Pope in the UK: Atheists Like Nazis

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

It may just be my impression from the few people to whom I've spoken, but anti-Catholic bigotry seems to be a big problem in this little community. It's a good thing that it's not as big a problem for the people of England.

If you mean seriously disagree with what they believe and put forward to be Christianity equals bigotry, then yes. If you mean consider forcing others to follow their religious tenets by changing laws to be wrong is bigotry, then yes. If, however, you mean judging people who are Catholics to be inferior in any way or themselves to necessarily even agree with all the church does.. then no.

Basically, many of us disagree with Roman Catholicism and policies of the church. That is a reasoned disagreement, not bigotry. Bigotry would be if we were against Roman Catholicism without information or true reason.

I really did not mean to include the people that were actually taking part in the discussion. I was referring more to this group of respondents.

People still notice what the Pope says?

He's [the pope’s] just cranky cause he hasn't had his morning 9 year old

How about: Forget all those world leaders who are fucking douche bags?

What the f*ck did this man [the pope] ever contribute to the betterment of society except to entrench a dwindling ( Thank god...) portion of the masses to a bigoted, narrow minded and utterly destructive dogma?

Yes f*ck the pope and f*ck the Dalai Lama.

The Poop's message was aimed to the gullible who still believe in him. It is supposed to be a stupid message. It's supposed to be illogical. You don't to say smart things to those who still believe, they might start thinking.

That's the bigotry to which I referred.

[Johnny Rockets]

It may just be my impression from the few people to whom I've spoken, but anti-Catholic bigotry seems to be a big problem in this little community. It's a good thing that it's not as big a problem for the people of England.

If you mean seriously disagree with what they believe and put forward to be Christianity equals bigotry, then yes. If you mean consider forcing others to follow their religious tenets by changing laws to be wrong is bigotry, then yes. If, however, you mean judging people who are Catholics to be inferior in any way or themselves to necessarily even agree with all the church does.. then no.

Basically, many of us disagree with Roman Catholicism and policies of the church. That is a reasoned disagreement, not bigotry. Bigotry would be if we were against Roman Catholicism without information or true reason.

I really did not mean to include the people that were actually taking part in the discussion. I was referring more to this group of respondents.

People still notice what the Pope says?

The people disregarding papal edicts because of the loss of the church's credibility

He's [the pope’s] just cranky cause he hasn't had his morning 9 year old

Perhaps a reaction to how the Church has handled internal pedophilia has generated some resentment?

How about: Forget all those world leaders who are fucking douche bags?

What the f*ck did this man [the pope] ever contribute to the betterment of society except to entrench a dwindling ( Thank god...) portion of the masses to a bigoted, narrow minded and utterly destructive dogma?

Perhaps answer this question????

Yes f*ck the pope and f*ck the Dalai Lama.

O.K. , this guys an idiot. One point for you.

The Poop's message was aimed to the gullible who still believe in him. It is supposed to be a stupid message. It's supposed to be illogical. You don't to say smart things to those who still believe, they might start thinking.

Woooo.....Jaded. Perhaps the result of that loss of credibility thing? Let's give benefit of the doubt that "PooP was a typo

That's the bigotry to which I referred.

Bigotry would be if we were against Roman Catholicism without information or true reason.

[Snorri1234]

Uh...you're the one who has to show that Hitler was lying when he talked about his religious beliefs. This same line of "argument" could be used to claim Hitler didn't actually hate the jews but was just playing on his people's own racism.

I already did that but here we go again, silly; Hitler had a well known habit of lying when it suited him. He signed a treaty with the pope and then gassed nuns and priests. He placed himself as "lord" of the protestant reichskirchen and any church that did not accept this was set aside as a confessing church. He signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR and broke it by invading them. During appeasement, he promised numerous times that just this or that piece of land or concession would be enough. He was a vicious, lying, psychopathic thug; I do not have to take his word for anything, he is slightly less creditable than Charlie Manson, or Jeffrey Daumer.

So Hitler didn't hate the Jews either?

