Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
I don’t like his attitude.
Click to expand...
I know. But maybe he doesn’t like yours, either. Maybe he thinks you’re defending an awful church that breeds pedophiles. You must be able to show him, and others, that this is not so. When people become defensive it means that either they feel threatened, or are hiding something. When you, josie, respond defensively to this question of questionable priests, you can not defend it in any way shape or form. It is what is is. It makes good Catholics sad. It is a STAIN on our Church, but we are working to make sure it never happens again. Virtus Training.
 
josie_L said:
No one is sweeping it under the rug for goodness sake’s it’s been regurgitated ad nauseum since it happened.

p.s. You know what, I think I’ll regurgitate ad naseum the crimes of America, how about slavery, how about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, how about their attempt at colonialism in South America and the Philippines, how about their aim at “manifest destiny” that killed and wiped out in some instances whole tribes of Amerindians (isn’t this genocide), how about the death penalty, how about … etc.
Click to expand...
you forgot to add “factory farming” to the list.

There is a lot of ugliness in the history of man, and we should not forget any of this, and work to see that these atrocities remain forever past tense. Now we just need to to put “factory farming” on that past tense list.
 
Marfran said:
I know. But maybe he doesn’t like yours, either. Maybe he thinks you’re defending an awful church that breeds pedophiles. You must be able to show him, and others, that this is not so. When people become defensive it means that either they feel threatened, or are hiding something. When you, josie, respond defensively to this question of questionable priests, you can not defend it in any way shape or form. It is what is is. It makes good Catholics sad. It is a STAIN on our Church, but we are working to make sure it never happens again. Virtus Training.
Click to expand...
Breeding pedophiles? They entered the seminary straight and became homosexual there?

That is not the case. in the 50’s and 60’s along with the sexual revolution came a influx of homosexuals entering the seminaries. Soon the seminary culture kept out straight seminarians. As time went on these seminarians became priests and then some Bishops. Is it any wonder a homosexual Bishop just might start protecting known homosexual priests?

And… in the future some may still slip through. Some may be attacked by the devil after they become priests. Who knows…
 
josie_L said:
No one is sweeping it under the rug for goodness sake’s it’s been regurgitated ad nauseum since it happened.

p.s. You know what, I think I’ll regurgitate ad naseum the crimes of America, how about slavery, how about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, how about their attempt at colonialism in South America and the Philippines, how about their aim at “manifest destiny” that killed and wiped out in some instances whole tribes of Amerindians (isn’t this genocide), how about the death penalty, how about … etc.
Click to expand...
but America doesn’t claim to be infallible?
 
Marfran said:
you forgot to add “factory farming” to the list.

There is a lot of ugliness in the history of man, and we should not forget any of this, and work to see that these atrocities remain forever past tense. Now we just need to to put “factory farming” on that past tense list.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I’ll remember to put that in my list the next time. 😃
 
yankee_doodle said:
but America doesn’t claim to be infallible?
Click to expand...
Neither does the Church. Where did you get this information? You should go back to your source and ask why you were told this. The facts are important.

The Church is a hospital for sinners. No one in the Church is without sin.
 
Marfran said:
I know. But maybe he doesn’t like yours, either. Maybe he thinks you’re defending an awful church that breeds pedophiles. You must be able to show him, and others, that this is not so. When people become defensive it means that either they feel threatened, or are hiding something. When you, josie, respond defensively to this question of questionable priests, you can not defend it in any way shape or form. It is what is is. It makes good Catholics sad. It is a STAIN on our Church, but we are working to make sure it never happens again. Virtus Training.
Click to expand...
This is what Yankee said about priests/clergy in an earlier post of his on “Why are Atheists unhappy”? (post # 912)

“This is how religion operates and sustains itself. Creating illogical connections between unrelated facts and events, fostering paranoia among its adherents, and creating false boogy men (who are out to devour the true blue righteous remnant … etc, etc.). Same old story for centuries? However, it’s not like anyone can say clergy men are all bent on some global conspiracy to manipulate the minds of the masses.** Members of the clergy are almost always exceptional men and women of faith.** In other words they really believe this stuff, so creating an atmosphere of paranoia and intolerance is not something they conspire to do … but rather it’s an inherent trait of religion.”

So I ask you, why do you think it was necessary for him to bring up the priest sex scandals in the context that he did?

p.s. I am not threatened or defensive or hiding anything (and I resent that implication), but angered at the hypocrisy.
 
josie_L said:
This is what Yankee said about priests/clergy in an earlier post of his on “Why are Atheists unhappy”? (post # 912)

“This is how religion operates and sustains itself. Creating illogical connections between unrelated facts and events, fostering paranoia among its adherents, and creating false boogy men (who are out to devour the true blue righteous remnant … etc, etc.). Same old story for centuries? However, it’s not like anyone can say clergy men are all bent on some global conspiracy to manipulate the minds of the masses.** Members of the clergy are almost always exceptional men and women of faith.** In other words they really believe this stuff, so creating an atmosphere of paranoia and intolerance is not something they conspire to do … but rather it’s an inherent trait of religion.”

