jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (42 posts)

Whose more EVIL?

  1. profile image0
    Non-offensiveUserposted 7 years ago

    Whose more EVIL,  The Priests that molest childern or the religious leaders that condone and hide it?

    1. profile image0
      crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The religious leaders that condone and hide it.  Paedophilia is a mental disorder.  You can learn to cope with, and control urges unacceptable in society, but you can't eliminate them.  It is biologically who you are, and having a good sense of morality is sometimes not more powerful than the sexual urges you are biologically wired to have.

      The religious leaders that hide it on the other hand have the ability to make it stop and don't.  That to me is evil.  Paedophiles themselves are not evil - hate the disorder, not the person.

      1. TruthDebater profile image60
        TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't agree that people are biologically wired to have these problems. Our wiring is our subjective thoughts. The part you claim as biologically wired is simply lacking control of the subjective thoughts that cause the impulses.

        1. profile image0
          crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          A person is merely the sum of their experiences reacting to the genes their parents gave them.

          We are all biological machines possessing the illusion of choice.

          1. TruthDebater profile image60
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            2 children raised in the same home with the same upbringing can turn out completely opposite. It is their subjective views that determine their experience and reality, not their genes. If we were just biological machines, we should be able to fix the errors on all occasions or keep them from happening, no?

            1. profile image0
              crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              They turn out completely opposite because their personalities are different.  Identical twins have the same genotypes, but not the same phenotypes.  Their subjective experience is a result of the differing phenotypes - biology.

              Two siblings are even more far apart because they do not have the same genotype (DNA) - which is still biology.

              And theoretically we could fix errors, and prevent them from reoccurring if we could determine the set of experiences that create such negative consequences.  To a certain degree we do.  It doesn't work in all circumstances because different experiences are reacted to differently by different genotypes/phenotypes.

              It also doesn't work in all circumstances because people are too afraid of gene research because they are horrified of another eugenics movement.

              It's essentially a free will question.  Free will is an illusion.  There is no other decision one could choose to make, but the choice one made.  Everything that has led up to that moment of choice has programmed one to make the exact decision that was made.

              "In any case, neuroscience is posing some serious challenges to our conceptions of free will and moral responsibility. Some of these challenges are global: They cast doubt on the very possibility of free will and moral responsibility, even in the case of healthy, normal, human brains. Other challenges are more specific: They suggest that many people, whom we would now hold responsible for their actions, in fact have diminished moral responsibility and legal culpability because of the structure or function of their brain."

              - GARDAR ARNASON in Neuroimaging Uncertainty and the Problem of Dispositions

              1. TruthDebater profile image60
                TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think the phenotype has anything to do with it. What is your source that says phenotype designs all subjective experiences? If the child acts like no one in the family, who's phenotype did the child get?

                1. profile image0
                  crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Phenotype is determined by the interaction of one's genes.  It is the differing ways a person's DNA is expressed - it isn't alone an inherited trait, but very much a biological result.

                  1. TruthDebater profile image60
                    TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you mean a mutation? Even so, a persons mind can be changed from thinking one way into thinking new ways with increase of knowledge of how they think, what does phenotype have to do with this?

    2. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would say that they are equally evil.
         Kinda like which one is more dangerious, the rattle snake that bit ya or the one that would have if the other one hadn't bit ya before you went ten more feet down the trail,

      1. profile image0
        crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree with you.

        It is in the rattlesnake's nature to bite when threatened, you can hardly call the act of it biting you evil.  You are after all the intruder.

        A paedophile is in a similar light to the rattlesnake.  For whatever reason their brains did not develop with the same amount of healthy impulse control that you or I have, and often paedophiles were sexually abused as children themselves.  By society's standards (in other eras it would have been normal, for example, the ancient Greeks) they have a mental disorder, they are sick.  Not evil.  The act itself is immoral, but if the person does not have the faculty to control their impulses, the person them-self is hardly immoral.  Paedophiles can be rehabilitated, but a religious leader who chooses to cover up the immoral acts of another to save face - he is the one acting immorally.

        Whose fault is it when the child touches the element on the stove?  The child or the parent who left the child unattended?

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think that we have put nametags of ilness upon many things that are evil..  It sounds better.
            Cerial killers are not evil, they have a sickness
            Cerial rapists are not evil  they have a sickness

             Hitler wasn't evil  He had a sickness.
            Those around him that could have stoped him are evil.
          He was just sick and couldn't help himself.

              Any one that commit a crime can't help themself cause
          they have a compulsion.
           

              So I guess the question should be define what evil is?

          1. profile image0
            crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Evil is an arbitrary concept created by man.  There is no true "evil."  Just as there are no true "good intentions."

            I believe there is no ghost in the machine, and any perceived control over our thoughts, decisions, and actions is merely an illusion.

