Why are Catholic priests more prone to become sexual predators?

Why is pedophilia rampant within the Catholic Church?


  • Total voters
    7
C

Curiosum

New 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.
Those claims have no academic merit. They make a fine mixture of logical fallacies, misinformation, ignorance, pseudoscientific fringe theories, and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, the basis of which is found in some kind of a hunch rather than in evidence, facts or objective reality. Apparent similarities or parallels between two subjects, whether them existing side by side, or with one existing before the other, are no ground for causal connection, or for positive dependency, of one on the other, for them to be the result of copying or plagiarizing (rather than a universal impulse).

First, the claimed similarities have to exist to be begin with, to be real substantiated similarities, particular rather than general, superficial, vague or universal, to be forthcoming rather than contrived and pushed. Second (after the first is met), there must exist some historical evidence for a causal connection of one causing the other or of one having positively depended on the other.

---

The view that Christianity has pagan roots, rather than being wholly rooted in Judaism has no academic merit in this day and age, neither does the view 'Judaism itself having pagan roots (and therefore also Christianity)'. You will need to demonstrate that what is essential/particular to Judaism/Christianity is similar to and rooted in paganism.

'Japanese-Jewish common ancestry' is a fringe theory, and the language table displayed is contrived (one only needs to google this stuff; Is Japanese related to Hebrew? - Quora)

You claim the virgin birth is pagan, when in reality a) it is rooted in the Old Testament (fulfilled historically with the birth of Jesus), and b) no pagan virgin birth narrative exists.

You also claim Ash Wednesday is pagan when in reality it is rooted in the Old Testament (as well as in the NT). It reflects a common practice in the OT that occurred during intense periods of fasting, prayer and supplication, and of recognizing and remembering one's mortality and repentance (both of which the ashes symbolized); Genesis 3:19, Job 42:6, 2 Samuel 13:19, Daniel 9:3, 1 Maccabees 3:47; see also 4:39, Esther 4:1, 14:1-3, Numbers 19:9, 19:17, Jonah 3:6 (also Matthew 11:21, Hebrews 9:13). You are yet to provide the pagan roots of this practice as is laid out here. It is also established that the Jews did this every year; on a yearly basis they had a public day of fasting, it was called Yom Kippur. Jesus' commandment about not showing outward signs of fasting is meant for the private act of fasting, or the act of fasting in general, not with regard to the public day. Same with regard to prayer.

How is (or ever was) the incarnation of God in Christianity similar to, let alone rooted in, Buddhism, at any point in Christian doctrinal history? Unless you mean "gnostics, in the name of Christians and Christianity, where some of whom believed that the material world (and therefore the body) is evil and that God merely made an appearance in bodily form, rather than having truly incarnated or becoming -truly man and truly God-", then yes, but then again this isn't Christianity.


Feel free to substantiate your other claims by pointing out how is 'the Christian Baptism not rooted in the Old testament, but is rooted in paganism'? And where and how 'is the Eucharist found in and previously celebrated by many pagan cults long before Christianity'?

---


'Judaism initially being polytheistic or having evolved from polytheism (and paganism) into becoming monotheist' is another fringe theory countered by reality. All the evidence at hand point to Judaism in all its prophets (i.e. the Israelites since the time of Abraham forward and thru their prophets), were actively officially monotheists in sharp contrast to polytheism and paganism.

'The entire thrust of the Old Testament is about God declaring Himself to be the only real God, the One who created everything, who won't share His glory with anyone else, who prevails in every nation, in every setting, who created and owns everything, etc.'

The fringe theorists reliance on the commandment "you shall not have other gods before me" in an attempt to support their otherwise unfounded view that Judaism was monolatristic (which is a kind of polytheistism in the sense of Judaism being dedicated to one god while affirming the existence of other gods), rather than monotheistic in the known/proclaimed sense, is found to have no merit when one happens to actually read the Old Testament starting from Genesis onward and examine what's in the larger context; throughout the OT, 'God is angry with people for serving and worshiping false gods, even people who aren't Israelite'. How then is the God of Abraham affirming the existence of other gods (as the fringers claim), when he is rebuking humans, Israelites and non-Israelites alike, for serving and worshiping what they claim and hold as god(s) other than Him?