Because that's your entire justification here. He lied sometimes so he must've been lying. Hitler indeed tried to work out plenty of churches and christians who disagreed with him, which seems like proper Christian behaviour if we look at history. Intra-religious strife has been (and still is) so unbelievably common that it's absurd to point towards it here as evidence that Hitler wasn't Christian.

Then we got into this article that I really think not many people have read that suggests that there may be more to the AIDS problem in Africa than throwing condoms at the problem, but affirms that condoms are working elsewhere in other situations. Poor Dr. Green has been demoted from a senior research scientist at Harvard to a Washington Post journalist and all for saying that the pope might be right about something.

So since I wasn't actually discussing the article what's the point of this paragraph?

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

How about: Forget all those world leaders who are fucking douche bags?

What the f*ck did this man [the pope] ever contribute to the betterment of society except to entrench a dwindling ( Thank god...) portion of the masses to a bigoted, narrow minded and utterly destructive dogma?

Perhaps answer this question????


Okay, he presides over an organization that does stuff like this worldwide.

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Net ... px?pid=305

That's just one example but it doesn't seem utterly destructive.
They're not dwindling by the way; they've been outpacing world population growth for years.

Wiki Catholicism:

Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people,[242] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437 million[244] and the 1970 figure of 654 million.[245] On 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166 billion, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%).

He's [the pope’s] just cranky cause he hasn't had his morning 9 year old

Perhaps a reaction to how the Church has handled internal pedophilia has generated some resentment?

I can understand the resentment, but characterizing the pope, personally, as a pedophile? Are you familiar with the term libel?

The Poop's message was aimed to the gullible who still believe in him. It is supposed to be a stupid message. It's supposed to be illogical. You don't to say smart things to those who still believe, they might start thinking.

Woooo.....Jaded. Perhaps the result of that loss of credibility thing? Let's give benefit of the doubt that "PooP was a typo

The implication's there that anyone who believes the pope is gullible and unthinking. That goes beyond criticism of the institution and straight to insulting the people.

Yes f*ck the pope and f*ck the Dalai Lama.

O.K. , this guys an idiot. One point for you.

Yeah, I'm beginning to see what you mean.


Here’s the point though. Through whatever process a public forum has become a place where one must either be anti-Catholic or pro-Catholic. The pro-Catholics had better be prepared to defend themselves. That’s just wrong, no matter who the group is that’s being put on the defensive.

[nietzsche]

He's [the pope’s] just cranky cause he hasn't had his morning 9 year old

Perhaps a reaction to how the Church has handled internal pedophilia has generated some resentment?

Pardon me, but this point is gotta be exploited until there's no catholic that doesn't know the truth, until every priest pukes every morning, until every other generation from now on knows and is aware of the fact.

The fucking church is not allowed to burns "witches", books, to rape children. NO. Even if they did a million charitable works, NO. Nothing is going to make us forget that thing. There is no fucking balance that levels out what they did good with what they did right. THEY RAPED CHILDREN. BURNED SCIENTISTS. STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.

f*ck No. The Pope is a rapist.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

The fucking church is not allowed to burns "witches", books, to rape children. NO. Even if they did a million charitable works, NO. Nothing is going to make us forget that thing. There is no fucking balance that levels out what they did good with what they did right. THEY RAPED CHILDREN. BURNED SCIENTISTS. STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.

Witches? When was the last witch burned? That's like hundreds of years old and the Catholics were by no means the only ones to do that? Heck even the pagan Romans reported cermonial burnings in Pre-Christian Europe. It's a horrible crime, but a purely Catholic one? Happily, the Catholics seem to have gotten over that stage of human history along with the rest of us.

Burned Scientists? A systematic burning of scientists to retard progress, or back in the day when they were burning witches a few scientists were among them? I'll need some more information there; back that one up with some names and dates please. I'd be willing to bet that your sources ultimately lead back to History of the Warfare with Science and Theology in Christendom and History of the Conflict Between Science and Religion. Two books that gained a great deal of notoriety in the 19th Century. Then people found out that they were fabricated in many parts. Most modern historians dismiss them as case studies in anti-Catholicism more than actual historical works. They are still quoted in modern polemics and much of the "Science and Religion are mutually corrosive" mentality can be traced back to them. The sad part is that the attitude completely denys or ignores, what should be blatantly obvious, that there was no secular school system in the Middle Ages and lots of those scientists were Catholic monks and priests at Catholic universities.

STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.
So has Mexico, that doesn't make it an evil nation.

THEY RAPED CHILDREN.

No THEY didn't; pedophile priests did. The organization screwed up and hushed the whole thing up, regrettably not a unique situation either. Let's see how they deal with it now that they've screwed up. The Pope seems to be, from what I heard in the UK trip, acknowledging the scandal. Let's see what they do.


Here's the thing though, you're attaching a stigma to being Roman Catholic. No matter how good any individual, parish, priest, bishop, or pope is, they are all tainted by their association with the Catholic Church. That's bigotry; you've set them up so that they cannot win with you. Individual Catholics tainted by their association bear some guilt in your eyes, or they are stupid and kept in the dark. What if they know both the good and the bad in their history and still choose to work for the betterment of the world and the Church from the inside? Are they evil or stupid in your opinion? That's pretty much the only choices you've left open.

[Johnny Rockets]

I'm not calling the Pope a pedophile, Tempest.
I am looking for direction and leadership and ACCOUNTABILITY from the head of the Church.
The Pope steers the boat No?
Where are the apologies? The reparations? The safeguards and internal policing to indicate prevention? Are they turning over these perverts to the authorities? Every one of them?
Because it seems to me that in their perspective forgiving these pedophiles trumps civil law.
In my perspective it means harboring a fugitive and it makes them totally responsible for future crimes and reparations.

And sorry to burst your bubble, buddy. But there have been more and more Catholic Church closures in North America every year. Dwindling. Dying. Outmoded. Obsolete. Irrelevant.

Your figures represent it's growth in Africa, Brazil and other South American and poorer global regions. In Europe and other Western countries it's on the decline.
I'm wondering if the reasoning behind these stats is linked to poverty and education levels.

Johnny Rockets

[tzor]

The fucking church is not allowed to burns "witches", books, to rape children. NO. Even if they did a million charitable works, NO. Nothing is going to make us forget that thing. There is no fucking balance that levels out what they did good with what they did right. THEY RAPED CHILDREN. BURNED SCIENTISTS. STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.

They say that those who do not know history sound really fucking hillarious to those who do.

Highly reccomended reading: The Encyclopedia Of Witchcraft & Demonology [Hardcover] Russell Hope Robbins (Author)



It's not one of those things you read cover to cover, but it does give a whole lot of interesting insight into the entire witch burning situation. (Not all nations burned witches; some like England hanged them.) One of the major driving forces in Europe was in fact secular in nature. Since the accused was GUILTY (not innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innicent, just guilty) under secular law and since the secular person in charge of finding witches got the accused property as compensation, there was a significant motivation on his part to get as many people to be accused as possible.

[Frigidus]

The fucking church is not allowed to burns "witches", books, to rape children. NO. Even if they did a million charitable works, NO. Nothing is going to make us forget that thing. There is no fucking balance that levels out what they did good with what they did right. THEY RAPED CHILDREN. BURNED SCIENTISTS. STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.

They say that those who do not know history sound really fucking hillarious to those who do.

Highly reccomended reading: The Encyclopedia Of Witchcraft & Demonology [Hardcover] Russell Hope Robbins (Author)



It's not one of those things you read cover to cover, but it does give a whole lot of interesting insight into the entire witch burning situation. (Not all nations burned witches; some like England hanged them.) One of the major driving forces in Europe was in fact secular in nature. Since the accused was GUILTY (not innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innicent, just guilty) under secular law and since the secular person in charge of finding witches got the accused property as compensation, there was a significant motivation on his part to get as many people to be accused as possible.

Oh, all right then, guess the wholesale execution of witches isn't a crime that can be attributed to the Catholic Church based on the non sequiturs you have provided.

[notyou2]

Hey, where'd Jim Boston go? I bet he would post in this thread if he were around somewhere.

[PLAYER57832]

It may just be my impression from the few people to whom I've spoken, but anti-Catholic bigotry seems to be a big problem in this little community. It's a good thing that it's not as big a problem for the people of England.

