Corruption in the Clergy

[Jagella]

Scandals abound in Christianity and always have. From sex and money scandals among Pentecostal TV preachers, to child abuse allegations against the Watchtower, to the Vatican pedophile-priest cover-up, it's all over. Corruption in the clergy demonstrates that the men who criticize unbelievers for loving sin should know from personal experience what it's like to enjoy such sins.

So why trust the clergy or believe anything it says?

I can understand some people being scammed by the Christian clergy for a while like I was, but once you know you're being scammed, then the prudent thing to do is to get out like I did. Leave religion and all its corruption and all its lies behind and never return like “The dog turns back to its own vomit,� or "The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.�

[historia]

An ad hominem fallacy is a mistake in logic in which character is assassinated when character is not the issue being debated. In this thread the character of the clergy is the topic, so if I attack that character, then I'm making a case that relates to the topic and is quite logical.

Right, so if the topic of the thread is the character of the clergy, and the premises of your argument are about the character of the clergy, then logically your conclusion should be a statement about the character of the clergy. Instead, you leaped to a conclusion about religion. That is a fallacy.

We judge an idea or set of ideas (e.g., religion) based on the merits of the ideas themselves. We don't judge an idea based on the character of the source of that idea or the person advocating that idea. The former is the genetic fallacy, the latter is an ad hominem fallacy.

Since the clergy provide both religious interpretation and instruction, they are the proximal source of the ideas they are promoting, although clearly not the ultimate source, which is Christian tradition and scripture. So you could classify your leap in logic here as either a genetic fallacy or an ad hominem -- recognizing, of course, that the former is just a special case of the latter, so the difference is not critical.

So why trust the clergy or believe anything it says?

We should believe things based on the merits of the ideas themselves.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 21 by historia]

Right, so if the topic of the thread is the character of the clergy, and the premises of your argument are about the character of the clergy, then logically your conclusion should be a statement about the character of the clergy. Instead, you leaped to a conclusion about religion. That is a fallacy.

What's fallacious is this straw-man argument you're posting here. I argued no such thing as anybody can see by carefully reading the OP. What I actually said was: "Leave religion and all its corruption and all its lies behind and never return..." That's not a conclusion but very good advice.

We don't judge an idea based on the character of the source of that idea or the person advocating that idea.

In that case you need to believe anything printed in the National Inquirer. You can't judge the truth of its contents based on its reputation!

But you're right: let's judge religion by how often it's been proved right and what effect it has on people.

We should believe things based on the merits of the ideas themselves.

Why are you dodging the question? Are you afraid to face the truth about the clergy?

[historia]

Right, so if the topic of the thread is the character of the clergy, and the premises of your argument are about the character of the clergy, then logically your conclusion should be a statement about the character of the clergy. Instead, you leaped to a conclusion about religion. That is a fallacy.

What's fallacious is this straw-man argument you're posting here. I argued no such thing as anybody can see by carefully reading the OP. What I actually said was: "Leave religion and all its corruption and all its lies behind and never return..." That's not a conclusion but very good advice.

I'm always happy to let someone clarify an earlier remark. But you already did that in your earlier reply:

I have loads of other reasons to see that the practice of religion is bad. I think that recognizing the corruption in the clergy is more than enough to come to that conclusion, but if it isn't enough for you, then I can offer you much more!

Here you are unambiguously arguing that the premise that the clergy is 'corrupt' is more than enough to reach the conclusion that religion is bad.

I can appreciate the fact that you want to now distance yourself from this argument, since it has been shown to be fallacious. But clearly this is no straw man.

We judge an idea or set of ideas (e.g., religion) based on the merits of the ideas themselves. We don't judge an idea based on the character of the source of that idea or the person advocating that idea.

In that case you need to believe anything printed in the National Inquirer.

This is obviously mistaken. We judge the stories in the National Inquirer to be sensational and false based on the weak evidence and arguments presented -- that is, on its merits. This is, of course, why it has a bad reputation in the first place.

We should believe things based on the merits of the ideas themselves.

Why are you dodging the question?

I'm not 'dodging' it. There just isn't a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to your question, since it is vague and seemingly predicated on the idea that belief rests on nothing more than trusting authorities. I don't share that assumption.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 23 by historia]

I have loads of other reasons to see that the practice of religion is bad. I think that recognizing the corruption in the clergy is more than enough to come to that conclusion, but if it isn't enough for you, then I can offer you much more!

Here you are unambiguously arguing that the premise that the clergy is 'corrupt' is more than enough to reach the conclusion that religion is bad.

OK, now I know what you are talking about. It's always helpful to cite whatever you're critiquing and post a direct quotation.

In any case, I stand by what I said about religion being bad. "Bad trees bear bad fruit." The clergy are the leaders of religion. If they're corrupt, then they're likely to have a negative impact on their flocks, and they do. I see it all the time.