Moreover, "the Israelites struggle against polytheism throughout the entire Old Testament and are frequently punished for/when giving into it. And why are they punished? Not [only] because they are worshiping the wrong god or even merely because they have broken some rules. God charges them repeatedly with failing to show the truth to the world that He is God. Even as early as the Exodus, God acts with the express purpose of showing the world He is God. Monotheism is central to every theme of the Bible."

---

The ignorance is most flagrant when someone types things of the caliber of; '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'. Rhetorically; can you point to where else can we know about those prophets other than the Christian scriptures - which consist of both the Old testament (the hebrew bible) and the New Testament - and explain why is it that the Christian scriptures consist of both Testaments?

---

With regards to the following nonsensical claim of yours, i couldn't even get what you mean (i appreciate if you rephrase it): "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."

---

Lastly, i'd like to leave a note in the words of C.S Lewis; “Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'.”
 
Last edited:
  • Advertisement
  • 𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    @Curiosum

    Your long response is a stupid rant full of errors and inaccuracies. I don't want to waste a lot of time, and so I will pick the most important points relevant to this discussion.
    I have to point out that Christianity is a "dead religion" and that no sane man believes in demons, hellfire, splitting seas, walking in water, rising from death, etc. And that I will be generous enough to waste my time on such a silly topic.


    You say: "no pagan virgin birth narrative exists."

    Refutation: False as hell.

    "Most famously, in the case of Perseus, a golden shower (drops of gold falling from the ceiling into his mother’s vagina) is far closer to Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (just as magical a substance, which just as surely went into her womb to impregnate her). ... So she remained as much a virgin as Mary did, as even early Christians conceded (Justin, for example, had to admit Perseus was born of a virgin). There were also sexless conceptions of other kinds, for example in the myth that has Hera giving birth to Hephaestus by act of will rather than sexual union."

    "Hera was also worshipped as a virgin: there was a tradition in Stymphalia in Arcadia that there had been a triple shrine to Hera the Girl "

    Let's deal with this first. Those are factually virgin births and sexless births approved of by Academics.

    ...



    You say: "You claim the virgin birth is pagan, when in reality a) it is rooted in the Old Testament "

    Refutation: (1) Paganism precedes the Old Testament. So that's a non-sequitur.
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You say: You also claim Ash Wednesday is pagan when in reality it is rooted in the Old Testament .

    Refutation: (1) Paganism precedes the Old Testament. So that's a non-sequitur. (2) "In the Nordic pagan religion, placing ashes above one’s brow was believed to ensure the protection of the Norse god, Odin [Odin was also known as Ashes]. This practice spread to Europe during the Vikings conquests. This laying on of ashes was done on Wednesday, the day named for Odin… The Norse practice which has become known as Ash Wednesday was itself, drawn from the Vedic Indian religion. Ashes were believed to be the seed Agni, the Indian fire god. Ashes were also believed to be symbolic for the purifying blood of the Vedic god Shiva, which it is said had the power to cleanse sins.

    You say: "How is (or ever was) the incarnation of God in Christianity similar to, let alone rooted in, Buddhism, at any point in Christian doctrinal history? "

    Answer: Tibetan Buddhism have a Logos / Word (spiritual bound of God) called "Sa-deha-fo". "He is “the active earthly wisdom. ”Sadehafo, or the “Mouthpiece of Buddha,” otherwise the “Word". And it appeared in flesh. It's part of a secretive religion. So hard for me to establish it "academically".


    I can respond to the other things. But let's keep our main topic "Pagan roots" in Christianity.

    Which brings me to Baptism.

