Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins

[Itse]

Also, excommunicating child-abusing rapists would erode decades (or centuries) of effort dedicated to creating a pedophile haven.

It's great to see the Vatican has it's priorities straight.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The girl in question is 9 years old. If there is a chance that she dies while giving birth to these twins, are we not taking life away from a child?

Not at all!

She just has to pick between dying and being an outcast in a deeply religious community.

[Crispy's Critter]

Well really, what is the vatican supposed to do? If they excommunicated people who sexually assaulted children they'd have noone left to preach their message of intolerance and misguided moralism. They have no choice but to blame the victims.

Sometimes the catholic church makes radical islamic followers seem sane by comparison.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Crispy's Critter

Well really, what is the vatican supposed to do? If they excommunicated people who sexually assaulted children they'd have noone left to preach their message of intolerance and misguided moralism. They have no choice but to blame the victims.

Sometimes the catholic church makes radical islamic followers seem sane by comparison.

Nope.

[malcolmk14]

Who cares if they're excommunicated from the church? Isn't it pretty much widely accepted nowadays that religion is just a scam for the most part anyway?

[Crispy's Critter]

Originally Posted by peter12

Nope.

sorry, did you need me to put my post in green text for you?

[octothorp]

Excommunication is one of the sillier aspects of the catholic church. It's sort of like a referee giving a player a prolonged suspension without the benefit of video review, when the whole thing should really be left up to league head office. The question is whether God (assume for a moment he exists) is like the NHL league office, who will back up anything their referees say, no matter how much they screw up, or the NFL league office, who would be quick to rebuke their referees.

[Jason14h]

Who cares if they're excommunicated from the church? Isn't it pretty much widely accepted nowadays that religion is just a scam for the most part anyway?

Yes the majority of people in the world think Religion is a scam. In fact, there have been no wars, genocide, or terrorists actions based on religion in at least the last, what, 20-30 years? (Ohhh Wait, I mean seconds, not years)

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Who cares if they're excommunicated from the church? Isn't it pretty much widely accepted nowadays that religion is just a scam for the most part anyway?

I'd love to say you're wrong. However, nowdays, its tough to say otherwise.

Religion ideally is a great avenue for morality (noting the two are not the same), spirituality, fellowship and community. However, a lot of religions are deviating greatly from logical societal progression, and what they are preaching is increasingly intolerant, contradictory and even offensive. They are encouraging people like that into their fold, taking advantage of people desperate for spiritual meaning, discouraging good people and frankly, making a total mockery of the teachings and lessons in both the Old and New Testament.

Whether you believe Jesus existed or not is irrelevant. What is relevant are the excellent parables and teachings derived from the context of the bible. It simply can't be taken literally, as its hundreds/thousands of years old. Often, taking the readings literally means coming out with a totally offbase interpretation.

[Crispy's Critter]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Excommunication is one of the sillier aspects of the catholic church. It's sort of like a referee giving a player a prolonged suspension without the benefit of video review, when the whole thing should really be left up to league head office. The question is whether God (assume for a moment he exists) is like the NHL league office, who will back up anything their referees say, no matter how much they screw up, or the NFL league office, who would be quick to rebuke their referees.

He seems to use a spinning wheel of justice too, so I'm guessing he's like the NHL

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Excommunication is one of the sillier aspects of the catholic church. It's sort of like a referee giving a player a prolonged suspension without the benefit of video review, when the whole thing should really be left up to league head office. The question is whether God (assume for a moment he exists) is like the NHL league office, who will back up anything their referees say, no matter how much they screw up, or the NFL league office, who would be quick to rebuke their referees.

For that to work, the Church would have legitimate power. It in no way does. In your example the Chruch is more like the bloggosphere who does research. The pope or priests are no closer to heaven then the rapist in Brazil. In fact some may suggest that the rapist has a better chance (if heaven and God exist).

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its incomprehensible moral stands like this that has made most organized religions increasingly intolerable to the majority. Its unfortunate that this is leading to atheism, essentially a lack of spiritual belief, rather than what it really is, an utter failure of an increasingly psychotic human leadership in these groups. Yes, psychotic is the right word, if someone believes benevolent abortion is worse than rape, abuse, paedophilia and likely child-birth related death of the mother, they belong in a strait jacket.

