Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: The Cure for Pedophilia etc.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    There sure is a lot of 'animating' going on from episcopal Sees encouraging boys to have great zeal!

    ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

    Animated by the spirit of Christ, this sacred synod is fully aware that the desired renewal of the whole Church depends to a great extent on the ministry of its priests. It proclaims the extreme importance of priestly training and lays down certain basic principles by which those regulations may be strengthened which long use has shown to be sound and by which those new elements can be added which correspond to the constitutions and decrees of this sacred council and to the changed conditions of our times. Because of the very unity of the Catholic priesthood this priestly formation is necessary for all priests, diocesan and religious and of every rite. Wherefore, while these prescriptions directly concern the diocesan clergy, they are to be appropriately adapted to all.


    1. Since only general laws can be made where there exists a wide variety of nations {Is this actually 'evident'? Why?}and regions, a special "program of priestly training" is to be undertaken by each country or rite {Rituals vary by what reason? Is it mandated that some people are different under their g-d? How many g-ds are involved - are we talking semi-gods like saints or just the big three? I would have to guess they allow the rites of disciplines as divergent as Carmelites and Santerian Voudou to operate in the same regions? I must misunderstand the words?}. It must be set up by the episcopal conferences, revised from time to time and approved by the Apostolic See. In this way will the universal laws be adapted to the particular circumstances of the times and localities so that the priestly training will always be in tune with the pastoral needs of those regions in which the ministry is to be exercised.


    2. The duty of fostering vocations pertains to the whole Christian community, which should exercise it above all by a fully Christian life. {But who gave Rome power over Christians in the first place? Even if you BELIEVE the lies of Empire - with all those holes apologized for and otherwise - you must ask if some men have such power over the lives of women they won't even allow to perform their rituals.} The principal contributors to this are the families which, animated by the spirit of faith and love and by the sense of duty, become a kind of initial seminary, and the parishes in whose rich life the young people take part. Teachers and all those who are in any way in charge of the training of boys and young men, especially Catholic associations, should carefully guide the young people entrusted to them so that these will recognize and freely accept a divine vocation. All priests especially are to manifest an apostolic zeal in fostering vocations and are to attract the interest of youths to the priesthood by their own life lived in a humble and industrious manner and in a happy spirit as well as by mutual priestly charity and fraternal sharing of labor.

    Bishops on the other hand are to encourage their flock to promote vocations and should be concerned with coordinating all forces in a united effort to this end. As fathers, moreover, they must assist without stint those whom they have judged to be called to the Lord's work."

    I encourage a more complete reading and genuine zeal for understanding Divine Providence and how these men are so divine in the first place. Is this 'divine' creature assuming all who s/he/it has dominion over including all other denominations of the cult truly accepting priestly decisions administered in all regions as different as they are and as different as the treatment of women in this world can be? Is it incumbent on simple people like you or myself to ask questions of the churches we allow to influence our children?
    Judean and Islamic as well as Baptist and 20,000 other separate structures not to mention Hindu and those seen as different, do present some ideological and pedagogical pain - do they not?

    If we are 'animating' young men and the needs of priests who somehow know a god that has all these different rites, we should ask as these children's parents and voters in these countries - who has say over the laws they follow in institutions proven to break all laws commonly said to be secular including sex. Are sexual needs part of the teaching for these priests and how do celibate priests help women understand their own needs which vary from those of their children who might not even be just one sex?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Love is a temporary emotional condition brought on by a
    physical reaction to a biological urge. [too many think]

    -- Abigail Van Buren

    Would an altruistic person engage in rape or pedophilia?

    "Organized religion is a cornerstone of spiritual community and culture around the world. Religion, especially religious education, also attracts secular support because many believe that religion fosters morality. A majority of the United States believes that faith in a deity is necessary to being a moral person.

    In principle, religion’s emphasis on morality can smooth wrinkles out of the social fabric. Along those lines, believers are often instructed to act selflessly towards others. Islam places an emphasis on charity and alms-giving, Christianity on loving your neighbor as yourself. Taoist ethics, derived from the qualities of water, include the principle of selflessness

    However, new research conducted in six countries around the world suggests that a religious upbringing may actually yield children who are less altruistic. Over 1000 children ages five to twelve took part in the study, from the United States, Canada, Jordan, Turkey, South Africa, and China. By finding that religious-raised children are less altruistic in the laboratory, the study alerts us to the possibility that religion might not have the wholesome effects we expect on the development of morality. The social practice of religion can complicate the precepts of a religious text. But in order to interpret these findings, we have to first look at how to test morality.