If you mean seriously disagree with what they believe and put forward to be Christianity equals bigotry, then yes. If you mean consider forcing others to follow their religious tenets by changing laws to be wrong is bigotry, then yes. If, however, you mean judging people who are Catholics to be inferior in any way or themselves to necessarily even agree with all the church does.. then no.

Basically, many of us disagree with Roman Catholicism and policies of the church. That is a reasoned disagreement, not bigotry. Bigotry would be if we were against Roman Catholicism without information or true reason.

I really did not mean to include the people that were actually taking part in the discussion. I was referring more to this group of respondents.

People still notice what the Pope says?

The people disregarding papal edicts because of the loss of the church's credibility

He's [the pope’s] just cranky cause he hasn't had his morning 9 year old

Perhaps a reaction to how the Church has handled internal pedophilia has generated some resentment?

How about: Forget all those world leaders who are fucking douche bags?

What the f*ck did this man [the pope] ever contribute to the betterment of society except to entrench a dwindling ( Thank god...) portion of the masses to a bigoted, narrow minded and utterly destructive dogma?

Perhaps answer this question????

Yes f*ck the pope and f*ck the Dalai Lama.

[O.K. , this guys an idiot. One point for you.

The Poop's message was aimed to the gullible who still believe in him. It is supposed to be a stupid message. It's supposed to be illogical. You don't to say smart things to those who still believe, they might start thinking.

[Woooo.....Jaded. Perhaps the result of that loss of credibility thing? Let's give benefit of the doubt that "PooP was a typo

That's the bigotry to which I referred.

Bigotry would be if we were against Roman Catholicism without information or true reason.

Just clarifying.. I did not write the stuff in red.
Folks who don't consider the Pope "second to Christ" won't show the same respect as those who do. Those who don't believe Mohammed to be God's successor, similarly feel free to criticize and joke about him just like any other well known figure. It does not automatically mean prejudice.

And, while some of the above are definitely just plain insults, most are in response to some pretty idiotic comments or justification. So, basically, pulling out "this is bigotry" now, is really just whining, not truth. The exceptions are not worth bothering over. Some folks like to insult anything religious. Others just like to insult.

[jonesthecurl]

The fucking church is not allowed to burns "witches", books, to rape children. NO. Even if they did a million charitable works, NO. Nothing is going to make us forget that thing. There is no fucking balance that levels out what they did good with what they did right. THEY RAPED CHILDREN. BURNED SCIENTISTS. STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.

They say that those who do not know history sound really fucking hillarious to those who do.

Highly reccomended reading: The Encyclopedia Of Witchcraft & Demonology [Hardcover] Russell Hope Robbins (Author)



It's not one of those things you read cover to cover, but it does give a whole lot of interesting insight into the entire witch burning situation. (Not all nations burned witches; some like England hanged them.) One of the major driving forces in Europe was in fact secular in nature. Since the accused was GUILTY (not innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innicent, just guilty) under secular law and since the secular person in charge of finding witches got the accused property as compensation, there was a significant motivation on his part to get as many people to be accused as possible.

Here's another insight into witchcraft.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/

[PLAYER57832]

He's [the pope’s] just cranky cause he hasn't had his morning 9 year old

Perhaps a reaction to how the Church has handled internal pedophilia has generated some resentment?

Pardon me, but this point is gotta be exploited until there's no catholic that doesn't know the truth, until every priest pukes every morning, until every other generation from now on knows and is aware of the fact.

The fucking church is not allowed to burns "witches", books, to rape children. NO. Even if they did a million charitable works, NO. Nothing is going to make us forget that thing. There is no fucking balance that levels out what they did good with what they did right. THEY RAPED CHILDREN. BURNED SCIENTISTS. STARTED WARS IN WHICH THOUSANDS DIED.

These things happened, but you can level the same charge against most religions, many nations and belief systems. To seperate out the Roman Catholic church as somehow the sole perpetrator of those deeds is wrong. To blame the church for not correcting many of these things sooner, covering things up, etc... is reasonable.

f*ck No. The Pope is a rapist.

