Where are your tithes going?

[Caledvwlch]

If what the priests did was not objectively immoral it should make no difference to the parishioners in regard to tithing.

Agree?

In other words . . .
If the priests were being accused of being left handed (or anything morally neutral) there would be no issue in regard to tithing.

Nevertheless, real money has been and will be paid out in large quantities and it is coming out of Joe Catholic's pocket. Is that how it's supposed to work?

 

[Granite]

Irrelevant, the point is Yaweh said kill your child and Abe said OK.
My point is that I wouldn't have agreed because I have morals.
What would you have done?

Ask Jephthah.

 

[fool]

Excellent! You should now see why Zakath is in error for starting such a thread.[

Wrong, even a relitivist has standards, they just state that their contextual, so lets look at the context, molestation is illegal in the U.S., those preists took an oath not to have sex of any kind, the church covered up the cases, which shows that even to them it was wrong, and transfered those priests to other parishs without disclosing their history.
Hence, they knew what they did was wrong and we can tell that by their own actions.
So what they did was wrong in this context.

You tell me.

By the same right that any organism defends itself, personal sovernty.

 

[Granite]

Nevertheless, real money has been and will be paid out in large quantities and it is coming out of Joe Catholic's pocket. Is that how it's supposed to work?

Let's see...

John and Mary Smith attended Our Lady of the Broken Heart for thirty-odd years, get married there, baptize their children there. One side is abused by a priest and has his life destroyed. Priest dies before serving jail time. Meantime John and Mary discover the tithes to Our Lady are going towards the legal expenses of St Michael's across town--to pay families who endured similar tragedies.

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Zakath]

Which action that the priests engaged in was more immoral....?

Sexually abusing little children.

Or...

Breaking an oath.

From my point of view, both actions were immoral.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Nevertheless, real money has been and will be paid out in large quantities and it is coming out of Joe Catholic's pocket. Is that how it's supposed to work?

Large quantities of money are also being paid out to build new Catholic churches.

Is that how its supposed to work?

Isn't the real issue here the immorality or lack-thereof of the priests sexual abuse?

In other words...
If what the priests did was moral then tithes SHOULD be used to pay for their actions.

However, if what the priests did was objectively immoral then parishioners should question the use of their tithes.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From my point of view, both actions were immoral.

Are they on the same par?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Wrong, even a relitivist has standards

And the standard is relative. :duh:

Hello??

Anyone in there????

 

[fool]

If what the priests did was not objectively immoral it should make no difference to the parishioners in regard to tithing.

Agree?

In other words . . .
If the priests were being accused of being left handed (or anything morally neutral) there would be no issue in regard to tithing.

The point about Titheing is that not only did preists molest but the RCC covered it up, moved preists to different places without warning people about them, moved them around more when it happened again, and the church knew this, it was their policy, hence it's a poison tree from the priest all the way up to the pope, and if your titheing to that organization you are supporting molestation period.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I will comment in RED.

The point about Titheing is that not only did preists molest but the RCC covered it up, SO WHAT? moved preists to different places without warning people about them, SO WHAT? moved them around more when it happened again, SO WHAT? and the church knew this, SO WHAT? it was their policy, SO WHAT? hence it's a poison tree from the priest all the way up to the pope, SO WHAT? and if your titheing to that organization you are supporting molestation period.SO WHAT?

 

[Zakath]

In other words...
If what the priests did was moral then tithes SHOULD be used to pay for their actions.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

These men made oaths/vows to their superiors, their communities, and their deity to act in a certain way. They broke those vows when they chose to act differently. What the priests did was immoral - as decided by their Church (Canon law), their society (criminal & civil law), and their victims (social contract).

You seem to be placing yourself in the position of not supporting the use of diocesean funds to pay for settlements to the abused parishoners.

Is that correct?

Do you support the moving of assets and declaring bankruptcy by the church hierarchy to preserve the wealth of the church by preventing those funds from being included in the legal settlements to the victims?

