bluebell Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Gray said: 1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea Yes, I know the reference. If we cause someone who believes in Christ and is like a little child to stumble (or sin) then it's not good for us. These are not verses talking about what Christ wants done to pedophiles. The context doesn't support that interpretation. 2
Gray Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: Because I know that being on the sex offender registry does not mean that the person abused their kids. I also know that not every sex offender is a pedophile. You might need to do some more research so that you're more up to speed on the information. Especially if you are going to be making strong statements. I'm aware that there are degrees of offenses. Do you disagree with me, for example. when I say that child molesters should not be allowed in grade schools? Sex offenders don't need people speaking up for them. They have their own voices. What's needed is less sympathy for the abusers and more sympathy for their victims. Edited April 9, 2019 by Gray
bluebell Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 20 minutes ago, Danzo said: In my ideal world, there wouldn't be any abuse. As long as we are describing fantasy worlds, I think my fantasy is better than your fantasy. Gray's fantasy sounds kind of like lucifer's fantasy in the pre-existence on removing people's agency so that no one could do anything bad regardless of the consequences. 1
Gray Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Yes, I know the reference. If we cause someone who believes in Christ and is like a little child to stumble (or sin) then it's not good for us. These are not verses talking about what Christ wants done to pedophiles. The context doesn't support that interpretation. The context doesn't support anything other than a literal interpretation, especially from the Markan source.
Gray Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 Just now, bluebell said: Gray's fantasy sounds kind of like lucifer's fantasy in the pre-existence on removing people's agency so that no one could do anything bad regardless of the consequences. I have a fantasy where we don't have more sympathy for pedophiles than their victims. The Catholic Church tried that, with disastrous consequences.
SouthernMo Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 14 minutes ago, Gray said: 1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea Or the original source, Mark, which doesn't add the story about the child, but gives no indication that "little one" is an any way metaphorical. 42But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea You’re using scripture to back up your point, and seem to take Christ at his words literally. He indicates that this millstone punishment is only for children who believe in him. Do you agree with Christ? Only Christian children should be protected like this? Maybe Christ only cares about those kids who believe in him? Honestly - If you’re going to take the scripture literally, then let’s take it all literally. 1
Gray Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 Just now, SouthernMo said: You’re using scripture to back up your point, and seem to take Christ at his words literally. He indicates that this millstone punishment is only for children who believe in him. Do you agree with Christ? Only Christian children should be protected like this? Maybe Christ only cares about those kids who believe in him? Honestly - If you’re going to take the scripture literally, then let’s take it all literally. I'm merely referencing a punishment Jesus laid out for those who victimize children. That certainly isn't my suggestion - I don't want violence done to child abusers, even if Jesus did.
MiserereNobis Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gray said: What's needed is less sympathy for the abusers and more sympathy for their victims. Having sympathy for the victims doesn’t mean imposing draconian and unjust punishments, like no access to the holy sacraments and life imprisonment, on the perpetrator. One can have sympathy and still argue for just and proper punishment. The two are not mutually exclusive. And it is frankly an emotional red herring for you to bring up sympathy when we are discussing just punishments. 3
bluebell Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Gray said: I'm aware that there are degrees of offenses. Do you disagree with me, for example. when I say that child molesters should not be allowed in grade schools? Sex offenders don't need people speaking up for them. They have their own voices. What's needed is less sympathy for the abusers and more sympathy for their victims. I understand that you believe that, but I think you are very wrong. Sympathy is not finite. Having sympathy for sinners does not mean that there is less sympathy for those who have been hurt by their sins. If people could be more rational in their dealings with sex offenders, then I do think they would need less people sticking up for them, but it's hard to be rational with this topic (especially if we or a loved one have been impacted by such crimes in the past). But I believe your perspective is unjust and unChristlike and therefore I believe it needs to be spoken against. (and like i said before, under specific conditions and when it's legal, i am fine with a child molester being in a grade school). 1
mfbukowski Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 4 hours ago, bluebell said: How did his calling as an EQP give him access to the 13 year old though? Even if the church had run a background check in this case, why would we assume that that would mean the man wouldn't be given a leadership calling working with adults? The boy claims that they started hanging out together after the two met at church, but no background check could prevent that. Or are you thinking that bishops would publish the results of background checks for the congregation? On a separate note, that article was not well researched. It claims that the man, as EQP, was a leader over young men. Could be that he was YM Pres and then later EQ pres. Met the kid as YM, started assaulting him, and is now EQ pres
bluebell Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, Gray said: The context doesn't support anything other than a literal interpretation, especially from the Markan source. The literal interpretation is pretty simple. Christ's disciples ask who is the greatest in the Kingdom. Christ uses a child as a symbol for who is the greatest in the kingdom and says that those who are humble like little children are the greatest. Then Christ says that for anyone who causes someone 1) who is humble like a child and 2) believes in Christ to sin it would be better for them to have been drowned in the sea. That's the literal interpretation. To make it apply to sex offenders a person has to do all sorts of gymnastics. You have to interpret 'causes a child to stumble' in a weird, non literal way. You have to completely ignore the 'who believes in me' part and pretend it's not there. And you have to believe that Jesus, while in the act of using an analogy to teach about who is greatest in the kingdom, suddenly and without warning changed to teaching literally (as in physically being drowned) about what happens to those who hurt children. I certainly believe that Christ detests acts that harm children, but it just seems like a stretch to try to use these verses as an excuse to bar sex offenders from churches, keep them imprisoned for the rest of their lives, and suggest that Christ's mercy is irrelevant for them. 2
bluebell Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Could be that he was YM Pres and then later EQ pres. Met the kid as YM, started assaulting him, and is now EQ pres Maybe. The article is not well done specifically because it has created such questions. 1
bluebell Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 23 minutes ago, Gray said: I have a fantasy where we don't have more sympathy for pedophiles than their victims. Your fantasy doesn't address that issue at all. I think that your emotions are clouding your responses on this issue.