I can appreciate the fact that you want to now distance yourself from this argument, since it has been shown to be fallacious.

Again, I stand by everything I've posted. I have made no fallacies.

We judge the stories in the National Inquirer to be sensational and false based on the weak evidence and arguments presented -- that is, on its merits. This is, of course, why it has a bad reputation in the first place.

That's right! Like the editors of The National Inquirer the clergy make sensationalist claims based on very weak evidence and fallacious arguments. I'm glad I'm getting through to you.

I'm not 'dodging' it. There just isn't a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to your question, since it is vague and seemingly predicated on the idea that belief rests on nothing more than trusting authorities. I don't share that assumption.

You don't know why you trust the clergy? You can't answer that simple, direct question?

In any case, people are being hurt by the clergy and the hokum they preach. I want to put an end to such wrongdoing. I realize you want your religion to be true, but how can you have a clear conscience when it comes at the price of innocent people being victimized by a corrupt clergy?

[ttruscott]

The fact that this happens in a shockingly large percentage of the clergy ...

I'd like to know your source. The best I could find was that 2% to 7% clergy were implicated and even at 4% was equal to the general public.

Exactly, you are making my point for me.

Yes it's a scandal but it is a human scandal not particularly a religious one...unless clergy are held to a higher standard. Most Christians know their pastors and clergy are just people and heir to sin but the Catholics with their need for political control and the emotionalism of the Pentecostals seems to have lost sight of clergy as baseline humans.

It has been suggested that all mass shooters not driven by ideology have been sexually abused as children and most drug users and prostitutes. Dealing with the ptsd of sex abuse costs us enormously.

[benchwarmer]

The fact that this happens in a shockingly large percentage of the clergy ...

I'd like to know your source. The best I could find was that 2% to 7% clergy were implicated and even at 4% was equal to the general public.

Exactly, you are making my point for me.

Yes it's a scandal but it is a human scandal not particularly a religious one...unless clergy are held to a higher standard.

I think we are continuing to agree.

My point is this: The clergy appear to be nothing special. i.e. their guidance from God, if it exists at all, is equal to exactly squat.

People who believe in a god and believe they are guided by this god, should at least show better results than the general populace who hold no such beliefs. The clergy in particular are a group that is groomed to lead their respective 'flocks'. Surely those putting them into these positions are praying and seeking their god's guidance in doing so.

So, again, the fact that abuse is happening a the same rate among the clergy as among the general population, shows they are not guided by any god whatsoever. Their churches are just another human created 'club' with no special blessings or guidance from any deity.

If anything, those in the church hierarchy have only made it worse by pretending that they do indeed possess some special characteristics and have tried to hide and cover up the issues of those who are clearly falling short.

[Tcg]

Yes it's a scandal but it is a human scandal not particularly a religious one...unless clergy are held to a higher standard.

Clergy who claim to be representatives of a Holy God are indeed held to a higher standard. That standard is based on their religious claims to be Holy as well. Given that there is no evidence to support their religious claims, it does indeed indicate a problem with religion.

[ttruscott]

Clergy who claim to be representatives of a Holy God are indeed held to a higher standard. That standard is based on their religious claims to be Holy as well. Given that there is no evidence to support their religious claims, it does indeed indicate a problem with religion.

Christianity contends that it is the person that is sinful and evil, out of touch with the truth. Sinners lie all the time so why blame the religion when the religion blames the man?

Holy only means 'dedicated to GOD.' It does not mean the person is made sinless and righteous... If a sinner can't serve GOD then HE is without servants on this earth.

[Tcg]

Christianity contends that it is the person that is sinful and evil, out of touch with the truth. Sinners lie all the time so why blame the religion when the religion blames the man?

Christianity also contends that it has a solution for sin and evil. Not just one that applies to a supposed afterlife, but one that provides an improvement in moral character in this life. The absence of evidence for this claimed phenomenon reveals a problem with this religious claim and thus a problem with religion.

Holy only means 'dedicated to GOD.' It does not mean the person is made sinless and righteous... If a sinner can't serve GOD then HE is without servants on this earth.

That is not the only meaning of the word, "Holy". In fact, if it were, the term "Holy God" would make no sense. The word also refers to moral superiority. That is quite clearly the meaning I was using. Once again, the lack of evidence that religious leaders possess what they claim religion provides indicates a problem with religion.

Whether our not god is left without servants on earth is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 25 by ttruscott]

Yes it's a scandal but it is a human scandal not particularly a religious one...unless clergy are held to a higher standard. Most Christians know their pastors and clergy are just people and heir to sin but the Catholics with their need for political control and the emotionalism of the Pentecostals seems to have lost sight of clergy as baseline humans.

When I started this thread I didn't mean to imply that the clergy is more corrupt than other groups of people. It just scares me to think that many of us look to the clergy for morality and understanding. Do I need to point out that it's a bad idea to rely on corrupt people for moral direction and understanding?