Shocka,

I came upon this post by AJ Philips over in the articles section - as in the case against the Christian God - quite succinctly put:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398&page=0#248464

Shocka,

Calling people idiots shows a certain frustration and lack of argument....take a leaf out of AJ Philips' book - use your smarts and eloquence to get your message across.

Y thanks, from your continuing claims every crime committed by an existing Churches members /workers is not an act by religions.
Therefore we have no God,as these acts are not of God = no God is represented on earth.
No sorry but not buying it.
Shocka, come, you can not think that?
Are you telling me every criminal ever convicted of anything was a waste, God was going to fix it?
Well bloke he/she is not.

Belly,

These are "religious" institutions. It's the "institution" part of the equation that harbours the culprits...which is why the RC is going after institutionally condoned abuse.

Albeit, there's something particularly diabolical when a morally triumphal institution such as those of religious persuasion protect pedophiles.

My take is that it's the fundamental model and make-up of human institutions (whatever their colours) that provide the perfect mechanisms for cover-ups of this nature.

Dear Belly,

<<Y thanks, from your continuing claims every crime committed by an existing Churches members /workers is not an act by religions.
Therefore we have no God,as these acts are not of God = no God is represented on earth.>>

Of course we HAVE no God - we ARE God!

If you look for representors of God on earth, you need look no further than yourself!

<<No sorry but not buying it.>>

But when a bunch of child-molesters tell you things, like that they are religious and know all about God, THEM you believe, don't you? THEIR stories you do buy!

Not the best analogy, Yuyutsu, but an interesting and quite useful one.

>>Try, say, to define 'orgasm' for someone who never experienced it.
You can detail the movements and sounds, but it will never amount to the actual experience.<<

The fallacy here is that when you do experience an orgasm, the chances are that you would recognize it from the description that you had previously heard - or subsequently learned, when you ask "what on earth was that?"

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for religion. When you define it as "the process of coming closer to God", the scope for misinterpretation is massive... "what on earth was that" can only be answered by "I dunno. What did it feel like?" Compared to identifying an orgasm, which has some reasonably well-defined parameters, independently verifying one's approach to a deity would be distinctly challenging, would it not.

>>...ignorance about religion is rife because attempts were made to describe it from outside by people who had no such experience<<

Unfortunately again, this argument falls down if the only description available from one who has had such an experience, is "the process of coming closer to God"". Which clearly has meaning for you, but is impossible - unlike describing an orgasm - to communicate effectively to others.

The only possible way to interpret your approach is that all the religions that we presently regard as religions, are no such thing. While this might be valid from a purist point of view, it is of no assistance when addressing the impact of what most of the rest of us would call a religion - Christianity, Islam etc. - on the world.

>>...here's another unsubstantiated assumption that enforced celibacy is a religious practice.<<

There you go, you see. The Catholic church a) is considered my many to be a religion, and b) enforces celibacy on its officers.

By dismissing the entire Catholic church as being unworthy of the description "religious", you effectively deny the crimes committed by its members.

Which is, I think, why Belly gets a little cross with you.