While I believe he should have done more. Saying he himself is a rapist is just factually wrong. He covered up for rapists, perhaps. He absolutely allowed a climate of secrecy and cover-up to continue. I don't consider him a decent representative of Christ, but he is not himself a rapist.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not one of those things you read cover to cover, but it does give a whole lot of interesting insight into the entire witch burning situation. (Not all nations burned witches; some like England hanged them.) One of the major driving forces in Europe was in fact secular in nature. Since the accused was GUILTY (not innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innicent, just guilty) under secular law and since the secular person in charge of finding witches got the accused property as compensation, there was a significant motivation on his part to get as many people to be accused as possible.

Are you trying to assert that the Roman Catholic Church is innocent in this?

[2dimes]

f*ck No. The Pope is a rapist.

While I believe he should have done more. Saying he himself is a rapist is just factually wrong. He covered up for rapists, perhaps. He absolutely allowed a climate of secrecy and cover-up to continue. I don't consider him a decent representative of Christ, but he is not himself a rapist.

This might be one of my favorites. So you and the pope hang out and he's never been out of your sight with someone he might have raped.

Sure he might not be a rapist and fair enough nietzsche has not presented his evidence but you're just full of Bologna Sandwich to make your statement. You don't know anymore about the pope personally than the rest of us.

[tzor]

Are you trying to assert that the Roman Catholic Church is innocent in this?

Well no, many people are "guilty" and I would say that the Roman Catholic Church is about as guilty as all the other Churches at the time. You don't see Papal bulls denouncing this, as you have for the institution of racial slavery (before Columbus discovered the New World, the Pope wrote a letter against the notion of enslaving the people of the Canary Islands simply because of their race). But that is a far cry from your implicit accusation that it was orchastrating the whole event.

There is an odd element of the whole event that generally gets overlooked. You have a lot of men trying to get young virgin girls to give explicit details on their sexual encounters with demons that they write down with great abandon. Like I said you have to read that encyclopedia for the things that are really bizzare.

[PLAYER57832]

f*ck No. The Pope is a rapist.

While I believe he should have done more. Saying he himself is a rapist is just factually wrong. He covered up for rapists, perhaps. He absolutely allowed a climate of secrecy and cover-up to continue. I don't consider him a decent representative of Christ, but he is not himself a rapist.

This might be one of my favorites. So you and the pope hang out and he's never been out of your sight with someone he might have raped.

My Pope? I believe I have made it clear that I am not Roman Catholic and don't have much respect for this particular Pope.

[Sure he might not be a rapist and fair enough nietzsche has not presented his evidence but you're just full of Bologna Sandwich to make your statement. You don't know anymore about the pope personally than the rest of us.

No, but neither you nor I witnessed the pedophilia, either. So are you saying THAT did not happen?
I believe in the process of evidence. That is why I believe that many priests did rape little boys, even if I did not see it and why I believe the Pope did not engage in these acts directly.

[2dimes]

Crud, my playa to english translator is busted. Anyone help me out here? Am I being accused of being raped by the pope or something. Since I didn't not say I have not never been in rome before.

My Pope?

Your pope?

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

I'm not calling the Pope a pedophile, Tempest.
I am looking for direction and leadership and ACCOUNTABILITY from the head of the Church.
The Pope steers the boat No?
Where are the apologies? The reparations? The safeguards and internal policing to indicate prevention? Are they turning over these perverts to the authorities? Every one of them?
Because it seems to me that in their perspective forgiving these pedophiles trumps civil law.
In my perspective it means harboring a fugitive and it makes them totally responsible for future crimes and reparations.

I didn't think you were, and I agree to an extent. That's why I'm taking a wait and see attitude. The sad thing is there are other institutions getting off scot free for the same crimes, and to a worse extent, because people seem to think a pedophile is worse when he wears a collar than any other time. We're letting the U.S. Public Education System get away with the same things and nobody is raising a cry about it. Pedophiles are allowed to keep their credentials and move from system to system within the same state. I'm interested in keeping all pedophiles away from all kids, so you won't hear my beating the drum about this scandal and ignoring others. I'm curious to see what the Roman Catholic Church will do; I'm also curious to see what the U.S. Public Education system will do. The scandals are roughly the same age.

