“Sorry, UpMyKilt, you didn’t answer my question. You make the statement that you like women and abhor pedophiles.”

I wrote that, did I? Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I wrote was:

“And I find it abhorrent for men to like little boys.”

Now, for the sake of clarity, yes, I mean’t like as in sexually attracted to. I find that abhorent.

Let me put it to you differently. Because of a previous occupation, I have known some pedophiles. It was their acts and their ideas that abhored me. They were still, as individuals, treated with respect however.

Do you understand the difference?

“Does that fact that you like women preclude you from being a pedophile?”

The idea of me liking women (sexually) is a different idea than what I abhored. You may or may not know that some Vatican officials and its employees are banned from having sexual relations with women. I will therefore not follow their example in that regard.

“The two parts of this statement have nothing to do with each other.”

Very good! You’re on the right track.

“Or, are you trying to use Jesus to somehow make some link between homosexuality and pedophilia?”

Huh? Do you have these projection issues often?

“If you are, that’s insulting, hateful, and just plain wrong.”

Hmmm. Who’s being a “thought police officer” now? Tell me – is it always wrong to insult another or some institution? Or just the ones you like?

And what’s with this hate business? Are you suggesting I might “hate” something? Would you define “hate” for me precisely? See, I’ve had an emotion that I’ve identified as “hate” probably three times maximum in my entire life. The emotion was directed towards three different individuals that seriously infringed on my property rights and/or the rights of a family member. Is that kind of hatred ok? I did control my reactions to that emotion.

“As well, what does all this have to do with poverty and missionaries, which is what was being discussed?”

Perhaps you should read my comment again. I was referring to following the example of The Vatican on some issues (wealth creation), but not wanting to follow the example of The Vatican on other issues (sexual relations, cover ups, hypocrisy regarding ‘the law’, etc.).

But all you have to do really is simply read what I wrote, without projecting upon what I wrote.

Or, are you trying to use Jesus to somehow make some link between homosexuality and pedophilia? If you are, that’s insulting, hateful, and just plain wrong.

As well, what does all this have to do with poverty and missionaries, which is what was being discussed?

“So what are you saying? You like women and you don’t like pedophiles?”

No, it’s not the individual that I dislike. It is their desire to have sex with children and then carrying out that desire that I find abhorrent.

Further, I’m with Jesus on this one: Although he had harsh words at times for sinners, he seemed to reserve his harshest words for hypocrites.

“People can’t control who or what they like or are attracted to, but those who can control their urges so as not to harm others should be commended. It is only those who actually commit harmful acts towards children that should be abhorred. Anything else is arrogant thought-policing.”

Wrong. It is thought-police if I were to attempt to ban the thoughts of someone. I can still find their thoughts to be objectionable, however.

I abhor the published thoughts/ideas of Statists that would want to diminish my inherent rights but I do not call for the banning of that.

Hey, did you know that some Scientific works were banned by The Vatican for centuries, and it was only in 1966 when the banned list was revoked?

“Are you going to infer, then, that all Muslims are terrorists, and the school system supports pedophiles because some teachers are pedophiles?”

Nope. I have some very good friends who are Christian that share my abhorence of the cover-ups and lack of responsibility for the actions of some of it’s employees on the part of The Vatican.

But I do find it funny how some Christians or some who claim to be Christian infer that all Muslims or a lot of Muslims should be killed in the name off anti-terrorism.

“He doesn’t object to beautiful, expensive objects and buildings dedicated to him. Quite the opposite. It’s not a waste to him.”

Really? Can you show me how you know this notion you have cited as belonging to Christ is correct?

I don’t have problems with beauty either. I was talking about wealth and bank balances.

Your faith is an ideology as well, though. It requires of you that you interpret your experience in light of some basic premises not subject to negation.

UpMyKilt: “I have to admit I like women. And I find it abhorrent for men to like little boys.”