Even in places like France, Italy, and Spain, attendance and commitment are dropping like a rock. They are increasingly losing tolerance for the church. Even for cultural observances.

In the end, the Church is going to be left as an irrelevant group of zealots and psychotics, on par with many cults they have spoken against in the past if they are not careful.

You are arguing for people (at the head of churches) to rationally change/evolve their moral stand on issues as the times and our understanding of those issues changes/evolves with the times.

THAT is atheism. Atheists still have morality, it is just based on logic and reason instead of doctrine, 'faith', and superstition.


IF the church changed over time then only one generation could be correct in their faith and all others would have believed the wrong thing (and thus be banished to hell or not have their souls saved or whatever). So in this case, if in 600AD or 1200AD or 1800AD the 9yr old was at fault and the father-rapist was not at fault than that is how it has to be today. NO EXCEPTIONS. It is either the word of god or it is not. You don't get to change it just because it becomes uncomfortable and antiquated. Luckily a lot of us have realized the one rational thing to do is get out of it all together and just be a rationally thinking individual (atheist).

Trying to change the basis of interpretation of the bible, as if it is a minor tweak, is a joke. The catholic church inparticular is about a central authority telling you what to believe. There is very little room for any free thinking in the catholic church, only in a few places like Canada where the church has turned a blind eye for fear of total church collapse do people think that is an acceptable way to be catholic. Once you start believing in your own version of the bible you are at best 'christian'.





Claeren.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Claeren

You are arguing for people (at the head of churches) to rationally change/evolve their moral stand on issues as the times and our understanding of those issues changes/evolves with the times.

THAT is atheism. Atheists still ave morality, it is just based on logic and reason instead of doctrine, 'faith', and superstition.


IF the church changed over time then only one generation could be correct in their faith and all others would have believed the wrong thing (and thus be banished to hell or not have their souls saved or whatever). So in this case, if in 600AD or 1200AD or 1800AD the 9yr old was at fault and the father-rapist was not at fault than that is how it has to be today. NO EXCEPTIONS. It is either the word of god or it is not. You fdon't get to change it just because it becomes uncomfortable and antiquated. Luckily a lot of us have realized the one rational thing to do is get out of it all together and just be a rationally thinking individual (atheist).





Claeren.

Good points.

However, the Bible itself is full of contradictions, and if you will, signs of change in mentality. God is wrathful, vengeful, petty (look at the story of Job) and very rule based, essentially, very human, in the old testament. Then, in the New Testament, its all about love, tolerance, forgiveness, self-sacrifice. He sacrifices his own son for the sake of humanity. Jesus replaces the Ten Commandments with one overriding rule, love thy neighbor. Does that not constitute a serious dogmatic change? God changed over time, why can't the church?

By strict definition, that isn't atheism though, what I am arguing is more agnostic theism. Atheism is by definition the absence of faith. It says there's no god, and all belief systems are wrong. Agnostic theism is the belief that the existing religions can and may likely be horribly misguided, because there is too much uncertainty. Thus, a degree of rational thought is required to bridge faith and reality. Nothing says there isn't a God, simply that we know too little to be sure, and if there is a God, such hypocrisy, contradiction and hatred that has been demonstrated by some of these churches must be wrong.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Claeren

You are arguing for people (at the head of churches) to rationally change/evolve their moral stand on issues as the times and our understanding of those issues changes/evolves with the times.

THAT is atheism.

That's the same sort of pompous tripe I despise from bible-thumpers.

It's wrong for theists to dogmatically cling to something they know is wrong (see: this issue) but it is also unpleasant to claim absolute moral high ground based on atheism. Churches evolve in the same manner any other large group of people evolve.

[rubecube]

I really wish there was some crude joke I could make right now to calm my rage, but it's just not coming to me.

[MarchHare]

It says there's no god, and all belief systems are wrong.

This seems to come up in almost every single religion thread, but atheism does not say there is no god. It states that in the absence of empiracal evidence supporting the existance of a god, it is completely illogical to believe that one exists. No atheist I know would ever state with 100% certainty that there absolutely positively is no god. Not even Richard Dawkins would make that claim.

[Thor]

As disturbing that the Vatican says and does these stupid things, all it does is hurt themselves as it opens the eyes to people who might be ready to dispose of their belief.

A semi related story, when the Icelandic Prime Minister spoke to the nation last October to announce 3 banks were going to collapse and would be nationalized, he ended his speech with "God Bless Iceland."

The reaction to that was outrage, people said "what are we becoming, America??" During an economic collapse, people were furious their PM was invoking God because it made people think of America and her politicians.

This is why I keep mentioning why Atheists are so outspoken, we're a counter reaction to whats going on in the world, and things like these stories about the Vatican are exactly what people who call themselves 'moderates' need to hear more of.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That's the same sort of pompous tripe I despise from bible-thumpers.

It's wrong for theists to dogmatically cling to something they know is wrong (see: this issue) but it is also unpleasant to claim absolute moral high ground based on atheism. Churches evolve in the same manner any other large group of people evolve.

Right, my point is that atheists can take a stand based on reason, and as those reasonings evolve so can their stance. If one generation does things differently than the next it is not some holy violation. And if either (or both) generation is wrong then it does not affect the next group. Each is encouraged to come to logic conclusions on their own merit.

Versus structured old-school religion which is inheriently inflexible. If one thing is correct today and the opposite is correct 100 years later than one generation was right and the other wrong. How can two opposing things be both right and wrong in gods eyes? That is ######ed.

It is especially puzzeling to me that church-types think they can change when each generation is further and further from Jesus (if you believe in Jesus). Only this generations people would have the audacity to think they are correct to change things despite being the furthest generation from the last truly spoken words of god (if you believe in that). Wouldn't the church in 100AD be a LOT closer to Jesus and the word of god than ours? So wouldn't their rules be more correct that this generations?


It is like you are playing the telephone game in an elementary school and there are 6000 kids (representing at least 6000 generations since Jesus) and the message gets to the very last kid and he stands up and says what that message is, and despite 5999 people telling him that was not the message he insists that it is and runs with it. Obviously his message is not only not true, it is the furthest from true.

If someone doesn't believe in that original 'true' than they are not even really Catholic. At its core catholisim is about maintaining faith in that original truth. Perhaps those that want to be christian and want to have flexibility in their faith should look for a more flexible church to practice their belief in?




Claeren.

[4X4]

It truly boggles my mind how stupid people can be. If this isn't enough of an example of why the catholic church needs to be completely abandoned and relegated to it's rightful place in history (sandwiched in between the various other forms of mythology) then I don't know what is. FFS, does the catholic church do any good in the world? If they're not raping boys themselves, they're punishing girls that got raped. And when they're not doing that, they're pointing sin fingers at normal adults that have normal sex with other ADULTS.

The f'ing Catholic church. At least they did one thing right... They solidified my atheism for me. After spending a year in Italy and seeing all their ridiculous buildings and what they did to imperial buildings to build them, I needed no further evidence that it truly is a SCAM. I mean, why bother helping the poor when you could instead build thousands of gold trimmed, enormous buildings? Why feed the hungry when you could use that wealth to amass a priceless collection of art? And why bother justifying it when you can just tell everyone that they're going to hell unless they follow their rules and give them more money?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This seems to come up in almost every single religion thread, but atheism does not say there is no god. It states that in the absence of empiracal evidence supporting the existance of a god, it is completely illogical to believe that one exists. No atheist I know would ever state with 100% certainty that there absolutely positively is no god. Not even Richard Dawkins would make that claim.

Well, its basically semantics, but we can agree what I was discussing could not be labelled as atheism, as Claeren suggested.

There is quite the divide though between agnosticism and atheism, filled in with many subsects from the "there is most definitely a God, but none of the religions are close enough," to "there is almost certainly no God."

I would contend that some Atheists have definitely said "there is no God", though certainly not posterchildren or academics like Dawkins. Since, even in Science, something like gravity is only a theory, and not a certainty, its not rational to deal in absolutes. But hey, who said faith or anti-faith as it were, was rational?