Why are Catholic priests more prone to become sexual predators?

Why is pedophilia rampant within the Catholic Church?


  • Total voters
    7
Indie

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
That's actually observed alpha-male / alpha-female behavior in animals. It's the equivalent of calling a female Hyena pact leader "weak and insecure" because she's dominating everyone and being nasty.
We are not animals. We are humans capable of sophisticated thought and communication. There is no need for a human to act like an enraged hyena to gain respect.

I don't agree with Christian precepts that people should "turn the other cheek" and "love their enemies". I believe it promotes weakness and softness. I abide by the Druze precept, "من يعتدي ليس منا و من لا يرد الإعتداء ليس منا.""
Loving your enemies is not weak. It's one of the most difficult things one can do. It takes wisdom, strenght, and self-control to put God and the collective well-being above your own feelings.
 
  • Advertisement
  • ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    We are not animals. We are humans capable of sophisticated thought and communication. There is no need for a human to act like an enraged hyena to gain respect.



    Loving your enemies is not weak. It's one of the most difficult things one can do. It takes wisdom, strenght, and self-control to put God and the collective well-being above your own feelings.
    I rather we just agree to disagree. And not open more topics in this thread. Most of these ideas have been already challenged by Nietzsche.

    Concerning Christianity, to study it properly you have to go to its pagan roots and to those that the church deemed to be heretics. Because, and in my belief, every modern religion is a branch of an older religion. And every system of thought is based on memes. Whether is it the Holy Mother or the Father that sends his son for sacrifice, God's appearance in man, Logos (spiritual bound) resembled in physical man (tibetan buddhism) etc. You find the same patterns or similar ideas in older religions. And in newer (deemed heretical) faiths that would have preserved older schools of thought.
     
    C

    Curiosum

    New Member
    I rather we just agree to disagree. And not open more topics in this thread. Most of these ideas have been already challenged by Nietzsche.
    Niestsche only articulated well and pitted the lower animal 'morality' (the animal 'will to power') against the values that have formed and driven western civilization forward. Apart from having the allure of sin and vice, in what way is acting like a brute animal a challenge to Christianity, on the humanity scale? And with the particular topic of this thread in mind, in a non or anti Christianity framework such as the one articulated by Nietzsche, how and why is sexually abusing children wrong or evil? What restrains the abusers from doing it especially when it is more pleasurable to them, is done in secret, and they will not get caught? Hitler upheld Nietzsche as a prophet in his Nazism ideology, explain why Hitler would be doing something evil or wrong if, say, he ordered the execution of a journalist whom he had in custody because of saying bad things about him or his ideology?

    ---

    Concerning Christianity, to study it properly you have to go to its pagan roots and to those that the church deemed to be heretics. Because, and in my belief, every modern religion is a branch of an older religion. And every system of thought is based on memes. Whether is it the Holy Mother or the Father that sends his son for sacrifice, God's appearance in man, Logos (spiritual bound) resembled in physical man (tibetan buddhism) etc. You find the same patterns or similar ideas in older religions. And in newer (deemed heretical) faiths that would have preserved older schools of thought.
    What are the pagan roots of Christianity? You will need to point to any Christian doctrine that isn't rooted in pre-Christianity Judaism.

    Moreover, patterns in and of themselves do not necessarily entail 'copying', when they could also in principle express universal longing (which is found materialized and satisfied in and via Christianity).
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I believe every system of thought is based on memes. Refer to Memetics - Wikipedia.
    you can believe whatever you want, your personal beliefs do not necessarily translate to facts. starting from the "sexy naked man on the cross" idea of yours, and ending with your tangential argument about memetics. all you need to realize is that the idea of a sexy muscled man on the cross that attracts people by his physique is idiotic by all the standards of Christianity. now you can correct your perception and accept that fact as true, or you can continue to argue, in which case this discussion, like all discussions that do not pay heed to reality, becomes useless and meaningless and there would be no reason to proceed with it.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    you can believe whatever you want, your personal beliefs do not necessarily translate to facts. starting from the "sexy naked man on the cross" idea of yours, and ending with your tangential argument about memetics. all you need to realize is that the idea of a sexy muscled man on the cross that attracts people by his physique is idiotic by all the standards of Christianity. now you can correct your perception and accept that fact as true, or you can continue to argue, in which case this discussion, like all discussions that do not pay heed to reality, becomes useless and meaningless and there would be no reason to proceed with it.
    Work on your reading skills. I said nothing about it attracting people to Christianity.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Niestsche only articulated well and pitted the lower animal 'morality' (the animal 'will to power') against the values that have formed and driven western civilization forward. Apart from having the allure of sin and vice, in what way is acting like a brute animal a challenge to Christianity, on the humanity scale? And with the particular topic of this thread in mind, in a non or anti Christianity framework such as the one articulated by Nietzsche, how and why is sexually abusing children wrong or evil? What restrains the abusers from doing it especially when it is more pleasurable to them, is done in secret, and they will not get caught? Hitler upheld Nietzsche as a prophet in his Nazism ideology, explain why Hitler would be doing something evil or wrong if, say, he ordered the execution of a journalist whom he had in custody because of saying bad things about him or his ideology?
    Not interested in opening a topic about my moral theory here or Nietzsche's. As you seem to be asking for a defense of my morality. We can do this in private.