            1. TruthDebater profile image60
              TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You could be right on the illusion. How is it an illusion that thoughts create decisions and actions?

        2. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          But if we call evil an illness it sounds better?

             I don't care if a rattle snake is evil or not;  do you want me to kill it or pitch it over the fence into your yard.

             I am sure this is not correct but I have always thought a mean heart and an evil heart were the same thing.

          1. profile image0
            crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Because you believe there is something more to man than biology. I don't.

            I think that there are very few ways in which people differ.  We are all governed by the same equation, the only difference is the variables.  Since a person cannot choose their variables it is hardly right to blame them for who they are.

            1. Jerami profile image78
              Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So there is no such thing as a man being evil ?
              You could be right?

                 So it falls back to a definition of Evil.
                 Is there really a such thing?

                I'm not trying to be cute;  seriously.  What is evil in your opinion?

              1. profile image0
                crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I don't personally believe there is such a thing.  Evil implies having evil intentions, but if man is merely the product of the complex interaction of nature and nurture than all we have is the illusion of having intentions, not intentions themselves.

        3. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I do not believe they can be reformed just like I do not believe that you can change a gay man into a straight man. 

          It is entirely possible that the Pope believed they could be reformed just like they believe they can make a gay man straight. 

          As far as the question, who is more evil.  Some people think gay men are evil but I think that is crazy, they are fine the way they are but I would hold them responsible for their crimes like any other person. 

          Rape and child molestation is a crime regardless and the Pope should have known better than to endanger other children.  I might understand his possible reasoning but I think that because he knew and didn't remove them he is partly responsible.

          I would hold the same principle as sound in my daily life as well.  If I knew someone was a pedophile I would never, ever, ever let my kid or anyone elses kids be unattended or have any authority over them. And I would let people know, especially those with kids because it greatly decreases the likelihood of them doing it again. 

          Part of the sickness of being a pedophile is the need to have authority over others. They are master manipulators and they prey on people with weaknesses.  One could possibly be that the Pope is expected to be forgiving and that their followers are expected to repent.  I would say that the pedophile also took advantage of the Pope.

    3. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Evil is such a nasty word for describing holy men.

      "Immoral" might be more appropriate. smile

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You are being funny   right  ?

      2. profile image0
        Non-offensiveUserposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously? 
        Immoral is stealing someone elses work, or sleeping with your friend's wife.

        Using God to gain a child's trust for no other reason than to abuse him for you own twisted desires while emotionally damaging them beyond imatination and stealing a their innocence is nothing short of the pure meaning of EVIL...

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I prretty much agree with that summation.

    4. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps the most evil of all is the society that pushes this issue under the rug, More of a question to me is this,  Why does this American culture continually lesson the severity in punishment of criminals?

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That society would be the Vatican.

        And the answer to the second question is... Liberal progressivism.

        The "if it feels good do it" crowd, is who is in power and who have pushed thier liberal agenda of immorality into our schools and throughout all other aspects of it.

        The American left has fought to make baby rape a moral crime only... making them all victims of some dis-order. As someone has already tried to espouse on here.

        1. profile image0
          crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The question was whether it is evil, not what should be done about it.  Those are two very, very different things.

          I think psychological screenings of anyone entering the ministry should be mandatory, and none of this one on one time with child and priest.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There isn't an answer to this problem.  We should screen them, they don't get the Job, they become school teachers?  No not that either.
               So we limit their options of employment?
               Identify who they are and send them out in the streets.
               Any way we look at it we would be doing the same thing the church did. Only, ... we are doin it before the fact.
            There isn't an answer.

            1. profile image0
              crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Until we know which variables in the equation interact together to create a paedophile.  When we know that we can make sure those variables never occur together or at all.

              People are too caught up in punishing offenders instead of figuring out what could be changed to eliminate having offenders to punish.

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Well we need to hurry up and find the answer soon so we can save 10s of thousands of children from having to suffer this atrosity. 

                I gotta run out for a while

    5. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      People who condemn the entire organization based on a small percentage of bad people.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose it is like condemning the whole family for what one did.  I know the Bible says that the crimes of our fathers are not our own but your own crimes are yours and yours alone.

        However it also talks a lot about "stumbling blocks" and how we shouldn't put them there for our brothers to stumble.  Clearly, the Pope dropped the ball and big time.  Though it is not his crime, he is still guilty for seeing the hole in road but not warning the "travelers" of the potential danger, if you get what I mean.

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Very true.

  2. profile image0
    Precious Williamsposted 7 years ago

    I'm not sure evil is the right word.  Are they both responsible in different ways - yes.

  3. bojanglesk8 profile image60
    bojanglesk8posted 7 years ago

    I believe it is the former.

 
working