And sorry to burst your bubble, buddy. But there have been more and more Catholic Church closures in North America every year. Dwindling. Dying. Outmoded. Obsolete. Irrelevant.

Your figures represent it's growth in Africa, Brazil and other South American and poorer global regions. In Europe and other Western countries it's on the decline.
I'm wondering if the reasoning behind these stats is linked to poverty and education levels.

Johnny Rockets

So Europe and North America are the standard by which the world must be measured? The evidence doesn't support your conviction even in Europe some of their countries are actually losing people. It isn't great but 1.7% growth is holding it's own in the midst of a scandal. North America sure does have alot of South and Central American immigration these days as well. You may like to throw those words around but you haven't shown evidence to support that you've done anything more than look out the window. The Catholic Church is outpacing population growth in the Americas. Not that it really matters the Church is growing relative to World Population and there are over a billion people who would probably disagee with your assessment of the church. Speaking of looking out the window, I've met my share of well educated catholics that are doing pretty well. It may also have something to do with the Roman Catholic Church sending missionaries to help in the poorer parts of the world. It doesn't take a college degree to realize when someone wants to help.

[nietzsche]

It's so sad that you guys construct arguments in the best way you can only to try to disprove something you know is real.

There was a freaking lot of time, from around 500 to 1,500 when the church controlled everything (Well not everything but you know that I mean that they had a lot lot of influence in every peoples lives). About witches and scientist I meant those who experimented, either stupidly trying to find a Midas touch or more wisely trying to.. whatever in a rather scientific way. (Yes Bacon hadn't created the scientific method, Descartes hadn't doubted it all yet)

It is so stupidly forgiven that there are those (including the church itself) who hasn't come up with the obvious idea that celibacy is so wrong that the priest have to release all the stress in a neurotic way. (Yes I'm not a psychiatrist so I don't know how exactly one thing becomes the other but it is still fucking obvious.)

We are talking of a lot of freaking time here. Perhaps you live in the US and have no idea what is the weigh of a catholic religion on the collective mind of a country. Is guilt all around. Let me quote Marx: (No, I'm not a communist)

The basis of religious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. In other words, religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, a reversed world-consciousness, because they are a reversed world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d'honneour, its enthusiasm , its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground for consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence because human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore mediately the fight against the other world, of which religion is the spiritual aroma.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in the embryo the criticism of the value of woe, the halo of which is religion.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.

[BigBallinStalin]

Crud, my playa to english translator is busted. Anyone help me out here? Am I being accused of being raped by the pope or something. Since I didn't not say I have not never been in rome before.

My Pope?

Your pope?

"Your planet?"

[PLAYER57832]

So Europe and North America are the standard by which the world must be measured? The evidence doesn't support your conviction even in Europe some of their countries are actually losing people. It isn't great but 1.7% growth is holding it's own in the midst of a scandal. North America sure does have alot of South and Central American immigration these days as well.

In fact, immigration is the ONLY reason the Roman Catholic church numbers have not dropped more. The numbers of those brought up Roman Catholic in the US who continue with the church are dropping. (Washington time showed a .59% drop in 2007)

You may like to throw those words around but you haven't shown evidence to support that you've done anything more than look out hte window. The Catholic Church is outpacing population growth in the Americas. Not that it really matters the Church is growing relative to World Population and there are over a billion people who would probably disagee with your assessment of the church.

Actually, this is not entirely true, either.
When those figures are cited, they are based on what people declare themselves to be. A Roman Catholic who has not set foot in church for 20 years is more likely to still label himself as a "Catholic" than most Protestants. (I don't know about other religions in that regard) Also, in many places where Roman Catholicism dominates, there still just aren't other Christian options, not really. You are a Christian, you are Catholic.. pretty much "period". Not so in the US and Europe (and many other places).

Speaking of looking out the window, I've met my share of well educated catholics that are doing pretty well. It may also have something to do with the Roman Catholic Church sending missionaries to help in the poorer parts of the world. It doesn't take a college degree to realize when someone wants to help.