    What are the pagan roots of Christianity? You will need to point to any Christian doctrine that isn't rooted in pre-Christianity Judaism.
    Judaism itself is rooted in Paganism. Prophet Abraham is nothing more than Brahma. And his Sara is Sarawati. Even their own Hebrew language, their main religious symbols, their "inner sanctum" in temples and their main religious rituals are stolen or "inspired" from Pagans.

    abraham-and-sarah.png


    hebrew.jpg

    On Christianity, you find pagan roots in: Virgin birth, Ash Wednesday (which Jesus speaks against but is done by many Christians, but it's important to mention because it shows you how people maintain their old religions in every new faith), Appearance of God's Logos in Man like in Buddhism, Hindu Baptism (Jewish rituals defer than John the Baptist's additions), the Eucharist (previously celebrated by many Pagan cults long before your faith), etc.

    Christianity is in no way in agreement or in a continuation of Judaism. Like Islam did to Christianity, Christianity did to Judaism. It mummified all its prophets into names you mention while not even bothering to know them.

    Judaism is not even monotheist or universal to begin with. The so-called "prophets" did different rituals to different Kaananite Gods (mistranslated on purpose as the same God to repackage Judaism). Yahweh was claimed to be a Tribal God, who was jealous and looked for a particular tribe. But the emphasis was that "other gods were put before him" not that there was "No God but Him" (even though this was said a few times, but doesn't make any sense when he's the God of one tribe). Jews were not monotheists, in my belief. But what I call "dedicated to one God" polytheists. Like Hindus today that just worship at the temple of Shiva only. Moses and others would have been dedicated to One God, saying he was the Lord and the greatest of all. But also limiting him to a tribe.

    Jesus even disproved his faith unknowingly when he said "Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." As Yahweh (who you call God) had not given that condition and allowing stoning to happen for centuries. Meaning, Yahweh couldn't have been omniscient and omnibenovelent and Christianity was just a farce. As to believe this actually happened, necessarily entails Jesus was a cruel idiot. Truth is, Jesus stood up against Yahweh and only appealed to Judaism in the exoteric, but wanted to make it null in the esoteric.

    Moreover, patterns in and of themselves do not necessarily entail 'copying', when they could also in principle express universal longing (which is found materialized and satisfied in and via Christianity).
    Every religion says that about itself, even Islam. But no, it's copying and outright plagiarism. And often to preserve their tracks and footsteps in the snow, they call the origin "heretical" and "satanic" instead of giving it the least it deserves in credit.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Work on your reading skills. I said nothing about it attracting people to Christianity.
    not interested in your silly nuances, i told you were wrong in your interpretation and the depiction of Christ the way you did, you can either correct your information or you can keep arguing just to argue and prove yourself unworthy of a discussion at such a level, and the discussion will stop here. it is as simple as that.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    not interested in your silly nuances, i told you were wrong in your interpretation and the depiction of Christ the way you did, you can either correct your information or you can keep arguing just to argue and prove yourself unworthy of a discussion at such a level, and the discussion will stop here. it is as simple as that.
    Lol at you totally misinterpreting what I said. And then claiming it's a silly nuance.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Lol at you totally misinterpreting what I said. And then claiming it's a silly nuance.
    i did not misinterpret anything, and you keep fleeing the point. there is no reason to engage in a discussion with anyone who does not abide by the simplest and the most obvious facts, in particular when they are determined to deal in notions that they know to be factually wrong.

    if you do not care about the truth of your statements, then your motivation for this discussion becomes a rather ugly one, and i am not interested in these kinds of discussions.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    i did not misinterpret anything, and you keep fleeing the point. there is no reason to engage in a discussion with anyone who does not abide by the simplest and the most obvious facts, in particular when they are determined to deal in notions that they know to be factually wrong.

    if you do not care about the truth of your statements, then your motivation for this discussion becomes a rather ugly one, and i am not interested in these kinds of discussions.
    I didn't say that Christianity sexualized Jesus's death as you both suggested. What I was trying to say is that it inevitably has sexual elements in it. Because it is centered around the symbolization of a young man that was crucified. And so such aspects would be subliminally propagated. An example would be this church painting... How would a homosexual look at it?

