But if a person is in a position of power, then you're more likely to hear about his or her indiscretion than the wrongs committed by any of us "lesser folk." I do agree, though, that power is "the great aphrodisiac" and people, usually men, may abuse that power to take sexual advantage of other people.
I would include parents and teachers on that list. They can become sexually abusive too.
I'm thinking that those two groups feared that openly admitting such scandals would hurt their reputations. But of course once the news of that abuse broke, then not only were they seen as harboring sexual predators but covering it up too.
That's good for you but absolute power where there is no oversight can corrupt even the best of us.
If power corrupts in the context of the Catholic Church, then the priesthood transforms otherwise innocent men into pedophiles and sexual predators. I'm not sure how the priesthood could have that effect on men. Some say that the enforced celibacy of the priesthood causes priests to become pedophiles, but I don't know of any evidence that celibacy causes pedophilia. Are those who make that claim saying that if they were not allowed to be sexually active with a willing adult partner, then they would sexually abuse children? It sounds that way, but I'm sure they would deny it which defeats their argument. It's also important to understand that the proportion of priests who are pedophiles is no greater than the proportion of men from any segment of society.
Danger results from what kind of obedience is demanded. Most employers require obedience from their workers, but most employers are not dangerous for doing so. So if a religion requires its followers to do one thing and abstain from doing another thing, then that religion is not necessarily dangerous. If a follower does not obey, then she can either choose to leave that religion, or the religion can expel her.
Now imagine how corrupt an "all-powerful" entity like a god must be. The ultimate in evil!
That has been my thoughts for a while. Considering the obvious suffering in the world, the Christians' characterization of their god would make more sense if they described him as a sadistic bastard.
I think you're correct about the concept of obedience. I just read numerous articles about the sexual abuse in the SBC as well as in some other evangelical churches. These churches expect women to be submissive and obedient to men, and I think that is probably a big part of the problem. In most of these churches, women aren't permitted to take on any leadership rolls at all. The abuse isn't necessarily directed toward children, it's often directed toward women, who have been indoctrinated with the idea that they must be submissive.
Obedience broadly speaking is a morally ambiguous act which can have beneficial or detrimental consequences and therefore cannot be defined as good or bad. Obedience only becomes good or bad if it is qualified to be so in some way. So I cannot sensibly criticize any religion for demanding obedience.
I've often wondered what women see in religion considering how they are treated by religion. Some say that women are attracted to the powerful men who are the religion's leaders. That may be the reason many women get sexually abused by the clergy: There are plenty of women around to abuse!
Yes, if people act according to what they read in the Bible, then harm can result. I would probably have a much more positive view of the Bible if people didn't see it as a way to excuse their acts.
But looking at the prevalence of sexual abuse in groups other than the SBC can grant us some insights into why there is abuse in the SBC. If the SBC doesn't differ significantly from other groups in that regard, then logically the SBC is probably not the source of the trouble.
I doubt if the SBC claims to be morally upright in every way, but if it preaches morality, then people will join it for that morality only to be disappointed and unwary of sexual predators in the SBC.
If women had more power, then they would be more able to fend off abuse. Maybe that's an indirect solution to the sexual abuse problem.
Well, Yahweh saw fit to impregnatee a human woman who does not appear to have been given a choice in the matter.
Ah yes. The ever so convincing ‘argumentum ad capitalisation’
I don't have to imagine anything, I just have to read the Bible. Your god loves us so much that it creates us broken from the womb, curses us to disease and death, and then burns us in hell for eternity if we don't bow down to it. And lets not forget planetary genocide. But according to you, capitalizing the "g" makes it all better. Talk about corruption - corruption of the human mind. What a fucking waste!
Sure, if his being perfect allowed him to overeat, get drunk, and associate with hoodlums not to mention his preaching that all those who don't believe what he said will be damned. I wonder how many Christians would be OK with their daughter dating Jesus.
I might be imperfect, but my being more like Jesus would be a step in the wrong direction.
Maybe, but what is a success at moral issues?
Actually, Protestants as well as Catholics confess their sins and repent to be forgiven. The main difference is that Catholics appoint priests to hear those confessions while Protestants can have any other person hear their confession. I have had at least one Protestant tell me to mind my own business when I asked her to confess her sins to me. Since I'm not a Christian, then I suppose I don't qualify as a "confession hearer." Either that, or she did things she won't admit to doing!
Pssst... It wasn't an argument, just a bit of banter.Ah yes. The ever so convincing ‘argumentum ad capitalisation’
Not to be mistaken for the completely different ‘Argumentum ad Capitalisation’, which is obviously completely unconvincing.
There must have been a little imagination on your part. God created only Adam and Eve, and created them perfect. Creating just the parents of mankind - as it seems to read in the story. We are their produced offspring; i.e., contrary to what you think you've read, we are "not created broken from the womb"; we are a result of continual reproduction; and that for each generation, as you know, there occurs genetic mutation or degradation, which I suppose, in a manner of speaking, could apply to morals as well.
That's odd. Apparently different Protestant sects have different ideas. My understand is that Protestants confess directly to their god while Catholics use priests as intermediaries....