So I ask you, why do you think it was necessary for him to bring up the priest sex scandals in the context that he did?

p.s. I am not threatened or defensive or hiding anything (and I resent that implication), but angered at the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
perhaps you might want to ask me (the author of this alleged hypocrisy). When I said exceptional men and women of faith, I meant exceptional with regards to faith itself (I wasn’t addressing their conduct). I qualified my statement by saying “In other words they really believe this stuff.”

You guys might draw a nexus between faith and behavior, but in my view believing some set of facts to be true has little bearing on our predispositions toward deviant conduct. Indeed its perfectly possible deviant urges like we see with pedophiles drove these men to find solace in religiosity, who the heck knows what makes these whack jobs tick (I just want them in a prison cell where their sick and perverted little hands can’t get a hold of our kids).
 
buffalo said:
Neither does the Church. Where did you get this information? You should go back to your source and ask why you were told this. The facts are important.

The Church is a hospital for sinners. No one in the Church is without sin.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s why I can’t be in it … I have no sin:cool:
 
buffalo said:
The Church is a hospital for sinners. No one in the Church is without sin.
Click to expand...
if the church is a hospital for sinners, then they need to hire better doctors (or at least screen them better)?
 
josie_L said:
This is what Yankee said about priests/clergy in an earlier post of his on “Why are Atheists unhappy”? (post # 912)

“This is how religion operates and sustains itself. Creating illogical connections between unrelated facts and events, fostering paranoia among its adherents, and creating false boogy men (who are out to devour the true blue righteous remnant … etc, etc.). Same old story for centuries? However, it’s not like anyone can say clergy men are all bent on some global conspiracy to manipulate the minds of the masses.** Members of the clergy are almost always exceptional men and women of faith.** In other words they really believe this stuff, so creating an atmosphere of paranoia and intolerance is not something they conspire to do … but rather it’s an inherent trait of religion.”

So I ask you, why do you think it was necessary for him to bring up the priest sex scandals in the context that he did?

p.s. I am not threatened or defensive or hiding anything (and I resent that implication), but angered at the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
josie: you misunderstand me and you take things too personally. When people (general statement) respond defensively, they are protecting that which is threatened or they are hiding something. Nothing wrong with protecting that which is threatened–but a defensive tone is not a very effective tool in facilitating communication. Maybe you don’t want to communicate with the non-Catholics–maybe you would prefer to just defend the Church and lash out at what you perceive to be attacks by them. josie, do you really want to chase them away–or would you like to communicate with them in a meaningful way? Getting a meaningful dialog going with someone who is on a completely different page is hard. Is it worth it? Is it not worth it? Maybe each case is different. Maybe you need to evaluate the potential for ***being able to have ***a dialog with a certain poster.

And I acknowledge that people can says things that are hurtful to us and that we have a struggle to respond to kindly.

And the things that Yankee posted that you do not like. You need to assess whether he says them to lash out at you, to be hurtful, or because this is what he believes and what is his perception of the truth, of his reality. If he, or others are saying things that they believe, then your best stance is to respond with your own beliefs and how you came to your path, and/or present supportive evidence to your position.

And if any poster is being nasty you can report them to the moderators.
 
yankee_doodle said:
perhaps you might want to ask me (the author of this alleged hypocrisy). When I said exceptional men and women of faith, I meant exceptional with regards to faith itself (I wasn’t addressing their conduct). I qualified my statement by saying “In other words they really believe this stuff.”

You guys might draw a nexus between faith and behavior, but in my view believing some set of facts to be true has little bearing on our predispositions toward deviant conduct. Indeed its perfectly possible deviant urges like we see with pedophiles drove these men to find solace in religiosity, who the heck knows what makes these whack jobs tick (I just want them in a prison cell where their sick and perverted little hands can’t get a hold of our kids).
Click to expand...
I owe you an apology then, sorry . . . but I still don’t like your attitude and the way you broached this subject.

p.s. This is why Buffalo mentioned reading the John Jay study, it would have helped you or anyone else for that matter understand who these perpetrators were (being a priest does not make you a sexual abuser).
 
josie_L said:
I owe you an apology then, sorry . . . but I still don’t like your attitude and the way you broached this subject.

p.s. This is why Buffalo mentioned reading the John Jay study, it would have helped you or anyone else for that matter understand who these perpetrators were (being a priest does not make you a sexual abuser).
Click to expand...
But then if he educates himself he can’t be such a Church hater, so I am betting he won’t even look.😦 It is easier to stay ignorant. If you don’t then you have decisions to make,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top