Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
Zaxon said:
New Testament reference:
View attachment 92932
Click to expand...

"Ephesians 6:5–9 gives specific instructions for both servants and masters. Servants should give a good effort, more than just for show, in all things they are required to do. This shows respect for their master, but it also provides a good example of one's relationship to Christ. At the same time, masters are explicitly told not to be abusive to their underlings. God sees masters as no better than those they command, and He is the ultimate Master of both."

https://www.bibleref.com/Ephesians/6/Ephesians-6-5.html#verse

You just going to cherrypick and take things out of context without regard to the whole ie. troll?

When was the last time you did some volunteer work @Zaxon ?
 
Value Collector said:
I think the fact our culture has become progressively more secular is the cause of our prosperity.
Click to expand...

So the "I want it all and I want it now" creed is good for us you think ?

All right up to a point, but then you get the banks and their shareholders who want it all at the expense of others.
 
To my understanding, Christianity is the practice of living according to Christ's teachings.
Many of the cherry picked biblical quotations, posted to this thread, run counter to those teachings.

When someone claiming to be a Christian, acts in a manner contrary to Christ's teachings, it is fair to say that person is not being true to Christianity.

Many denominations of Christianity are guilty of incorporating non Christian practices into their interpretational brand of "Christianity". Those preferring such practices over Christ's actual teachings cannot rightly claim to be true Christians.

The "no true scotsman fallacy" has no relevance to such observations.
 
Zaxon said:
New Testament reference:
View attachment 92932
Click to expand...
I see no problem at all. Plus the translation factor . I doubt it means to be petrified of your master. That same author described the necessity for perfect calm at all times. And a Christian in today's time would try to do the same. There service would then become a source of 'grace'. And when you think about it, for those who do believe in morality and human dignity, it actually does make sense to act like that.
 
I'm not sure where all this trashing of Christianity or religions get us.
I would hope most people with any religious knowledge would accept that the Christian gospel is fundamentally good. "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself".

The tragedy about what has happened in the Catholic Church as well as many others lies in the Institutional behaviors of the clergy. This is about corruption and abuse and then concealment in the name of protecting the reputation of the organisation. Unfortunately that process is universal. Unless one is vigilant and diligent the risks of people abusing their positions of power is always there and, somehow, needs some sort of strong external overview.

I note that many people believe that if there were some strong lay women having roles in the Churchs education and ministries there would have been far more chance of nipping these behaviors in the bud so to speak. I suppose a critical problem of the Churches is that they would always resist such intervention.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

For the sake of remembering history, the Catholic Church has had many periods of corrupt and outrageous behavior. There were often internal efforts to challenge these actions - but these were generally unsuccessful. In fact in the 1500's the Church was "out of control". This behavior was also responsible for the Reformation when many people just decided to establish their own form of Christianity. Think of Martin Luther.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...an-introduction-to-the-protestant-reformation
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism/The-age-of-Reformation-and-Counter-Reformation
 
SirRumpole said:
So the "I want it all and I want it now" creed is good for us you think ?

All right up to a point, but then you get the banks and their shareholders who want it all at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

If you had a choice, I don’t think you would want to go back to the dark ages, when the churches ruled the world.

What ever faults you can find with modern society, our lives are a lot better now that we are less religious than they were in the dark ages when religion was the strongest.
 
Value Collector said:
If you had a choice, I don’t think you would want to go back to the dark ages, when the churches ruled the world.
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't, but at least I have some appreciation that a lot of our laws and morals were inherited from Christianity, the concept of charity for example.
 
basilio said:
I'm not sure where all this trashing of Christianity or religions get us.
Click to expand...

As I said I am not trashing Christianity, I just take issue with people that make out that being “Christian” automatically makes a person good, especially when they use the no true Scotsman fallacy to try and eject all the bad examples that disprove their position.

If true Christianity really was about self sacrificing to help others, then Christianity must be one of the smallest religions, because the bulk of the 10,000+ versions obviously aren’t real according to DK’s definition, certainly not the Catholic Church and all the jet setting USA evangelicals, preaching prosperity gospel.
 
Darc Knight said:
Have you read the New Testament VC?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything in there that is more moral than what was expounded by some other religions of the time or secular thinking of the time. After all it was written by men and likely reflects the consensus morality of the time. However, this has been discussed ad nauseam in the "Religion, science, philosophy and things metaphysical" forum.
 
SirRumpole said:
No I wouldn't, but at least I have some appreciation that a lot of our laws and morals were inherited from Christianity, the concept of charity for example.
Click to expand...
Which important laws come from Christianity? I think you will find any important law or rule such as those outlawing stealing or murder exist across pretty much every society and predate Christianity.

I am pretty sure the concept of charity existed before Christianity too, and exists across many religions and societies.

As for morals, the important ones are secular any way, and also exist across different religions and societies, they have evolved as our social species evolved, and often “religious morals” and up getting in the way and slowing down the progression.
 