    You say: Prove that "the Christian Baptism not rooted in the Old testament, but is rooted in paganism' "

    Refutation: (1) That's an outright lie. I said the exact opposite. I said Jews had their baptism rituals but they were different from the Christian ones. (2) In Egypt, the Book of Going Forth by Day contains a treatise on the baptism of newborn children, which is performed to purify them of blemishes acquired in the womb. Water, especially the Nile's cold water, which was believed to have regenerative powers, is used to baptize the dead in a ritual based on the Osiris myth. "
     
    Last edited:
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You say: "the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things "

    Refutation: False as hell. This is a lie repeated in Churches. But the NT and OT were not meant to be a historic, realistic book. But a book that taught wisdoms through made-up stories and augmented narrations with a lot of magic, magical beings and hocus pocus. The NT even uses literature opposites, for better story-telling, like the two thieves on the cross, Mary the Prostitute and Mary the Virgin, Jesus the Pacifist and Barabbas the Murderer, etc. It also includes unrealistic things like evil spirits, giants, burning bushes that speak, etc. It's a semi-fictional story said around campfires. It does have historic facts and underpinnings. But it's mythological and has fictional oral traditions.

    Rephrasing of my "silver bullet" refutation of Christianity. To put into axioms:

    A1- Yahweh is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

    A2- Judaism allowing stoning for centuries based on Yahweh's teachings.

    A3- Jesus, in Christianity, is believed to be Yahweh (trinity doctrine).

    A4- Jesus adds a qualifier that "only those who have not sinned can throw the first stone" in the NT. It is not found in the OT.

    A5- Follows from A2 and A4, Jesus is responsible for all the stoning of men and women that happened before that period. But never provided that important qualifer until the NT.

    Deduction: Jesus cannot be omnibenevolent if he allowed a stoning which he later demoralized, or omniscient if he didn't imagine those who have sinned who have thrown stones through period and would have needed that qualifier.

    I concede that a lot of what I say is not "academic" within Christian-dominated religious studies. But I do my own research. I'm not concerned if something is "fringe" or not. As I'm a fringe within a fringe. Nor do I limit the truth about religions to Christian Academia. But neither do I find "virgin birth' and "walking on water" and "turning water into wine" to be academic. We're both on thin branches.
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You say: "the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things "

    Refutation 2: (1) If the Bible is "real things", how come Moses has no other recorded history in Ancient Egypt, when Ancient Egyptians recorded everything? (2) If the Bible is "real things", how come it says that Tyre will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and never rebuilt again? When it would be actually attacked / destroyed by Alexander and rebuilt many times over, even to this day where Tyre (the island and mainland) stand built with universities and houses?

    I don't want to open more topics. So feel free to only respond to what you find important to "Pagan roots of Christianity".
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    And Hera would lose her virginity afterwards, but she gave birth while a virgin.

    "Perseus is still a more apt example than those. There we have a magical substance impregnating a woman who remains a proper unpenetrated virgin all the way through birth, just like for Jesus (the only difference being the substance). But second to Perseus is Hephaestus, born to Hera, who maintained virginity by magic (albeit still engaging in sex from time to time), and thereby by some even worshiped as a virgin, and then conceived a god entirely sexlessly—in fact by her own direct act of divine will, which is a direct precedent for how the Christians invented the conception of Jesus. She also birthed him in her magically virginal state, thus evincing another form of virgin born god. "
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    On the timeline of religions.

    I follow those:
    • Hinduism (founded around the 15th – 5th century BCE) ...
    • Zoroastrianism (10th – 5th century BCE) ...
    • Judaism (9th – 5th century BCE)

    My personal theory is that Islam is a bastardization of Persian Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Christianity is a bastardization of Judaism and Mithraist Zoroastrianism (although Xians argue they were before Mithraists, but I doubt that). And all religions are ultimately a bastardization of Hinduism.


    On the influences of Paganism on Judaism refer to Philip West's "Old ones in the old book."
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    "The Old Testament is the original Hebrew Bible, the sacred scriptures of the Jewish faith, written at different times between about 1200 and 165 BC."

