

We're not stupid enough to buy that shit anymore.

I also am contrarian enough to defend the reputations of the billion or so Catholics and 400,000 or so Catholic priests who, unlike the 4000 or so corrupt Catholic priests involved in the pedophile scandal, have done nothing wrong and merely wish to live their lives and worship as they choose free of the sort of mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew against them.

As opposed to you own mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew?

[Schneibster]

Benedict said history had also shown that the denial of God could bring about "a degree of violence that knows no bounds." He said the concentration camps of World War Two revealed "with utter clarity the consequences of God's absence."

ETA: http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

[Schneibster]

How about he's just honest for one fucking time in Church history.

Well, partially.

Just sayin'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How about he's just honest for one fucking time in Church history.

Well, partially.

Just sayin'.

The best way to lie is to know when to shut up.

[Hermit]

It's a parable, and the dishonestly mendacious quote-mining you did is not a direct commandment by Jesus to kill anyone. Do you even know what a parable is? Evidently not. Here, let me educate you:

par·a·ble /ˈpærəbəl/
noun
1.a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2.a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

Thanks for destroying your line of argument. It is really difficult, to say the least, to argue that Christ disapproved of the slaying of anyone who would not subject themselves to their king when that is his concluding sentence to this particular moral lesson.

Be it as it may, my point was that that christians always have and always will cherry-pick from the bible to suit their times. They have to, really, because for just about every verse of importance you can find another that says completely the opposite. This parable, for instance, contradicts the verses exhorting christians to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek, which in turn contradict the "eye for an eye" verse. The approving stance toward growing wealth is contradicted by these words: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Because the bible is so full of contradictions, it is impossible not to cherry-pick, and because this cherry-picking is necessary it is impossible to determine what "true christianity" is.

[Seth]

You are actually contrarian enough to support the monstrosity that is the Church?

Sure, because on balance it does far more good than evil, which is the case for most religions these days. Those few who are responsible for criminal acts should be prosecuted for those acts, but that doesn't mean that religion, even Catholicism, is bad for society overall.

We're not stupid enough to buy that shit anymore.

Sure you are.

I also am contrarian enough to defend the reputations of the billion or so Catholics and 400,000 or so Catholic priests who, unlike the 4000 or so corrupt Catholic priests involved in the pedophile scandal, have done nothing wrong and merely wish to live their lives and worship as they choose free of the sort of mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew against them.

As opposed to you own mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew?

Sauce, goose, gander

Not so nice to be on the receiving end, is it? There's a lesson there, except I think Atheists are too stupid to understand it.

[Seth]

It's a parable, and the dishonestly mendacious quote-mining you did is not a direct commandment by Jesus to kill anyone. Do you even know what a parable is? Evidently not. Here, let me educate you:

par·a·ble /ˈpærəbəl/
noun
1.a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2.a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

Thanks for destroying your line of argument. It is really difficult, to say the least, to argue that Christ disapproved of the slaying of anyone who would not subject themselves to their king when that is his concluding sentence to this particular moral lesson.

You only say that because you don't understand the actual moral lesson inherent in the parable. Given your biases and prejudices, that's hardly surprising.

Be it as it may, my point was that that christians always have and always will cherry-pick from the bible to suit their times.

So what? Big deal. Who cares? It's THEIR religion, so they can cherry-pick all they like and you can't gainsay them because it's not YOUR religion.

They have to, really, because for just about every verse of importance you can find another that says completely the opposite.

Well, not really.

This parable, for instance, contradicts the verses exhorting christians to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek, which in turn contradict the "eye for an eye" verse.

It does nothing of the kind. The point of the Parable of the Ten Minas is that to those who give more by way of obedience to Jesus and honoring God on earth and multiplying the numbers of the redeemed, more will be given in Heaven. You're wrongly assuming that the final line of the Parable is the lesson.

The approving stance toward growing wealth is contradicted by these words: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Here you are wrong because you incorrectly assume that Jesus is talking about temporal wealth in the form of money. He wasn't. He was talking about redeemed souls and the acts of charity and love that the faithful execute on earth. That's why it's a parable.

Because the bible is so full of contradictions, it is impossible not to cherry-pick, and because this cherry-picking is necessary it is impossible to determine what "true christianity" is.

Not to Christians it isn't. But even if true, so what? You still don't get to make that determination for them, or gainsay their practice of their religion, no matter how much you may think it's cherry-picking, which is largely a false impression that's the result of your own ignorance about Christianity and your equally false and ignorant attempts to "interpret" the Bible for them, according to your own prejudices.

[Clinton Huxley]

I also am contrarian enough to defend the reputations of the billion or so Catholics and 400,000 or so Catholic priests who, unlike the 4000 or so corrupt Catholic priests involved in the pedophile scandal, have done nothing wrong and merely wish to live their lives and worship as they choose free of the sort of mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew against them.

I thought you disapproved of statistical arguments, old chap, as the victims of crime are individuals?

[Seth]

I also am contrarian enough to defend the reputations of the billion or so Catholics and 400,000 or so Catholic priests who, unlike the 4000 or so corrupt Catholic priests involved in the pedophile scandal, have done nothing wrong and merely wish to live their lives and worship as they choose free of the sort of mindless, bigoted, prejudiced, hateful drivel that you spew against them.

I thought you disapproved of statistical arguments, old chap, as the victims of crime are individuals?

So are the perpetrators. Which is rather the point.