    In an experiment snappily named the dictator game, a child designated “dictator” is tested for altruistic tendencies. This dictator child is conferred with great power to decide whether to share stickers with others. Researchers present the child with thirty stickers and instruct her to take ten favorite stickers. The researchers carefully mention that there isn’t time to play this game with everyone, setting up the main part of the experiment: to share or not to share. The child is given two envelopes and asked whether she will share stickers with other children at the school who cannot play the game. While the researcher faces the wall, the child can slip some stickers into the donation envelope and some into the other envelope to keep.

    As the researchers expected, younger children were less likely to share stickers than older children. Also consistent with previous studies, children from a wealthier socioeconomic status shared more. More surprising was the tendency of children from religious households to share less than those from nonreligious backgrounds. When separated and analyzed by specific religion, the finding remained: children from both Christian and Muslim families on average shared less than nonreligious children. (Other religious designations were not represented in large enough numbers for separate statistical comparison.) Older kids from all backgrounds shared more than younger ones, but the tendency for religious children to share less than similar-aged children became more pronounced with age. The authors think this could be due to cumulative effects of time spent growing up in a religious household. While the large numbers of subjects strengthens the finding of a real difference between the groups of children, the actual disparity in typical sharing was about one sticker. We need to know if the gap in sticker sharing is meaningful in the real world.

    There are difficulties in devising experiments to look for religion’s effect on selflessness. Some would argue that childhood is the best age to study effects of a religious upbringing, when education’s effects may be more immediate and powerful. Others would argue that only as adults do we begin to use a mature moral compass, and this stage is more important. In adults, religiousness has been linked with greater charitable giving and generosity, but a common problem of these studies is relying on surveys. While surveys are useful for collecting information en masse, people may report giving more to charity because they believe in contributing, even if they didn’t live up to their own expectations. We all know our memories are less than perfect, and it’s possible that people who are regularly encouraged to perform charitable acts may overestimate their contributions on a survey. Clearly, the best way to study the issue is using experiments in which people actually share items (like stickers) or by looking at records of giving.

    The Chronicle of Philanthropy took the second approach by aggregating IRS charitable deductions to compare ZIP codes in terms of factors like religious identification, though the analysis was restricted to tax deductions and doesn’t tell us about individuals. By integrating statistics on religious affiliations of each area, the Chronicle’s study found that religious areas gave more to charity. What the data doesn’t tell is whether the extra contributions go to support local religious congregations and religious organizations. In the end, what do we call generosity to one’s own group?

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines altruism as “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others,” but categorizing a behavior as entirely selfless has troubled scholars for years. Books like The Selfish Gene,published in 1976, brought to the public the idea that what seems like altruism may actually be selfish on a genetic level if the act of kindness is directed to closely-related individuals. A closely related individual bears similar genetic material, so helping relatives could be construed as “selfish” behavior if you imagine a gene helping its likeness housed in another body. Alternatively, expecting help in the future could lead a self-interested individual to “perform” altruism. He might gain the esteem of the community by helping others publicly, while consciously or unconsciously waiting for the good deeds to pay off.

    However, this strict terminology is not what we intend in everyday speech. Broadly, altruism is generosity. In the case of the current study, the researchers corralled altruism into donation of stickers to anonymous schoolmates. Perhaps a child refuses to donate stickers into an envelope so that he can take them home and share with his siblings or friends rather than a stranger. Does that qualify more as nepotism or generosity? If the children from religious backgrounds also happened to have more siblings, then the results might actually reveal a link between siblings and stickers. Correlation is a tricky indicator of causation, as we all know. Aside from this altruism test, are there other indicators of morality?

    Religion often instructs believers in forgiveness and moral justice. To test children’s reactions to interpersonal conflict, the researchers showed cartoons of people pushing or bumping one another. Researchers determined that Muslim children rated the pushing or bumping as more “mean” than Christian children did, and in turn Christian children rated the videos as more mean than nonreligious children. When asked to assign punishments for the pushing or bumping, Muslim children tended to assign higher punishments than Christian and nonreligious children."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-09-2016 at 03:26 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    A true and humanistic religion or spiritual endeavour is not being fostered. If we had ecumenicism it still might fall short of what is best for our human society.