Value Collector said:
Which important laws come from Christianity? I think you will find any important law or rule such as those outlawing stealing or murder exist across pretty much every society and predate Christianity.

I am pretty sure the concept of charity existed before Christianity too, and exists across many religions and societies.

As for morals, the important ones are secular any way, and also exist across different religions and societies, they have evolved as our social species evolved, and often “religious morals” and up getting in the way and slowing down the progression.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that we have been here before many times so I won't go on about it, except to say look at a "Godless" society like China or North Korea and ask yourself if you would prefer to live there.
 
SirRumpole said:
I have a feeling that we have been here before many times so I won't go on about it, except to say look at a "Godless" society like China or North Korea and ask yourself if you would prefer to live there.
Click to expand...

Korea is a religious state, their state religion is leader worship, the head of state is a dead guy who could do miracles, just like Christianity.
 
Indeed we have discussed these things numerous times before when I was last around, and yes, it's possible NT teachings were around before (probably not all of them though), but that wouldn't matter anyway.

A parish priest that I know has been following it and he reckons there is no evidence at all against Pell. I hope my predictions aren't coming true . State control of religion would be devastating for Aus.
 
grah33 said:
A parish priest that I know has been following it and he reckons there is no evidence at all against Pell.
Click to expand...

So you think the witness who gave evidence for 4 days was lying ?

That may well be possible but the jury believed him.
 
SirRumpole said:
So you think the witness who gave evidence for 4 days was lying ?

That may well be possible but the jury believed him.
Click to expand...
I don't have a feeling toward either possibility. I suspect many people believe Pell is guilty though, since it's natural to believe what we're told. I'm not convinced yet at all though. I'll wait to see what happens.
 
"A parish priest that I know has been following it and he reckons there is no evidence at all against Pell."
Graph 33

I suggest that observation says more about the parish priest than anything else.

How was he "following" the case ? Had he been there every day or even most days ? Had he somehow been privy to the closed cross examinations of the victim ?

I go back to what I have said which, to be fair, simply echoes the known public facts. Cardinal Pell had the absolute best legal team available representing him. All avenues of defence were explored in detail. Every attempt possible was made to create reasonable doubt in the minds of at least one juror.

In the end the jury was faced with hearing the detailed and cross examined testimony of the accused and surrounding evidence vs the denials of Cardinal Pell. They unanimously believed the Kid.
 
I look at it like this. Say there's a teacher at your local primary school. You hear from your neighbour that he's touched up her son. The next week, you hear from your cousin that the same teacher molested her son. And the next day, you hear from a former student, who's now an adult, who tells you the same teacher molested him when he was a kid.

Your son tells you that he's been invited over to this teacher's house for 1-on-1, special tuition. Do you let him go?

I'd hope your answer would be no. Pedophiles have patterns of behaviour. Rarely do they offend only once. It's the corroborating testimonies from independent people that gives you all the evidence you need.

In the case of George Pell, there are numerous, similar sounding stories from multiple sources. The forced sex with the choirboys he's been convicted of in Melbourne. The indecent grabbing of genitals in the swimming pool at Ballarat. The interest he's shown in the change rooms to make sure boys dry their genitals while he watched. The incident incident in Torquay where he stood naked in a change room in from of young boys for a lengthy period of time, and had to be told by Les Tyack, "I know what you're doing George. Clear out or I'll report this to the police."

We as non jurors, are allowed to weigh up all the independent evidence, the eerily similar stories from different parts of the state. You can form your personal opinion on that. In a court of law, the restrictions of what can be considered are extremely different. Very relevant evidence can be stricken, just because the judge said so. Other similar cases and testimonies can't be considered. The verdict could be overturned on appeal due to a technicality. And that's just how our legal system works. And that makes sense if the outcome is to imprison someone, you need extreme rigor in the process.

But as a member of the public who isn't a juror, you should consider the wider evidence you have available. Pedophiles have a track record supported by the testimonies of their victims. If you still conclude that George did nothing, then by all means, let your son go over to the teacher's house for 1-on-1, special tuition.
 
basilio said:
"A parish priest that I know has been following it and he reckons there is no evidence at all against Pell."
Graph 33

I suggest that observation says more about the parish priest than anything else.

How was he "following" the case ? Had he been there every day or even most days ? Had he somehow been privy to the closed cross examinations of the victim ?

I go back to what I have said which, to be fair, simply echoes the known public facts. Cardinal Pell had the absolute best legal team available representing him. All avenues of defence were explored in detail. Every attempt possible was made to create reasonable doubt in the minds of at least one juror.

In the end the jury was faced with hearing the detailed and cross examined testimony of the accused and surrounding evidence vs the denials of Cardinal Pell. They unanimously believed the Kid.
Click to expand...

Just to add Pell actually came around not too long ago. He snuck in , they were saying, this tall man, to get away from the media. The new guy, Comensoli , was also here not too long ago.

This discussion is a bit like the evolution thing. You got people that would believe if they felt the evidence was better. I imagine though that many Catholics do believe he is guilty since it's natural to believe what you've been told.
 
Top