the Word of... ??

We all have discussed the literacy of the Bible numerous times.  Personally, I believe it started with the word of God but was bastardized by man who used stories to explain the unexplained (just as it was with Roman and Greek mythology) or those who were looking to use it to control other men.  Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes simply by the Church looking for control. After all, who would question a law if they thought it was God's Law?  Especially when they were taught if you questioned it you were really just questioning your faith?  Anyway, for those who say everything in the Bible is the word of God and not altered by man, how does one answer the following (part of a chain e-mail I received)?  After all, if you don't believe 100% of it you are acknowledging that man altered it, yes?  And if man altered it, who is to say which he altered and which is God's unchanged Word?

- E

-----

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

And on Page 3, below the fold...

E - It just doesn't stop, does it?  Unbelievable.

Accused Priest Tests Positive For HIV

 

Thursday, Feb 14, 2008 - 04:59 PM Updated: 09:50 PM

 

By Associated Press

FORT WORTH, Texas - A former priest accused of sexually abusing at least five minors in Rhode Island and Texas is HIV positive, Catholic diocese officials said Thursday. 

Last week, a leader in the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth heard someone mention that the Rev. Philip A. Magaldi has the virus that causes AIDS, said diocese spokesman Pat Svacina. The leader, the Rev. Michael F. Olson, then got verbal confirmation from Magaldi as well as a letter from his doctor who said he has HIV but not AIDS, Svacina said. 

The diocese then alerted the alleged victims and the parishes where Magaldi served for nearly four decades, Svacina said. 

Fort Worth diocese officials said they believe that Magaldi has been HIV positive since at least 2003. 

Magaldi, 71, lives in a retirement center and diocese officials declined to disclose where. He has previously said he was innocent of the sexual abuse allegations, for which he has not been charged. 

 E- Yeah. Sure. Celibate like he was supposed to be.  Must have gotten HIV through all the needle sharing the priests do.

He was removed as a priest in 1999 amid claims of sexual misconduct in Providence, R.I., where he served from 1960-90, and the Fort Worth area, where he served from 1990-92 and 1993-99. 

He was out of the ministry while serving a brief stint in prison in 1992 after embezzling about $200,000 from his Rhode Island parish, officials said. 

E - Did you get that one?  He was removed as a priest in 1999 after sexual misconduct allegations, but continued to be a priest during and after serving time for embezzling $200k from his parish.  What did a priest need the $200k for?  Homosexual hookers and cocaine?

In an unrelated case, Magaldi also was accused of lying in the Newport case of Claus von Bulow, who was acquitted of trying to kill his heiress wife. 

E - Yeah, a real stand-up guy this Magaldi.  Definitely someone who should be ministering to the flock.  Sexual relations, homosexual relations, possible pedophilia, grand theft, possible perjury....  Ad he's hearing confessions.  Nice.

In 2006, a pastor at a North Richland Hills Church apologized to the congregation amid reports that five years earlier he didn't tell police ...

E - Another stand-up guy...

...after learning of inappropriate material involving minors on the computer used by Magaldi, who led the church the last six years of his ministry. 

E - Add child porn to the list.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, urged the dioceses to aggressively seek out potential victims. He said it's impossible to know the number of victims because many children and teens abused by priests don't ever come forward. 

"There's a real chance of someone suffering not only a horrific childhood trauma but also a current adult infection because of this priest," Clohessy said. 

Magaldi is one of six priests in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth accused of abusing minors,

E - One of 6. In just the Fort Worth area.  What do you think it is nationally?  One thousand?  Ten thousand?   

... according to 700 pages of previously secret files that were part of a sexual abuse lawsuit settled in 2005. The documents were released by a judge last year. 

In Rhode Island, three separate allegations were reported in 1998, 2002 and last year against Magaldi.

Bishop Kevin Vann of the Fort Worth diocese is flying to Rome next week to ask the Vatican to expedite the process of having Magaldi defrocked, which would remove him from clerical status, Svacina said.

E - Yeah, better get him of that list 'quickly'.  Its only been 9 years since he was tossed.  If they don't act soon, someone may think the Vatican doesn't really take it seriously or care.

According to the Providence diocese, it is in the process of contacting those who have made allegations against Magaldi.

In a statement, the Providence diocese said it fully supports the efforts of the Diocese of Fort Worth to seek dismissal of Magaldi from the priesthood.

E - They didn't do it (despite the sexual abuse, child porn, and theft... but they 'support' another diocese doing it.  Big of them, huh?

Magaldi's earlier troubles included a 1985 indictment on perjury and obstruction charges for allegedly lying in a sworn statement in support of von Bulow to help him get a new trial. The charges against Magaldi were dropped in 1987.