    1566850373142.png


    Or this in the Sistine chapel

    1566850507996.png


    You can deny the "homoerotic" nature of Jesus depiction by Catholics all you want.

    But we see the same problem with the depiction of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb among Twelver Shiahs (Catholic Muslims). And the same patterns. One being focus on having him look effeminate but with masculine features, etc.

    1566850737591.png



    As to why, I'll leave that up to you to figure out.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I didn't say that Christianity sexualized Jesus's death as you both suggested. What I was trying to say is that it inevitably has sexual elements in it. Because it is centered around the symbolization of a young man that was crucified. And so such aspects would be subliminally propagated. An example would be this church painting... How would a homosexual look at it?

    View attachment 13187


    Or this in the Sistine chapel

    View attachment 13188


    You can deny the "homoerotic" nature of Jesus depiction by Catholics all you want.

    But we see the same problem with the depiction of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb among Twelver Shiahs (Catholic Muslims). And the same patterns. One being focus on having him look effeminate but with masculine features, etc.

    View attachment 13189



    As to why, I'll leave that up to you to figure out.
    A more blatanlty homoerotic depiction is that of Saint Sebastian.
    Notice the cloth barely covering the genitals.
    200px-San_Sebastian_El_Greco.jpg
    sebastian10-800x0-c-default.jpg
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I rather we just agree to disagree. And not open more topics in this thread. Most of these ideas have been already challenged by Nietzsche.
    Nietzsche was a philosopher in existential crisis writing about his thoughts. Some of his ideas have also been challenged by others, as is the norm in philosophy.

    Not to mention, most atheists who quote Nietzsche don't actually understand what he meant; for example, with his "god is dead" argument.

    Atheists love to quote that sentence, but they fail to put it in context; and, thus, they fail to realize that it is a criticism of atheism. Here is the quote in its context:

    "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?"

    Nietzsche is not celebrating atheism. He is decrying the fact that the "enlightenment" put God aside to solely focus on science. He believed that without a belief in God, there could be no belief in objective truth and values; and, that this would ultimately lead to chaos and nihilism.

    It is this nihilism he seeked to overcome; not Christian values.

    Concerning Christianity, to study it properly you have to go to its pagan roots and to those that the church deemed to be heretics. Because, and in my belief, every modern religion is a branch of an older religion. And every system of thought is based on memes. Whether is it the Holy Mother or the Father that sends his son for sacrifice, God's appearance in man, Logos (spiritual bound) resembled in physical man (tibetan buddhism) etc. You find the same patterns or similar ideas in older religions. And in newer (deemed heretical) faiths that would have preserved older schools of thought.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Your video is a good example of setting a weak target and going against it. He provides weak examples from a random movie and goes against them. Then shoots himself in the foot and claims Christianity and the Bible are different as they speak of a Heavenly Kingdom. Clearly showing no understanding of Buddhism's Shambhala and Zoroastrian Heaven or their afterlife (which is entirely consisted of leaving the worldly Earth which is ruled by the Evil God, to up to the heavenly kingdom of the good God". Christianity barely introduced anything new in this regard.

    As to Nietzsche, what you said about him is generally true, but it misses the point that in the end of the day he didn't favor Christian morality. But the German Uberman model instead.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Nietzsche's original paper in morality claims that morality is basically the majority of weak people teaming up on the strong brute among them that is bullying everyone. It's somehow biologically based. And so morality and humanity is weakness in the individualist sense. But power in groups.

    His ideas of the strong man didn't feature Jesus, to say the least. At some places, he even praised Mohammad over Jesus for being more of a fierce warrior.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I'm not a Nihilist. Not very sure where I stand on Morality. But I believe God is Impersonal and is not concerned with our actions and doesn't count our mistakes. But that there is a universal nature for Good and Evil (spiritual bounds in the upper world) based on the Ying Yang model in which each carries a drop of the other. And through Good, you become spiritual and (hope to) escape the physical world or alleviate yourself into better status. And through Evil, you stay worldly and bestial. But I don't think there's hellfire, heavenly bliss and anyone out there that is watching you.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    A more blatanlty homoerotic depiction is that of Saint Sebastian.
    Notice the cloth barely covering the genitals.
    View attachment 13190
    View attachment 13191
    A lot of the great artists of the Renaissance were homo or even bi-sexual. The sexualized images that they produced is only a reflection of their interpretation. The most famous of which is Leonardo Davinci. Check out the effeminate depictions of his paintings. This does not mean that Christianity promotes this interpretation (quite the contrary). I think it means that somehow, the most talented artists seem to be homosexuals.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I didn't say that Christianity sexualized Jesus's death as you both suggested. What I was trying to say is that it inevitably has sexual elements in it. Because it is centered around the symbolization of a young man that was crucified. And so such aspects would be subliminally propagated. An example would be this church painting... How would a homosexual look at it?