 

[fool]

I will comment in RED.

So if you support that Church you're an accessory to molestation, that's so what.

 

[Poly]

and if your titheing to that organization you are supporting molestation period.

If you are a moral relativist, you CANNOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that one is wrong in giving to support molestation nor can they say molestation is wrong. Even if one is only going by his standards who's to say that his standard should be the standard for somebody else?

Your standard is that molestation is wrong. Big deal!
The molesters standard is that molestation is hunky dorey.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So if you support that Church you're an accessory to molestation, that's so what.

It's only a "So What?" coming from the moral relativist perspective.

Zakath is a moral relativist.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

This statement makes the rest of your post silly! :rotfl:

These men made oaths/vows to their superiors, eye's of the beholder their communities, eye's of the beholder and their deity eye's of the beholder to act in a certain way eye's of the beholder. They broke those vows eye's of the beholder when they chose to act differently eye's of the beholder. What the priests did was immoraleye's of the beholder - as decided by their Church (Canon law), their society (criminal & civil law), and their victims (social contract).

YES, the church could and should condemn these priests but YOU cannot! Which of course is the point.

You seem to be placing yourself in the position of not supporting the use of diocesean funds to pay for settlements to the abused parishoners.

Is that correct?

Are you really this dumb? :zakath:

Do you support the moving of assets and declaring bankruptcy by the church hierarchy to preserve the wealth of the church by preventing those funds from being included in the legal settlements to the victims?

I do not support the priests (they should be executed) nor the church for supporting them (they are now accessories).

The point is, you (as a moral relativist) have no right to join me in condemning these perverts.

 

[fool]

If you are a moral relativist, you CANNOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that one is wrong in giving to support molestation nor can they say molestation is wrong. Even if one is only going by his standards who's to say that his standard should be the standard for somebody else?

Your standard is that molestation is wrong. Big deal!
The molesters standard is that molestation is hunky dorey.

And once again you ignore the fact that other people are involved, namely the victim which brings the victims standard into play, and if the victim is a minor then the parents standard into play.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And once again you ignore the fact that other people are involved, namely the victim which brings the victims standard into play, and if the victim is a minor then the parents standard into play.

And if the victims started this thread I would join them in their disgust.

The victims DIDN'T start this thread, Zakath started this thread and he is a moral relativist.

 

[Poly]

And once again you ignore the fact that other people are involved, namely the victim which brings the victims standard into play, and if the victim is a minor then the parents standard into play.

But even the victim's standard is relative. You're still having to abide by somebody else's standard in not making him a victim. What makes his standard more right than somebody else's?

 

[Zakath]

So what? If you are a moral relativist, you CANNOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that one is wrong in giving to support molestation nor can they say molestation is wrong. Even if one is only going by his standards who's to say that his standard should be the standard for somebody else?

The community of individuals we call society says what the standard is. It adopts some variation of consensus of individual standards to enable itself to function.

Your standard is that molestation is wrong. Big deal!
The molesters standard is that molestation is hunky dorey.

I submit your view is incomplete, Poly. In addition to you and me, society says that molestation is wrong.

:think:

Let's look at an example very near and dear to the hearts of some religionists here on TOL. They believe it is morally good to execute people who practice certain froms of sexual activity.

Society, at present, does not believe so.

Those religionists, mentioned in the example, refrain from engaging in what they consider to be the morally correct behavior, in line with the will of their deity, because society will punish them for carrying out such actions.

Why? Because society deems such killing as morally wrong.

Even though some standard external to society (OT teaching) exists, society's rules prevail, not some deity's, and the deity's followers live in accordance with the rule of law in society, even though it offends their deity and allegedly violates his law.

Very few religionists have the will to oppose the society in which they choose to live. And if you people don't consider it important enough to live by and, if necessary die for, why should anyone else?

When push comes to shove, all the talk of absolutes is merely talk.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

When push comes to shove, all the talk of absolutes is merely talk.

In this thread push did come to shove and you fell off the cliff on page one.