Where are your tithes going?

[Granite]

Uh... just a point of fact here... what is right and wrong is written on our heart HOWEVER, we are not instinctively bent towards keeping the law.

The apostle seems to say so. In any event I do not think you are interested in a serious discussion here. Zakath raised a point of order and you instinctively sidestepped the issue he brought up.

One way or another, will you expend any energy whatsoever criticizing the immoral actions Zakath described or aren't you done yet beating this horse to death?

 

[Granite]

... or offerings for that matter...

Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?

From the Boston.com News, the Boston Globe web site



That last line should give some folks pause... in a big legal settlement, all church assets may be on the table for dissolution or sale when the leadership screws up.

It pays parishoners, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, to watch their leadership more carefully. :think:

If this continues to snowball do you think the Vatican will crack down if for no other reason than self-preservation?

I mean, they have massive land holdings and they certainly don't want those swallowed up in court.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The apostle seems to say so. In any event I do not think you are interested in a serious discussion here. Zakath raised a point of order and you instinctively sidestepped the issue he brought up.

One way or another, will you expend any energy whatsoever criticizing the immoral actions Zakath described or aren't you done yet beating this horse to death?

If a person who is staunchly against gambling starts a thread that states....

"I would like to bet a thousand dollars that gambling is bad."

What do you suppose would be discussed in such a thread?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

 

[Granite]

If a person who is staunchly against gambling starts a thread that states....

"I would like to bet a thousand dollars that gambling is bad."

What do you suppose would be discussed in such a thread?

I guess the answer's no.

Too bad, so sad. Another thread bites the dust. Thanks.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Granite, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

 

[Granite]

I would say morality isn't. Causing harm is self-evident.

We should probably start another thread.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I would say morality isn't. Causing harm is self-evident.

So are you saying causing harm is absolutely immoral?

We should probably start another thread.

FAGITABOUTIT - I own this joint remember?

This thread will be just fine.

So . . . maybe you could specifically answer my question (which is on topic by the way).

Granite, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

 

[Turbo]

I would say morality isn't. Causing harm is self-evident.

Then you should be on our side of this debate, and not Zakath's, since Zakath is a self-proclaimed moral relativist.

But despite his claimed beliefs, he cannot resist making moral judgments against others, which is evidence of the truth of Paul's claim (which you appropriately quoted).

 

[Caledvwlch]

At any rate, if I were a tithing man, and my tithes were going to pay sex abuse settlements, I'd likely be at least slightly miffed.

I also don't believe morality is a real thing. It's more of a series of conditioned responses brought on by education, upbringing and sociological environment, but that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

At any rate, if I were a tithing man, and my tithes were going to pay sex abuse settlements, I'd likely be at least slightly miffed.

And since you are not a tithing man you are not miffed. (makes sense to me)

I also don't believe morality is a real thing. It's more of a series of conditioned responses brought on by education, upbringing and sociological environment, but that's just my 2 cents.

Therefore you do not condemn the actions of the abusive priests, correct?

 

[Granite]

So are you saying causing harm is absolutely immoral?

FAGITABOUTIT - I own this joint remember?

This thread will be just fine.

So . . . maybe you could specifically answer my question (which is on topic by the way).

Granite, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Yes, you have mentioned more than once that this is your website.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Granite, IF morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Notice the "if" in the question. Please answer OK?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath . . .

 

[Granite]

Then you should be on our side of this debate, and not Zakath's, since Zakath is a self-proclaimed moral relativist.

But despite his claimed beliefs, he cannot resist making moral judgments against others, which is evidence of the truth of Paul's claim (which you appropriately quoted).

I'm my own. Contrary to popular opinion I am not the Zak Man's sidekick, thank you kindly.

I am stunned and amazed that you guys are so self-absorbed and egotistical that not a man jack of you has commented on the opening post. Good frickin' grief. :doh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am stunned and amazed that you guys are so self-absorbed and egotistical that not a man jack of you has commented on the opening post. Good frickin' grief. :doh:

We are commenting on the opening post. In fact, that's all we have done!

Granite, IF morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Notice the "if" in the question. Please answer OK?

 

[Zakath]

Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Yes, it is. But recall we are not discussing parishoners here. These clergy are people in positions of public trust so it is also in violation of one or more of the oaths they voluntarily swore, before their deity and church hierarchy, to care for those in their charge.

If they come to a point where their moral sense (i.e conscience) comes into conflict with that mutually agreed upon standard of behavior (including both Canon law and Civil law), then they have two options:

a) violate the moral standard to which they voluntarily subscribed and accept the social and psychological consequences of oathbreaking

or

b) resign from their position to follow their conscience and take the consequences.

 

[Zakath]

Zakath . . .

Some of us do work for a living...

 

[Zakath]

If this continues to snowball do you think the Vatican will crack down if for no other reason than self-preservation?

Yes. From my experience, particularly with that group, what is deemed preservation of the church is deemed to be a higher divine imperative than the safety of any particular individual.

I mean, they have massive land holdings and they certainly don't want those swallowed up in court.

There are probably close to a billion Catholics on the planet. I doubt it would come to that...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Finally a bit of consistency from Zakath!

So now that you admit what the priests did was not immoral what gives you the right to condemn their behavior?

Save us all some time... your answer is "nothing".