In Von Bulow's second trial in 1985, he was acquitted of trying to kill his wife with insulin injections at their Newport, R.I., mansion.

The Catholic Church

Okay, if anyone reads or read the last post (note: this was started after the post about the church and pedophilia), that started a debate about the Church's beginnings among my cadre of friends.

I thought I would post my beliefs on it.

First, I should mention that I was raised a Roman Catholic.  I thought... I learned... that my religion was the one 'true' religion. Oh, some others were close enough, but 'we' did it correctly.  Others had religions that were started before Christ and had not learned, or came from splinter groups off The Church and they were wayward, to lack a better term.  Yet meanwhile, we were not regular churchgoers once I was past the 4th grade or so, and even before then it was more with mom than dad.  Like a lot of families, I guess. We went to church on the holidays and the occasional sunday until I was close to middle school age, and although I went to a Catholic high school, the attendance at church was down to the major holidays.

Yet I remained someone who thought himself a Catholic.

Did we, did I, believe in all the dogma taught by the Church?  No.  Certainly some in the family more than others - again, as it is in most families.   I knew their were the rules and laws demanded by God (Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc.) and then there were the rules about lifestyle that were put in by the church (birth control, the death penalty, abortion, etc.).  I knew the points and reasonings behind them (ie, basically a consistent belief that man did not have the right to 'play God' by deciding when to get pregnant and when not to, when to take a life and when not to, what was a life and what was not, etc.).  But s a young and inexperienced man I was willing to accept more.  

Things happen in life that change you: marriage, children, death, divorce.  Each brings with it a new understanding of things, and also a questioning of things you previously accepted.  But little things also made me more aware of differences within the Church.  For instance, due to an hour's drive between my house and my (ex) wife's parent's home where she was living, she gradually ended up moving in with me prior to our getting engaged.  When the time came and I proposed, we went to the church to set a date.  The priest would not marry us when he found out we were living together.  He wanted her to list another address.  When I said I did not want to lie and list her parent's when she really wasn't staying there, he told me to find another church.  Not another Church,  just another parish.  Pretty hypocritical, huh?  

Later, I got divorced; I found out my wife did something I could not live with, and, despite 4 years of being 'separated' while living under the same roof (I moved to the couch and stayed there) I finally filed for divorce.  I had not wanted divorce both because I was a Catholic and because I didn't want my daughter to got through it.  Once I realized it had to be better than what she and I were going through, it was a done deal.  I mention it because there really was no way out.  Despite the Church saying 'There is no such thing as divorce," and "Let no man put asunder that which God has created", it takes two to make a marriage.  Once again, the Church and I were on separate sides.  And this time it would not 'go away' as i technically would always be 'married' to my ex.  After remarrying a few years later, I realized that would be unrecognized by the Church and that meant we were not really man and wife.  A few years after that we had a child.  I suppose to the Church he is a bastard, right?

Anyway, I say all this to show how it is not really how I left the Church, but how the Church did not accept or want me any longer. 

Then comes the scandals within the Church.  Disgusting.  [ see an earlier post on the Church and Pedophilia ].  And to realize the men who install themselves and their friends are judging me and you?  The same ones who either perpetrated crimes against the most innocent in society, or looked the other way knowing it was being done, or kept silent?  Or assisted in its continuing by not coming forward at the orders of church higher-ups?  Or those higher ups, the ones helping to make the laws, acting like pimps by relocating the guilty bastards rather than excommunicating them and calling the police?  They are setting rules that I should follow? Telling me that I am living in sin because I divorced and remarried?  I won't even complete my next thought on them...

Anyway, that started my discussing The Bible and beliefs in God with friends.  Some of other religions, some atheists, some very strong Catholics, some who have other beliefs.  I am still not sure where I stand, but I am sure that whatever I believe is based on who and what I am at this moment as it is with everyone else. No one knows.  Those that can prove there is no God cannot do so, only show areas of belief that can be questioned.  Those that know there is a God and He is the one from their Book (Bible, Koran, whatever) have no more proof than any other - some just have fervent beliefs.  One of them may be right, maybe all are in some way, maybe none are. 

Myself?  A few things I have pondered.... If there is only one God, then it can be neither male or female.  For those who believe in Adam and Eve (who begat Cain and Able), where did the next generation come from?  Hopefully God suddenly populated everywhere as I would hate to think our ancestors all can be traced back to an incestuous relationship, right?   I'm sorry if this offends anyone, truly.  It is not my intention.  But I can't avoid contemplating these things because the Bible simply says to have faith.  Once you realize some things contained n the Bible are put there by men with an agenda, you have to figure out which are and which are truly what you believe to be what God wanted.  

I still believe in Jesus as Son of God.  I still believe there is a Being who created all this and directed it in some way.  Some sort of energy force of 'good' for lack of a better term.  Positive energy. Do I believe it was created in 6 days? No.  Do I believe that many of the biblical stories are the same as Greek or Roman mythology, attempts by early men to understand or explain things they did not know?  Sure.  Its pretty apparent, isn't it?  But I do not think it all was blind luck or that it was happenstance.  I do think there is some type of thought and plan, and if so there is an interest in the collective 'us' from whatever it is that God is.   I think Jesus was an attempt by God to reach us in human form, a way we may better understand God.   The problem is, I think it is like an ant trying to fathom nuclear power.  We may try, and we may fool ourselves.  But we cannot do it.  Even for those truly faithful among us, how can we possibly accept our inabilities and shortcomings in what we have here on Earth, yet think we can possibly understand the motives of anything that could make a Universe?  

How about the Devil?  Horns and a pitchfork?  Fire and brimstone?  No, I don't think I do.  I do believe that if there is 'good' there is bad though.  If there is positive energy then there is negative energy, too.  

What happens later?  Who knows. When my father passed there were things that happened that cannot be explained.  Not by coincidence, or by people wanting things to be true.  Personal, I won't go into them here.  Suffice it to say I hope each of you reading this becomes as sure as I that there is more beyond what we see and hear each day.  I'd like to think we pass on and stay as we are for personal reasons: I'd love to believe I'll see my dad again, or meet my grandfather.  But they were not perfect and then could not be in a place where only perfection is allowed, right?  I don't know what happens when we die, but I do know it doesn't completely stop.  What happens, I am not sure of though.

As there were teachings of the Bible that were obviously 'wrong' and accepted as such (ie, passages about slavery and women being unequal) then any argument about each and every word being directly from God was - to put it mildly - bull.  Unless someone believes every single word in the Bible - from the stories about Adam, Eve, a snake, and an apple ... to those about putting two of every single animal on the planet onto one ship..  plus all the passages about vengeance, retribution, slaves, and women being inferior and second class...  Unless someone believes every single word of it all (silly but consistent, in my view) then they are picking and choosing which to believe were God's words and which were words added by men with ulterior motives.  

No one has any more right to their beliefs than any other person to theirs.  And once that thought coalesced in my brain, it forced me to re-evaluate some stances on social issues.  Now I look at them as what would help society most, not what is based n someone's religious teachings.  Many times they are the same. Other times they are not.

Still nothing is etched in stone as I try to look at each issue individually, but I 'know' that science can explain how life is created, and how it happens, but not why.  No one who sees their child born should think it is luck and chance.  I know there is more than we can see, know there is something beyond.  And I know I won't understand it until I get there (and probably not even then).

 

  

Pedophilia and The Priesthood

A friend sent me a link to www.BishopAccountability.Org  a site chronicling the despicable crisis within the Catholic Church, a religion I was once a member of and a group (The Church - Capital C) I am ashamed of.  He was thinking there was something intrinsically wrong with the church, and definitely with The Church, that allowed it and even assisted in its happening.  I disagree.  

I am not one who defends them by saying "There are deviates in every career, every segment of society".  There are, but in lower numbers.

Do I think there are more in the church than any other group? Yes.  Why?  Not because they aren't married.  Many unmarried men or widows go long periods without sex and never think of abusing kids.  Being attracted sexually to children is a sickness and mental problem, not something they turn to because they are celibate (if it were that, they would just go to see a hooker).  And I don't believe its because they are all men. If there were women priests then there would just be more priests, not less pedophilia in the church....  I believe its because any area where you put people in contact with kids you have a high occurrence.  Any area where you put people in positions of trust that can be abused you have a high occurrence.  Any areas where you have little oversight of those in power you have a higher occurrence.  Any areas where you have people policing and trying there own you'll have occurrences.  But priests and the Church are 'all of the above'.  Pedophilia is everywhere (from the uncle to the neighbor to the sports coach) but there is no other area that fits the bill so well.  Boy Scout leaders have access and trust but usually have kids and are married.  Teachers, the same - access but a lot of the profession are women, married, etc.  Police, firemen, etc.?  Power and trust but less access.  Priests have access, trust, little supervision, little oversight, etc.  

It isn't the church.  Its just that the way it is set up, it becomes a place they can go and feel safe.  And having been protected by 'Cardinal' Law and others, they were right.

The Church should have been protecting its weak and its children, not itself.