4 ms·

Former Catholic. I left the church for a variety of reasons, one of which being the child abuse scandal. I am aware of the Catholic Church's long and often sord

Former Catholic. I left the church for a variety of reasons, one of which being the child abuse scandal. I am aware of the Catholic Church's long and often sordid history. What I am trying to say is there is no love lost between me and the Catholic Church. With that out of the way, the Pope is right. Knowledge should be used for the benefit of humanity and I don't think any of the big AI companies have our best interests in mind.

epolanski 4mo ago
I don't really get this, so I genuinely want to understand. You can still follow a religion while rightfully thinking that the organization representing it to be corrupt (and how could it be otherwise, as it's made from mortal sinners?). But you either believe that St.Peter and its descendants in Rome have been tasked by god to spread (and interpret) its word or you don't. It's fine if you don't (I don't my self, I'm an atheist), but I don't get why can't you be a catholic if you believe and also find the organization flawed.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- pseudony 4mo ago
  He didn’t say that. He said that he agrees with the pope on this issue. You don’t become a catholic from agreeing on an issue
- luizfzs 4mo ago
  My take is that scandals can make some people realize that the Church is fallible, which can lead people to question about the legitimacy of such religion. e.g. if the church representatives can be corrupt, what if their other actions also weren't in service of God? My point is that once you see a sort of contradiction between words and action, it may make one deeply reflect on it.
- mattnewton 4mo ago
  Litmus tests about personal beliefs are not really how religious organizations function for most people in my experience. It’s about whether you want to associated with a tribe or movement, then the beliefs come with that package.
- hnlmorg 4mo ago
  Catholicism is as much about hierarchy and pomposity as it is about faith. Plus personal and social experiences are often catalysts for changing one’s beliefs. It happens so often there’s a term for it: “crisis of faith”
  - epolanski 4mo ago
    But it should be a crisis of trust in the organization, not it's credos.
    - hnlmorg 4mo ago
      I don’t really think you can lecture people on what they should or shouldn’t believe. That’s how wars start. That and control of oil. The whole point of faith is that it’s a subjective opinion that cannot be proven. Arguing that someone’s faith isn’t logical is about as sensible as arguing which shade of blue looks more wet.
      - epolanski 4mo ago
        I'm not arguing, I'm asking.
lo_zamoyski 4mo ago
[flagged]
- bbor 4mo ago
  > It wasn't a pedophilia scandal, as around 80% of victims were post-pubescent male teenagers. It was a homosexual ephebophilia scandal. Honestly pretty unreal to come face to face with someone from a history book.
- tranceylc 4mo ago
  > It wasn't a pedophilia scandal, as around 80% of victims were post-pubescent male teenagers. It was a homosexual ephebophilia scandal. Still terrible, but it does shift understanding of the nature and source of the problem significantly. I feel like this pseudo-defence hidden in the middle of your few paragraphs tells the reader what they really ought to know. Making that distinction is enough to question your nature to be allowed around vulnerable people.
  - lo_zamoyski 4mo ago
    Thanks for being so charitable. It is not a defense. I explicitly said it was still terrible. It was a factual correction. You cannot accuse those guilty of wrongdoing of things they did not commit. That is still unjust. If you don't see a difference of gravity between sexually abusing prepubescent children and post-pubescent teenagers, then I question your capacity to make moral judgements. Perhaps you'll attack someone for recognizing that murder is worse than rape, too. And frankly, the libelous phrase "question your nature to be allowed around vulnerable people" that you directed toward me is utterly disgusting. How dare you. But then, you've already demonstrated your comfort with false accusations.

epolanski 4mo ago

I don't really get this, so I genuinely want to understand. You can still follow a religion while rightfully thinking that the organization representing it to be corrupt (and how could it be otherwise, as it's made from mortal sinners?). But you either believe that St.Peter and its descendants in Rome have been tasked by god to spread (and interpret) its word or you don't. It's fine if you don't (I don't my self, I'm an atheist), but I don't get why can't you be a catholic if you believe and also find the organization flawed.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
pseudony 4mo ago
He didn’t say that. He said that he agrees with the pope on this issue. You don’t become a catholic from agreeing on an issue
luizfzs 4mo ago
My take is that scandals can make some people realize that the Church is fallible, which can lead people to question about the legitimacy of such religion. e.g. if the church representatives can be corrupt, what if their other actions also weren't in service of God? My point is that once you see a sort of contradiction between words and action, it may make one deeply reflect on it.
mattnewton 4mo ago
Litmus tests about personal beliefs are not really how religious organizations function for most people in my experience. It’s about whether you want to associated with a tribe or movement, then the beliefs come with that package.
hnlmorg 4mo ago
Catholicism is as much about hierarchy and pomposity as it is about faith. Plus personal and social experiences are often catalysts for changing one’s beliefs. It happens so often there’s a term for it: “crisis of faith”
- epolanski 4mo ago
  But it should be a crisis of trust in the organization, not it's credos.
  - hnlmorg 4mo ago
    I don’t really think you can lecture people on what they should or shouldn’t believe. That’s how wars start. That and control of oil. The whole point of faith is that it’s a subjective opinion that cannot be proven. Arguing that someone’s faith isn’t logical is about as sensible as arguing which shade of blue looks more wet.
    - epolanski 4mo ago
      I'm not arguing, I'm asking.

lo_zamoyski 4mo ago

[flagged]

bbor 4mo ago
> It wasn't a pedophilia scandal, as around 80% of victims were post-pubescent male teenagers. It was a homosexual ephebophilia scandal. Honestly pretty unreal to come face to face with someone from a history book.
tranceylc 4mo ago
> It wasn't a pedophilia scandal, as around 80% of victims were post-pubescent male teenagers. It was a homosexual ephebophilia scandal. Still terrible, but it does shift understanding of the nature and source of the problem significantly. I feel like this pseudo-defence hidden in the middle of your few paragraphs tells the reader what they really ought to know. Making that distinction is enough to question your nature to be allowed around vulnerable people.
- lo_zamoyski 4mo ago
  Thanks for being so charitable. It is not a defense. I explicitly said it was still terrible. It was a factual correction. You cannot accuse those guilty of wrongdoing of things they did not commit. That is still unjust. If you don't see a difference of gravity between sexually abusing prepubescent children and post-pubescent teenagers, then I question your capacity to make moral judgements. Perhaps you'll attack someone for recognizing that murder is worse than rape, too. And frankly, the libelous phrase "question your nature to be allowed around vulnerable people" that you directed toward me is utterly disgusting. How dare you. But then, you've already demonstrated your comfort with false accusations.