Inerrant......or is it?

[Ozzy_O]

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Luke 1:5-6
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Everyone isn't a sinner
There are those who are capable of obeying God, that's what scripture says.


So why did Jesus have to die?

(I'm not interested in you posting someone's opinion from a commentary somewhere)

[JoeyKnothead]

I mean look at the criminal that targets pedophiles, surely those in this thread appeal to the same argument as he does, that the idea of a pedophile should outrage people. Yet they are the ones who say "snitches get stitches" and will beat up people for going to the police. Yet here we are criticizing the Church for not "snitching" to the police.

Who here is supporting the criminal that targets pedophiles? They deserve the full force of the law regardless of who they attack.

What is wrong with the approach the church has taken is that it effectively does nothing to help mitigate the problem. Shunting perpetrators around the country could even be seen as enabling them to continue their crimes. Hiding the problem and resisting compensation to victims demonstrates their complete lack of empathy for people and the value they place on the reputation of their institution. The sooner the church is stripped of its protections the better.

!

[Shem Yoshi]

I mean look at the criminal that targets pedophiles, surely those in this thread appeal to the same argument as he does, that the idea of a pedophile should outrage people. Yet they are the ones who say "snitches get stitches" and will beat up people for going to the police. Yet here we are criticizing the Church for not "snitching" to the police.

Who here is supporting the criminal that targets pedophiles? They deserve the full force of the law regardless of who they attack.

What is wrong with the approach the church has taken is that it effectively does nothing to help mitigate the problem. Shunting perpetrators around the country could even be seen as enabling them to continue their crimes. Hiding the problem and resisting compensation to victims demonstrates their complete lack of empathy for people and the value they place on the reputation of their institution. The sooner the church is stripped of its protections the better.

What about a lawyer that conceals crime and protects criminals? Should the protection of the rights of lawyers also be taken? Or just the rights of the Church?

[JoeyKnothead]

Who here is supporting the criminal that targets pedophiles? They deserve the full force of the law regardless of who they attack.

What is wrong with the approach the church has taken is that it effectively does nothing to help mitigate the problem. Shunting perpetrators around the country could even be seen as enabling them to continue their crimes. Hiding the problem and resisting compensation to victims demonstrates their complete lack of empathy for people and the value they place on the reputation of their institution. The sooner the church is stripped of its protections the better.

What about a lawyer that conceals crime and protects criminals? Should the protection of the rights of lawyers also be taken? Or just the rights of the Church?

Lawyers who send professed or known pedophiles to different churches without warning those at risk should be, shall we say, defrocked.

Notice how we're getting this Muddy Waters discography of an argument. Instead of directly addressing the issue of various church policies in favor of pedophiles, there's this continued attempt to equate the two professions. Instead of addressing this directly, whataboutism is used in some goofy effort to soften the moral blow of a church that protects the vile and predatory.

The issue of pedophile priests, as brunumb and others have mentioned, is about a knowing and ongoing cover up or attempt to avoid consequences. From denying the problem exists, to shuffling preachers around, to protecting assets, the Catholic church preferred skullduggery to responsibility.

It highlights the topic of this OP very well. Where the bible and the church have no problem firing homosexuals or single pregnant women, the church protected those who preyed on their own. It errs in who it hates.

[brunumb]

What about a lawyer that conceals crime and protects criminals? Should the protection of the rights of lawyers also be taken? Or just the rights of the Church?

Your statement is somewhat vague. Lawyer-client privilege concerns confidential exchanges between the two. Lawyer engaging in the concealment of crimes or protection of criminals has a much broader scope and is subject to proper application of the law. The sanctity of the confessional is different from the church discovering that a priest/pastor is a pedophile or sexual predator. In that case there is nothing preventing the church from referring the perpetrator to the police. Shunting them off and covering things up actually makes them complicit in the crimes. Does the church not have duty of care for the vulnerable in their congregation?

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Generating too many post reports and going way off-tangent from the OP. Thread closed.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.