So what are you saying? You like women and you don’t like pedophiles? That’s commendable. Though I’m a little confused as to what the two have to do with one another. Do you dislike all homosexuals? Or only the ones who think about little boys?

To clarify, do you find people abhorrent who only think about sex with children, or do you reserve your disgust only for those who act on their desires? People can’t control who or what they like or are attracted to, but those who can control their urges so as not to harm others should be commended. It is only those who actually commit harmful acts towards children that should be abhorred. Anything else is arrogant thought-policing.

Are you going to infer, then, that all Muslims are terrorists, and the school system supports pedophiles because some teachers are pedophiles?

People complained when Jesus let the repentant woman pour perfume on his head. “Hey!” They said “that perfume could have been sold and the profits given to the poor!”

He said: that it was a good thing that she did, and the poor will always be with us.

He doesn’t object to beautiful, expensive objects and buildings dedicated to him. Quite the opposite. It’s not a waste to him.

Bites tongue.

I consider political ideologies to be of human origin. My faith is not.

“That’s if you want to be perfect. Selling all you have is about you, not about ending poverty.”

Hmmm. On this being “perfect,” I’ll follow the example of The Vatican. Just on the property and wealth point though.

I have to admit I like women. And I find it abhorrent for men to like little boys.

But yes, on property and wealth, The Vatican, for the most part have done a terrific job. When one Pope has been excessive, another one comes along and hires just the right secretary to get the bank balances right back up there again.

So he didn’t say not to focus on ending world poverty, either.

As far as I can tell, the Bible suggests that the devil will be with us always – or at least until some kind of freaky end times, but I’ve never heard a Christian suggest that Christianity shouldn’t work against the devil because of that.

As far as I can tell, the history of Christianity is rife with Christians running this way and that trying to “fight evil”, whether that’s slavery, poverty, alcohol, prostitution (ironic), or *gasp* the teaching of science.

Of course, many Christians have seen poverty as evil: Satan’s work. Consider the lilies, n’ all that. Christian charity, and all that. Mother Theresa, and all that. You know. The ones who don’t kill people but try to help and heal them. And all that. And isn’t it interesting if we all did that – turned the other cheek, say, and helped those around us out – that poverty might actually end? That’s neat how that works.

Christians have historically been rather bad at saying: God just doesn’t want me personally to be gay, eat lettuce on Tuesdays, or marry outside my race, but that’s about my believing soul. It’s sort of interesting that when this does come up, it’s in the form of:. “Don’t tell me I have to care about ending poverty just because I’m a Christian. Empty bellies of pagan babies, who cares? So intense. Christ just didn’t want me over-valuing my Ming Vase because Yahweh needs my constant adoration, but he didn’t want me to be too concerned about the empty bellies of my fellow humans.”

That whole agape thing is sort of a hassle.

A different interpretation of what Christ was saying to Judas is that you can also over-value and fetishize service for egotistical means, which distracts from the fact that it’s coming through you, it’s God’s. Like, you know, don’t get hung up on rage at all the pain out there, or next thing you know you’ll be leading a revolution. That’s sort of different than don’t witness and address the pain. But hey. Whatever floats your boat. Your religion, not mine.

“that’s why Catholics have Tradition and the Magisterium to help us out.”

Bites tongue.

That’s if you want to be perfect. Selling all you have is about you, not about ending poverty.

“« I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you covered me; sick and you visited me […] As long as you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me ».”

Again, not about ending poverty. Of course Jesus wanted Christians to help the poor. But he didn’t command people to end poverty. Again, it’s about the believer’s soul, not so much as the economic result.

“« Now the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul, and not one of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. [….] Nor was there anyone among them in want. For those who owned lands or houses would sell them and bring the price of what they sold and lay it at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each, according to their need ».”

Yes, again, helping the poor, is a good thing. But there is no agenda to end poverty.

“« No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand for one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (the worship of money) ».”

Not wanting to end poverty does not equal greed.