The Nehor Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 43 minutes ago, pogi said: Won't work, they'll just revert back to cave drawings I am pretty sure child molestation has been around for longer than modern porn. It has but easy access to pornography and (worse) community resources for them has amplified the problem. 1
strappinglad Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 If you wish to limit your paranoia, do NOT search the internet to find the places in your town/neighborhood where registered sex offenders live. We must take special care at church on the Sunday for the Primary Presentation. Perhaps a specially made stripped jump suit should be put on the offender as he/she enters the building. Some time back, a lady called me to install an extra dead bolt lock in her back door. I said, "Lady , the upper half of your door is glass. Anyone with a hammer can be in your home in 3 seconds. "
carbon dioxide Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 Background checks are fine but I am personally not going to go through the annoyance of getting one. Just put cameras in the rooms and stream it everyone the building. People can check in on their kids in class on their phones. Just the threat of a camera and somebody watching is a deterrent enough. 1
Calm Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: Ideally they wouldn't be allowed to step foot in any chapel. I disagree with this, but assuming you mean an abuser of either children or adults, I would be great with them being surpervised by men if male and women if females, at least two. If there wasn't the option of constant supervision, I do think they should not be allowed to wander around. Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm
Calm Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: I'm aware that there are degrees of offenses. Do you disagree with me, for example. when I say that child molesters should not be allowed in grade schools? Sex offenders don't need people speaking up for them. They have their own voices. What's needed is less sympathy for the abusers and more sympathy for their victims. Locking abusers outside of society will likely drive those with the attraction or tendencies to violence, etc., but who have not acted on it further underground rather than seeking help...resulting eventually in more offenders and more victims, imo. Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm
Calm Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Gray said: I have a fantasy where we don't have more sympathy for pedophiles than their victims. The Catholic Church tried that, with disastrous consequences. You should be clear you mean abusers and not any pedophile. There are those who have the attraction to children and work hard to avoid ever hurting a child and are successful at it. They have no victims to be sorry for. Too often they are shamed and fearful of seeking out help because they are seen as automatic abusers. Those who control themselves and have never hurt anyone should be supported and not classed in with criminals. 1
Gray Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Having sympathy for the victims doesn’t mean imposing draconian and unjust punishments, like no access to the holy sacraments and life imprisonment, on the perpetrator. One can have sympathy and still argue for just and proper punishment. The two are not mutually exclusive. And it is frankly an emotional red herring for you to bring up sympathy when we are discussing just punishments. Life in prison is neither draconian nor unjust. The punishment fits the crime. Child molestors sentence their victims to a fate much worse. Edited April 10, 2019 by Gray
Gray Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I understand that you believe that, but I think you are very wrong. Sympathy is not finite. Having sympathy for sinners does not mean that there is less sympathy for those who have been hurt by their sins. If people could be more rational in their dealings with sex offenders, then I do think they would need less people sticking up for them, but it's hard to be rational with this topic (especially if we or a loved one have been impacted by such crimes in the past). But I believe your perspective is unjust and unChristlike and therefore I believe it needs to be spoken against. (and like i said before, under specific conditions and when it's legal, i am fine with a child molester being in a grade school). I believe your position is so sympathetic to child molesters that it would put children at risk. My priority is the safety of children over the comfort of predators. Child molestors should have no place in grade schools and no place in church.
Gray Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I certainly believe that Christ detests acts that harm children, but it just seems like a stretch to try to use these verses as an excuse to bar sex offenders from churches, keep them imprisoned for the rest of their lives, and suggest that Christ's mercy is irrelevant for them. I'm not sure what you think Christ's mercy has to do with giving child molestors access to children. Jesus can forgive them but that doesn't mean we have to be foolish and irresponsible in our charge to protect children.
Gray Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Your fantasy doesn't address that issue at all. I think that your emotions are clouding your responses on this issue. Alternatively, your sympathy is clouding your eyes to the danger.
Gray Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: You should be clear you mean abusers and not any pedophile. There are those who have the attraction to children and work hard to avoid ever hurting a child and are successful at it. They have no victims to be sorry for. Too often they are shamed and fearful of seeking out help because they are seen as automatic abusers. Those who control themselves and have never hurt anyone should be supported and not classed in with criminals. My condemnation is reserved only for those who have abused children, sexually or otherwise, not those who have successfully avoided doing so.
Calm Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 9 minutes ago, Gray said: I believe your position is so sympathetic to child molesters that it would put children at risk. My priority is the safety of children over the comfort of predators. Child molestors should have no place in grade schools and no place in church. Then it should be a position that demonstrates increasing safety for children. I could care less about comfort of abusers. I do care about potential abusers feeling safe to seek out treatment to control their attraction and uncaught abusers being willing to confess and accept responsibility to lower the chance of more children becoming victims.
Recommended Posts