    The European paganism beliefs I mentioned concerning virgin birth can be rooted back to before that period. While Ash Wednesday can be rooted back to Hinduism.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    .....
    I concede that a lot of what I say is not "academic" within Christian-dominated religious studies. But I do my own research. I'm not concerned if something is "fringe" or not. As I'm a fringe within a fringe.
    do not sell yourself so short my friend, obviously your own theories and opinions are by far more valuable and credible than their "academic" rivals, because you do your own research, whereas those people in academia seemingly invent things up on the go.

    however, despite you having invested plenty of effort, this is the kind of performances we are looking for:
     
    Last edited:
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    do not sell yourself so short my friend, obviously your own theories and opinions are by far more valuable and credible than their "academic" rivals, because you do your own research, whereas those people in academia seemingly invent things up on the go.

    however, despite you having invested plenty of effort, this is the kind of performances we are looking for:
    I've seen crazy atheists, but also crazier Christians.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I've seen crazy atheists, but also crazier Christians.
    communication has a set of minimum requirements, when these requirements are not met then communication becomes an exercise in futility. the divergence is not simply on the level of faith and belief, it is rather on the more fundamental level of the basic notions of logic, even at its relational manifestation in language. the break down is at this level whereas philosophy, ideologies, theologies and faith, manifest themselves on more complex levels occurring several layers above that, and which require a honing of intellectual faculties in addition to critical analysis and precision in speech.

    people do not develop these skills overnight, and the most vocal atheists are usually the angry ones who do not see through all of that and remain stuck below the level of healthy communication and development of ideas. one of the reasons why most atheists keep repeating themselves for endless years, is because they exhibit an attitude problem that does not allow their knowledge to ferment, mature, and relate. thus it remains they remain stuck in the same place as time progresses.

    it follows that the divergence in fact is not at the sophisticated and complex theological level, but rather at "hello world".
     
    Last edited:
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    do not sell yourself so short my friend, obviously your own theories and opinions are by far more valuable and credible than their "academic" rivals, because you do your own research, whereas those people in academia seemingly invent things up on the go.

    however, despite you having invested plenty of effort, this is the kind of performances we are looking for:
    (1) "SJWS" began with American Christians in 2005 censoring everything. Much like your take on Mahsrou Leila in that other thread. We all saw your tears and we all laughed.

    Religious studies is not pure science for it to be accounted with any "rigorousness". And your "appeal to authority" fallacy lives next to you in your rubbish bin. Binned.
     
    C

    Curiosum

    New Member
    @Curiosum

    Your long response is a stupid rant full of errors and inaccuracies. I don't want to waste a lot of time, and so I will pick the most important points relevant to this discussion.
    I have to point out that Christianity is a "dead religion" and that no sane man believes in demons, hellfire, splitting seas, walking in water, rising from death, etc. And that I will be generous enough to waste my time on such a silly topic.


    You say: "no pagan virgin birth narrative exists."

    Refutation: False as hell.

    "Most famously, in the case of Perseus, a golden shower (drops of gold falling from the ceiling into his mother’s vagina) is far closer to Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (just as magical a substance, which just as surely went into her womb to impregnate her). ... So she remained as much a virgin as Mary did, as even early Christians conceded (Justin, for example, had to admit Perseus was born of a virgin). There were also sexless conceptions of other kinds, for example in the myth that has Hera giving birth to Hephaestus by act of will rather than sexual union."

    "Hera was also worshipped as a virgin: there was a tradition in Stymphalia in Arcadia that there had been a triple shrine to Hera the Girl "

    Let's deal with this first. Those are factually virgin births and sexless births approved of by Academics.

    ...



    You say: "You claim the virgin birth is pagan, when in reality a) it is rooted in the Old Testament "

    Refutation: (1) Paganism precedes the Old Testament. So that's a non-sequitur.
    You say: You also claim Ash Wednesday is pagan when in reality it is rooted in the Old Testament .

    Refutation: (1) Paganism precedes the Old Testament. So that's a non-sequitur. (2) "In the Nordic pagan religion, placing ashes above one’s brow was believed to ensure the protection of the Norse god, Odin [Odin was also known as Ashes]. This practice spread to Europe during the Vikings conquests. This laying on of ashes was done on Wednesday, the day named for Odin… The Norse practice which has become known as Ash Wednesday was itself, drawn from the Vedic Indian religion. Ashes were believed to be the seed Agni, the Indian fire god. Ashes were also believed to be symbolic for the purifying blood of the Vedic god Shiva, which it is said had the power to cleanse sins.