    Then there is the matter of destroying knowledge when you can if you fear what others might do with it. Along with the natural human need for power rather than co-operation and true spirituality which accompanies fear. That is a major issue to the present day. Religions do not want their followers to learn the other religion's merits or even their own secrets, so they actually create these fears which might not really be human traits or "base human urges" as Machiavelli and Hobbes would tell us. Not that there are not truly basic human urges, but why do we accept the rational of Empire and pursue power, sex and money? I find more power in other opportunities such as beauty, creativity and spiritual growth in co-operation with each other. But can one person truly trust another or themself? Yes, you can trust people to do what advances their own needs and you can manipulate a large number of them if you give them what they need as Machiavelli knew. But there is much more we could have if we did not need the things which have historically been beyond our ability to control - except as some authority allowed us to have it. Obviously sex was strictly controlled by religions of the West There are issues still with us surrounding these controls and the Cycle of Violence which allowed men to enjoy rape and pillage if they lived through the wars wrought by stupidity including listening to leaders who told us what we had to do - for them!

    But sex is not all there is to making love or spiritual union and we are not really encouraging love by limiting the ways we do what we do in so many parts of this world. I cannot accept the merit of arranged marriages even though I understand the logic of education and wisdom which our parents should have. If they really did know what love was, they would not force their kids to do things which enhance their own lives. Muslims and Hindus or indeed any culture that forces women to do any such thing is barbaric as far as I am concerned. Religions tell us how to hate gays or those who do not practice sex as they tell us it should be done. Then you find them doing things they told you not to do. Somehow we find they still do not pay the damages, or taxes to assist those who have been damaged. It is not just the first generation which suffers. Even those who love the victims who are told to hide their experiences, become damaged or confused. And when those victims do in fact hide the experiences of incest and violence well enough to build a family - it is not easy to raise a child wisely.

    The person they marry or have the family with will wonder if they were raised right. They may have been raised with wisdom and great respect for their fellow man and then find they are married to a person suffering from serious psychological issues. They may begin denial and politically correct ways of avoiding real change along with their neighbors who are advised at work not to ever broach these issues for fear of financial risks. Yes, teachers and psychologists know the laws well enough to see what their associates tell them not to do could lead to lawsuits if they really address the problems - and you can forget politicians - for much the same reason.

    That all sounds very unrelated to a subject which purports to have wisdom as it's primary goal. But each person has every gender and learning style potential and must understand their own self (to which that person must try to be true to) rather than the scruples and morays of archaic empires or worse which still force legal and psychological pain upon the whole of society. I do not accept the premises which often get woven into many spiritual pursuits. In alchemy androgyny became an almost necessity due to societal impacts during various Dark Age initiatives. Before that we had Greek pederasty forced upon wise old men or was it wise old perverts who forced it upon society - it would take a whole book to break that discussion down to where we might stipulate to four or five real choices.

    Women were not allowed to be educated in many circles of society and regions of the world - still true in the present. So if sexual union is one method of wisdom acquisition (which I think it is) then there are matters an intellectual seeker or writer has to consider. Some of these things lead to coded and secret rituals and some of those things are as bad as the taboos and deceits they sought to escape.

    Contrary to all you will read in history or any religion - there was a culture which was not repressive in these regards. It succeeded far better than Empires and remnants are to be found in some sutras, and so-called pagan practices. These matters take more than one book to flesh out properly but let me say how you can learn to operate with equality as a guiding force from history. Trust what you KNOW is Right and not what you are told is right.

    The link which follows does not know what was operating when the Great Pyramid of Iesa was built. It does detail the effects of Empire and what we call history. It tells us how fakers still operate as alchemists and why most of what is written is coded or worse.

    "This more or less deliberate obscurity served two unfortunate purposes. First, it retarded progress since each worker in the field was kept in ignorance, or at least in uncertainty, as to what others were doing, so that no man could profit by another's mistakes or learn from another's brilliance. Secondly, it made it possible for any quack and faker to present himself, provided he spoke obscurely enough, as a serious worker. The knave could not be distinguished from the scholar.

    The first important worker in Greek-Egyptian khemeia that we know by name {Which is not the true origin of any of these matters - and this scholar is limited in understanding the depth of the deceit and destruction of knowledge.} was Bolos of Mendes (c.200 B.C.), a town in the Nile delta. In his writings, he used the name Democritus so that he is referred to as "Bolos-Democritus" or sometimes as the "pseudo-Democritus"."

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Here in Pai a drug gangster who has run prostitutes and is feeling bad about the damage done - got me to help a girl for a few hours. If he was to pay me big money I might do this kind of thing but it is so god damned disheartening to see beautiful souls in such wretched states.

    In the case of the abuse that follows I side with killing people who do the deed and maybe even the cover-up.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts