that you trying to be clever works.

And mine as well. Our opinions on this matter are only that.

Consider the Democratic Party.

I look back at its history, and see that it was not the African-American friendly party we think of it now, but was a strong supporter of Jim Crow and minority-voter disenfranchisement laws.

As for the RC, I pay attention to times. It would be one thing to air all the DP's dirty laundry today, without bothering to say when one of its prominent senators founded his local KKK chapter, or name Democrats who actively worked to disenfranchise and violate the rights of the descendants of slaves. You read the child abuse chronicles, and the dates are left out. One thing that means is you don't see the shortfall in recent cases--instead, you hear about new cases where some poor kid was abused when he was 12 and is now bringing charges or would like to, but the priest is 70 years old or dead and the victim is in his 50s. So even when people are judging it by its "present," it's a decades old "present". And even then, it's judged by accusations, not by anything close to "due process." (We have a mixed recent history with due process. When it's somebody we don't like, the claim is the evidence and trial, and all that's needed is the verdict. If we like the person, sometimes we insist on due process, things like checking out the claim and seeing if there's any evidence--and if there's not, saying, "Sorry, no evidence, no proof, no conviction, no guilty verdict." No, the universe isn't fair--but if we always side with the self-professed victim, then life's not fair to the innocent wrongly accused.)

Anyway, that time lag between when the victim was victimized and when we hear the allegation often means the events happened about the same time as the reformed KKK chapter founder was really important in Congress. So we have to decide if we want to pretend that the past is really the present or just go by recent actions?

Organizations change, even as they remain true to some core values even as societies around them change and resent the continuity, unless they properly repent and do penance; they also sometimes do change their core values, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse; but even worse, sometimes not every member is the best representative of that organization.

What a good soldier you are! /s

Let's get one thing clear. There is still abuse happening in the Roman Catholic Church. You can't excuse this bullshit as merely "decades old" allegations. The fact that you would try and make that dismissal is putrid and disgusting anyway. The culture that enabled and protected pedophiles decades ago STILL EXISTS. The church still believes its priests are above secular law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Cases

A narrative and tactics that go back for years here, as even a cursory examination of your posting shows.

You made 2 unsupported allegations. Should we wait for your proof of either or both?

Go ahead.

There is no defense of abuse.

I didn't make a claim of defending abuse, I noted a defense of the organization.

Pathetic. Weak. Despicable. You fail again. Don't you ever get tired of humiliating yourself? Doesn't it upset you to be not only wrong, but viciously and maliciously wrong over and over again? Do you think this is how Jesus wants you to act?

I would like to request an apology from you for your false accusation.

No one is defending criminal actions.

The issue here is your broad brush attack on the institution. And your attack on the poster for daring to present actual facts about the issues of abuse.

Retract, apologize, and we can continue.

Especially the ones you ignored that show how this response by you to the poster is so similar to how you respond to every other poster that does not share your views.

I did NOT claim that the poster defended abuse. Retract and apologize.

Show me the exact words where I claimed Igel defended the sexual abuse of children.

Or retract your claim and apologize.

Your turn.

The clear inference is obvious in your words.

Point to the exact words where I *infer* Igel is defending the sexual abuse of children.

However I won't hold my breath. This is apparently the kind of Christian you have decided you are.

The inferences are insulting, and unsupported by the poster's response, and your intent is quite clear.

And the fact that the poster decided to abandon any attempt at dialogue speaks to your pattern.

Those words do not accuse Igel of defending the sexual abuse of children, like you claimed. Your continuing personal attacks only further demonstrate your pathetic desperation, caught in deceit and unable to escape.

I eagerly await your retraction and apology. It would be the Christian thing to do, would it not?

And as I already said, one can say much with inference.

Oh sorry, I thought we were just making up numbers that don't actually mean anything. Because your post #14 doesn't address the point. Quit pretending like everyone is just too stupid to understand your brilliant words of wisdom and actually support your position for once.

As if bullshit somehow becomes something else if it's repeated over and over.

Much like a familiar orange man when you are playing to a fan club, even an imaginary one, the quality of your bullshit is pretty much irrelevant.

I didn't accuse Igel of defending abuse. He knows this, he lied, and he can't bring himself to do the decent thing and apologize to me.

The goalposts have shifted all the way to the other side of the field, and now it's just that I was "insulting." Yeah, when someone blames victims of abuse for not coming forward sooner, I'm gonna insult them. Guilty as charged.

But I didn't accuse him of defending the actual abuse. Guillaumeb is not stupid, he's just extremely vicious and hateful, and it makes him dig his own holes just like this.

As bad as victim blaming is, it pales in comparison to actually to defending and making excuses for the institution that has created an entire culture of child rape. You know, just like some have done in this very group and others still do.

He will just defame and then pretend he is still operating within his moral imperative. While the behavior is completely transparent, the fan club will still offer words of encouragement albeit unverifiable.

I mean, it's not even close. He claimed I said something completely different than I did.

Anyone can look at what I said, and what he claimed I said, and see how wrong he is.

You attacked the poster and misrepresented the point. And that is consistent with your behavior toward other posters who do not share your own viewpoint.

And your "anyone" is a misuse of the word anyone.

Retract and apologize before we go on. It is the very least you could do. Show with your actions what kind of follower of Christ you are.

But then again, maybe that's exactly what you are doing.

The obvious problem with it is the party platform can and does change at every convention. When the party changed its platform to abandon racist ideas, the racists abandoned the party for the GOP who welcomed them with open arms and still accommodates them to this very day.

The analogy to the RCC is very problematic. The RCC has no provisions to reinvent itself every 4 years. In fact its doctrine is derived from source material which hasn’t changed in thousands of years.

It’s fair to say the RCC was enabling child rape a thousand years ago just like they do today. It’s also fair to say the RCC was treating certain social classes as second class citizens (at best) just like it does today.

So yes, organizations do change and sometimes they don’t.

Deciding that belief in a creed...mostly biographical...could determine one's Christianity...hardly in keeping with Christianity's purpose to teach how to develop the soul...a mistake. I could write a better creed, one based on Jesus's teachings, as it should be.

Tying material progress...job qualification, taxes...to Christian membership...outrageous.

Spanish inquisition...unchristian.

Maintaining a patriarchy...unchristian.

Having a pope or any leader surrounded by material wealth or power...unchristian.

Encouraging the perception that church attendance and joining in rituals make one a better Christian...unchristian.

Their greatest problem is that church began the sanctioning of incorrect interpretation which spread to about every other denomination.

Who gets to decide the "correct interpretation"?

It seems the only thing consistent about the "spirit of Christianity" is everyone else isn't doing it right and can't really claim to be a member of the club.

It's not as if those you claim to be unchristian can't find inspiration from the same source material you use. For every single one of your examples, there's scripture, doctrine, and educated opinions which contradict you and the competing examples really aren't that hard to find.

It's also important to remember the so-called Christian idea of tying piety to charity always assumed the church was the conduit by which those of means were connected to those without. For all we know Jesus was the original Christian prosperity gospel preacher. It would be interesting to know the percentage of what he took in was dedicated to "administrative" expenses.

to demonstrate my point. There is no need to do so, since the history is easy to find. Those who support that organization will not do the research, and those who have done the research do not support the organization.

For those who would point out good things the RCC has done, understand that I know those things, as well. Good acts do not correct evil acts. That equation has never been valid.

Thanks to the Roman Catholic Church, we know exactly what Jesus looked like.

That's good to know, eh?