You HAD to bring up missionaries, did you. Even in recent times, the Roman Catholic idea of "missionarism" has more to do with replacing culture and "westernizing" societies than spreading Christ's word. There are exceptions (certainly there are wonderul people who are Roman Catholic.. I thought a lot of Mother Teresa, for example) and sometimes a real message gets through in spite of human failings, but the fact is that some of the greatest harm in Christianity was perpetrated through Roman Catholic "missionaries". California has plenty of evidence of that!

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

It's so sad that you guys construct arguments in the best way you can only to try to disprove something you know is real.

I'll decide for myself what I know to be real, thanks.

There was a freaking lot of time, from around 500 to 1,500 when the church controlled everything (Well not everything but you know that I mean that they had a lot lot of influence in every peoples lives). About witches and scientist I meant those who experimented, either stupidly trying to find a Midas touch or more wisely trying to.. whatever in a rather scientific way. (Yes Bacon hadn't created the scientific method, Descartes hadn't doubted it all yet)

Couldn't find any names and dates, huh?

It is so stupidly forgiven that there are those (including the church itself) who hasn't come up with the obvious idea that celibacy is so wrong that the priest have to release all the stress in a neurotic way. (Yes I'm not a psychiatrist so I don't know how exactly one thing becomes the other but it is still fucking obvious.)

So, celibacy is the cause for pedophilia? Then why are Roman Catholic priests slightly less likely that the average person to be a pedophile? Pedophiles are rare; it's about 2% of the general populace that are accused or convicted of pedophilia and a little less than that for Roman Catholic priests. Celebacy isn't the problem; the problem is that pedophiles seek out vocations in which they will have access to children.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

In fact, immigration is the ONLY reason the Roman Catholic church numbers have not dropped more. The numbers of those brought up Roman Catholic in the US who continue with the church are dropping. (Washington time showed a .59% drop in 2007)

Unless you mean to tell me that an organization is dwindling even though it's outpacing world population growth; I fail to see your point.

Actually, this is not entirely true, either. When those figures are cited, they are based on what people declare themselves to be. A Roman Catholic who has not set foot in church for 20 years is more likely to still label himself as a "Catholic" than most Protestants. (I don't know about other religions in that regard) Also, in many places where Roman Catholicism dominates, there still just aren't other Christian options, not really. You are a Christian, you are Catholic.. pretty much "period". Not so in the US and Europe (and many other places).

You're introducing another standard into the mix? If someone declares themselves to be a Catholic, I'll not dispute them. If you do, then it's between you and them.

You HAD to bring up missionaries, did you. Even in recent times, the Roman Catholic idea of "missionarism" has more to do with replacing culture and "westernizing" societies than spreading Christ's word. There are exceptions (certainly there are wonderul people who are Roman Catholic.. I thought a lot of Mother Teresa, for example) and sometimes a real message gets through in spite of human failings, but the fact is that some of the greatest harm in Christianity was perpetrated through Roman Catholic "missionaries". California has plenty of evidence of that!

What I said was that you do not need a college degree to decide for yourself whether someone is coming to help or to hinder. Johnny Rockets said that Churh growth in the world might have something to do with poor education. I said it could also have to do with people having a favorable opinion of an institution that showed up and tried to help. Both are possible. I made no claim that all missionaries were doing a great job that'd be silly. I doubt you could find any vocation where everybody did a great job.

[PLAYER57832]

So, celibacy is the cause for pedophilia? Then why are Roman Catholic priests slightly less likely that the average person to be a pedophile? Pedophiles are rare; it's about 2% of the general populace that are accused or convicted of pedophilia and a little less than that for Roman Catholic priests. Celebacy isn't the problem; the problem is that pedophiles seek out vocations in which they will have access to children.

I would be really interested in where you get your data for that. It seems to fly in the face of a lot of discussion I have heard (and I mean by Roman Catholic leaders & experts, psycologists, etc... not just "jo bloe opinionists").

That is, I am not saying that Celibacy causes pedophilia. As you say, it is pretty rare and most Priests are not pedophiles, but there does seem to be an association. The discussion I heard said it was unclear if some pedophiles become priests so they can have "access", if perhaps they try to go to the church for a "cure" (and then "succumb" to "temptation") or if celibacy might contribute to/bring this out in those who already have that tendency.