    You say: "How is (or ever was) the incarnation of God in Christianity similar to, let alone rooted in, Buddhism, at any point in Christian doctrinal history? "

    Answer: Tibetan Buddhism have a Logos / Word (spiritual bound of God) called "Sa-deha-fo". "He is “the active earthly wisdom. ”Sadehafo, or the “Mouthpiece of Buddha,” otherwise the “Word". And it appeared in flesh. It's part of a secretive religion. So hard for me to establish it "academically".


    I can respond to the other things. But let's keep our main topic "Pagan roots" in Christianity.

    Which brings me to Baptism.

    You say: Prove that "the Christian Baptism not rooted in the Old testament, but is rooted in paganism' "

    Refutation: (1) That's an outright lie. I said the exact opposite. I said Jews had their baptism rituals but they were different from the Christian ones. (2) In Egypt, the Book of Going Forth by Day contains a treatise on the baptism of newborn children, which is performed to purify them of blemishes acquired in the womb. Water, especially the Nile's cold water, which was believed to have regenerative powers, is used to baptize the dead in a ritual based on the Osiris myth. "
    You say: "the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things "

    Refutation: False as hell. This is a lie repeated in Churches. But the NT and OT were not meant to be a historic, realistic book. But a book that taught wisdoms through made-up stories and augmented narrations with a lot of magic, magical beings and hocus pocus. The NT even uses literature opposites, for better story-telling, like the two thieves on the cross, Mary the Prostitute and Mary the Virgin, Jesus the Pacifist and Barabbas the Murderer, etc. It also includes unrealistic things like evil spirits, giants, burning bushes that speak, etc. It's a semi-fictional story said around campfires. It does have historic facts and underpinnings. But it's mythological and has fictional oral traditions.

    Rephrasing of my "silver bullet" refutation of Christianity. To put into axioms:

    A1- Yahweh is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

    A2- Judaism allowing stoning for centuries based on Yahweh's teachings.

    A3- Jesus, in Christianity, is believed to be Yahweh (trinity doctrine).

    A4- Jesus adds a qualifier that "only those who have not sinned can throw the first stone" in the NT. It is not found in the OT.

    A5- Follows from A2 and A4, Jesus is responsible for all the stoning of men and women that happened before that period. But never provided that important qualifer until the NT.

    Deduction: Jesus cannot be omnibenevolent if he allowed a stoning which he later demoralized, or omniscient if he didn't imagine those who have sinned who have thrown stones through period and would have needed that qualifier.

    I concede that a lot of what I say is not "academic" within Christian-dominated religious studies. But I do my own research. I'm not concerned if something is "fringe" or not. As I'm a fringe within a fringe. Nor do I limit the truth about religions to Christian Academia. But neither do I find "virgin birth' and "walking on water" and "turning water into wine" to be academic. We're both on thin branches.
    On the timeline of religions.

    I follow those:
    • Hinduism (founded around the 15th – 5th century BCE) ...
    • Zoroastrianism (10th – 5th century BCE) ...
    • Judaism (9th – 5th century BCE)

    My personal theory is that Islam is a bastardization of Persian Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Christianity is a bastardization of Judaism and Mithraist Zoroastrianism (although Xians argue they were before Mithraists, but I doubt that). And all religions are ultimately a bastardization of Hinduism.


    On the influences of Paganism on Judaism refer to Philip West's "Old ones in the old book."
    "The Old Testament is the original Hebrew Bible, the sacred scriptures of the Jewish faith, written at different times between about 1200 and 165 BC."

    The European paganism beliefs I mentioned concerning virgin birth can be rooted back to before that period. While Ash Wednesday can be rooted back to Hinduism.
    Part A/

    Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory, but there comes a point where you just have to face reality. Your view has been discredited for over a century now (few decades after it surfaced). The argument here is really between you (and those 'rare gems' like you) and virtually every other qualified scholar in the universe, i.e. between you and a century’s worth of overwhelming academic consensus.