    View attachment 13187


    Or this in the Sistine chapel

    View attachment 13188


    You can deny the "homoerotic" nature of Jesus depiction by Catholics all you want.

    But we see the same problem with the depiction of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb among Twelver Shiahs (Catholic Muslims). And the same patterns. One being focus on having him look effeminate but with masculine features, etc.

    View attachment 13189



    As to why, I'll leave that up to you to figure out.
    only a perverted mind can observe the Christian narrative, look at Christ crucified, and think erotica.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    A lot of the great artists of the Renaissance were homo or even bi-sexual. The sexualized images that they produced is only a reflection of their interpretation. The most famous of which is Leonardo Davinci. Check out the effeminate depictions of his paintings. This does not mean that Christianity promotes this interpretation (quite the contrary). I think it means that somehow, the most talented artists seem to be homosexuals.
    what is circulated on the sexuality of the artists is plain speculation, do your research, there is no evidence to that. leonardo was charged with sodomy, a charge that was as rampant as racism accusation in politics in our day, or as rampant as abuse claims against priests, it was most probably done for political purposes. these claims are propagated mostly by special interest groups, but in reality there is no evidence to any of these claims.

    but rationality and evidence play little roles in some communities, in particular many LGBT circles and radical circles that are governed by emotions.
     
    R

    Ralph N

    Active Member
    Not interested in opening a topic about my moral theory here or Nietzsche's. As you seem to be asking for a defense of my morality. We can do this in private.




    Judaism itself is rooted in Paganism. Prophet Abraham is nothing more than Brahma. And his Sara is Sarawati. Even their own Hebrew language, their main religious symbols, their "inner sanctum" in temples and their main religious rituals are stolen or "inspired" from Pagans.

    View attachment 13182


    View attachment 13183

    On Christianity, you find pagan roots in: Virgin birth, Ash Wednesday (which Jesus speaks against but is done by many Christians, but it's important to mention because it shows you how people maintain their old religions in every new faith), Appearance of God's Logos in Man like in Buddhism, Hindu Baptism (Jewish rituals defer than John the Baptist's additions), the Eucharist (previously celebrated by many Pagan cults long before your faith), etc.

    Christianity is in no way in agreement or in a continuation of Judaism. Like Islam did to Christianity, Christianity did to Judaism. It mummified all its prophets into names you mention while not even bothering to know them.

    Judaism is not even monotheist or universal to begin with. The so-called "prophets" did different rituals to different Kaananite Gods (mistranslated on purpose as the same God to repackage Judaism). Yahweh was claimed to be a Tribal God, who was jealous and looked for a particular tribe. But the emphasis was that "other gods were put before him" not that there was "No God but Him" (even though this was said a few times, but doesn't make any sense when he's the God of one tribe). Jews were not monotheists, in my belief. But what I call "dedicated to one God" polytheists. Like Hindus today that just worship at the temple of Shiva only. Moses and others would have been dedicated to One God, saying he was the Lord and the greatest of all. But also limiting him to a tribe.

    Jesus even disproved his faith unknowingly when he said "Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." As Yahweh (who you call God) had not given that condition and allowing stoning to happen for centuries. Meaning, Yahweh couldn't have been omniscient and omnibenovelent and Christianity was just a farce. As to believe this actually happened, necessarily entails Jesus was a cruel idiot. Truth is, Jesus stood up against Yahweh and only appealed to Judaism in the exoteric, but wanted to make it null in the esoteric.



    Every religion says that about itself, even Islam. But no, it's copying and outright plagiarism. And often to preserve their tracks and footsteps in the snow, they call the origin "heretical" and "satanic" instead of giving it the least it deserves in credit.

    You think Hindiusm is Pagan? lol...

    Hinduism is the base of all religions in the world... No other religion existed before Hinduism.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    A lot of the great artists of the Renaissance were homo or even bi-sexual. The sexualized images that they produced is only a reflection of their interpretation. The most famous of which is Leonardo Davinci. Check out the effeminate depictions of his paintings. This does not mean that Christianity promotes this interpretation (quite the contrary). I think it means that somehow, the most talented artists seem to be homosexuals.
    Yeah, but what I find ironic is that you can't enter a church wearing shorts, while the walls and ceilings are covered with nude paintings.
    Christianity's attitude towards the human body is very troubling.
     
    Top