    Don't let your corrupt mind trick you into making you believe yourself to be some kind of a rare gem waiting to be discovered, recognized and endorsed widely/universally just for being 'rare' or 'not endorsed widely/universally' or 'a fringe within a fringe'. Granted, every established scientific theory starts off as a fringe by default in its way of becoming what it is, but then again also every nutcase or dekanje-like theory starts off the same way, but unlike the former, it dies out and/or remains so, a 'fringe within a fringe', ready to be picked up and used by fringers of same ilk or purpose.

    And raising this against you is no more a fallacy of 'appealing to authority' than 'referring a flat-earther to the scientific community' is; because it simply is akin to referring you to the scholarly documented and reasoned invalidation of your view (this is simply 'making use of the deposit of human knowledge'). It is also no more a fallacy than 'addressing the message as well as the messenger' is. Inherent to every fallacy is the intentional or non-intentional evasion of the point that ought be validly addressed. When there's no evasion, where the point is validly tackled, no fallacy applies. No matter how many times and how loudly you cry out 'fallacy' against this, you will be and remain the one at the receiving end of this charge, until and unless you validly tackle what's being given to you.

    You then appear to degrade the scholarly method for being 'biased' or 'more subjective than objective', as you claim, in discrediting your view, when the scholarly method itself a) is universal and b) is the very process by and through which all claims and views get to be analysed and assessed objectively, the same way. And how do you manage to support your claim against this? By simply saying the majority of scholars in the respective field happen to be biased by default against you and your view. In other words, by simply saying the method fails, without bothering to point out how or to demonstrate your claim.

    ---

    (to be continued)
     
    Last edited:
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Religious studies is as scholarly as gender studies, ffs. It's not a pure science.
     
    C

    Curiosum

    New Member
    Religious studies is as scholarly as gender studies, ffs. It's not a pure science.
    (

    'The scholarly method or scholarship is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the subject as valid and trustworthy (objective) as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. It is the methods that systemically advance the teaching, research, and practice of a given scholarly or academic field of study through rigorous inquiry. Scholarship is noted by its significance to its particular profession, and is creative, can be documented, can be replicated or elaborated, and can be and is peer-reviewed through various methods.'

    The criterion for considering a discipline academic (or scholarly) is quite simple and trivial: the discipline in question must meet and correctly apply the scholarly method with its principles accordingly with the nature of knowledge it ought to claim and deal.

    The scientific method is encompassed by the scholarly method rather than the other way around. This means that some disciplines are validly considered academic (scholarly) without them having to apply the scientific method at all (like the pure sciences such as pure Mathematics, and Logic), and some others are validly considered scholarly without them having to directly and strictly apply the scientific method (such as the disciplines that interpret and investigate human behavior, institutions, society, and history, etc.) but still with them applying or using it indirectly or non-strictly thru the results and consensus of/in other scholarly discipline(s) that make strict use of it like the hard sciences (physics, biology, etc).

    An example of such a discipline (if not a set of disciplines) that is validly academic in principle would be the religious studies, also known as the study of religion, which is an academic discipline devoted to research into religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions, that makes use of every other scholarly discipline under the sun, as required. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.

    On the other hand, an example of a faux-discipline, a discipline that isn't validly academic, would be the gender studies which is being advanced as a discipline that is based on the gender theory which in turn doesn't have the appropriate scholarly consensus support in order to be considered a valid theory to start with, and is thereby failing the criterion i relayed above. It is in this sense on its way to being on par with astrological studies or with fringe theories the likes of which you subscribe to.

    )

    (to be continued)
     
    Last edited:
    C

    Curiosum

    New Member
    The only way a scholarly consensus is trumped (or changed) is by offering a better explanation of the (scholarly) gathered data (or evidence) at hand, or by scholarly acquiring new/better data, and not by ignoring, denying or contriving existing data, or not by not validly accounting for it

    (to be continued)
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    Researchers put the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population at 0.5% to 1%.
    However, Catholic priests tend to be overrepresented in child sex offenses.
    The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time.
    What do you think is the reason behind that?
    You put sexually active and frustrated men in a room with virgin girls... what did you expect would happen?
     
    Top